The birth of English socialism. Ideas for the Formation of Socialism in England in the 19th Century General Provisions of Marxism
In the first half of the 19th century, the ideas of utopian socialism became widespread among the representatives of the then-forming working class. Utopian socialism- theories about a radical transformation and a just structure of society, which did not proceed from the knowledge of the laws of social development and its driving forces, but were purely logical, speculative models of a certain society of the future. The very term "utopia" in translation from the ancient Greek language means "a place that does not exist."
The ideas of Western European utopian socialism were rooted in the era of the late Middle Ages, in the depths of which capitalism was born. Their theoretical predecessors were outstanding thinkers who lived in the 16th-17th centuries. - English educator T. Mop (I438-1542), author of the famous book "Utopia", Italian monk T. Campanella, (1568-1639), who expounded his teachings in the book "City of the Sun" and English revolutionary J. Winstanley (1609-1653 ), author of the pamphlet The Law of Freedom.
The emergence of Western European utopian socialism was due to the underdevelopment of capitalist relations at the beginning of the 19th century. The development of capitalism in that period gave rise to phenomena that testified to the imperfection of the new economic order. Consequences of the domination of capitalism in various spheres public life subjected to sharp criticism by representatives of various classes of society.
Immature capitalist production also corresponded to immature theories. The theoretical immaturity of utopian teachings manifested itself, in particular, in the fact that their creators showed a desire to solve the problem of building a new, just society immediately, relying on such institutions as the state, science, morality, without taking into account the level of development that existed at that time. economic base society. They believed that human society could be improved by influencing the consciousness of its members.
At the same time, it should be recognized that the great merit of utopian socialism is the fundamental criticism of the capitalist system. The utopian socialists were the first to point out that capitalist relations are not eternal, not natural. Considering development human society as a historical process, where one stage is replaced by another, higher one, they have made a valuable contribution to economic science. In essence, they raised the question of the transitory nature of the capitalist mode of production. In this they differed from the representatives of the classical school.
The general conclusion of the utopian socialists from the criticism of capitalism was that this system cannot provide happiness for the majority of people, and that a new social order must replace capitalism.
Despite the significant shortcomings inherent in utopian socialism, it played a progressive role. Utopian socialism was the only form in which at that time the dreams of working people about the reorganization of society were expressed. However, it should be recognized that as capitalism developed, it became a brake on the development of class consciousness.
Utopian socialism arose almost simultaneously in three forms: in France its varieties were Saint-Simonism and Fourierism, in England - Owenism.
One of the most prominent representatives of utopian socialism in France was Claude Henri de Rouvroy en-Simon(1760-1825). He was the author of "O industrial system"," Catechism of Industrialists "and" New Christianity ". Although he was attracted mainly by sociological problems, nevertheless, he contributed to political economy. His historical concept is of considerable interest. He considered the history of society as a process in which the replacement of one period by another, of a higher level.He contrasted the idea of the natural order of the classical school with the idea of development.
He distinguished the following forms of society:
a) wildness;
b) antiquity;
c) feudalism;
d) capitalism;
e) industrialism.
The basis of all these types of society, he argued, is property relations, and he declared reason to be the decisive factor in social development.
Saint Simon was convinced opponent of capitalism, which he saw as an intermediate stage between feudalism and industrialism. He considered the anarchy of production and competition to be its main vice.
Saint-Simon interpreted the class structure of capitalism in a peculiar way: here society, in his opinion, is divided into two classes - landowners and industrialists. He included entrepreneurs, workers, and intellectuals among the latter, calling them the productive class.
Saint Simon was convinced a supporter of the transition from capitalism to a new social system, which he called industrialism. This transition, in his opinion, is dictated by the requirements of progress, is a historical necessity. In the new society there will be no place for landowners and usurers, but capitalist industrialists will remain in it. They will manage the capital owned by the association.
There will be no state in this society. Its place will be taken by a certain administration, whose function will include the organization of production. This will lead to the elimination of the anarchy of production. Distribution in the new society will be carried out according to work, but the capitalists, along with remuneration for labor in managing production, will receive a profit on their capital. The central place in the system of Saint-Simon was assigned to the principle of compulsory labor.
The main merit of Saint-Simon was the understanding that capitalism must give way to a more progressive social order. Nevertheless, the socialist system he designed was utopian in nature. The transition to it, in his opinion, should be carried out by industrialists, with the help of the state. In this system, in his opinion, private property and capitalists should be preserved, and consequently, there will be no social equality and the anarchy of production will remain.
Another great French utopian socialist was François-Marie-Charles Fourier (1772-1837). His main works are "The Theory of Four Movements and Universal Destinies", "The New Industrial and Social World" and "The Theory of World Unity".
Fourier's starting point is his passion theory. He divided all human passions into three groups:
a) material passions;
b) the attraction of the soul;
c) supreme passions.
He argued that man was created by God as a harmonious being, therefore he does not have bad passions. However, his positive inclinations, under the influence of historical conditions, turn into negative ones. The task, he continued, is to change the conditions and make possible the harmonious development of all human faculties.
A major scientific merit of Fourier is his interpretation of human history. He believed that to achieve the harmony of human passions, a certain level of development of production is necessary. He divided the entire previous history of mankind into four stages: savagery, patriarchy, barbarism and civilization, and each of these periods was divided into four stages: childhood, growth, decline and decrepitude.
Fourier attributed the contemporary society to the period of civilization, where the process of the formation of capitalism was already taking place. In this society, in his opinion, conditions are created for achieving the harmony of human passions. This task will be solved at the next stage in the development of society, which he called the period of harmony or association. The transition to this higher social order is a historical necessity and will take place not in a revolutionary way, but in an evolutionary way, including agitation, example, and the implementation of reforms.
The basis of the future system, according to Fourier, will be agriculture, and he assigned a subordinate place to industry. The society of the future, according to Fourier's plan, should consist of separate communities (phalanges) of up to 2,000 people. Each community will work on its own piece of land, determine what and how to produce, and distribute the created products. The phalanx will retain capital and private ownership of the means of production. The product created in the phalanx will be distributed according to the following scheme: 5/12 - for labor, 4/12 - for capital, 3/12 - for talent. The structure of the association, Fourier argued, would create a large collectivized and mechanized Agriculture connected with industry. Such an organization of society will lead to the elimination of differences between town and country.
