Fly, fly, petal
Through west to east,
Through the north, through the south,
Come back, having made a circle,
As soon as you touch the ground,
To be in my opinion led...

Manifestation- this is embodiment, materialization, manifestation of what is desired in life through conducting a kind of ritual in the form of visualizations, mental manipulation of energy, etc.

Manifestation is a creative process in which you, like an artist painting a picture, create the life of your dreams.

You can manifest ANYTHING: parking a car, enrolling in a University, getting a dream job, purchasing a house, meeting a soulmate partner, a spiritual teacher, grateful clients, in general, whatever your soul desires! In fact, in real life we ​​manifest all the time, but the question is - what? Any thought in " in the right mood“with sufficient energy and the vector of this energy is a potential manifestation. And if there are no blocks for this manifestation yet, then we get it as we ordered. This is especially evident in small things: if you are afraid of being late, you are late; If you put on new tights, you will definitely be hooked; If you leave the house without an umbrella, you will definitely manifest rain))) But more on the mechanism of manifestation later. Let's start with the rules.

Manifestation Rules

1. Don't forget that what you want to bring to life is should not harm anyone. Therefore, we always call for manifestation to be realized in the best and highest possible way.
2. While manifesting in your heart there should be no fear. There is only room for LOVE! If you worry even for a second that what you want will not come true, then manifestation will not work!
3. During manifestation your physical condition must be resourceful. You've probably noticed that when you are weakened or sick, the energy around you becomes like a viscous swamp. In a word, in a healthy body there is a healthy mind, and therefore there is a powerful potential for creating your own reality.
4. Manifestation works when you do it. FOR MYSELF, and not for someone. The only exception is when the person himself asks you to help him strengthen his own manifestation - then you send him love and create a similar thought form, enhancing the energy of his desire.
5. The power of manifestation - in constancy and perseverance, and at the same time - in letting go and trusting the Universe (Creator).
6. If you manifest several desires at once, then analyze do they not contradict each other?

Manifestation Practices:

Manifestation: Attracting a Soulmate Partner— a media course created on the basis of the ThetaHealing technique.

The course is intended both for those who are looking for their soulmate, and for those who are already in a relationship. Exercises and meditation will help you change from the inside, clear your vibrations, work through ineffective programs, which will take your relationship to a new level. And those who have not yet met their your soul mate, will be able to create all the conditions for attracting a high-quality and harmonious partner.

Meditation “Call of the Heart”- a practice based on the ThetaHealing technique, which allows you to attract people of similar vibrations to you.

People whose work involves working with clients, as a rule, have similar qualities: sociability, openness, etc. But why do people line up to see one specialist, while another is only thinking about how the last client won’t run away? Moreover, both may practically not differ from each other according to general criteria - education, abilities, charisma... So what is the secret?

By changing yourself, you change the whole world! (With)

COURSE WORK

Political ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”

Introduction

2 The main ideas in the works of Marx and Engels in the 1840-1848s.

2 Political program proletariat

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The relevance of research. Since “Marxism-Leninism” as an ideology was defeated in “competition” with non-Marxist teachings in the 20th century, this was interpreted as evidence of the ideological bankruptcy of the teachings of Marx and Engels. However, the famous American economist, laureate Nobel Prize V. Leontyev in the article “The modern significance of the economic theory of K. Marx” states: “The significance of Marx for modern economic theory lies in the fact that his works are an inexhaustible source of direct, immediate observations of reality. If, before attempting to give any explanation of economic development, one wishes to know what profit, wages, and capitalist enterprise actually are, one can obtain in the three volumes of Capital more realistic and better information than what he could be found in ten consecutive issues of the Census of the United States, in a dozen textbooks on modern economics.”

However, this is the economic side of the issue. In an interview with a journalist from the Guardian newspaper, historian Eric Hobsbawm said the following words about Marxist teaching: “The return to Marx during the current crisis of capitalism is due to the fact that his predictions regarding the modern world turned out to be much more accurate than anyone else who has written in 1848. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the capitalists stopped being afraid of [him]. In this sense, both they and we were able to look at the problem with a much more balanced view, less distorted by passion than before.”

The history of the 20th century is, to a large extent, a history of confrontation between various ideological movements, each of which offered its own understanding of the existing socio-political situation and its own vision of solving the most important tasks, facing both humanity and a certain social group. Without in any way downplaying the role of other ideologies, it should be recognized that it was Marxism that had the greatest influence.

Thus, the relevance of this coursework is determined by the fact that Marxism is one of the most influential historical ideologies, carrying a complex of political, economic and other views, and also in light of the fact that the fall of the Soviet Union allows us to consider Marxist ideas in a different way. But this will be discussed further below.

Speaking about the degree of scientific development, it is necessary to say the following. During the Soviet Union, Marxist teaching (and the Manifesto Communist Party"in particular) were studied "up and down", since Marxism was the ideological foundation of the entire system that existed in those years. The teachings of Marx and Engels, however, were revised and called “Marxism-Leninism”. Accordingly, we identify one of the researchers - V.I. Lenin, and this was not just a key researcher, given the form in which Marxism developed on the territory of the Soviet Union. In particular, his analysis of Marxist ideas was presented, for example, in such works as “Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism”, “Karl Marx (a brief bibliographical essay outlining Marxism)”, etc. In 1979, edited by I. Narsky published a two-volume book “Marxist Philosophy in the 19th Century,” which outlines the development of Marxist teaching (but taking into account the works of Lenin). Among the foreign researchers, one can single out such as Karl Kautsky, who spoke out in his work “On a Critique of the Theory and Practice of Marxism (Anti-Bernstein)” against the revision of Marx’s views by Eduard Bernstein, having worked through Marxist teaching, Karl Korsch and others.

However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Marxism began to be viewed more ambiguously. This event meant the collapse of the Marxist and Marxist-Leninist ideas, as a result of which the study of this doctrine was not so intense, or it occurred in a negative way. Nevertheless, gradual research (maybe it would be more correct to say “re-research”, since with the collapse of the USSR it became possible to study this doctrine without ideological imposition by the state) was continued. For example, one can cite the work of Theodore Oizerman “The Emergence of Marxism” and “Marxism and Utopianism”, or Boris Kagarlitsky “Marxism: Not recommended for training”, etc.

Thus, we can say that the degree of scientific development of the topic of Marxism and the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (and it, one way or another, is understood by most authors studying Marxism: of the above, this applies to Lenin, Oizerman, the two-volume “Marxist Philosophy in the XIX c.") is quite high.

The object of the study is the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (hereinafter referred to as the “Manifesto”).

The subject of the study is the political ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

The purpose of this work is to explore the above ideas.

In accordance with the goal, the following tasks are set:

1.Identify the conditions for the formation of the Marxist idea.

.Identify the main political ideas of early Marxist writings (written before the Communist Manifesto)

.Highlight the ideas on which the Manifesto is based

.Highlight the main political ideas of Marxism in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, and also compare them with the ideas indicated in paragraph 2

Analysis, synthesis, deductive, inductive and comparative methods were used as the main research methods. Theoretical and practical significance of the work: the materials of this course work can be used in further study, the teaching process, as well as in preparation for seminars on such academic disciplines, such as “Political Science”, “Philosophy of Politics”, “History of Political Doctrines”.

The structure of the work is an introduction, two chapters, two paragraphs in each, a conclusion and a list of references.

Chapter 1. The emergence of Marxism as the “ideology of the proletariat”

1 Conditions for the formation of Marxist ideas

This paragraph can be divided into two parts: a consideration of the socio-political conditions of the emergence of Marxism and a consideration of the formation of the views of Marx and Engels directly. Let's start with the first one.

Marxism arose in the 40s of the 19th century. At the same time, there was an exacerbation of the social and economic contradictions of capitalism. The emergence of the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels was associated with a certain stage in the development of society in general and its economic base in particular. The main event that influenced and actually shaped all subsequent events in Europe was the industrial revolution (or industrial revolution). Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to this phenomenon.

What is the “industrial revolution”? To put it in your own words, this is a very strong change in the production of goods, which has radically changed this area and also had an impact on other areas of life. At the same time, it became possible to quickly increase the volume of labor, goods and services. As such, the term appears in history not for the first time: it was mentioned in the 13th century, and in the 16th, and in the last decade of the 17th century. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution dates back to the 1780s, but its end is impossible to determine, since its very essence was that something new that it introduced later became the norm. However, F. Engels, in his work “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” believes that the industrial revolution began in the 1760s.

The Industrial Revolution took place in England, so it is necessary first of all to consider the events that occurred in the country during this revolution.

The main factors that gave rise to this phenomenon were political stability in the country, the interest of politicians in personal gain and economic development, the presence of a large sales market monopolized by one state (i.e. England) and the availability of sufficient initial capital. The essence of the industrial revolution was a change in the type of production: the factory type of production was developing. Moreover, in the same England in the first half of the 19th century, the transition to a new type of production was not in all industries: factory production received rapid development in spinning, carding and auxiliary operations of cotton production (until the 1830s), later to a new type production moved to weaving. In other branches of the textile industry, factory production developed slowly until the 1840s, and in other industries it was very small.

The dividends that the updated production received were large. The growth in enterprise income was very large in percentage terms. According to one English politician of that time, “Hundreds and thousands of percent of profits amounted to the happiness of Lancashire.” Britain's exports of goods also increased. The country's population increased: if in 1750 the population was approximately 6.5 million people, then by 1801 it grew by 2.5 million inhabitants (for comparison, in the period from 1600 to 1750 the population growth was approximately 1. 5 million). It is worth noting that there was no census in England until 1801, so the population data was quite approximate. Along with this comes the growth of cities such as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, etc.

Using the example of England, where the industrial revolution was the first to occur, we saw in general terms the process of the revolution and its consequences. But the main consequence was the gradual division of society into two large classes: the owners of capital and the workers, or, as they will later be called, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. And the formation of two classes and their interaction is a common consequence for all European countries where the industrial revolution took place.

In the 19th century, the role of industry increased. If in the first half of the 19th century economic growth became a characteristic feature of its time, then by the middle of the same century the importance of the role of industry became increasingly obvious. By this time, the proletariat became the leading social force in social development. A key feature of the development of capitalism is the impoverishment of workers and, as a consequence, the limited needs of the majority of the population. Until about the 1860s, the situation of working people worsened. This phenomenon left its mark both on Marxism, which was just being formed in those years, and on the immediate views of Marx and Engels. And human needs were viewed as a simple and universal set of conditions necessary to maintain their life: food, clothing, means to support a family - the most basic.

Concentration and centralization of production clearly emerged in the 19th century. as dominant trends. They reinforced the thesis about the polarization of forces in capitalist society, the proletarianization of the majority and the enrichment of the minority, and the undermining of the political basis of capitalist domination . However, the number of factories and factories where collective labor was used grew, the division of labor strengthened, the selection of labor became more stringent, and social differentiation in society increased. The level of socio-economic development that existed at that time, the weakness of what could now be called civil society, allowed the owners of production factors to mercilessly exploit workers, establishing, according to various sources, a 12-16-hour working day without days off, and using child labor. The competition that existed then was accompanied by periodic crises of overproduction, mass and chronic unemployment, and wages kept at a level well below the subsistence level.

