THEORY OF MARXISM – MARXIST PARTIES

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

   According to dialectical materialism, everything is matter. Everything is material bodies in interconnection and interdependence, always in motion and in incessant change, coming into being and going out of being, through contradiction and struggle of internal and external opposite forces. The universe is infinite in space and time. Matter is infinite in the macrocosm and in the microcosm. All material bodies in the macrocosm and in the microcosm and living organisms undergo a dialectical constant change from one state to another.

   The laws of Dialectical Materialism are three: 1. The law of unity and struggle of opposites and of transformation of one opposite into the other. 2. The law of passage of quantitative changes to qualitative changes and vice versa. 3. The law of negation of the negation.

   According to the law of unity and struggle of opposites and of transformation of one opposite into the other, the very existence of matter itself, its movement, its evolution, and its passage from one qualitative state to another is determined by the unity and struggle of internal and external opposites and of transformation of one opposite into the other, in the infinity of space-time. The opposites, having opposing tendencies, are mutually exclusive and in state of permanent struggle. However there are together, and not only coexist but are organically interconnected and transformed the one into the other, thus representing the unity of opposites. The time of struggle of the opposites during which occurs the passage of one opposite into the other, marks the dissolution of the contradiction and the passage of the material formation or condition to a new qualitative state. The unity of opposites is always relative, whereas the struggle of opposites is absolute. The relative character of the unity of opposites is expressed in the fact that there is for a definite time, and as a consequence of the development of the struggle of the opposites that constitute it – and of external opposites – is dissolved and replaced by a new unity, which under the development of the struggle of the opposites that constitute it – and of external opposites – is also dissolved and replaced by another unity of opposites, which after existing for some time is dissolved under the development of the struggle of the opposites that constitute it – and of external opposites – and another one takes its position, and so on to the infinity. The absoluteness of the struggle of opposites consists in that it is present at all the stages of existence of this or that unity, in that it – the struggle of opposites – is the link that makes the union between this unity and the other that replaces it, and in that it is on its basis – of the struggle of opposites – that is produced the emergence, the development of any given unity and its passage to a new unity. For example, the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist society is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie – represented by the bourgeois parties and their governments, as well as by its military-fascist dictatorships – and the working class – represented by the historical Marxist party of the specific country –. To the degree of development of the capitalist production, this contradiction is sharpened, and finally dissolved with the socialist revolution, as a result of the struggle of these internal opposites – or also external opposites, e.g. with the economic or military aid at the historical Marxist party of a capitalist country, or with the military invasion of a capitalist country by a socialist country (military invasion of Georgia by the Soviet Russia in 1921, military invasion of eastern Germany by the Soviet Union in 1945) –. During the socialist revolution, the working class from exploited and oppressed class becomes dominant class and establishes its dictatorship, while the bourgeoisie is thrown out of power and becomes oppressed class. The opposites were transformed the one into the other. The old qualitative state of society – capitalism – was dissolved and a new one was formed – socialism –, which is accompanied by new internal and external contradictions. According to Dialectical Materialism, the contradiction is a universal mode of existence of the matter, a universal form of being. The contradictions of the opposing forces of a material formation or condition are called internal contradictions. The contradictions of the opposing forces of two or more material formations or conditions are called external contradictions. Examples of internal contradictions are: within molecules the contradictory processes of attraction and repulsion. Within atoms the contradictions of protons and electrons, positrons and electrons, protons and antiprotons. Inside electron the wave and particle contradiction. Within a living organism the incessant contradictory processes of inheritance and mutation, absorption and rejection, stimulation and inhibition of nerve function. Into a capitalist country the contradiction between the bourgeois regime (bourgeois government, bourgeois parties, bourgeois army, police and secret police) and the historical Marxist party of the specific country. Inside North Korea the contradiction between the socialist system (socialist government, Workers Party of Korea, socialist army, militia, police and secret police) and the internal counterrevolutionary forces. In mechanics the contradiction of action and reaction. In electricity the contradiction of positive and negative electrical charge. In magnetism the contradiction of north and south pole of the magnets and planets. In mathematics the contradiction of + and –, etc. Examples of external contradictions are: the contradiction between the attraction and repulsion of the molecules. The contradiction between a positron and an electron. The contradiction between herbivores and carnivores, e.g. the contradiction between a zebra and a tiger. The contradiction between North Korea and a capitalist country. The contradiction between the attraction and repulsion of the planets, etc.