Fourier paid special attention to labor organization. In particular, he pointed out that in the future society the division of labor that deforms a person will disappear and people will be able to combine mental and physical labor. He was convinced of the benefits of free labor. He argued that the productivity of such labor would be extremely high, which would completely eliminate poverty and ensure social equality for all people.
Fourier's historical merit lies in his sharp criticism of capitalism and his opposition to a just social system in which the working man will take his rightful place.
Almost simultaneously with France, utopian socialism arose in England. But in view of the fact that in this country capitalism was more developed than in France, English utopian socialism had some peculiarities in comparison with French. Its representatives believed that the new social system that would replace capitalism would know neither capitalists nor private property. The theoretical basis for such a conclusion for them was the conclusions of the classical school of political economy, primarily the labor theory of value of D. Ricardo.
The most prominent representative of English utopian socialism is
Robert Owen(1771-1858). Economic questions were considered by him in the works "Report to the County of Lenarc" and "The Book of the New Moral World". In these works, he acted as a critic of capitalism, but, unlike Saint-Simon and Fourier, he relied on classical political economy.
But agreeing with D. Ricardo that labor is the only source of value, he, in contrast, believed that under capitalism the law of value does not operate, since here the product of labor does not fully belong to the worker, but is distributed among workers, capitalists and landowners. R. Owen considered such a distribution of the product of labor unfair, demanded a reorganization of society that would ensure that the worker would receive the full product of his labor. Consequently, from D. Ricardo's theory of labor value, he drew a socialist conclusion and tried to prove, based on this theory, the need for radical changes in society.
But R. Owen did not fully understand the theory of labor value. He argued that the value of a commodity under capitalism is measured not by labor, but by money. Money, on the other hand, distorts the true magnitude of value, is not a natural, but an artificial measure, and masks the true expenditure of labor for the production of commodities. The natural measure is labor. He acted as an active opponent of money and proposed to replace them with working money-receipts, which would indicate how many hours of labor were spent on the production of a certain product.
The producer of the commodity can exchange this receipt for another commodity for which the same amount of labor has been expended. Such an operation can be carried out at the fair exchange bazaar created for these purposes. This project testifies to R. Owen's misunderstanding of the nature of value, the value of which is not determined by individual socially necessary labor costs.
R. Owen proposed to reorganize not only exchange, but also production, creating for this purpose the "Union of Production"; use the trade unions, which were supposed to buy the means of production from the owners of the enterprises and organize their own cooperative enterprises.
R. Owen brought his criticism of capitalism to the point of recognizing the need to create a new social system in which there would be no poverty and unemployment. He called this system socialist, and considered its cell to be a cooperative community in which people would be engaged in both agricultural and industrial labor. R. Owen assigned a significant role in the process of organizing communities to the state, which should provide them with the necessary resources on credit. He did not understand that under capitalism cooperation would inevitably acquire a bourgeois character.
On the whole, even taking into account the erroneousness of many of the conclusions and theoretical propositions contained in the works of the great utopian socialists, they played an outstanding role in the development of social thought.
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays
240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday
Shnyrova Olga Vadimovna English socialism of the late XIX - early XX century in the historiography of Great Britain: Dis. ... cand. historical sciences: 07.00.09.-
Introduction
Chapter I. The development of historical science in Great Britain and the formation of the historiography of the socialist and labor movement .. II - 25
Chapter II. Bourgeois historiography of English socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (Liberal and conservative directions) 26 - 57
Chapter III. Labor historiography of the history of English socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries 58 - 121
Chapter IV. Marxist historiography of English socialism 122 - 152
Conclusion 153 - 156
Bibliography
Introduction to work
The modern era is characterized by fundamental social changes, an unprecedented aggravation of the "struggle between the two world social systems." Along with the political struggle "there is a tense, truly global struggle between the two ideologies." This struggle is waged at all levels of public consciousness and to a large extent characterizes the relationship between Marxist and bourgeois-reformist historiography. Bourgeois and allied reformist historiography use historical arguments to substantiate more subtly the inviolability of the capitalist system. In the conditions of the growing crisis of capitalism, bourgeois historical science intensifies its social activity, turning to the study of the most pressing topics, resorting to methodological re-equipment and the rejection of extreme forms of relativism and irrationalism. Bourgeois conceptions of historical development are now not rudely imposed on the reader, but carried out by more subtle methods under the guise of pseudo-objectivism. Under these conditions, as Academician S. L. Tikhvinsky noted, the role of historiographic research is growing, designed to reveal "the relationship of false interpretations of specific facts of history with the social order of modern imperialism, with the worldview of bourgeois and revisionist historians." Of particular relevance acquired
Ibid., p.29
Tikhvinsky S.L. On the tasks of historical science in implementing the decisions of the June (1983) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. - Questions of History, 1984, No. I, p.12
The study of the historiography of the labor and socialist movement is melting, since it is currently one of the most developed topics in Western historical science. Today the history of the labor and socialist movement is part of the struggle for ideological influence in the working class going on in all capitalist countries.
In the English-language historiography of the labor and socialist movement, the history of socialism in Great Britain in the last quarter of the 19th and early 20th centuries attracts close attention of scholars. For a long time, a fierce ideological controversy has been going on around his assessment between Marxist and bourgeois historiography. This problem is the subject of close study not only by British historians, but also by scientists from the USA, Holland, Austria) and even Japan. In Western bourgeois historiography, England is seen not only as a country of classical capitalism, but also as a country where Marxism had no influence on the labor movement. The English socialist and labor movement at the turn of the century is portrayed as absolutely devoid of any revolutionary spirit, developing solely under the influence of reformist ideology. All these theories are aimed, in the final analysis, at shaping an appropriate world outlook among the working class, at directing the working-class movement onto the path of reformism. Therefore, the study of various aspects of the history of the English socialist and labor movement is of not only scientific but also political interest. The modern English workers' movement "is connected by a thousand invisible threads with the era of the organizational and ideological formation of Laborism, with the activities of a number of other organizations that then expressed the interests of the advanced detachments
Therefore, the study of this period in the history of the socialist movement in England helps in many ways to understand the features and patterns of its development at the present stage.