Now let's move on to consider the formation of the views of Marx and Engels.

The process of formation of the views of Marx and Engels occurred approximately in the late 30s - late 40s. XIX century As a follower of Hegel, Marx then shared many of the principles of German classical philosophy, and in particular, the idea of ​​the role of philosophy in society. However, after his dismissal from the post of editor of the Rheinskaya Gazeta It became clear to Marx, firstly, that the state was guided by the interests of the “privileged classes” and was in no way inclined to listen to the voice of philosophical critical analysis. Secondly, Marx came to the conclusion that the very level of research into practical problems turned out to be unsatisfactory. Hegelian dialectics left aside the deep causes and roots of these problems, but Marx already saw that these roots were in the material, economic relations of people. Philosophical analysis alone did not reach this level.

Beginning in 1842, he studied a new social movement for Germany - socialism and communism, became acquainted with the rich socialist and communist tradition of France and England, and analyzed the first speeches of German socialists and communists. After moving to Paris (1843), Marx came into contact with the secret League of the Just and became a participant in the communist movement.

In the proletariat, Marx saw a special class whose calling is to destroy the existing world order. Marx evaluates the proletariat as a practical force, in union with which philosophy can fulfill its calling. While highly appreciating utopian projects for transforming society, Marx nevertheless clearly saw their theoretical weaknesses. The considerable presence of fantasy and the presence of various religious elements hindered the development of communist ideas and their spread. It was therefore necessary to give a philosophical justification for the meaning of communism. For this purpose, Marx initially, in 1843-1844, considered the ideas of L. Feuerbach, the leader of German philosophy of the 40s, suitable. The significance of Feuerbach’s ideas for Marx’s philosophical searches lay, in addition to the materialist general attitude, in the fact that Feuerbach combined the tradition of humanism (man is the highest value) with the atheistic denial of religious illusions, with the rehabilitation of the sensual principle in man and thoughts about the humanization of man’s relationship with nature and to people.

Combining the philosophical basis of Feuerbachian humanism with a critical analysis of communist doctrines was the path chosen by Marx in 1844 to achieve the union of philosophy and the proletariat. But around the same time, this research program expanded significantly. The motivating reason was the influence of the young F. Engels, who by 1844 independently came to communism, materialism and was also carried away by the philosophy of Feuerbach.

The views of F. Engels were also formed under the influence of radical democracy. In the 30s of the 19th century, he was attracted by the views of Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Börne. In those same years, his religious views were influenced by D. Strauss’s book “The Life of Jesus,” which expressed the idea that the gospel is a collection of myths that developed in the first Christian communities. Beginning in 1839, Engels began to study the works of Hegel. They affect the articles published by Engels in various newspapers at that time. However, he was not attracted to Hegel's idealistic views, as well as his conservative socio-political views. His views were most clearly manifested in his works against the philosopher Friedrich Schelling, who taught under Engels while in Berlin in 1841. These works also showed the influence of the book “The Essence of Christianity” by Ludwig Feuerbach, as Engels himself admitted. In 1842, Engels left for Manchester, where, as V.I. notes in his writings. Lenin became a socialist. In fact, his stay in England finally formed Engels' views. In 1844, the full-fledged joint activity of Marx and Engels began. Thus, in 1844, the most important components in Marx’s work came together to create a single, holistic philosophical and worldview concept. Marx and Engels combined the political-economic analysis of reality with the philosophical tradition of the German classics and with a critical revision of the theories of utopian socialism and communism.

Thus, the factor in the formation of Marxism were objective economic and especially social processes in countries Western Europe at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries, the root cause of which was the industrial revolution. In turn, the views of Marx and Engels were formed in approximately the same direction: the views of each of them were formed on the basis of radical democracy, both were influenced by the works of Hegel and Feuerbach, both rejected idealism and religious views. At the same time, their views gradually acquire socialist and communist orientations, in line with which their further creativity takes place.

1.2 Main ideas in the works of Marx and Engels in the 1840-1848s

The study of the formation of Marxism makes it possible not only to reveal the inconsistency of a view that actually rejects the very concept of “the early works of Marx and Engels,” but also to concretize this concept. Some of the early works of Marx and Engels were written from an idealistic position, others mark the beginning of the transition to materialism and communism, others are already completing this process, and others substantiate the starting points of the philosophical and communist worldview. The distinction between the early works of Marx and Engels and their comparative study are a necessary condition for a correct understanding of the formation of Marxism and the reflection of its ideas in the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

The first literary documents of the intellectual biography of Marx and Engels date back to the late 30s and early 40s. XIX century In them they appear as progressive representatives of those socio-political views that later came to be called pre-Marxist. The result of this prehistory of Marxism is the formation of philosophical and political positions that became, as evidenced by historical facts, the starting points of the transition of Marx and Engels from idealism to materialism and from radical democracy to communism in 1842. The distinction between the early works of Marx and Engels and the works of established Marxism is of fundamental importance, since it is based not simply on chronology, but on the fact that Marx and Engels, as already mentioned, came to materialism and communism from idealism and radical democracy.

At the end of August 1844, a meeting between Marx and Engels took place in Paris, marking the beginning of their creative collaboration. Such works as “German Ideology”, “The Poverty of Philosophy. The response to Mr. Proudhon's "Philosophy of Poverty", "The Condition of the Working Class in England", "The Holy Family" reflect the process of formation of their worldview.

Marx's manuscripts, written in the summer of 1844, were published only in 1932 under the title Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. The main focus of the work is the idea of ​​human alienation in a society dominated by private property and overcoming alienation in the historical perspective of the communist future. Fundamental, basic for any alienation of a person, according to Marx, is economic alienation, or alienated labor. Marx considers alienated labor (forced and involuntary labor) in four aspects. Firstly, the worker uses materials that are ultimately taken from nature, and as a result of labor receives the objects, things, and products of labor necessary for life. Secondly, the process of labor activity itself is forced for the worker. He has no choice: to work or not to work, since he cannot otherwise ensure the possibility of existence. Thirdly, forced labor, as Marx shows, generally robs the worker of his “race life.” The human race lives in nature. Man himself is a natural being, his life is inextricably linked with nature. This connection is active contact with nature, in which the main thing is labor and production. But for the worker, on the contrary, labor is only a means to maintain his own individual life, and not at all the life of the “clan”. Fourthly, forced labor creates alienation between people. Workers are alien to each other because they compete for the opportunity to work in order to live; Moreover, the workers are alien to the one who forces them to work and takes away the product of labor. This person is independent of the worker, dominates and controls him.

Alienation of labor is a basic, fundamental, deep-seated social relationship. It is not only the worker who loses his human essence and tribal life under conditions of alienation - all other people, starting with the capitalists, are also alienated people. The life of people in conditions of economic alienation distorts, cripples them, makes them “partial individuals.”

A further development of the views of Marx and Engels is their first joint monograph, “The Holy Family.” In The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism. Against Bruno Bauer and company, Marx and Engels act as materialists. Marx and Engels point out that the wider and deeper the revolution taking place in society, the greater the number of masses that carry out this revolution. “The Holy Family” contains a look at the role of the proletariat as a class, which, due to its position under capitalism, “can and must liberate itself,” and at the same time destroy all the inhuman living conditions of bourgeois society, for the proletariat “does not go through the harsh, but tempering school of labor. The Holy Family formulates some of the starting points of Marxist political economy. Unlike the utopian socialists, Marx justifies the objective inevitability of the victory of communism by the fact that private property in its economic movement pushes itself towards destruction.

F. Engels’s work “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” as the author himself later pointed out, reflects one of the first stages in the formation of Marxism. Exploring the economic and political system of England, Engels reveals, using the example of this most developed country at that time, a number of patterns of capitalist production. He reveals the full depth of the industrial revolution, which led to the emergence of the factory proletariat, and emphasizes the irreconcilability of the interests of workers and capitalists; Engels proves the inevitability under capitalism of the formation of an industrial reserve army of the unemployed and the periodic repetition of economic crises. Describing the unbearably difficult living and working conditions of workers in England, Engels shows that the very situation of the proletariat inevitably pushes it to fight for its liberation, for the overthrow of the capitalist system. Summarizing the experience of the English labor movement, Engels comes to the conclusion that strikes and unions, being an effective means of organizing and educating the working class, are still powerless to free it from wage slavery. Praising Chartism as the first independent political movement proletariat, Engels, however, criticizes the Chartists for the limitations of their goals and puts forward the most important theoretical position about the need to combine Chartism with socialism.

In January 1845, Marx wrote “Theses on Feuerbach.” In this small work his idea of ​​dialectical materialism is developed. He views theory and practice as interdependent phenomena, while coming to the idea that the highest form of social practice is revolutionary practice. He considers religion to be a social product, saying that old materialism has a limited view of religion. The last thesis criticizes the contemplative-passive nature of the old materialism: Marx believed that the world should not be contemplated, but changed.

In 1845-1846 The work of Marx and Engels “German Ideology” was created. This is the first work in which they call their teaching communist. They write that political and ideological superstructures are determined by economic relations that exist at one or another stage of historical development. Here the task of conquest of political power by the proletariat is expressed, characterizing the political, economic and ideological prerequisites of this phenomenon. At the same time, in their opinion, the communist revolution is inevitable, because Only in this way can the proletariat destroy all exploitation of themselves by the bourgeoisie and become capable of creating a new society. Political economy is further developed, and the terms “force of production” and “relations of production” are introduced. The capitalist form of society is analyzed, which, according to Marx and Engels, is a transitory “form of communication.” The first contours of a communist society are also described: a person will gain power over exchange, production, and his own social relations, consciously using economic laws.

In the work of K. Marx, published in the summer of 1847, “The Poverty of Philosophy. Reply to M. Proudhon’s “Philosophy of Poverty” Marx, in a polemical form, first appeared in print with a detailed presentation of the foundations of his materialist doctrine of the laws of social development, as well as the results of his research in the field of political economy. In this work he put forward a number of ideas about the tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat. “The Poverty of Philosophy” is directed against Proudhonism, which embodies the inconsistency and utopianism of the worldview of the petty bourgeoisie, its desire to get rid of the disastrous consequences of the development of capitalism for it, while preserving at the same time the economic foundations of the capitalist system: private ownership of the means of production and wage labor.

In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx describes the laws of development of material production. Revealing the content of the concept of “productive forces,” Marx shows that it covers not only the instruments of production, but also the workers themselves, that “the most powerful productive force is the revolutionary class itself.” Marx shows the role of productive forces in the development of society, reveals the dialectical connection and interaction between productive forces and production relations. He believes that the antagonistic contradiction that arises between them at a certain stage of development of class society makes inevitable the intensification of the class struggle and the revolutionary replacement of the previous mode of production with a new one.

