Library:Fundamental problems of marxism - Revision history

ComradeEd: Fix title being with uppercase T

2024-10-16T14:52:42Z

Fix title being with uppercase T

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:52, 16 October 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Library_work\|~~Title~~=Fundamental Problems of Marxism\|author=Georgi Plekhanov\|source=https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm}}		{{Library_work\|title=Fundamental Problems of Marxism\|author=Georgi Plekhanov\|source=https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm}}

	Marxism is an integral world-outlook. Expressed in a nutshell, it is ''contemporary materialism'', at present the highest stage in the development of that ''view upon the world'' whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece by Democritus, <sup>[1]</sup> and in part by the Ionian thinkers who preceded that philosopher. What was known as ''hylozoism'' was nothing but a naive ''materialism''. It is to Karl Marx and his friend Frederick Engels that the main credit for the development of present-day materialism must no doubt go. The historical and economic aspects of this world-outlook, that is, what is known as ''historical materialism'' and the closely related sum of views on the ''tasks, method and categories of political economy, and on the economic development of society, especially capitalist society'', are in their fundamentals almost entirely the work of Marx and Engels. That which was introduced into these fields by their ''precursors'' should be regarded merely as the preparatory work of amassing material, often copious and valuable, but not as yet systematized or illuminated by a single fundamental idea, and therefore not appraised or utilized in its real significance. What Marx and Engels’ ''followers'' in Europe and America have done in these fields is merely a more or less successful elaboration of specific problems, sometimes, it is true, of the utmost importance. That is why the term ‘Marxism’ is often used to signify only these two aspects of the present-day materialist world-outlook not only among the ‘general public’, who have not yet achieved a deep understanding of philosophical theories, but even among people, both in Russia and the entire civilized world, who consider themselves faithful followers of Marx and Engels. In such cases these two aspects are looked upon as something independent of ‘philosophical materialism’, and at times as something almost opposed to it. <sup>[2]</sup> And since these two aspects cannot but hang in mid-air when they are torn out of the general context of cognate views constituting their theoretical foundation, those who perform that tearing-out operation naturally feel an urge to ‘substantiate Marxism’ anew by joining it – again quite arbitrarily and most frequently under the influence of philosophical moods prevalent at the time among ''ideologists of the bourgeoisie –'' with some philosopher or another: with Kant, Mach, Avenarius or Ostwald, and of late with Joseph Dietzgen. <sup>[3]</sup> True, the philosophical views of J Dietzgen have arisen quite independently of bourgeois influences and are in considerable measure related to the philosophical views of Marx and Engels. The latter views, however, possess an incomparably more consistent and rich content, and for that reason alone cannot be ''supplemented'' by Dietzgen’s teachings but can only be ''popularized'' by them. No attempts have yet been made to ‘supplement Marx’ with Thomas Aquinas. It is however quite feasible that, despite the Pope’s recent encyclical against the Modernists, the Catholic world will at some time produce from its midst a thinker capable of performing this feat in the sphere of theory. <sup>[4]</sup>		Marxism is an integral world-outlook. Expressed in a nutshell, it is ''contemporary materialism'', at present the highest stage in the development of that ''view upon the world'' whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece by Democritus, <sup>[1]</sup> and in part by the Ionian thinkers who preceded that philosopher. What was known as ''hylozoism'' was nothing but a naive ''materialism''. It is to Karl Marx and his friend Frederick Engels that the main credit for the development of present-day materialism must no doubt go. The historical and economic aspects of this world-outlook, that is, what is known as ''historical materialism'' and the closely related sum of views on the ''tasks, method and categories of political economy, and on the economic development of society, especially capitalist society'', are in their fundamentals almost entirely the work of Marx and Engels. That which was introduced into these fields by their ''precursors'' should be regarded merely as the preparatory work of amassing material, often copious and valuable, but not as yet systematized or illuminated by a single fundamental idea, and therefore not appraised or utilized in its real significance. What Marx and Engels’ ''followers'' in Europe and America have done in these fields is merely a more or less successful elaboration of specific problems, sometimes, it is true, of the utmost importance. That is why the term ‘Marxism’ is often used to signify only these two aspects of the present-day materialist world-outlook not only among the ‘general public’, who have not yet achieved a deep understanding of philosophical theories, but even among people, both in Russia and the entire civilized world, who consider themselves faithful followers of Marx and Engels. In such cases these two aspects are looked upon as something independent of ‘philosophical materialism’, and at times as something almost opposed to it. <sup>[2]</sup> And since these two aspects cannot but hang in mid-air when they are torn out of the general context of cognate views constituting their theoretical foundation, those who perform that tearing-out operation naturally feel an urge to ‘substantiate Marxism’ anew by joining it – again quite arbitrarily and most frequently under the influence of philosophical moods prevalent at the time among ''ideologists of the bourgeoisie –'' with some philosopher or another: with Kant, Mach, Avenarius or Ostwald, and of late with Joseph Dietzgen. <sup>[3]</sup> True, the philosophical views of J Dietzgen have arisen quite independently of bourgeois influences and are in considerable measure related to the philosophical views of Marx and Engels. The latter views, however, possess an incomparably more consistent and rich content, and for that reason alone cannot be ''supplemented'' by Dietzgen’s teachings but can only be ''popularized'' by them. No attempts have yet been made to ‘supplement Marx’ with Thomas Aquinas. It is however quite feasible that, despite the Pope’s recent encyclical against the Modernists, the Catholic world will at some time produce from its midst a thinker capable of performing this feat in the sphere of theory. <sup>[4]</sup>