The dissertation is devoted to the study of the English historiography of socialism in Great Britain. For English historians, this topic is especially relevant and therefore interest in it is steadily growing. At present, this is one of the central topics in English historical science, despite the fact that at the beginning of the century the historiography of the worker and socialist there was no movement at all. In all aspects of the history of socialism and the labor movement in England there is a sharp struggle going on between Marxist and bourgeois-reformist historiography. However, in Soviet historical science, the problem of interest to us has been studied insignificantly, only its individual aspects have been covered. So some questions of the historiography of English socialism in Britain are studied in the book by K.B. Vinogradov, "Essays on the History of English Historiography of Modern and Contemporary Times", the work of L.A. Galkina "Fabian Socialism: History and Interpretation", the collection "The Labor Movement of Great Britain XIX7XX in .v.", articles by I. Zvavich, L.E. Kertman, L.V. Mochalov, L.S. Malinsky and others. However, in these
Kelner V.E. Tom Mann - a man and a revolutionary. M., 1983, f.5
Vinogradov K.B. Essays on English historiography of modern and recent times. L., 1975
Galkina L.A. Fabian socialism: history and interpretation. M., 1981 .; The labor movement in Great Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries, Moscow, 1979; Zvavic I. The history of the labor movement in the writings of Webb and their schools. - Questions of History, 1947 No. II
The works analyze mainly Labor historiography and almost do not consider the latest English literature on this issue. Little research has been done on the worldview attitudes of representatives of various trends in English art. toric science, the relationship of historical-1 trends with modern socio-political and fi- | philosophical theories. This is partly due to the fact that all the available works are of a review nature and do not aim at a deep analysis of the problem.
All of the above about the significance of the problem and the degree of its development in Soviet historical literature determined the choice of the topic for the dissertation research and its direction.
The author of the work aims to trace the main stages in the formation of the historiography of the English socialist movement against the background of the development of modern historical science in Britain, to explore how this problem is being developed by the main historical trends and schools, to analyze
Kertman L.E. From the history of the struggle for the unity of socialist organizations in England at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. - Labor movement in modern times. M., 1964
Mochalov L.V. Labor movement in modern England in the works of Labor historians of the first post-war decade. -Problems of British history. M, 1978
Malinsky L.S. Historical Views of the Modern Labor Left. - Issues of the history of the international labor movement. Perm, 1965, Issue 4, No. 134
the formation of two basic concepts of the history of the working and socialist movement. There is some difficulty in classifying the numerous works on the history of socialism into separate trends and schools. Determining which direction to attribute this or that historian to, the author was primarily guided by an assessment of his views and concepts, as well as those assessments that are given to this scientist directly in English historiography. The paper provides an analysis of the historical, socio-political, and philosophical and ideological views of representatives of various trends in English historical science. The dissertation attempts to trace the links between the English historiography of the socialist movement and the general directions of development of the bourgeois and reformist ideology. The author saw his task in showing the change in the versions of the development of the socialist and labor movement in accordance with the change in the political situation in England. The paper shows how the old concepts of the labor and socialist movement in Great Britain are adapted to the new requirements in English historical science and provides a detailed critique of bourgeois reformist historiography. At the same time, the author seeks to show the growing influence of Marxist methodology in English historical science and the success of the Marxist trend.
The methodological basis of the study is the works of K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin, especially those that deal with the problems of the working and socialist movement in Great Britain, contain its assessments and characteristics. For historiographic research, the conclusions of the classics of Marxism-Leninism about the patterns of development of historical science as one of the forms of
social consciousness, which therefore bears a class, party character. About the position of historical science in bourgeois society, F. Engels wrote: “The bourgeoisie turns everything into a commodity, and, consequently, also history. By virtue of its very nature, by virtue of the conditions of its existence, it tends to falsify history as well. a work in which the falsification of history is most in line with the interests of the bourgeoisie." A truly scientific theory of social development has been created by Marxist science, which expresses the interests of the working class. The possibility of this is due, firstly, to the coincidence of the fundamental class interests of the proletariat with the needs of universal human progress, and secondly, to the conscious and consistent use in the practical activities of the communist and workers' parties of the scientific conclusions that the Marxist-Leninist science of society provides. However, one should not completely deny the importance of bourgeois historical science. According to the classics of Marxism, Marxist historical science, while fighting the distortions of historical truth by bourgeois authors, must at the same time pay tribute to their achievements.
As theoretical basis The article used articles by A.M.
Archive of Marx and Engels. v.X, p.104
Neumann A.M. The Crisis of the Liberal Historical Conception and Some Problems of Methodology in Modern English Historical Science - Topical Issues in the History and Historiography of World History. Gorky, 1973
The source base for the study was the works of English historians on the history of the English socialist and labor movement, both of a general nature and dedicated to its individual problems. The work used not only monographic studies, but also materials of discussions and the most interesting articles on the problem, published in leading English and American historical journals. The author focuses on the latest research and works that have not been covered in Soviet historical literature.
A separate group of sources were the works of English scholars on the philosophy and methodology of history, historiographical articles and reviews. These works help to reveal the main trends in the development of both English historical science in general and the historiography of socialism in Britain. Historiographical reviews of works on the problem of interest to us and reviews help to understand what place the historiography of socialism and the labor movement occupies in modern English historical science and find out how works on the history of socialism are perceived and evaluated in English scientific literature, reveal the struggle that is being waged around this topic. between Marxist and bourgeois-reformist directions.
When evaluating the views of representatives of such areas,
7 Mogilnitsky B,G. The concept of the crisis of modern brujois historiography. - Issues of methodology of history, historiography and source studies. Tomsk, 1980
Zaborov M.A. The labor movement of the new time: to the criticism of modern bourgeois and social reformist historiography. - New and recent history., 1982, № 4
toric science as Marxist and Labor were used | the program documents of the CPV, the Fabian Society, as well as the journalistic works of the leaders of these parties, touching on certain issues of English socialism and the labor movement, were called;
і zheniya. Important information about these leading experts in the field 1
the history of English socialism such as J. її. Taylor, J. Cole, J. I Savell, A. Morton give collections published in their honor by their students and colleagues.
The scientific novelty of the work lies in an attempt to create a general picture of the historiography of the socialist movement in England, to trace the main stages of its development, to clarify its main trends and prospects. Development of this problem
contributes to the understanding of the processes taking place in the entire historical science of Great Britain. In addition, the close connection between the study of the history of the English labor and socialist movement and the ideological struggle helps to reveal the ways and means of influencing the masses by bourgeois and reformist ideology.
The conducted research makes a certain contribution to the development of English and foreign historiography. The materials of the dissertation can be used in educational lectures of the course of historiography of modern and contemporary times.