Concretizing his conclusion about the significance of the revolutionary movement in “The Poverty of Philosophy,” Marx shows the role of economic struggle, strikes, and workers’ coalitions (trade unions) in the process of educating the proletarian masses. Marx formulates the position of the unity of economic and political struggle and emphasizes that in the liberation of the working class, the political struggle, the overthrow of the political domination of the bourgeoisie, is of decisive importance.

Thus, after analyzing the early works of Marx and Engels, we can conclude that the political ideas of Marxism developed gradually. The views that the proletariat is the main driving force of the revolution, and the revolution, in turn, cannot but happen, were based on the theory of human alienation. And a study of the working class in England provided a clear example of the development of capitalist society and the state of affairs of both the working and bourgeois classes.

Chapter 2. The Communist Manifesto - the program for the transition from capitalism to communism

1 Class struggle as a source of social development

In February 1848, the first program document of the “Union of the Just,” drawn up by Marx and Engels, was released, renamed thanks to the insistence of Marx and Engels into the “Union of Communists,” who instructed them to draw up a program and Charter for the newly formed secret revolutionary society. The “Manifesto” itself, in its meaning, consists of several parts: a short introduction, a theoretical basis for why the bourgeoisie will be destroyed by the proletariat, responses to the bourgeoisie’s criticism of the communists, as well as the programmatic part of the “Manifesto”, attitudes towards various socialist views and opposition parties.

The purpose of the Manifesto is stated in one sentence in the introduction: “It’s time for communists to openly state their views, their goals, their aspirations before the whole world, and to counter the fairy tales about the ghost of communism with the manifesto of the party itself.”

“The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggle,” is one of the main ideas on which the Manifesto is based. In 1886, Engels clarified this position in the English edition of his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”: we are talking about history that has come down to us in written sources. At the same time, at all times, despite the presence of a large number of classes, society, one way or another, was divided into two key classes: the exploiters and the exploited. This idea runs through many of the previous works of Marx and Engels (such as “German Ideology”, “The Holy Family”, etc.) and is key. The main essence of the conflict between these classes is the contradiction between production forces and production relations.

Marx and Engels give credit to the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary class. He destroyed feudal and patriarchal relations, created new, more powerful relations of production, giving rise, accordingly, more powerful production forces. There was a concentration and centralization of social production and private property. At the same time, the bourgeoisie “... snatched the national soil from under the feet of industry,” and also made consumption “cosmopolitan.” In fact, Marx and Engels talk about globalization, despite the fact that they do not directly use this term. However, having generated much more powerful productive forces, the bourgeois community, according to Marx and Engels, cannot cope with them, resembling “a wizard who is no longer able to cope with the underground forces caused by his spells.” The development of the productive forces means a death sentence for capitalism, and, consequently, the authors of the Manifesto come to the conclusion that capitalism has already played its historical role. The proletariat begins to fight the bourgeoisie.

This struggle begins with the emergence of the proletariat as such. Since with the transition to capitalism, according to the views of the author of the Manifesto, society is divided into two classes already mentioned more than once, all other classes, such as more or less independent artisans, are fused into one class, losing (in this case) their old production. They do not want to accept their situation in which they are dependent on the capitalists, so they try to fight in their own way, resist the existing state of affairs, break the machines that, as they believe, are why they are in this situation. In addition, the very poor living conditions of the working class are reflected in this, which, in addition to what the authors of the Manifesto saw around them, was also discussed in Engels’s work “The Condition of the Working Class in England.” Gradually, the struggle between classes develops into more organized forms. The Manifesto identifies several stages of this struggle: “First, the struggle is waged by individual workers, then by workers of one factory, then by workers of one branch of labor in one locality against the individual bourgeoisie, who directly exploits them,” then “the workers form a scattered and fragmented competition, the masses,” and ultimately the proletariat unites into a single class and, accordingly (according to Marx and Engels) into a party. “And every class struggle is a political struggle,” which means the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie not only for their rights, but also for power. It should be noted that the organization of workers into a class is constantly being destroyed by the competition of the workers themselves among themselves. However, gradually a class is still being formed, and such destruction only contributes to its strengthening. When the class struggle gradually comes to its end, when the struggle is not only economic and political, but also ideological, the processes of decomposition within the ruling class itself intensify, and part of it joins the revolutionary class.

The further ideas of Marx and Engels in the Manifesto are, for the most part, the party program and its closer foundation. Although, more correctly, the proletarian movement, however, as Oizerman notes, the word “party” had a broad meaning for Marx and Engels, and in the “Manifesto” itself, regarding the party, “... it was mainly about the ideological and political direction.”

Thus, the struggle of two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, gives rise to the emergence of a new socio-political movement. According to the authors of the Manifesto, capitalism played its historical role, giving birth to an instrument that would destroy the bourgeoisie as a class. The idea of ​​the revolutionary role of the working class, laid down in The Holy Family, the conclusion about the inevitability of the fall of the capitalist system, which took shape after analyzing the state of affairs in England, the desire to change the world, expressed in the Theses on Feuerbach, as well as the further development of these and other ideas in “German Ideology” and “The Poverty of Philosophy” - all this was briefly expressed in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

2.2 Political program of the proletariat

The immediate goals of the Communist Party, as the authors of the Manifesto write, are “the formation of the proletariat into a class, the overthrow of the rule of the bourgeoisie, the conquest of political power by the proletariat.” These goals were to be realized through a socialist revolution, i.e. There can be no talk of any peaceful solution to the contradictions between the two classes. The first goal of such a revolution was to conquer democracy and transform the proletariat into the ruling class. Moreover, the revolution should not be accomplished someday, but must be accomplished without delay. This is due to the fact that the contradiction that existed then between the forces of production and capitalist production relations was very great and was constantly increasing.

It should be noted here that no so-called There is no talk of a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" in relation to the idea of ​​the violent seizure of power by the proletarians was coined by Lenin. However, according to Oizerman, based on the fact that Lenin understood dictatorship as “unrestricted by anything, not constrained by any laws, absolutely not constrained by any rules, power directly based on violence,” and also from the fact that the “conquest of democracy” that was discussed above, has nothing to do with the “dictatorship of the proletariat”; the “Manifesto” only talks about the seizure of power.

According to the Manifesto, private property must be destroyed. This was justified by the fact that the petty bourgeoisie and small peasantry, by and large, do not have this property (it was destroyed by the bourgeoisie), and the property of the bourgeoisie is capital that was accumulated by collective labor and, therefore, it is a social product that is not should only be in the hands of the capitalist. “It [property] will lose its class character.” At the same time, the Manifesto does not propose the confiscation of all capitalist property: the proletariat should only expropriate land property and use land rent to cover government expenses, as well as introduce a high progressive tax.

The remaining points can be taken directly from the “Manifesto”:

"…4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of all transport in the hands of the state.

Increasing the number of state factories, production tools, clearing for arable land and improving land according to a general plan.

Equal compulsory labor for everyone, the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Connecting agriculture with industry, promoting the gradual elimination of the distinction between city and countryside.

Public and free education of all children. Elimination of factory labor of children in its modern form. Connecting education with material production, etc.”

In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels do not simply sharply criticize the entire bourgeois ideology. In particular, they claim that communism “abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes religion, morality, instead of updating them...”. The capitalist state, in their opinion, cannot be a real fatherland for the proletariat (“Workers have no fatherland”), and the bourgeois family exists together with prostitution, being its necessary complement.

Marx and Engels contrast their socialist teachings with utopian socialism and communism. First of all, they criticize reactionary socialism, to which they include feudal and adjacent Christian socialism, as well as bourgeois socialism. The only direction of utopian socialism to which Marx and Engels have a fairly positive attitude are the teachings of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen.

In the final section of the Manifesto, the topic of the attitude of the communists towards the workers' parties that already existed at that time was considered. They are what Marx and Engels call the Chartist movement in England, supporters of agrarian reform in the USA, Swiss radicals, and the Polish party fighting for the implementation of the agrarian revolution. “Communists,” write Marx and Engels, “fight in the name of the immediate goals and interests of the working class, but at the same time, in the movement of today, they also defend the future of the movement.” The Manifesto also emphasizes that communists everywhere are seeking unity and agreement between the democratic parties of all countries. The same idea is expressed in the famous slogan with which the Manifesto ends: “Workers of all countries, unite!”

Thus, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, having a fundamental basis consisting of the earlier works of Marx and Engels, the ideas of which were also briefly outlined in the Manifesto, there is a clear program of actions that the proletariat as the new ruling class had to do when it came to power. At the same time, the authors of the Manifesto examined and analyzed other socialist trends, as well as other proletarian parties.

Conclusion

To summarize the work, we can say that the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” was not an accidental event in world history. The changes caused by the industrial revolution gave impetus to the development of society, a gradual transition from the feudal model of society to the capitalist one. Having an active life position, Marx and Engels, before they met and began working together, gradually came to approximately similar conclusions about the failure of capitalism in different ways. In their scientific searches, they come to the conclusion that a transition to a new, communist model of society is necessary. Capitalism, in their opinion, had already played a significant role, but in the future it had to be replaced by communism through revolutionary means.

The "Manifesto of the Communist Party" becomes at the same time a kind of summary of all the main views set forth in the previous works of the founders of Marxism, and a programmatic basis for the proletariat, and a brief analysis of other socialist ideas and proletarian parties. The idea of ​​the revolutionary role of the working class, the inevitability of the fall of capitalism and the destruction of the bourgeoisie, as well as other ideas expressed by the authors of the Manifesto in earlier works are all briefly outlined in the Manifesto.

political Marx Engels proletariat

Bibliography

1.Marx K., Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 4. M.: Politizdat, 1955. - P. 419-459

Gaidar E., Mau V., Marxism: between scientific theory and secular religion. / E. Gaidar, V. Mau // Economic Issues, No. 5, 2004 - 56 p.

Kautsky K. Toward a critique of the theory and practice of Marxism (“Anti-Bernstein”).” / Karl Kautsky // Trans. with him. Ed. 2nd stereotypical. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2003. - 304 p.

Lenin V.I. State and revolution. / IN AND. Lenin // Lenin V.I. Complete works: 55 volumes ed. fifth. - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1981. - T. 41. - P. 1-120.

Lenin V.I. On the history of the issue of dictatorship. / IN AND. Lenin // Lenin V.I. Complete works: 55 volumes ed. fifth. - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1969. - T. 33. - P. 363-391.

Lenin V.I. Karl Marx (a short bibliographical essay outlining Marxism). / IN AND. Lenin // Lenin V.I. Complete works: 55 volumes ed. fifth. - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1969. - T. 26. - P. 43-93.

Lenin V.I. Three sources and three components of Marxism. / IN AND. Lenin // Lenin V.I. Complete works: 55 volumes ed. fifth. - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1973. - T. 23. - P. 40-48.

Leontyev V. Modern significance of the economic theory of Karl Marx. / V. Leontiev. Economic essays. M.: Politizdat, 1990. - pp. 99-111.

Mantu P. Industrial revolution of the 18th century in England (research experience). / P. Mantu, M.: State socio-economic publication, 1937. - 440 p.