   According to the law of passage of quantitative changes to qualitative changes and vice versa, all the qualitative changes in the universe are the result of quantitative changes. Engels wrote in his book <>, dated 1883: <<. . . in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called, energy).>> Qualitative changes are called leaps. The leap is the process of passage of the material formation or condition from a qualitative state to another, accompanied by a break in continuity. The leaps are divided in two types: the leaps produced in the form of rupture and the leaps evolving gradually, by gradual accumulation of elements of the new quality and detriment of the old quality. The feature of the leap-rupture is the fact that takes place suddenly, impetuously, violently, and changes the previous qualitative state as a whole. Examples of leaps-ruptures are: the transformation of positron and electron into two photons by their collision. The killing and eating of a pigeon from an eagle, during which the pigeon is destroyed and converted into vitality, muscle strength and kinetic energy of the eagle, as well as ability to reproduce and feed its chicks. The armed socialist revolution, during which occurs an impetuous and violent transformation of the old capitalist economy into the new socialist, e.g. the armed socialist revolution in Russia, East Germany, China, and in the other former and current socialist states. The feature of the leap in the form of gradual accumulation of elements of the new qualitative state and of detriment of elements of the old qualitative state is that it takes place relatively slowly, and that during the leap the quality does not change neither impetuously nor entirely, but gradually. Examples of leaps of this type are: the emergence of new plant and animal species as an evolution of the old, which extends over several thousand years, and is carried out with the gradual accumulation in the old species of new external features that reflect the evolution of the natural environment, as well as with the gradual transformation of the morphology and function of their organs. The conversion of a lake into ice at a temperature equal or lower than 0οC, during which the lake is not converted at once into ice, but gradually. The leaps are also distinguished not only by their development, but also on the qualitative transformation produced as a result of the concrete leap, and are of two types: the revolutionary leaps or revolutions – or counter-revolutionary leaps or counter-revolutions – and the evolutionary leaps or evolutions. The revolutionary leap or revolution is the leap during which the transition to a new qualitative state is accompanied by the radical destruction of the old quality of an inferior material formation or condition and by the appearance of a superior material formation or condition having a new quality foundation, a new substance. Examples of revolutionary leaps or revolutions are: the transformation of an elementary particle into another, e.g. the transformation of a proton into a neutron. The transformation of a chemical element into another, e.g. the transformation of oxygen (O2) into ozone (O3). The transformation of the archosaurs into crocodiles in the Triassic period, about 200 million years ago. The transformation of prehistoric fish into sharks in the Ordovician period, about 420 million years ago. The armed socialist revolution in Russia, East Germany, China, and in the former and today’s socialist countries. The formation of planets from cosmic dust. The counter-revolutionary leap or counter-revolution is the leap during which the transition to a new qualitative state is accompanied by the radical destruction of the old quality of a higher material formation or condition and by the appearance of a lower material formation or condition having a new quality foundation, a new substance. Examples of counter-revolutionary leaps or counter-revolutions are: the death of the dinosaurs and of most plants in the Triassic period, some 66 million years ago. The death of a lion from microbial infection. The capitalist counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, East Germany, China, and in the former socialist states. The evolutionary leap or evolution is the leap during which the transition to a new qualitative state takes place within the framework of the given substance of the material formation or condition, without radical destruction of its quality foundation. Examples of evolutionary leaps or evolutions are: the passage from ice into water and vice versa (as the chemical composition of the water does not change). The transition from socialism to communism.

   According to the law of negation of the negation, the negation of a material formation or condition and the transition to a new material formation or condition is an inevitable development of the struggle of internal and external opposites. The non-typical dialectical negation is the negation of a higher material formation or condition and the transition to a lower material formation or condition, as a result of the struggle of internal and external opposing forces. Examples of non-typical dialectical negations are: the death of the dinosaurs and of most plants in the Triassic period, some 66 million years ago. The death of a lion from microbial infection. The killing of the youngest chick of an eagle by the older chick in their nest. The killing of a hawk by another hawk in order to defend its own territory. The death of an elephant from old age. The crushing of a snake by the fall of a rock. The capitalist counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, East Germany, China, and in the former socialist countries. The typical dialectical negation is the negation of an inferior material formation or condition and the transition to a superior material formation or condition, as a result of the struggle of internal and external opposing forces, during which everything positive there was in the negating material formation or condition is retained and transferred to the superior material formation or condition. Examples of typical dialectical negations are: the life and evolution of trees. The trees (e.g. firs) produce many seeds during their lifetime. These trees die later, denying themselves. But some seeds from those produced, which fell on favourable ground, sprouted and created new trees, denying themselves. As a result of this negation of the negation we have trees again, but many times more. Yet we do not only obtain more trees, but also qualitatively improved, more resistant to changes in the natural environment, diseases, and insect attacks. Birds (e.g. penguins) lay numerous eggs during their lifetime. These birds later die or are killed, denying themselves. But some eggs from those laid, produced chicks, thus creating new birds, denying themselves. As a result of this negation of the negation we have again birds, but many times more. Yet we do not only obtain more birds, but also qualitatively improved, more resistant to changes in the natural environment, diseases, and more able to fly (in the case of penguins: swimming) in order to escape more easily from their predators (for penguins: sharks, orcas, leopard seals), but also to chase faster their prey (in the case of penguins: krill, squid, fish). All peoples begin to organise their economy and society with the common ownership of land, namely, primitive communism. In all the societies, just beyond a certain stage of development of the agriculture, the common ownership of land becomes an obstacle to production. The common ownership of land, namely, primitive communism, denies itself, and is converted into private ownership of land. In a higher stage of development of the agriculture comes about the reverse: the private ownership of land becomes an obstacle to production. It emerges the necessity of its negation and of its conversion into common ownership of land. As a result of this negation of the negation we have again common ownership of land, namely, communism, but in a higher, scientifically and technologically more developed form, which will not at all become an obstacle to production, but will liberate it and will enable full use of the modern scientific and technological achievements.