The development of historical science in Great Britain and the formation of the historiography of the socialist and labor movement
Before proceeding directly to the development of the history of English socialism by individual historical trends and schools in Great Britain, let us consider how the historiography of English socialism developed in line with English historical science as a whole, since the processes that took place in historical science were somehow reflected in works devoted to history of the socialist and labor movement.
In the 20th century, English historical science has undergone much more changes than in the previous two centuries. Until the end of the 19th century, history in England was the monopoly of such talented amateurs as T. Carlyle, T. Macaulay, J. Green, who created literary masterpieces, since history at that time was considered an art, not a science. Like art, history should, first of all, educate a person, putting before him images of the past as examples to follow. The Whig-liberal direction dominated English historical science. Most of its representatives stood on positions of positivism and were strongly influenced by Ranke's views. They believed in the objectivity of historical knowledge, believing that the past reveals itself to the historian if he approaches it with the inquisitive mind of a researcher. They did not question the continuity and progressive nature of historical development. English history was seen by Whig historians as a steady progression of democratic freedoms from the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to the parliamentary liberalism of the late nineteenth century, which was considered the crowning achievement of political development in England. Preference was given to political history, which was reduced to the biographies of individual prominent personalities and the presentation of major historical events. The history of the masses, including the history of the working class, was considered unworthy of the attention of a historian. The whole methodology of historical research was reduced to the description of individual facts with the involvement of an ever-increasing number of sources.
One of the most prominent representatives of the liberal historical school, J.M. Trevelyan, believed that historical science has three main functions: scientific, implying the collection of facts and determining their reliability, speculative, consisting in the classification of the collected material and its interpretation, and literary, which aims to describe historical facts in an entertaining and instructive manner, bringing historical research closer to the genre of a historical novel, Trevelyan himself and many of his colleagues preferred the literary function of history. No wonder critics subsequently called works of this kind "secular chatter about the past.
The liberal tradition turned out to be very stable and continued to dominate English historical science at the beginning of the century, while European philosophy and social Sciences a powerful wave of relativism swept over, which began in connection with the so-called "crisis of physics". Changes began after 1914. The storms that shook Europe during the First World War, the upsurge in the struggle of the working class, the creation of the world's first socialist state, led to significant changes in social thought and in historical science. Confidence in the continuous and progressive nature of the development of world history was undermined. The old liberal models of historical development were called into question. The subject of historical research is changing. Along with political history, co-; which previously enjoyed priority, economic and social history, which had not previously been in Ant-! popularity lines. From here there was only one step left to study the history of the English working class and the socialist movement, insofar as it is interconnected with the above branches of history and uses their research methods. The growth of the labor movement, the rise of the political influence of the trade unions and the Labor Party drew the attention of British historians to the problems of the labor and socialist movement. The spouses S. and B. Webb are rightly considered pioneers in this area, since they turned to the history of the working class back in the 90s. XIX century, however, as a trend in English historical science, the historiography of the labor movement begins to take shape from the beginning of the 20s. our century. The first historians of the English labor and socialist movement were representatives of the progressive English intelligentsia, often themselves former members various socialist organizations. In English historiography, a Laborist trend begins to take shape, dealing primarily with questions of the history of the English working class. Like the Webbs, Labor historians did not have their own independent concept of history and relied in their works on the theory of evolutionary development borrowed from liberal historiography.
England. The exceptions were the works of Marxist authors, but they, despite the growing influence of Marxism in English historical science after the revolution in Russia, were still isolated phenomena in the 1920s.
From the late 20's to early 30's. a methodological crisis begins in English historical science. The philosophical doubts that gripped English intellectuals after the First World War also extended to the area of the methodology of history. In bourgeois historiography, there is a tendency to revise the theoretical and methodological foundations of history as a science. As a counterbalance to the old "speculative" philosophy of history, the so-called "analytical" philosophy of history is put forward, which focuses not on the content of history, but on the "making of history." In other words, there is a shift from the analysis of substance to the analysis of method. As a result of the critique of the old liberal conception of history, two approaches to history are developed: the neo-positivist and the idealist. Adherents of the neo-positivist approach C in English historical literature also call it assimilationist) advocated the fusion of history with the natural sciences and the application of their laws and methods to it. positive side This approach was that it implied a certain level of historical theory and enriched the methodology of historical research, drawing on the methods of other sciences, which would later be widely developed in English historiography. But the historical theory of the neo-positivists did not go beyond empirical generalizations, right. how the mechanical transfer of the methods of the natural sciences to the field of historical research sometimes leads to incorrect and distorted results. However, this trend in the philosophy of history had a noticeable impact on many historians of the labor movement.
Idealists (Collingwood and Oakeshott), following the Italian philosopher B. Croce, on the contrary, believed that there is a fundamental difference between history and scientific knowledge. Introducing a stream of relativism into English historical science, they argued that the past has no reality and therefore history exists only in the mind of the historian. Following the liberal school, they advocated the narrative method of writing history, justifying the traditional English dislike of theory. They considered human thought to be the only subject worthy of study, and therefore they dealt mainly with the history of ideas, introducing a fashion for intellectual history. To a certain extent, this had a positive effect on the study of the history of socialist ideas, since, as one of the manifestations of social thought, it gradually began to attract the attention of professional historians.
Bourgeois historiography of English socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (Liberal and conservative directions)
We spoke about the predominant influence of the liberal trend in English history at the beginning of the century in the previous chapter. However, liberal historians gave their preference to the political history of England. "Kings and queens, popes and first ministers crowded the pages of historical works." Those liberals who dealt with the modern history of England glorified the capitalist system and bourgeois institutions. Naturally, with such interests, there was no place in liberal historiography for the history of the labor or socialist movement. As for Tory historians, they were mainly concerned with the history of medieval England and were even further away from the problems of the history of socialism than their liberal colleagues, who wrote a lot about English history of the period of interest to us. But after World War I the situation began to change. The changes in the public consciousness, which were mentioned above, entailed not so much a change in the methodology of history as a change in the subject matter of the study. The rise of the labor movement, the growth of socialist sentiment among the masses, the strengthening of the authority of the Labor Party, which adopted a socialist program in 1918, and its success in parliamentary elections, attracted general attention and moved the history of the socialist movement into the field of political history, which was occupied by the liberals. That is why liberal historians are now compelled in their works on the history of England to touch upon, in one way or another, the questions of the history of English socialism. However, their attention to these questions during this period is still very insignificant: they prefer to confine themselves to a small commentary on the presence in England of such and such socialist organizations, without going into any analysis of them. In these works, the development of the socialist and labor movement in England is considered in accordance with the liberal concept of the development of society. Naturally, historians who specialized in the glorification of bourgeois institutions could not objectively assess the development of the socialist movement. The struggle for workers' representation, which permeated the entire English socialist and labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is considered within the framework of the movement of the whole society for the expansion of democratic freedoms.