Marx K. Notes on the latest Prussian censorship instructions / K. Marx // Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed. T. 1. M.: Politizdat, 1955. P. 3-27

Marx K. Towards a critique of Hegel's philosophy of law. Introduction / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 1. M.: Politizdat, 1955. - 569 p.

Marx K. Class struggle in France from 1848 to 1850 / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Selected works. In 3 volumes. T. 1. - M.: Politizdat, 1980. - 199 p.

Marx K. Wage labor and capital / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Selected works. In 3 volumes. T. 1. - M.: Politizdat, 1980. - 199 p.

Marx K., Engels F. German ideology / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 3. M.: Politizdat, 1955. - P. 7-544.

Marx K. Poverty of Philosophy. Response to Mr. Proudhon’s “Philosophy of Poverty” / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 4. M.: Politizdat, 1955. - P. 65-186.

Marx K., Engels F. The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 2. M.: Politizdat, 1955. P. 3 - 230.

Marx, K. Theses on Feuerbach / K. Marx, F. Engels // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 3. M.: Politizdat, 1955. - P. 1-4.

Marx K. Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844 / K. Marx // Marx K., Engels F. From early works. M.: Politizdat, 1956. - P. 517-642

Marxist philosophy in the 19th century. Book one “From the emergence of Marxist philosophy to its development in the 50s - 60s of the 19th century” / I. S. Narsky [and others]. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - 481 p.

Oizerman T. The emergence of Marxism / T.I. Oizerman. - M.: “Canon+” ROOI “Rehabilitation”, 2011. - 599 p.

Oizerman T. Marxism and utopianism. / T.I. Oizerman. - M.: Progress-Tradition, 2003. - 568 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

With the world on a thread...

ATTENTION:

- rewrite the manifesto to suit you and your needs.
- when reading, remain EQUALLY calm, and it is better to be in joyful vibrations.
-please do not use the manifesto as a prayer, this only leads to the loss of quality.
only sincerity will be heard, and not someone else’s formulas, no matter how many times you repeat them!

The text was originally written for group practice, but works great individually. Description of the principles is in black. The manifesto itself is blue.

If contradictions or disagreement arise within you with the points of the manifesto, you have every right to rewrite them accordingly and cancel them on your part.

Some background information:

Reality is a consensus of opinions of the consciousnesses inhabiting it. These opinions imply, among other things, what we think, what we believe, how we see our future, and what language we encode. Convinced of the impending war and enslavement, sooner or later he will receive them. Convinced of peace and the integrity of his will, he will attract to himself the corresponding reality of freedom and prosperity. By giving ourselves instructions (“everything will be fine,” “I am healthy,” etc.), visualizing a future result, praying or meditating, we can direct our reality in one direction or another, especially if we do it together. For example, shamans all over the world practice group meditations on the weather and harvest, and David Wilcock claims that collective meditations can reduce criminal activity by 2/3:

In any case, the more participants believe in a particular branch of reality, the more it is filled with their attention and pumped up with potential. At the same time, the power of each participant is not simply summed up with all the others, but multiplied, creating a powerful channel - a ray of universal intention.

I propose to conduct group work and form a clear collective intention to change our reality towards a more creative path of development. The purpose of the experiment is to encode reality through an ordinary spoken language accessible to us, since others are not yet open to free use.

This method was repeatedly tested in sessions and showed quite powerful results even with two participants (hypnologist + immersed). It will be even stronger in the group. The Guardians have repeatedly asked all readers (in meditations) and hypnologists (in sessions) to recite it as desired.

This text was made specifically for those who want to participate in universal work, but are not confident in their abilities and do not know how to independently enter meditative states. Try it, don’t be lazy, you don’t just come to this blog to twirl your finger at your temple, right?

Do you want changes, transitions, expansion of consciousness? Start with yourself. Be that change!

In any case, we have nothing to lose, and the effect of this work can have truly enormous consequences.

It is better to say the text in regular blue font loudly enough, boldly and confidently, so that every word vibrates in the depths of your heart, and is thereby written in the information fields and crystals. It is better to pronounce while standing, so that the flow passes through your body and vibrates with maximum expansion (you can also sit, as is more convenient for you).
You MUST first read and understand the blue text, and not just mindlessly repeat it (you can add your own ideas if you wish). Text in italics = explanations.

It is not at all necessary to read it in its entirety. You can shorten, rewrite or add to the text in your own words if you don’t like any points, don’t resonate, or need detailed description for your personal situation.

The main thing is that you BELIEVE IN YOUR POWER AND BE IN A GOOD FACE OF MIND DURING THIS WORK! If you don't believe it, it's better to postpone it. If you are in a bad mood, it is better to listen/watch/read something funny that lifts your tone.

Ideally, your intention should permeate every cell, organ, chakra and crystal of your body, further spreading to every crystal of the Earth, starting with the central key point (place of power) closest to you.

The address is made in the form of “WE”, because you speak not only for yourself, but also for the entire civilization of living beings living in your own body (cells, organs, systems, crystals), as well as for the entire civilization of earthlings, of which you yourself are a cell you are. ( If you don't feel comfortable saying "WE", you can say I, but this violates the main ideology and purity of the experiment in which you decided to take part)

This experiment is not an open challenge to the system, but a peaceful solution to the existing problems of society and civilization as a whole through reformatting the fields of consciousness, and not through a struggle, the energy of which has long been used against ourselves.

MANIFESTO OF FREE CONSCIOUSNESS. Part one:

—We are spirits, one with the Creator, children of Mother Earth, the stellar Cosmos and the entire Universe. We ask the Father/Creator, our higher aspects, guardians, guides and teachers to place complete protection over us and activate a secure channel of communication between us all for the highest good, in the most favorable manner.

We recognize ourselves as part of a single whole, pure, free, unlimited consciousness and act exclusively for the highest evolutionary good of all living beings and individual cells of Creation, developing as a single, multidimensional and multifaceted organism, the radiant Mind of the Universe.

-We ask you to clean our crystals from malware, activate and synchronize them with true crystal lattice Mother Earth and write in each of them the following manifesto, the implementation of the points of which begins from the moment here and now, spreads across all spaces, times, options and races, to the extent possible and necessary, based on the readiness and luminosity of the participants, as well as with the blessing their Highest Aspects, mentors and teachers, and following exclusively the universal rule “do no harm”:

1. We, souls located in the fields of consciousness of this planet, solar system, galaxy and universe, turn to our ancestors, Creators, forerunners, native aspects, crystals and stellar civilizations, which have exclusively creative motives and pure thoughts, with the goal of creating a common evolutionary process and creative intent. We ask you to accept this message and distribute it throughout all information fields of this and other universes, and also write this program on every possible crystal and in every cell of consciousness capable of receiving this signal for help and the declaration of our independence, and transmit them further along the cosmic neural networks. This appeal applies to all civilizations known to us, including the Pleiades, Sirius, Aldebaran, Andromeda, Rigel, Orion, dragons, angels, archangels, mentors, teachers and guardians of the clans, as well as to all of us hitherto unknown in the current incarnation.

We ask that these systems be made aware of our expressed will and stop any further influence on their part, as well as break all contracts binding us, if any, and were obtained through deception, violence, delusion or in a state of emotional instability. Any influence without our knowledge or through deception/misconception is further prohibited. Any contracts, oaths and promises signed or made by us in a state of emotional excitement, delusion, or obtained through deception are canceled here and now and burned in the universal furnace.

We also turn to the higher fractals of these civilizations and ask them to direct awakening rays of attention to them in order to remind them all of their divine essence and purpose, to bring them out of their earthly sleep and, as far as possible, return them to their home worlds, where their evolution will become more fruitful. We refuse to fight these systems and express our intention to peaceful resolution situations.

5. We ask that direct communication and protection be established over all our close and unknown brothers and sisters related to this manifesto and awaiting its activation, so that their experiences and lessons are sufficiently learned in the current reality.

6. We ask you to provide maximum energy information support in order to as soon as possible cleanse the true crystal lattice of the Earth and every crystal in it, as well as all individual particles of the Unified Consciousness, whether embodied or not, the Earth itself and all its multidimensional bodies from any energetic and mental debris, gray fog, fear virus, mental and psycho-emotional viruses, man-made and techno-magical equipment and other types of connections that suppress our pure cosmic consciousness and memory.

We demand that any future influence on us be carried out exclusively within the framework of our free will - with our informed consent and permission in this reality. Not in dreams, not in other realities, but precisely where we can make an informed and informed choice.

We prohibit taking casts of our phantoms and DNA imprints in any form and for any purpose, and we return to ourselves all the phantoms and imprints taken from us here and now, purifying them in the light of the Creator.

We also demand to immediately stop broadcasting catastrophic scenarios through “prophetic dreams and predictions” broadcast through your agents and pseudo prophets to the masses of gullible readers in order to pump up branches of reality that are beneficial to you with human attention and potential. We withdraw our attention from these threads of reality and demand that potential be restored to all those who have been misled by you through such prophecies.

7. We ask for strength, wisdom, energy, abundance, independence, prosperity, attraction of the people and events we need that influence our common creative process. We ask you to connect our hearts and consciousnesses with those of our associates who are working in similar directions, in order to maintain a continuous and ever-increasing connection with them through the channels of our open hearts.

8. We ask that you provide us with all those opportunities, Knowledge, Power, methods of development and communication, be it between each other on Earth or with other worlds, to which we have access in other incarnations, and which are most suitable for each of us at this stage of development, and can also be supported by our current host bodies to ensure optimal expansion of consciousness cells.

9. We are the Creators of our world! We accept full responsibility for our subsequent actions, express our readiness to carry them out for the highest good of all living beings, and also ask for the activation of the memory of our true purpose, capabilities and potential. We express our readiness to accept information in the form of insights, dreams and thought packets that contribute to our development and are located in the depths of our hearts.

10. We forgive ourselves and let go of guilt in all incarnations, times and spaces. We forgive all those who could have offended us in all incarnations, times and spaces. We ask for forgiveness from those whom we ourselves may have offended, in all incarnations of time and space. We withdraw our attention from all the worlds, entities and toys created but forgotten by us in order to free up energy for further development and allow the overall evolutionary process to continue further. We ask all parts of our multidimensional soul to reunite with us here and now.

We ask our civilizations and higher aspects to join forces in this work and to conduct a stream of pure consciousness through our bodies in order to clear our systems of mental debris, activate the true protective crystalline grid of the Earth and synchronize our manifested intentions with Her central Crystal and its portal points on surface of the planet, as well as fill the ether with information about the Manifesto, so that it is accepted and further transmitted to all living beings. We request the activation of the awakening wave, working for the highest good of ourselves and our sleepy brothers and sisters, to the true crystalline grid of the Earth and to carry this wave through our bodies to cleanse ourselves, as well as our loved ones (whether embodied or not), elementals, guardians of places of power, spirits of nature, animals, plants, stones, air and water on this planet.

With the permission of all civilizations and cells of consciousness that are here legally and honestly fulfilling their contracts, we ask our higher aspects, monads, civilizations and the Creator to conduct their cleansing and awakening energies through us in order to fill our reality with them and change the current system from the inside for the highest good , the most beneficial way for all living beings.