   THEORY OF MARXISM

   Karl Marx wrote in his book <>, dated 1847: <>

   Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in their book <>, dated 1848: <>

   Marx wrote in his Letter to Weydemeyer, dated March 5, 1852: <>

   Engels wrote in his Letter to August Bebel, dated March 28, 1875: <>

   Marx wrote in his book <>, dated 1875: <>

   Engels wrote in his book <>, dated 1877: <>

   Engels wrote in his book <>, dated 1884: <>

   Engels wrote in his 1891 introduction to Marx’s book <>, dated 1871: <>

   Lenin wrote in his book <>, dated 1902: <<. . . the social-democratic movement is in its very essence an international movement. This means not only that we must combat national chauvinism, but that an incipient movement in a young country can be successful only if it makes use of the experiences of other countries. In order to make use of these experiences it is not enough merely to be acquainted with them, or simply to copy out the latest resolutions. What is required is the ability to treat these experiences critically and to test them independently. He who realises how enormously the modern working-class movement has grown and branched out, will understand what a reserve of theoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary) experience is required to carry out this task. . . . Revolutionary Social Democracy has always included the struggle for reforms as part of its activities. . . . In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms, as a part to the whole, to the revolutionary struggle for freedom and socialism. . . . Working class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected; unless they are trained, moreover, to respond from a social democratic point of view and no other. . . . To bring political knowledge to the workers, the social democrats must go among all classes of the population; they must dispatch units of their army in all directions. . . . the social democrat’s ideal should not be the trade union secretary, but the tribune of the people, who is able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects; who is able to generalise all these manifestations and produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set forth before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to clarify for all the world historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. . . . We must «go among all classes of the population» as theoreticians, as propagandists, as agitators and as organisers. . . . For he is no social-democrat who forgets in practice that «the communists support every revolutionary movement», that we are obliged for that reason to expound and emphasise general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our socialist convictions. . . . In order to be able to provide the workers with real, comprehensive and live political knowledge we must have «our own people», social-democrats, everywhere, among all social strata, and in all positions from which we can learn the inner springs of our state mechanism. Such people are required not only for propaganda and agitation, but in a still larger measure for organisation. . . . We would be «politicians» and social-democrats only in name (as all too often happens in reality) if we failed to realise that our task is to utilise every manifestation of discontent, to gather and turn to our advantage every protest, however small. . . . The spontaneous working-class movement is by itself able to create (and inevitably does create) only trade-unionism, and working-class trade-unionist politics is precisely working-class bourgeois politics. The fact that the working class participates in the political struggle, and even in the political revolution, does not in itself make its politics social-democratic politics. . . . Rabocheye Dyelo and the authors of the «economist» letter published in Iskra, No. 12, should «ponder over the reason why the events of the spring brought about such a revival of revolutionary non-social-democratic tendencies instead of increasing the authority and the prestige of Social-Democracy.» The reason lies in the fact that we failed to cope with our tasks. The masses of the workers proved to be more active than us. We lacked adequately trained revolutionary leaders and organisers possessed of a thorough knowledge of the mood prevailing among all the opposition strata and able to head the movement, to turn a spontaneous demonstration into a political one, broaden its political character, etc. . . . Why is there not a single political event in Germany that does not add to the authority and prestige of Social Democracy? Because Social Democracy is always found to be in advance of all others in furnishing the most revolutionary appraisal of every given event and in championing every protest against tyranny. It does not lull itself with arguments that the economic struggle brings the workers to realise that they have no political rights and that the concrete conditions unavoidably impel the working-class movement to the path of revolution. It intervenes in every sphere and in every question of social and political life, in the matter of Wilhelm’s refusal to confirm a bourgeois progressive as city mayor (our «economists» have not yet managed to educate the Germans to the understanding that such an act is, in fact, a compromise with liberalism!), in the matter of the law against «obscene» publications and pictures, in the matter of governmental influence on the election of professors, etc., etc. Everywhere the social-democrats are found in the forefront, rousing political discontent among all classes, rousing the sluggards, stimulating the laggards, and providing a wealthy material for the development of the political consciousness and the political activity of the proletariat. As a result, even the avowed enemies of socialism are filled with respect for this advanced political fighter, and not infrequently an important document from bourgeois, and even from bureaucratic and court circles, makes its way by some miraculous means into the editorial office of Vorwärts.>>