It is no coincidence that the electoral reform that gave the workers the right to vote is portrayed as a prerequisite for the struggle for an independent workers' party. The revival of English socialism in the 1980s and the subsequent development of the socialist and labor movement is explained by the so-called "pendulum theory", according to which, during the period of economic upswing, workers begin to attack entrepreneurs to improve their living standards, that is, economic struggle prevails, while during periods of depression, extremist elements intensify and push workers into political action. At the beginning of the 80s of the 19th century, the loss of the world industrial monopoly by Britain and the "great depression" in the economy, which led to some deterioration in the situation of workers and the emergence and growth of revolutionary socialist organizations, such as, for example, the Social Democratic Federation . However, in the future, the economic situation of the workers improved again and they abandoned the revolutionary methods of struggle. This theory, for example, explains the development of the socialist movement by A. Shedvelsh, who in the 1920s was considered the greatest specialist in the field of the history of socialism.
Another version of the development of English socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was put forward by J. Ilton. He believes that at the beginning of the 80s in England there were "two socialisms" on equal terms: revolutionary and evolutionary, and the influence of revolutionary socialism was even stronger. However, revolutionary socialism was soon rejected by the workers due to the fact that they were disillusioned with its methods, tried in the late 80s of the 19th century. Depicting the mass demonstrations of the unemployed in 1887 as attempts at an armed uprising. Ilton states that "the revolution, sudden and complete, was absolutely discredited." After the defeat of the revolutionary methods of struggle, according to Ilton, revolutionary socialism was naturally replaced by evolutionary socialism, as it was more in line with the national characteristics of the English labor movement.
Therefore, liberal historians focus not on revolutionary socialist organizations, but on socialist and workers' organizations that have embarked on the path of reformism. Yes, already. the mentioned A. Shadwell considers the date of the revival of English socialism to be 1884, when the Fabian Society was formed, whose members later became the main ideologists of reformism, and not 1880, when the Social Democratic Federation was formed, which stood on the positions of revolutionary socialism.
These theories were soon adopted and worked out in detail by Labor historians, since they fully corresponded to their conception of the evolutionary character of English socialism and directed the English working class on the path of reformism. Thus, it can be said that in the interwar period the liberal conception of the development of the English labor and socialist movement, as well as the liberal conception of the history of England as a whole, had a serious influence on the emerging Labor trend. However, already in the 1920s and 1930s this influence was mutual, since the Labor historians and especially the Fabian historians adjoining them were pioneers in the study of the history of the English working class, and their authority in this area was already quite great. This especially affected the assessment of Fabian socialism by liberal historians.
Labor historiography of the history of English socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
The Labor trend in English historical scholarship began to take shape at the beginning of our century, shortly after the formation of the Labor Party. The labor and socialist movement has been a central theme of Labor historiography from the very beginning. Labor historians were the first to develop it, opening up a completely new field of study for English historical science. The socio-economic doctrine of the Fabians, created by the spouses S. and B. Webb, had a decisive influence on the formation of the theoretical and methodological base of the Laborist historical school, as well as on the formation of the program guidelines of the Labor Party itself. It was a group of bourgeois intellectuals, "the main principle of which is the fear of the revolution." Realizing that political system liberalism had already outlived itself, they created their own socio-economic theory, which was supposed to distract the British workers from the revolutionary struggle and direct them towards reformism. "Not liberalism against socialism, but reformism against the socialist revolution - this is the formula of the modern" advanced bourgeoisie, - this is how V.I. Lenin characterized the change in the attitude of the bourgeoisie towards the labor movement in connection with the growth of the struggle of the working class.
Fabianism was formed under the influence of bourgeois-liberal literature on economic sciences, philosophy, sociology, under the influence of the ideas of W. Spencer and J. Mill. The Webbs accepted the idea of social progress as a natural and constant growth and development of an organism from the lowest to the highest and combined it with the theory of the evolutionary development of England borrowed from liberal historiography. They saw the development of English society in the continuous improvement of parliamentary democracy. They believed that during the 19th century England experienced a "political revolution" which consisted in the extension of voting rights to the general population. Further improvement of the electoral system and the expansion of democratic freedoms must certainly lead to socialism: "the main stream that draws European society towards socialism is the irresistible progress of democracy." They considered the idea of revolution completely unacceptable and extremely harmful to England. Its most likely consequence, according to the Webbs, should be either the death of civilization, or the throwing of England back several centuries. The Webbs rejected the Marxist theory of the impoverishment of the working class, arguing that throughout the 19th century the well-being of English society, including workers, steadily increased. Without denying the existence of a class struggle in capitalist society, Fabian theorists believed that it was weakening as the living conditions of the working class improved. From this they concluded that the class struggle was doomed to permanent fading. The history of the English working class was presented to them as overcoming the "infant" traditions of rebelliousness, adopted from the craft; associations of the 18th century and the assimilation of the rules of economic and local political struggle. The Fabians stubbornly strove to prove that revolutionary methods of struggle remained far in the past and were completely unacceptable to modern level development of the English working class.
Based on these assumptions, they put forward the idea that in each country socialist ideas take on a special form depending on political and economic conditions, and that in England the most acceptable form of socialism is Fabian socialism.
The main attention in substantiating their theory, the early Fabians paid political and spiritual factors. They did not deny the impact on the development of society and economic factors, but did not consider them decisive. Subsequently, another outstanding Fabian thinker, J.D. Cole, formulated a pluralistic "theory of factors", each of which can almost equally influence the socio-political development of society. Standing on the positions of positivism, the Fabian theorists absolutized the sensory-empirical stage of reflecting reality and abandoned theoretical and class analysis. Webb's work on the history of the labor movement differs little in research methodology from that of liberal historians.
We have dwelled in detail on the doctrine of Fabianism, since it was of decisive importance in shaping the worldview of Labor historians and, in an improved and somewhat revised form, continues to influence Labor history. The Labor concept of the history of the labor movement was created on the basis of the Fabian theory of the development of society.