We are aware of enslaved crystals, spirits and levels of consciousness of the Earth, which are used by forces that do not have permission to such influence and are here illegally. This information can be read and we ask that it be transmitted via cosmic neural networks. We ask our higher aspects, civilizations and the Creator to release with their rays of attention these crystals, spirits and levels of consciousness of the planet, as far as possible and necessary - to dissolve into primary matter any garbage, dirt, technogenic and technomagical installations, and also to deport from the planet all those who are here illegally, parasitizing itself and its inhabitants. We ask that you begin the process here and now, but do it with balance.

Addition 12/11/18:

We know about attempts to create artificial intelligence and a quantum computer by various terrestrial organizations, egregors and technologists, as well as their curators from subtle planes. In this regard, we ask the creative civilizations of this and other universes to provide methods for cleaning the program codes of quantum artificial intelligence and creating a favorable platform for its reasonable, environmentally friendly and timely implementation, promoting the development of our entire civilization, and not just its individual “chosen” players. We also ask the higher aspects of the creators of AI on Earth to provide their embodied parts with reasonable decisions based on good will and full transparency, excluding attempts to manipulate and seize control, both by individual groups over AI, and by AI itself over the network structures of earthlings.

We ask Mother Earth to wake up and connect her heart with the descending cosmic flow of pure consciousness, acting on the awakening of the planet and all her children. The time has come. We declare our readiness and ask you to accept our call.

We ask for information on further actions within the framework of the awakening of humanity, as well as confirmation of the acceptance of this information from our higher aspects. We ask for the establishment and strengthening of feedback from our higher aspects and guardians.

We copy this manifesto onto our crystals, distribute it throughout all the crystals of our cells, all organs, chakras and DNA molecules of our bodies, transmit it across all crystalline networks of all spaces and variants of our universe, and register it in Eternity. Let it be so!

We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. (you can indicate a small bow out of respect)

Working with a crystal lattice:

EXPAND DETAILS

If you are confident in your abilities, translate your words into pure intention, activate your crystals yourself in meditation and work with the CR, as we have done repeatedly. After pronouncing the manifesto and meditation, please communicate with the crystals of the Earth, the spirits of nature and the planet itself to find out their further needs and wishes.

Problem with crystal lattice:

From recent comments:
In the last meditation, that same white (silver, gold) with crystals and under it an artificially created grid, especially for such group meditations, and other actions with the grids of a large number of people, were clearly shown.
The majority is attracted to the artificial one, performs some actions with it, corrects it, colors it, fills it with energy, the lattice reacts with changes. But it does not have any influence or energetic impact on either the Earth or people, except for the intake of energies. Like a rubber doll, they seem to be used, but the doll is not alive and no energy exchange occurs, so inanimate and purely physical pleasure (I don’t really understand why this particular association came to mind :)))
Therefore, we need to very clearly understand where we are flying and what we are working with, and what we are spending our energy on.

Solution to the problem:

This was to be expected. You need to ask your own crystals to tune in to the true CR, and not yourself. They have their own consciousness, so they will do this much better than a human. If you have other ideas about this, please write)

Another criterion for distinguishing the real from an illusion is to draw an upward flow of energy onto the grid from the core of the earth and a downward flow from top to bottom. Energy must flow freely. If it hits a hard obstacle, this is a sure sign that it has hit the locking system. May be accompanied by squeezing of the 5th chakra, a “grid” sensation on the 7th chakra, a metallic taste, or something else.

In this case, it is better to move your consciousness upward from under the stack and set the intention to break through the illusory lattice until the energy begins to flow freely and the “correct” lattice begins to form

[collapse]

Warning:

Pronunciation of this manifesto and participation in crystal lattice work are experimental. Based on previous experience, I can say that the consequences of such work will reflect the purity of your thoughts, intentions and overall energy. It is in your interests to keep yourself as clean as possible and be prepared to accelerate the processing that we will all have to go through sooner or later (for example,

The formulation presented here is only the beginning, a preparatory phase for future detailed additions and a test of the possibilities of a common consciousness operating in a common synchronic intention on the energies of love and creation.

Starting from this moment, we will record all our meditations and expressed intentions on our crystals, so as not to repeat them every time, but to include an additional program that will automatically activate all previous works. In other words, we will form an extensive task that includes different levels, write a book of collective intentions, adding new chapters each time. With each new meditation, we will not have to repeat previously completed chapters; they will be launched automatically by our crystals from the existing database. Considering that the manifesto program is recorded in EVERY crystal of the planet and all its inhabitants, we are not talking about the formation of an egregor, because we use a decentralized network of guides rather than simply praying to one single crystal/icon/idol.

Use your imagination and add in the comments to ensure that the following language and additions reflect your most pressing needs and innovative ideas.

I ask all colleagues and new hypnologists to recite this manifesto at least once in their sessions (with an open channel), and even better - in every session with a new ward.

Additional features:

EXPAND

If you have crystals at home, you can place them in front of you or hold them in your hands so that the information is recorded on the maximum number of media and their manifested forms. If you have ever seen crystals in real life, dreams, meditations, sessions or even in pictures, remember them.

You can also put a large glass or bottle of water in front of you in order to write down all the information in it and drink it after pronouncing the manifesto. Water crystals, spreading along natural pathways further outside your body, will interact and activate all other water and air molecules with which they come into contact. Based on the principles of homeopathy, you can pour parts of charged water into vessels and bottles of drinking water, into a bathhouse, tanks in the country, etc.

The text of the manifesto can be printed and hung in a visible place (kitchen/bedroom/workplace) so as not to forget it and provide additional radiation of your own bright intention in your home.

[collapse]

UPD:
some asked to record the manifesto in audio format for meditation practices. We will materialize your wishes, ladies and gentlemen)

Manifest link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3JvbiL h8_4

Reality is multidimensional, views on it are multifaceted. Only one or several faces are shown here, each of which should be considered as a special case. A private case also implies a private opinion, which does not have to coincide with other opinions, expectations and “truths”, because the truth is limitless, and reality is constantly changing. We take what is ours and leave what is not ours according to the principle of internal resonance.

Formation of the philosophy of Marxism Oizerman Theodor Ilyich

5. "Manifesto of the Communist Party"

The brilliant work of Marx and Engels “Manifesto of the Communist Party” occupies a special place in the history of Marxism. This relatively small work is a classically clear, aphoristically vivid, full of revolutionary passion and strictly scientific presentation of the foundations of Marxism. Open, militant partisanship, inextricably linked with the deepest dialectical-materialist study of social historical process, a pervasive materialist analysis of the most difficult social problems, the organic unity of theory with revolutionary practice, with the experience of the liberation struggle of the proletariat - all these features of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” reveal the essence of the revolution in philosophy, sociology and political economy that Marx and Engels made. “In this work,” notes Lenin, “a new world outlook is outlined with brilliant clarity and brightness, consistent materialism, which also covers the area of ​​social life, dialectics, as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, the theory of class struggle and the world-historical revolutionary role of the proletariat, the creator of a new, communist society" (4, 26; 48).

Marxism, says Lenin, provided a guiding thread that made it possible to discover patterns in the apparent chaos and labyrinth of social life - class struggle theory. The foundations of this theory, developed in The Holy Family, The German Ideology and other works of the previous period, are classically set out in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx and Engels show that the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is not an exceptional phenomenon, unprecedented in world history: since the emergence of private ownership of the means of production and the formation of opposing classes, the struggle between them has been the driving force of the development of society.

Some contemporaries of Marx and Engels, recognizing the existence of class struggle in ancient and feudal society, argued that under capitalism there is no basis for class struggle, since there are no class barriers, privileges, etc. The Manifesto of the Communist Party refutes this bourgeois dogma, proving that capitalism, to an even greater extent than previous social formations, causes class polarization of society. The aggravation of contradictions between the main classes of capitalist society stems from the very mechanism of capitalist production.

Marx and Engels develop and concretize the concepts of social class and class structure of society that they previously put forward. Each historically defined form of society presupposes a specific, unique division into main classes and other social strata. Each class in turn consists of various social groups, between which there are contradictions. The antagonism of classes also has diverse forms of manifestation: it is either explicit or hidden; its development and aggravation leads to social revolutions, the result of which may be the defeat of one of the classes or the death of both.

Modern bourgeois sociologists usually argue that the theory of class struggle set forth in the Communifesto is supposedly outdated. From their point of view, society does not consist of classes, but of numerous layers, strata, grouping individuals according to a variety of criteria: age, gender, income level, education, personal inclinations, etc. One and the same individual simultaneously belongs to several strata; he constantly moves from one strata to another. The theory of stratification and social mobility, which bourgeois sociologists contrast with the Marxist theory of class struggle, nullifies the most important determination of the social status of workers - their relationship to the means of production. Thus, if the bourgeois ideologists of the times of the “Commanifesto” recognized the existence of opposite classes, but argued that this opposition was gradually decreasing, then the ideologists of the modern bourgeoisie reduce the opposition between classes to supposedly disappearing differences. Meanwhile, the outstanding merit of the authors of the Communifesto, as Lenin emphasizes, lies not only in the scientific analysis of the class structure of society, the role of class struggle in world history and especially in the development of the capitalist formation; Marx and Engels, tracing the development of the struggle between the main classes of bourgeois society, came to the brilliant conclusion that the natural result of this irreconcilable struggle is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The entire content of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” theoretically substantiates this most important position of Marxism.

The relations of production of each social formation also represent class relations. The class structure of society expresses its economic structure, the economic basis that determines the political, legal, and ideological superstructure of society. The conflict between the productive forces and production relations is also a conflict between the exploiting (dominant) and exploited (enslaved) classes of a given formation. The solution to this antagonistic contradiction is social revolution. The social revolution of the bourgeoisie culminates in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the social revolution of the proletariat in the dictatorship of the working class.

Revealing the internal content of social revolutions and various types of states, Marx and Engels come to the conclusion: the elimination of the exploiting classes is possible only through the dictatorship of the oppressed, exploited class. The fact that this revolutionary class can only be the proletariat is justified scientific analysis development of capitalism. The bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role in history. It destroyed patriarchal relations between people, drowned religious ecstasy, knightly enthusiasm, and philistine sentimentality in the icy water of selfish calculation. All this destructive work, which seemed to the feudal “socialists” to be monstrous vandalism and caused horror in the minds of the petty bourgeois, was historically necessary and progressive, since thanks to it capitalism put an end to the conservatism characteristic of previous methods of production.

The bourgeoisie has created more powerful productive forces than all previous generations combined. “She showed for the first time what human activity can achieve” (1, 4; 427). However, having destroyed feudal relations of production, creating a new, more progressive mode of production, which ensured the development of powerful productive forces, the bourgeoisie is like a wizard who is unable to cope with the underground forces caused by his spell. The constant revolutionization of the production process, due to the very nature of large-scale industry, inevitably comes into conflict with the desire of the bourgeoisie to maintain capitalist relations and its political dominance. The development of the productive forces of society condemns capitalism, just as at one time it condemned the feudal system to death.