   Lenin wrote in his work <>, dated 1913: <>

   Lenin wrote in his work <>, dated 1913: <> Lenin wrote in his work <>, dated 1914: <>

   Lenin wrote in his work <>, dated 1914: <>

   Lenin wrote in his work <>, dated 1916: <>

   Lenin wrote in his work <>, dated 1916: <>

   Lenin wrote in his book <>, dated 1917: <>

   Lenin said in his speech at a meeting in Alexeyev People’s House, dated 1918: <> Lenin wrote in his book <>, dated 1918: <>

   Lenin wrote in his book <>, dated 1920: <>

   Marx wrote in the first volume of his work <>, dated 1867: <> Leon Trotsky, founder and leader of the Red Army and of the victory over the Whites and twenty-one armies of the most powerful capitalist countries of the world in the Russian civil war, turned later into enemy of the Soviet Union and of socialism due to his paranoid view that it was impossible the building of socialism in the Soviet Union, a view that was in stark contrast with the reality of the Soviet Union itself, quoting this extract from the first volume of <> in his work <>, dated 1939, continued in his same work on the inevitability of socialism: <>

   The Greek Marxist Pandelis Pouliopoulos, general secretary of the Communist Party of Greece in the period 1924-1926, turned later into enemy of the Soviet Union and of socialism due to his adherence to Trotskyism and therefore to Trotsky’s paranoid view that it was impossible the building of socialism in the Soviet Union, a view that was in stark contrast with the reality of the Soviet Union itself, wrote in his work <>, dated 1941: <<1. Like Lenin, Trotsky always stated that he was simply a Marxist, a true disciple of Marx. There is really no such thing as «Leninism» or «Trotskyism» as special, new theories next to Marxism, which correct it or «fill its blanks». 2. The tremendous scientific discoveries which we owe to the genius of Marx and Engels: materialist conception of history, economic and political theory of the laws of capitalist society and its socialist transformation, constitute a tightly-knit set of theories. Founded in a special world theoretical base, dialectical materialism, they create for the first time in the history of human thought a truly scientific theory of the social process. Their source is a higher creative synthesis of classical German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism in the mid-19th century. 3. No one after the death of Engels added to this structure of Marxism a new «complementary» foundation next to those created by the spirit of the two teachers. Nor could anyone overturn any of those foundations. . . . 4. From its own essence Marxism is not a closed dogma, immovable. It presupposes the possibility and necessity of its later development. With the results of its new experience and the new advances in science, Marxism – its method itself – has demanded from the beginning not only to be checked every time so that it is proved right, but also to be enriched with new theoretical conquests. The tree of Marxism with its strong roots dug into the fertile soil of historical reality, always spreading them deeper, always stretching its branches higher, will always be enriched with new ramifications sprung from the robust trunk of its teaching. 5. Is Marxism an «eternal» truth, as opposed to all the others of which none is absolute, for ever given? Is it impossible in the future that historical experience disproves it as a whole or in some of its parts? Criterion of verification for every theory is action. «In the beginning there was action.» All new realities after the death of the two founders presented by the evolution or proved by science with the most perfect tools of observation, experimentation and logical abstraction have done nothing up to now but reaffirm the scientific correctness of Marxist analyses. From this point of view, only one type of «revision» of Marxism is possible and necessary: the development, the enrichment of its verified bases with the newer conquests in social science and the general theory of sciences.>>

   Mao Zedong, founder and leader of the Red Army and of the victory over the nationalists in the Chinese civil war, as well as leader of socialist China from the date of its establishment, October 1, 1949, until his death in 1976, turned later into enemy of the Soviet Union and of socialism due to his paranoid view that the Soviet Union had been converted into a capitalist, <> state, a view that was in stark contrast with the reality of the Soviet Union itself, said in his speech at the meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the October socialist revolution: <>

   Lenin argued that the victory of socialism in one country was possible – temporary of course – unlike Trotsky who argued that it was impossible. That position of Trotsky proved completely wrong and bankrupted by the very existence of the Soviet Union and later of the other socialist states. That insane idea of Trotsky led all without exception the miserable Trotskyist sects to play always and everywhere a leading role in the slander and the betrayal of socialism and of the socialist countries. In exchange for their invaluable services to the international bourgeoisie and capitalism, the CIA had – and continues to have – a special department for the financing of the Trotskyist and other anti-communist <> and <> parties.

   Marx had prophetically written about the economic structure of a given society in the third volume of <>, dated 1894: <

   Lenin wrote in his work <>, dated 1915: <>