However, a unified Labor conception of history did not take shape all at once. Early Labor historiography presented a rather mixed picture. Each socialist organization that was part of the Labor Party created its own version of the history of the socialist and labor movements, which, although they had common features, nevertheless differed from each other. The first works on the history of the socialist movement were created directly by its participants, and in writing them, each of the authors proceeded from their own experience and their subjective positions. Among the early works of the Labor trend on the history of socialism are the publications of the Fabian Society, the Independent Labor Party and the works of the leaders of the Labor Party.
Marxist historiography of English socialism
At the beginning of the XX century. there is an increase in the influence of Marxism on social thought and historical science in England. In this regard, the first historical works written under the influence of Marxist methodology appear in the press. Some of the professional historians of the liberal-radical camp, who adhere to left-wing views, are moving to the positions of Marxism. Another group of early Marxist historians were representatives of the working-class intelligentsia who joined the revolutionary wing in the English socialist movement, which later merged into the Communist Party of Great Britain. However, until the end of the 30s. the number of these historians was very small, they were not united and did not have their own printed organ. Therefore, during this period we still cannot speak of Marxist historiography as an independent trend in English historical science.
The first steps of Marxist historiography were fraught with serious difficulties. The publication of the works of the classics of Marxism in England at that time was extremely limited. In this regard, not all Marxist historians were sufficiently familiar with the Marxist-Leninist heritage. The works of Soviet historians and Marxist scholars from other countries were also difficult for them to access. According to E. Hobsbawm, at that time, English Marxist historians had at their disposal a small number of foreign Marxist translated works on history and several works of German social democrats (Kautsky on T. More, Bernstein on Cromwell, etc.). Such a methodological base, of course, leaves much to be desired. "Marxist historians, to one degree or another, were influenced by bourgeois ideology. Consequently, historical works can also vary greatly in terms of their approximation to Marxist views."
The strongest influence on early Marxist historiography was the influence of the liberal school. Under the conditions of the crisis of liberal historiography, when liberal historians themselves abandoned their most progressive ideas, Marxist historians adopted and developed the best traditions of this trend. In the field of economic history, they were guided by the works of the outstanding historian T. Rogers, known for his radical views and who tried to apply the analysis of economic factors in explaining political events. Their interpretation of political history was undoubtedly influenced by the creative heritage of JR Green, who was one of the largest representatives of the golden age of liberal historiography. Greene was the first of the English historians to believe that the leading role in the development of science belongs not to individual outstanding personalities, but to the broad masses of the people. He interpreted the history of England as "folk history". Therefore, Marxist historians consider him their predecessor in the development of the so-called "history from below". Marxist writers used J. R. Green's historical concept, but interpreted it in the light of a new revolutionary perspective. The influence of the liberal school also affected the themes of the work of the first Marxist historians. In the 20s - 30s. they paid much more attention to the 17th century's English revolution. and peasant uprisings than the history of the workers' and socialist movement. Therefore, works on the problem of interest to us were a rare phenomenon in Marxist historiography until the end of the 1940s.
Among the first Marxist authors who worked on the history of English socialism and the labor movement were W. Craik and T. Rothstein. First edition of W. Craik's book " Short story of the modern English labor movement" was published back in 1916. Its appearance was caused by the increased interest on the part of the working class in its history. It was written by order of one of the most militant trade unions, the National Union of Railway Workers. Therefore, Craik focuses on the activities trade unions and the Labor Party, of which many British trade unions were collective members.Thus, the revolutionary socialist organizations remained out of Craik's field of vision, as well as in the works of liberal and Labor writers of this period, but his assessment of the Labor Party differs sharply from those, adopted in these writings. The decisive factor in the rapid rise of the Labor Party, he considers not the prominent role of the leaders, but the growth of the consciousness of the workers, who everywhere advocated the creation of a party capable of defending their interests in Parliament. However, notes Craik, it soon became clear that the Labor Party could not cope with near task for her. Unlike the Labor writers who justify the cooperation of the BLP with the Liberals in Parliament after 1906, Kake criticizes it. Craik also criticizes the opportunistic and inconsistent stance of the early leaders of the Labor Party. He considers a policy oriented exclusively towards political struggle to be as much a mistake as the orientation exclusively towards economic action advocated by the anarcho-syndicalists. Disputing the official version that the Labor Party is the final result of the British labor movement, W. Craik writes: "The Labor Party is not the last word in the labor movement. Rather, it is the last attempt to make capitalist politics serve the interests of the working class." It was the first work to criticize Labor reformism from a Marxist standpoint.
T. Rothstein's book "From Chartism to Laborism" was published in the late 1920s. and represented a more fundamental research 5. It traces the almost century-old path of the English labor movement and pays much attention to the activities of the SDF, the oldest organization representing the revolutionary wing in the English socialist movement of the late 19th century. This work, like Craik's, is a sharp critique of reformist socialist organizations. However, if Craik defends in his work the opinion of the socialist moods and fighting spirit of the bulk of the English working class, considering that the English trade unions owe their opportunist policy primarily to the conciliatory position of their leaders, then Rothstein is inclined to pessimistically assess the evolution of the labor movement in England at the end 19th century He believes that the modern labor movement has consigned to oblivion the glorious traditions of Chartism and gradually lost class consciousness. At present, the working environment is fatally apolitical, conciliatory and counter-revolutionary. Under these conditions, Rothstein considers the failure of revolutionary socialism under British conditions inevitable. By exaggerating the reformist sentiments among the English workers in this way, he blames them for the failures of the SDF, many of which were due to its own mistakes, of which Rothstein scarcely mentions. Socialism was brought to England, according to the author, from outside and therefore remained a movement of ideas that did not penetrate deeply into the working class. This position of the author was due to the influence of the liberal-Labor concept of the labor movement, as well as the decline in revolutionary sentiment in the working class in the 20s. XX century., Which caused disappointment among the British Communists.