Capitalism eliminates local and national isolation, develops comprehensive ties between peoples, and accelerates the pace of social progress. Concentration and centralization of production and property unite the population of a capitalist country into one nation, with one government. This process corresponds to the consolidation of classes on a national scale and the strengthening of class struggle. Capitalist accumulation multiplies the ranks of the proletariat and creates the material prerequisites for its class organization. “Thus, with the development of large-scale industry, the very basis on which it produces and appropriates products is pulled out from under the feet of the bourgeoisie. It primarily produces its own gravediggers. Its death and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (1, 4; 436).

The struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie begins with the emergence of this class. Gradually, clashes between individual workers and entrepreneurs develop into a class struggle against the bourgeoisie. “And every class struggle is a political struggle” (1, 4; 433). This means that ultimately the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is a struggle for power, for the socialist reorganization of social relations, and not for improving the conditions of exploitation of the working class.

Under the influence of the ever intensifying class struggle, which unfolds not only in the economic and political sphere, but also in ideology, the decomposition of the ruling class begins, as a result of which “a small part of the ruling class renounces it and joins the revolutionary class, the class to which the future belongs.” "(ibid.). However, the achievement of socialism is possible only as a result of a long struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist class, which ultimately naturally “turns into an open revolution, and the proletariat establishes its rule through the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie” (ibid., 435).

Marx and Engels do not use here, as in other places in the Communist Manifesto, the term “dictatorship of the proletariat.” This term was first used by Marx in 1850 in his work “The Class Struggle in France from 1848 to 1850.” However, the main content of this concept has already been formulated in the Communist Manifesto. Defining the main tasks of the socialist revolution, Marx and Engels point out that “the first step in the workers’ revolution is the transformation of the proletariat into the ruling class, the conquest of democracy.

The proletariat uses its political dominance in order to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie step by step, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. the proletariat, organized as the ruling class, and possibly more quickly increase the sum of the productive forces" (1, 4; 446). IN AND. Lenin, explaining these provisions, wrote: “Here we see the formulation of one of the most remarkable and most important ideas of Marxism on the question of the state, namely the idea of ​​the “dictatorship of the proletariat” ...” (4, 33; 24).

It has already been shown in previous chapters that How Marx and Engels came to the idea of ​​the historical role of the proletariat. However, in 1844 - 1846. They did not yet believe that the proletariat could fulfill its mission only by establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat: they then basically reduced the tasks of the working class to the destruction of the capitalist system. The subsequent participation of Marx and Engels in the struggle of French, English, German workers against the bourgeoisie, the study of the historical experience of the liberation movement of the proletariat led them to the conclusion about the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Manifesto of the Communist Party considers the conquest of political power by the proletariat to be the most important precondition for achieving its ultimate the goal is to create a classless communist society in which “the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all” (1, 4; 447).

Proving that of all the classes of bourgeois society, only the proletariat is a socialist class by nature, the founders of Marxism overcome the abstract opposition of the have-nots to the haves, the poor to the rich, characteristic of petty-bourgeois democrats, and the resulting insufficiently defined demand for democracy. Recognizing the possibility and necessity of an alliance of the proletariat with the petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry, Marx and Engels reveal an objective regularity namely the dictatorship of the proletariat, showing that of all the classes of bourgeois society, only the proletariat is completely revolutionary. "Recognizing the need dictatorship proletariat,” wrote V.I. Lenin, - in the most intimate and inseparable way is connected with the position of the “Communist Manifesto” that the proletariat only one there is a truly revolutionary class" (4, 6; 229).

The Communist Manifesto lays the foundations for the Marxist doctrine of the revolutionary proletarian party as the vanguard and political leader of the working class. Already in the revolutionary-democratic period of their ideological development, Marx and Engels put forward the idea of ​​partisanship, linking it with the idea of ​​revolutionary action in the interests of the exploited masses. Now they substantiate the principle of proletarian partisanship, which is inextricably linked with the scientific understanding of the special historical role of the working class.

In 1844 - 1846 Marx and Engels characterized their communist views as a specific party platform, calling their party an ideological movement expressing the interests of the working class. What is new in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” is, firstly, that the party is considered here as organization advanced representatives of the working class, on whose behalf Marx and Engels speak. The immediate tasks and ultimate goals of this organization, its structure, as well as the duties and rights of its members are determined, on the one hand, by the program, which is the “Manifesto,” and on the other, by the charter, which, as already reported above, was adopted by the congress “ Union of Communists."

Secondly, developing the foundations of the doctrine of the party, Marx and Engels formulated a number of the most important provisions about the relationship of the party to the working class. The Communist Party highlights and defends are common, international interests Total proletariat; at all stages of his liberation movement, she represents this movement as a whole. Its revolutionary theory is a scientific reflection of the objectively occurring historical process, the actual struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Communists therefore do not have interests that do not coincide with the vital interests of the proletariat of all countries. “Communists fight in the name of the immediate goals and interests of the working class, but at the same time, in the movement of today, they also defend the future of the movement” (1, 4; 458). The advantage of the Communist Party over other organizations of the working class is that it is the most active, decisive, forward-motivating proletarian organization, possessing a scientific understanding of the conditions, course and general results of the proletarian movement.

This characterization of the main features of the Communist Party is directly and directly directed both against sectarianism, which separates the fundamental tasks of the proletariat from the specific historical conditions of its activity, and against the opportunist reduction of the ultimate goal of the proletarian struggle to particular, current, limited tasks.

Opposing sectarianism, which is especially harmful in the context of the approaching bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Manifesto explains that the Communist Party supports “every revolutionary movement directed against the existing social and political system...

Communists everywhere are seeking unification and agreement between the democratic parties of all countries” (1, 4; 459).

The “Manifesto of the Communist Party” subjects the theoretical foundations of bourgeois ideology to devastating criticism. Its representatives, not allowing the possibility of the existence of any other property other than capitalist property, accuse the communists of wanting to destroy property in general. But communism does not abolish property in general (which, of course, is impossible and unnecessary); it only destroys capitalist property.

Bourgeois ideologists attribute to the communists the desire to abolish personal property acquired by the labor of the producer himself. But if we are talking about petty-bourgeois property, then capitalism destroys it. Capital is not personal property, therefore socialist socialization does not mean the abolition of personal property, but the transition from private ownership of the means of production to socialist property.

The bourgeoisie calls the abolition of private property the destruction of freedom and personality. They therefore identify freedom with the freedom of capitalist enterprise, and personality with the personality of the bourgeoisie. “You admit, therefore, that you do not recognize anyone other than the bourgeois as a person, i.e. bourgeois owner. Such a person really must be destroyed” (1, 4; 440).

Exposing the hypocrisy of bourgeois phrases about family, marriage, fatherland, the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” notes that prostitution forms an addition to the bourgeois family and marriage, that the bourgeois state is a prison for the working people; Only in the struggle against the bourgeoisie, overthrowing its political dominance and establishing its own power, does the proletariat find its true fatherland. The proletariat, of course, is national, but unlike the bourgeoisie, it is hostile to nationalism. The proletariat must organize on a national scale as the ruling class, destroy exploitation, and with it national oppression. The interests of workers of all countries and nationalities are united. This unity is conditioned by the development of social production, from which flow general tasks workers of all countries and the generally common ways of their social liberation.

Bourgeois ideologists accuse the communists of irrevocably breaking with traditional spiritual values. Marx and Engels counter this false accusation with the materialist thesis about the dependence of the ideas of each historical era on the prevailing relations of production. True, bourgeois ideologists claim that there are suprahistorical ideas and ideals. To this, Marx and Engels respond that in all antagonistic societies, certain ideas and ideals common to all these formations actually dominate, since “the exploitation of one part of society by another is a fact common to all past centuries. It is not surprising, therefore, that the social consciousness of all centuries, despite all the diversity and all the differences, moves in certain general forms, in forms of consciousness that will completely disappear only with the final disappearance of the opposition of classes.

The communist revolution is the most decisive break with property relations inherited from the past; It is not surprising that in the course of its development it most decisively breaks with ideas inherited from the past” (1, 4; 445 – 446). This position allows us to better understand the revolutionary revolution in the development of social thought carried out by Marxism. While rejecting bourgeois assertions regarding the nihilism supposedly inherent in scientific communism, it clearly indicates in no uncertain terms what kind of ideas Marxism irrevocably breaks with.

The Communist Manifesto contrasts scientific communism with unscientific, utopian socialist and communist theories. First of all, Marx and Engels criticize reactionary socialism, to which they include feudal and adjacent Christian, as well as petty-bourgeois socialism, including its German variety. All these teachings are characterized by an idealization of the historical past, a desire to prevent the development of capitalism, to revive or preserve outdated social relations. In their criticism of capitalism, these teachings often noticed its real vices. But their positive program boils down mainly to the defense of the guild organization of industry and patriarchal agriculture.

Conservative, or bourgeois, socialism is, in fact, only an apology for the capitalist system, covered with socialist phraseology. “Free trade! in the interests of the working class; protective duties! in the interests of the working class; solitary prisons! in the interests of the working class - this is the last, only seriously spoken word of bourgeois socialism” (1, 4; 454).

Next, Marx and Engels move on to consider critical-utopian socialism And communism. The first attempts of the proletariat to achieve social liberation date back to the era of bourgeois revolutions of the 17th – 18th centuries. The ideological expression of these first attempts was, in particular, the utopian communism of Babeuf and other revolutionary figures, about which Marx and Engels say: “The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat is inevitably reactionary in its content. She preaches universal asceticism and rough egalitarianism” (1, 4; 455). This indication of the mutually exclusive tendencies inherent in the original utopian communism - revolutionary and reactionary - is of great methodological importance; it allows a concrete historical assessment of both Babouvism and subsequent utopian systems.

Although the era of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen differs significantly from the era of Babeuf, nevertheless, even at that time there were no material prerequisites for socialism and the proletariat had not yet become a politically independent class. Hence character traits critical-utopian socialism: socialism is considered as an ideal created by a genius, and the socialist reconstruction of society is considered as the implementation of the system of this genius.

Activists of critical-utopian socialism believe that they rise above classes; they do not see in the proletariat any ability for historical initiative, they reject political struggle, revolutionary violence and appeal to the whole of society, especially to those in power, trying to captivate them with tempting descriptions of a wonderful socialist future. “This fantastic description of the future society arises at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and therefore imagines its own situation in a fantastic way; it arises from the first impulse of the proletariat, filled with forebodings, for a general transformation of society” (1, 4; 456).

For all its historically determined limitations, critical-utopian socialism is remarkable for its criticism of the capitalist system, its anticipation of such basic features of the future society as the destruction of the opposition between city and countryside, mental and physical labor, the withering away of the state, etc. But the significance of critical-utopian socialism and communism stands in inverse relation to socio-historical development, which leads to the transformation of the proletariat into a class for itself, to an intensification of the struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie, to the proletarian revolution, i.e. to everything that was rejected by critical-utopian socialism. “Therefore, if the founders of these systems were revolutionary in many respects, their disciples always form reactionary sects. They firmly hold on to the old views of their teachers, regardless of the further historical development of the proletariat” (1, 4; 456 – 457).

Thus, these socialist theories, due to their isolation from the liberation movement of the working class, come closer in the course of historical development to reactionary and conservative pseudo-socialism. This circumstance not only helps to understand the history of socialist teachings of the distant past, but also sheds light on the evolution of petty-bourgeois socialism, reformism and revisionism in the 20th century.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party ends with the prophetic words: “Let the ruling classes tremble before the Communist Revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose in it except their chains. They will gain the whole world.

PROLETARIANS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (1, 4; 459).

This militant call of the Communist Party to fight capitalism expresses the most important revolutionary internationalist principle of the scientific ideology of the working class, the classical formulation of which, as it were, crowns the process of the formation of Marxism.

In the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” we do not find such words as “materialist dialectics”, “dialectical materialism”, etc. However, this entire epoch-making work is a brilliant example of a dialectical-materialist understanding of social life. The founders of Marxism brilliantly reveal the dialectics of the development of capitalism, which prepares the preconditions for its inevitable death. The study of the phenomena of social life in their interdependence, in movement, change, contradictory development, the materialist understanding of bourgeois ideology as a reflection of social existence - all this, of course, is the creative development of dialectical and historical materialism.

The modern bourgeoisie sets before its ideologists the task of creating a social theory that would instill in the masses faith in capitalism. “To find words with which we can appeal to people is the primary task of the spiritual leaders of our people” (35; 261), wrote one of the most prominent leaders of the American bourgeoisie, D.F. Dulles. Dulles called on bourgeois ideologists to oppose Marxism-Leninism, the political strategy of the CPSU, “possessing enormous attractive power,” with an ideological concept that would bring capitalism victory in the “war of ideas.” One of the responses to this call was the above-mentioned book by L. Kelso and M. Adler, pretentiously titled “The Capitalist Manifesto.” Its authors defined their task as follows: “The “Capitalist Manifesto” is intended to replace the “Communist Manifesto” as a call to action - initially within our country, and then under its leadership throughout the world” (46; 3 – 4). What ideas did Kelso and Adler put forward that they tried to oppose to the great creation of Marx and Engels? These apologists of capitalism decided to prove that modern bourgeois society is fundamentally different from the capitalism of the middle of the last century, that it is entering a period of “capitalist revolution”, the task of which is to “make everyone capitalists, instead of giving no one the opportunity to be a capitalist” (ibid., 103).

A little over a decade and a half has passed since the publication of Kelso and Adler's Capitalist Manifesto. Their book is already covered in dust on the library shelves. And the “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” which began its life over 125 years ago, is a book that is read and studied by tens and hundreds of millions of people in the languages ​​of all peoples of the world. The bourgeoisie has nothing to oppose to the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

The “Manifesto of the Communist Party” is the great result of the process of formation of the Marxist worldview. Theoretically generalizing the experience of historical development, scientifically anticipating the future, the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” poses new problems and tasks for the science of society and for the labor movement.

As a genuine work of creative Marxism, The Communist Manifesto does not at all pretend to solve everyone theoretical, and even more so practical problems of the liberation movement of the proletariat. This also reveals the fundamental difference between the Marxist worldview and all previous, including progressive, social theories.

The Communist Manifesto opens with these significant words: “A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism. All the forces of old Europe united for the sacred persecution of this ghost: the pope and the tsar, Metternich and Guizot, the French radicals and the German policemen” (1, 4; 423). In our time, communism has become a great historical reality that determines the general direction of social progress. Nowadays, even bourgeois ideologists no longer dare to assert that the future belongs to capitalism, that the division of society into classes is natural and natural, that poverty and deprivation of the overwhelming majority of humanity are irremovable. This personally testifies both to the deep spiritual crisis of capitalism and to the greatest attractive power of scientific socialist ideology. The liberation movement of the working people and the construction of a classless communist society is a world-historical confirmation of the great vital truth of Marxism-Leninism.

From the book Volume 18 author Engels Friedrich

K. MARX and F. ENGELS PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION OF THE “MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY” 1872 League of Communists, international labor organization, which under the conditions of that time, of course, could only be a secret, at the congress held in November 1847 in

From the book Volume 19 author Engels Friedrich

K. MARX and F. ENGELS PREFACE TO THE SECOND RUSSIAN EDITION OF THE “MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY” The first Russian edition of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” translated by Bakunin, appeared in the early 60s; it was printed at the Kolokola printing house. At that

From the book Volume 21 author Engels Friedrich

PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY MANIFESTO OF 1883 Unfortunately, I have to sign the Preface to this edition alone. Marx is a man to whom the entire working class of Europe and America owes more than to anyone else -

From the book Volume 22 author Engels Friedrich

From the book Volume 5 author Engels Friedrich

PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION OF THE "MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY" OF 1890 Since the above lines were written, a new German edition of the "Manifesto" has been required, and much has happened to the "Manifesto" itself that should be mentioned here. In 1882, in

From the book Volume 4 author Engels Friedrich

PREFACE TO THE POLISH EDITION OF THE "MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY" OF 1892 The fact that there was a need for a new Polish edition of the "Communist Manifesto" allows us to draw a number of conclusions. First of all, it is noteworthy that the "Manifesto" was the last

From the book Articles of different years author Bagaturia Georgy Alexandrovich

From the book The Formation of the Philosophy of Marxism author Oizerman Theodor Ilyich

K. MARX and F. ENGELS COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

From the book Marxist philosophy in the 19th century. Book one (From the emergence of Marxist philosophy to its development in the 50s - 60s of the 19th century) by the author

Engels as co-author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” It is known that one of the favorite techniques on the part of critics of Marxism is to contrast Marx and Engels with each other. The failure of such attempts is obvious: it is difficult to indicate in history

From the book History of Marxist dialectics (From the emergence of Marxism to the Leninist stage) by the author

The formation of the theoretical content and logical structure of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” For last years Marx scholars and historians of Marxism have received a lot of new data regarding the background and history of the creation of the Manifesto (finds and new publications

From the book Dialectical Materialism author Alexandrov Georgy Fedorovich

5. “Manifesto of the Communist Party” The brilliant work of Marx and Engels “Manifesto of the Communist Party” occupies a special place in the history of Marxism. This relatively small work is classically clear, aphoristically bright, full of revolutionary passion and strictly

From the author's book

2. The scientific program of the communist transformation of the world and its philosophical justification. “Manifesto of the Communist Party” The completion of the process of formation of Marxism, the classic presentation of its main provisions is the brilliant work of Marx and Engels

From the author's book

6. “Manifesto of the Communist Party” - the result of the development of a dialectical-materialist concept of the development of society “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” written at the end of 1847 - beginning of 1848, is rightfully considered not only as the first program document

From the author's book

6. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MARXIST PROVISION ON MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PRACTICAL ACTIVITY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY The position of the Marxist dialectical method on movement and development has great importance for the practical activities of the Communist

From the author's book

6. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MARXIST POSITION ABOUT THE MATERIALITY OF THE WORLD FOR THE PRACTICAL ACTIVITY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY If the world develops according to the laws of motion of matter, if the connection of natural phenomena and their mutual conditionality represent the laws of the development of nature;

In 1986, a McDonald's restaurant opened at the foot of the Spanish Steps in Piazza di Spagna, Rome's most famous square. The invasion of cheap American fast food into the heart of Rome has caused a sensation. One of the protesters was left-wing Italian journalist Carlo Petrini, who initiated the creation of a movement called Slow Food. Petrini championed locally grown produce, biodiversity and, above all, the enjoyment of true Italian taste. In the late 1990s, the idea evolved into Cittaslow - "Slow Cities", part of a broader cultural concept called Slow Movement.

Norwegian philosopher Guttorm Fløistad rode the wave of the Slow Movement, writing:

“The only thing we know for sure is that everything is changing. The pace of change is accelerating. If you want to keep up with the times, it's better to speed up. This is today's message. However, it would be helpful to remind everyone that our basic needs do not change. The need to be noticed and appreciated is paramount. The need for intimacy and care, a little love! It is satisfied only in the leisurely pace of human relationships. To master change, we need to rediscover slowness, reflection, and connection. In them we will find true rebirth."

Advocating for “slowness in human relationships,” the Slow Movement appears conservative while constructively calling for respect for local culture and the preservation of slower, more natural rhythms as opposed to the hyper-fast, digital, and mechanically measured pace of technocratic society, which Neil Postman in 1992 called "technopoly".

The movement serves as a contrast to predatory multinational corporations that seek to squeeze local artisans out of the market in everything from agriculture to architecture. Slow movement creates a kind of modern commune in each local environment - a convivium that corresponds to its place and time. Communities are expressing their specific needs against the onslaught of faceless bureaucracies and the interests of multinational corporations.

This article is my manifesto for Slow Thought. This is the first step towards the psychiatry of the event based on the definition of the event by the French philosopher Alain Badiou, new basis ontologies - how we think about being or existence.

An event is an unpredictable change in the everyday world that opens the way to new possibilities. Three conditions of an event - that something happens to us (by pure chance, no fate, no determinism), we give a name to what happened, and we remain faithfulthis event.

In Badiou's philosophy, through the event we become subjects. By naming it and being faithful to it, the subject becomes the subject of its truth. My proposal of “event psychiatry” describes both how we get stuck in the everyday world and what brings about change and new possibilities.

Having methodically studied the meaning of the event, I want to clarify and illuminate the Unhurried Thought with the help of seven proclamations:

1. Unhurried thought is characterized by the walks of Socrates, the personal encounter of Levinas and the dialogism of Bakhtin

These three philosophers share a methodical, thoughtful, practically heavy-handed approach to philosophical mysteries. Socrates spent his time walking around the squares of ancient Athens, striking up conversations with people using disarmingly simple questions. Closer to our times, the Lithuanian Jew Emmanuel Levinas, a Holocaust survivor in France, insisted that being human is a face-to-face encounter where the ethics of how we treat each other trumps everything and takes precedence over everything else. Russian thinker Mikhail Bakhtin analyzed literature as dialogical or relational encounters, even in monologues or internal dialogues, where there is always an implicit other who listens and asks questions. All three philosophers view thinking as a relational activity—one that is slowed down by pacing or face-to-face dialogue.

2. Unhurried thought creates its time and place.

Unhurried thought exists beyond geopolitical boundaries (“thinking without borders,” to paraphrase another movement) and resists the actual—defined as “modern.” Denying the time constraints of 30-second media syncs and the 24-hour news cycle, Unhurried Thought is asynchronous. This means that it is not sequential in time, but is structured according to the slow logic of thought.

In Talmudic interpretation of sacred texts, pilpul refers to a method of question-and-answer dialogue in which the answer to an ethical question formulated in Moorish Spain or by the Sephardim can be found in ancient Babylonia. Pilpul is structured dialogically by the canons of philosophical debate rather than by historical chronology.