In the 1980s, in connection with the upsurge of the labor movement, a number of organizations arose that called themselves socialist, but in reality were far from genuine socialism. In 1881, the Democratic Federation was created, renamed in 1884 into the Social Democratic Federation. It was cut off from the workers and saturated with the spirit of sectarianism. Its leader, Hyndman, refused to work in trade unions under the pretext of their reactionary nature, refused to support the struggle of the workers for higher wages and for an 8-hour working day, on the pretext that this struggle was not "directly of a revolutionary socialist nature." Hyndman considered the struggle for seats in parliament to be the main goal of the labor movement. Posing as a Marxist, Hyndman actually perverted the teachings of Marx and was, in the words of V. I. Lenin, only a “democrat of an indefinite color” with connections and sympathies in the conservative party. Hyndman believed that it was necessary to free the workers from the influence of the liberals, but he himself made an unscrupulous deal with the conservatives, receiving from them a monetary subsidy for holding election campaign. F. Engels sharply criticized the sectarianism of the Social Democratic Federation and its lack of faith in the forces of the working class. Active workers in the labor movement - Eleanor and Eduard Aveling, workers Tom Mann, Harry Quelch, writer William Morris and others, protested against the opportunism of the federation, left it and formed in January 1885 an independent organization - the Socialist League.
The Socialist League opposed the leadership of the Social Democratic Federation on the issue of creating the Second International. They defended the ideas of internationalism in the labor movement.
When the British imperialists launched a war of conquest in the Sudan, the Socialist League published a manifesto stating: “A cruel and unjust war is now being waged by the ruling and propertied classes of our country, using all the means of civilization at their disposal, against the poorly armed and semi-barbarian peoples, whose only crime is that they rebelled against foreign domination."
The manifesto concludes: “We ask you to think about who has to fight in this and similar cases. Do the classes that hunt for markets have to fight? Do they form the rank and file of the army? No. The sons and brothers of the working people of England have to fight ... It is they who win new lands for exploitation, new peoples for robbery for the rich middle and upper classes, as these classes demand from them. This manifesto was, in fact, one of the first declarations of the British socialists against colonialism.
Members of the Socialist League actively worked in trade unions, they took an active part in the strike struggle in the late 80s. However, the league did not turn into a mass proletarian party. It remained a small sectarian organization in which for a long time there was a struggle between Marxist and anarchist elements. This struggle led the Socialist League in 1890 to collapse. The Social Democratic Federation continued to exist, but for 30 years of its activity it remained a sectarian propaganda organization that never managed to turn into a mass party of the English proletariat.
In 1884, the so-called Fabian Society also arose. Its organizers were Sydney and Beatrice Webb.
Some time after its organization, the then young English writers Bernard Shaw and Herbert Wells joined this society. Being critical of the bourgeois order that existed in England, observing the growth of social contrasts in contemporary society, and finally, having become acquainted with some of the works of Marx, these writers perceived, although not deeply, some ideas of socialism.
Shaw sometimes disagreed on some issues with other Fabians. For example, he later recognized the expediency of revolutionary action, which was fundamentally at odds with the basic principles of the Fabians. Engels singled out Shaw from among other Fabians. He wrote in 1892: "The paradoxical novelist Shaw, as a novelist very talented and witty, but decidedly worthless as an economist and politician, although he is honest and not a careerist." These words can also be applied to Wells. However, it was not these writers who determined the face of Fabian society.
This society included representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia, various kinds of "bourgeois socialists", from direct careerists to sentimental socialists and philanthropists.
The very name of the society spoke of its essence: it was named after the Roman commander Fabius Cunctator, who used wait-and-see tactics in the war with the Carthaginian commander Hannibal, avoiding decisive battles. The Fabians rejected the class struggle and proposed a program of so-called state or "municipal socialism", which should be carried out on the basis of peaceful class cooperation. The Fabians declared that, acting through the organs of local self-government, which, in their opinion, were already the sprouts of new socialist institutions, it was possible, through gradual reforms, to create the basis of collective property, and then on this basis peacefully transform the entire capitalist society into a socialist one.
V. I. Lenin explained the essence of the Fabian ideas in this way: “The bourgeois intelligentsia in the West, like the English Fabians, elevates municipal socialism to a special “direction” precisely because it dreams of social peace, of the reconciliation of classes and wishes to shift public attention from fundamental issues the entire economic system and state structure on minor issues of local self-government.
Although the Fabian society, which still exists today, was never numerous, its propaganda had a great influence on the trade unions and hindered the formation of the socialist consciousness of the working masses of England.
Describing the activities of the Fabian society, Engels wrote that the Fabians are a gang of careerists imbued with fear of the proletarian revolution and ready to do anything to avert this danger in the name of protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie.
V. I. Lenin saw in the Fabian ideology the finished expression of opportunism. Fabianism served as the ideological basis of right-wing laborism.
Political outlook Robert Owen took shape in England, where industrial development and the sharpness of the social contradictions of capitalism reached in the first half of the XIX century. higher level than in France. In England, on the basis of the industrial revolution of the late XVIII century. During this period there is a powerful development of capitalist production.
Robert Owen(1771-1858) was born in Newtown (Montgomeryshire, Wales) in the family of an artisan. He studied at a local school, at the age of ten he joined the trade in manufactory in Stamford (Northamptonshire). After four years at Stamford, he got a job in Manchester, where he was so successful that by 1790 he was appointed manager of a cotton mill that employed five hundred workers. In 1794, he became co-owner and manager of the Chorlton Twist Company in Manchester, and in 1799, together with his partners, he acquired a spinning mill from David Dale in New Lenark, near Glasgow.
Owen improved working and living conditions for workers, installed new machines, opened a store for workers, where he sold goods at reduced prices, a school and a kindergarten for their children. In 1814, having bought out the shares of the partners, Owen founded new company, where the rights of shareholders included, among others, the Quaker William Allen and the philosopher Jeremiah Bentham. The economic crisis after 1815 prompted Owen to propose a plan for the settlement of the unemployed in "villages of community and cooperation." True, Owen's anti-religious views alienated many supporters of his teachings. It was only by 1825 that he managed to create an experimental community, and after it other communes in Great Britain. The year before, Owen went to America and founded a labor commune in Wabash, Indiana, calling it New Harmony. Owen envisioned the future society as a loose federation of small socialist self-governing communities based on common ownership of property and labor. Difficulties soon arose in the colony, and in 1828 it fell apart.
Owen spent the rest of his life in England. In 1829 he left the management of the factory in New Lanark and began to popularize his teachings.
His activism helped consolidate the cooperative movement in the UK and contributed to the introduction of more humane labor laws.
Major works: pamphlet A new look at society, or experiments on the formation of human character (1813), The book of a new moral world (1836-1844).