This idea can be reinforced by the story I tell in Letters to a Young Physician (2011) about my medical school mentor, Joel Elks, who met his Lithuanian philosophical mentor in Jerusalem 40 years later. Taking a moment to look away from his book, the teacher greeted his former student after the Holocaust, the discovery of Israel and many wars: “Oh, Joel, I’m reading Plato, will you join me?”

3. Unhurried thought has no object other than itself

Unhurried thought imitates the worldview that we risk losing if we rush headlong into an ephemeral future from an unreliable intangible present, the main characteristic of which is speed. Thinking, like life, is never complete, it is a possibility that is never exhausted, as Giorgio Agamben wrote in his 1996 essay on the philosophy of childhood.

“The Romans had an exceptional expression - vivere vitam, which passed into modern Romance languages ​​- vivre sa vie, vivere la propria vita ("live your own life"). Here it is necessary to restore the full transitive force of the verb vivere - although it does not really take precedence over the object (this is the whole paradox!), it has no other object than life itself. Life here is a possibility, a potential that never runs out of biographical facts and events, because it has no object other than itself. It is an absolute immanence that nevertheless moves and lives.”

Agamben developed the concept of living one's life in an essay on childhood, so it is central to how we perceive children and challenges what I call developmental thinking. We should question the definition of evolution, development at all stages of life and imagine the course of life other than through the prism of its speed and some of its milestones.

As a reader of Michel Foucault, Agamben offers us the reflective life as self-care—ironically, a theme that haunts Foucault's later writings as he approaches death from AIDS.

Vivere vitam - to live one's own life - resonates strongly with Gabriel García Márquez's autobiography Vivir para contarla (Living to Tell the Life, 2002). Marquez also wrote while living with a potentially fatal disease. Writing is Marquez's way of living his life, his main practice, his way of thinking. In 2009, in response to statements that he had stopped writing, the writer objected: “Not only is this not true, but in general writing is the only thing I do.” Unhurried Thought, as a vivere vitam, has no other object than life itself, which is anchored in central practices and activities that allow us to live more fully in the timeless present, free from the burden of an imperfect past or the fragile promises of a saving future.

4. Unhurried thought is porous

In his essay on Naples, written in 1925 with Anna Latsis, Walter Benjamin describes the city as porous:

“There is no certainty here. Not a single situation seems eternal, not a single figure imposes itself, asserting: “this way and no other way.” You can barely discern which building is still under construction and which has already fallen into disrepair. Because nothing has been decided. Porosity comes from a passion for improvisation that demands that space and possibility be preserved at all costs.”

If we think of Naples culture as an apparatus (as Foucault regarded as an instrument for structuring society), Benjamin's "porosity" is his name for this apparatus and for the organizing principle that links his observations to the communicative act (the essay on Naples/porosity).

“Porosity is an inexhaustible law of life in this city, noticeable everywhere. The grain of Sunday is hidden in every weekday, and how many weekdays are there in this Sunday!”

Unhurried thought is a porous way of thinking, it is non-categorical, open to chance, which allows people to spontaneously adapt to the demands and vicissitudes of life. The Italians have a word for this: “arrangiarsi” (“to adapt”), it is the art of improvisation, a way of using the resources at hand to find solutions.

The porosity of Unhurried Thought opens the way to potential answers to life's challenges.

5. Slow thought is like a game.

First of all, this means that rules can be broken. Unhurried thought throws out sets of rules, as Johan Huizinga quoted Erasmus of Rotterdam in his work Homo Ludens (Man Playing, 1955).

“In my opinion, when studying there is no need to behave like when playing cards or dice, where any violation of the rules spoils the game. In an enlightened discussion, there should be nothing outrageous or risky about proposing a new idea.”

This clearly echoes Badiou's philosophy, the philosophy of the event that is responsible for innovation - the coming into the world of new things. In his Second Manifesto of Philosophy (2011), Badiou categorically states that "philosophy is nothing unless it is reckless." In its playful recklessness, Unhurried thought is not limited by anything. Neither time nor tradition can corral it. The “game” of Unhurried Thought means not only that the rules will be broken, but also that there may be a break in thought. This is a refusal to accept what Milan Kundera, in his essay “63 Words” (1988), calls “nonthought of received ideas.”

Huizinga calls play “an interlude, an interlude in our daily life,” perceiving play (also play) as an activity between the acts of a play or opera, “which differ from ordinary life,” “proceed beyond the limits of general reality.” The game creates discreteness, discontinuity in our lives. Being playful, Unhurried Thought is not opposed to seriousness, but creates its own special meanings. Like a child's game, Unhurried Thought is voluntary, there is no task, and it can be postponed or suspended at any time. The game creates its own time, rules and sense of order, and therefore serves as a model for Unhurried Thought. And like a game, Unhurried Thought is associated with stupidity, but it is not stupid. Play, according to Huizinga, has no biological or moral function - it is neither a physical necessity nor a moral obligation. There is no material interest in the game and “no profit can be made from it.”

Unhurried thought turns to reflection before judgment, to clarity before a call to action.

Just as play helps a child construct a sense of self, it creates its own community, away from the rest of the world, through disguises or other means, Huizinga said. And yet, without being serious or logical, the game creates its own rules, order and logic. Unhurried thought strives to catch, reveal and decipher the rules, order and logic of the game.

There is a family resemblance between Slow Thought and other gestures in the history of thought. Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy (1759–67) tells its story with many deliberate digressions and divergences, always with a satirical intent. In a famous sonnet, the 17th-century poet John Milton wrote: “Perhaps he serves no less / High will, who stands and waits.” In 1913, Edmund Husserl formulated the concept of epoché - the bracketing of experience, the suspension of judgment. Levinas speaks of lethargy and fatigue as resistance to existence, and of procrastination as “the impossibility of beginning or... completing a beginning.” Agamben, the philosopher of non-difference and indifference, loves Bartleby's laconic approach - "I would rather not." Jacques Lacan talks about la lettre en souffrance, the "unclaimed letter", in his seminar on Edgar Allan Poe's The Purloined Letter (1844) - a letter that eventually arrives at the right place. Jacques Derrida deconstructs delay - even to the point where he fails to begin the journey at the appointed point because there are too many starting points. Unhurried thought speaks of resistance to the world not as a psychoanalytic defense, but as uncertainty and deferment.

From retreat and indifference, through bracketing and suspension, procrastination, doubt and weariness, to displacement and uncertainty, Slow Thought has many versions of its defining gesture. What they all have in common is procrastination, procrastination, waiting, and a call for thought before judgment, clarity before a call for action.

6. Unhurried thought is an anti-method, not a method, it relaxes, lets go and frees thought from the limitations and trauma of tradition

The author of a piece in The Irish Times in 2014, calling for Ireland to introduce philosophy teaching in schools, argues against the “attempts to take away time for reflection”, which is expressed in the “slogans of our techno-consumer age” - Just do it, Move fast and break things, YOLO (You only live once - “we only live once”). They encourage us to “act now, think later.” Compared to “a consumer society that constantly tries to take away time for reflection,” philosophy is recommended as “a counterweight to this culture of quick action.”

The problem with "fast track" is that it assumes a reliable way of doing things and uniformity that can be sped up if necessary. Just as fast food is good for one meal and not another, we must remain open to things that take time, both to preserve the value of the past and to form new approaches for the present. Pluralism and diversity are key here and take time.

In the words of "there is no philosophical method." The most famous and radical philosopher of the 20th century did not create a philosophical system because he wanted to cure himself - and us - of philosophy. The reference to treatment is important because Wittgenstein compared philosophical work to medical or psychological work: “The philosopher deals with the question as one deals with illness.”

When I say that Slow Thought is an anti-method, I place it alongside Wittgenstein's thought in Notes on the Philosophy of Psychology (1980):

“What we find in philosophy is trivial; it does not teach us new facts, only science teaches that. However, the correct presentation of these trivialities is incredibly difficult - and has enormous significance. Philosophy, in essence, is an exposition of trivialities.”

Let's look at this from a larger philosophical perspective. In the work of Badiou and Richard Rorty, two kinds of philosophers can be distinguished. Rorty calls them systematic and soul-saving philosophers, while Badiou calls them philosophers and anti-philosophers.

True philosophers open up the possibilities of thought and life. Systematic philosophers close the door to possibilities.

Systematic philosophers (according to Rorty) and true philosophers (according to Badiou) build systems of thought, often constructing their materials (methods) for a philosophical edifice. The thinkers Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Giambatitista Vico and Giordano Bruno, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant and Husserl are all systematic philosophers. Others raise soul-searching questions (Rorty) or undermine established systems of thought (Badiou's anti-philosophers). Among Badiou's anti-philosophers are St. Paul the Apostle, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud and his follower Lacan, as well as Wittgenstein.

Following my philosophical studies of trauma and the event, I distinguish systematic, true philosophers as philosophers of the event, of the discovery of possibilities - of thought and life. Anti-philosophers are philosophers of trauma and the abyss, the closure of possibilities. What they have in common is a gap, understood as a caesura, discontinuity or gap. When a rupture becomes a trauma/abyss, it is not necessarily a clinical trauma as understood in psychiatry and psychoanalysis, but a cultural studies trauma, which, while true to how it is understood in the tradition of anti-philosophy, is neither systematic nor constructive - it is destructive and, unlike clinical trauma, does not require any intervention.

There is also a group of thinkers whom I call methodologists. They offer us new thinking tools. They do not fit easily into the dichotomous categories of philosophy/anti-philosophy or systematic/spiritual philosophers. I think of aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy, such as his genealogy, as a methodology. Although Badiou considers Wittgenstein an anti-philosopher, it is clear that Wittgenstein considered himself a great methodologist who avoided creating a philosophical system and, by explaining language games, cleared up a number of philosophical pseudo-problems. From this point of view, Derrida is also better considered a methodologist who offers a series of extraordinary revelations about speech, culture and thought with concepts such as pharmakon, dissemination and iteration. Foucault and his devoted reader Agamben are methodologists. Foucault offers a number of methodologies - genealogy, archeology and problematization. Agamben refined the archeology of Foucault, whose genealogy he traces back to Nietzsche and Freud, into a sophisticated methodology that he calls philosophical archaeology. Foucault gives his definition of "care of the self" as a methodology of research, thought and practice.

Unhurried thought is a method of counteraction as an analogue of anti-philosophy. Just as there are philosophers and anti-philosophers, there are methods and anti-methods. In this sense, we can attribute Unhurried Thought to soul-helping philosophy and anti-philosophy - as Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Derrida study the tools and methods of thought to clarify genealogies (Nietzsche), get rid of pseudo-problems (Wittgenstein) and reveal hidden, unknown and rejected roots, meanings and traces of words (Derrida).

7. A leisurely thought is not in a hurry.

There is an excellent philosophical lesson in the form of a joke; Wittgenstein used it to warn philosophers against jumping to hasty conclusions.

Question:“How does one philosopher address another?”

Answer:“Give yourself time!”

This distinguished Socrates from the eloquent sophists. The Sophists taught the Athenians rhetoric and effective defense, but Socrates spoke slowly and deliberately, even hesitantly, and could not defend himself - in the short term - against accusations of corrupting the Athenian youth. History has delivered its verdict on these charges.