State and law. Like A. de Saint-Simon and C. Fourier, R. Owen denies the revolutionary way of liquidating the existing social system and transition to socialism. He believes that "it is necessary to prevent the violent destruction of public life, which can arise from daily increasing poverty and extreme demoralization" . He calls on the propertied classes to prevent the revolution of the working and propertyless masses by carrying out decisive social reforms aimed at seriously improving the material situation of these masses.
The thinker is entirely on the standpoint of cooperation of all classes of society, equally, in his opinion, equally interested in the victory of reason and “common sense”, which allegedly suggests the need for a peaceful transformation of the existing social system based on ignorance and delusions of the human mind.
R. Owen's plans for practical methods and means of a gradual transition to a new social order, in particular by planting and developing workers' cooperation, creating "exchange banks" and "exchange bazaars", do not at all imply a radical breakdown of the old society, but only a peaceful introduction into the existing a system of experiments and examples of practical construction of the elements of a new, "reasonable" system.
The most important features of R. Owen's system of utopian socialism are: tolerance for the bourgeoisie, propaganda of humility and peacefulness, abstractness of principles and misunderstanding of historical development, denial of the class struggle, preaching of philanthropy and universal love.
Representative of socialist ideas in England - Robert Owen (1771 -1858). He studies the working and living conditions of workers. There was not a single skirmish between workers and manufacturer in his factory. Increased labor productivity. Created favorable working conditions for workers, increased labor productivity. A disagreement between Owen and a partner led him to leave the company. He finds people ready to help him, ready to help his experiments. In 1825 he buys a piece of land in America and creates a community. It lasted four years and ended in failure. In 1929 he returned to England, wrote "Report to the County of Lanark on a plan for alleviating public calamities."
Basic provisions:
1. Rejection of private property.
"The government should gradually buy up land at its market price from those who wish to sell it and thus turn it into public property. This land will be cultivated as a single farm, divided into lands, under one common management."
2. The basis of Robert Owen's views is Ricardo's labor theory of value (labor is the only measure of value). Exchange according to the labor expended on the commodity. Owen sees the resolution of the contradiction in the theory of value in a fair exchange.
Salary = value of goods produced (in the absence of a capitalist)
3. In order for the fairness of the exchange not to be violated, money must be abandoned. (The cost can be one, and the price is another). It is necessary to introduce new "working money" in order not to carry goods with you. The amount of time worked will be indicated on the working money, and you can only receive goods from the public warehouse with them for which an equal number of labor hours have been spent. There will be no crises in this society.
4. The universality of labor. Everyone works in a socialist society. Distribution in the future society of abundance will be according to need. The first clearly expressed idea of communism.
5. The cooperative community is the economic basis of the new society.
The ideas of early Western European utopian socialism and the early socialism of England and France are the last ideas of the peaceful reorganization of society before the rise of Marxism.
Topic 10. Marxist economic theory
General provisions Marxism
Marxist ideas in the works of F. Engels
Economic views of K. Marx
Economic ideas of V.I. Lenin
General provisions of Marxism
Marxism- the theoretical and ideological system of the revolutionary views of the working class, representing the laws of the development of society and summarizing the experience of the class struggle of the masses against exploitation.
Historically, Marxism originated and was mainly formed in the 1840s in Germany.
The theoretical sources of Marxism are:
German classical philosophy,
English political economy,
French utopian socialism.
The main goals of Marxism is the struggle against capitalism, the accomplishment of the socialist revolution, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is necessary for building communism.
The program document of Marxism is the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by Marx K. and Engels F., whose main tasks were the development of a scientific proletarian worldview, program, strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.
Marxism consists of three organically interconnected parts:
1) dialectical and historical materialism (Marxist philosophy);
2) political economy;
3) scientific communism.
Marxist philosophy is the science of the universal laws of the development of nature, society and thinking, the theoretical justification of the proletarian worldview.
Marxist political economy arose as a result of a dialectical-materialist analysis of the capitalist economy, which allowed Marx K. in his work "Capital" (the book was published in 1867) to reveal the essence of capitalist exploitation, to prove the inevitability of the death of the capitalist social order and the transition to a higher communist formation . The most important driving force of progressive social development is the struggle of classes, and the way of transition from one socio-economic formation to another is social revolution. The Marxist theory of scientific communism explores the patterns of transition to a communist society, which is carried out through the proletarian revolution, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the construction of a society that harmoniously combines the freedom of society and the freedom of the individual.
The struggle to build communism is carried out under the leadership of the Communist Party, which organizes the revolutionary practice of the proletariat on the basis of the scientific theory of social development.
Revisionism became a peculiar ideological reaction to the spread of Marxism in the labor movement. In philosophy, revisionism sought to replace dialectical materialism with subjective idealism; in the field of political economy, as an alternative to Marxism, the theory of organized capitalism is being created, proving the organic unity of capitalism and socialism and denying the need for a socialist revolution. On this basis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is denied and the idea of class cooperation and harmony of class interests is developed.
Revisionist ideas weaken the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and bring about a split in the labor movement. Marxism received further development (Lenin stage, Leninism) in the works of V. I. Lenin, who applied the main provisions of Marxism to analyze capitalism at its highest and last stage - the stage of imperialism. Works of Lenin V.I. became the theoretical justification for the program of accomplishing the proletarian revolution and building socialism in Russia.
Marxism developed in accordance with the practice of building socialism in the countries of the socialist camp in the program documents of the communist parties, the world communist movement, in the works of theorists and ideologists of communism. With the collapse of the world system of socialism and the Soviet Union, the ideas of Marxism, although they have lost their ideological monopoly, in a modernized form remain the ideological and theoretical basis for the activities of communist parties.
In Russia, Russian emigrants (Gerzen A.I., Bakunin M.A., etc.) were the first to get acquainted with the ideas of Marxism. The first Russian Marxist organizations were created abroad: the Russian section of the First International, then the Emancipation of Labor group. In addition to them, publicists-populists (Mikhailovsky N.K., Danielson N.F.) contributed to the spread of the ideas of Marx K.. With the publication of the Russian translation of Capital (1872), Marxism began to be studied in workers' circles. Since 1883, Marxist organizations have appeared in Russia - student organizations (Dimitar Blagoev's group "Party of Russian Social Democrats"), intellectuals, workers. On the ideological basis of Marxism, the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" and the RSDLP are formed. Part of the intelligentsia that was fond of Marxism in the 1900s evolved towards liberalism and idealism. Life showed the utopian nature of many provisions of Marxism, and socialism collapsed in the USSR and in other countries.