ComradeEd: Add Library_work and Incomplete_library_works

2024-10-16T14:52:18Z

Add Library_work and Incomplete_library_works

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:52, 16 October 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm		{{Library_work\|Title=Fundamental Problems of Marxism\|author=Georgi Plekhanov\|source=https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm}}

	Marxism is an integral world-outlook. Expressed in a nutshell, it is ''contemporary materialism'', at present the highest stage in the development of that ''view upon the world'' whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece by Democritus, <sup>[1]</sup> and in part by the Ionian thinkers who preceded that philosopher. What was known as ''hylozoism'' was nothing but a naive ''materialism''. It is to Karl Marx and his friend Frederick Engels that the main credit for the development of present-day materialism must no doubt go. The historical and economic aspects of this world-outlook, that is, what is known as ''historical materialism'' and the closely related sum of views on the ''tasks, method and categories of political economy, and on the economic development of society, especially capitalist society'', are in their fundamentals almost entirely the work of Marx and Engels. That which was introduced into these fields by their ''precursors'' should be regarded merely as the preparatory work of amassing material, often copious and valuable, but not as yet systematized or illuminated by a single fundamental idea, and therefore not appraised or utilized in its real significance. What Marx and Engels’ ''followers'' in Europe and America have done in these fields is merely a more or less successful elaboration of specific problems, sometimes, it is true, of the utmost importance. That is why the term ‘Marxism’ is often used to signify only these two aspects of the present-day materialist world-outlook not only among the ‘general public’, who have not yet achieved a deep understanding of philosophical theories, but even among people, both in Russia and the entire civilized world, who consider themselves faithful followers of Marx and Engels. In such cases these two aspects are looked upon as something independent of ‘philosophical materialism’, and at times as something almost opposed to it. <sup>[2]</sup> And since these two aspects cannot but hang in mid-air when they are torn out of the general context of cognate views constituting their theoretical foundation, those who perform that tearing-out operation naturally feel an urge to ‘substantiate Marxism’ anew by joining it – again quite arbitrarily and most frequently under the influence of philosophical moods prevalent at the time among ''ideologists of the bourgeoisie –'' with some philosopher or another: with Kant, Mach, Avenarius or Ostwald, and of late with Joseph Dietzgen. <sup>[3]</sup> True, the philosophical views of J Dietzgen have arisen quite independently of bourgeois influences and are in considerable measure related to the philosophical views of Marx and Engels. The latter views, however, possess an incomparably more consistent and rich content, and for that reason alone cannot be ''supplemented'' by Dietzgen’s teachings but can only be ''popularized'' by them. No attempts have yet been made to ‘supplement Marx’ with Thomas Aquinas. It is however quite feasible that, despite the Pope’s recent encyclical against the Modernists, the Catholic world will at some time produce from its midst a thinker capable of performing this feat in the sphere of theory. <sup>[4]</sup>		Marxism is an integral world-outlook. Expressed in a nutshell, it is ''contemporary materialism'', at present the highest stage in the development of that ''view upon the world'' whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece by Democritus, <sup>[1]</sup> and in part by the Ionian thinkers who preceded that philosopher. What was known as ''hylozoism'' was nothing but a naive ''materialism''. It is to Karl Marx and his friend Frederick Engels that the main credit for the development of present-day materialism must no doubt go. The historical and economic aspects of this world-outlook, that is, what is known as ''historical materialism'' and the closely related sum of views on the ''tasks, method and categories of political economy, and on the economic development of society, especially capitalist society'', are in their fundamentals almost entirely the work of Marx and Engels. That which was introduced into these fields by their ''precursors'' should be regarded merely as the preparatory work of amassing material, often copious and valuable, but not as yet systematized or illuminated by a single fundamental idea, and therefore not appraised or utilized in its real significance. What Marx and Engels’ ''followers'' in Europe and America have done in these fields is merely a more or less successful elaboration of specific problems, sometimes, it is true, of the utmost importance. That is why the term ‘Marxism’ is often used to signify only these two aspects of the present-day materialist world-outlook not only among the ‘general public’, who have not yet achieved a deep understanding of philosophical theories, but even among people, both in Russia and the entire civilized world, who consider themselves faithful followers of Marx and Engels. In such cases these two aspects are looked upon as something independent of ‘philosophical materialism’, and at times as something almost opposed to it. <sup>[2]</sup> And since these two aspects cannot but hang in mid-air when they are torn out of the general context of cognate views constituting their theoretical foundation, those who perform that tearing-out operation naturally feel an urge to ‘substantiate Marxism’ anew by joining it – again quite arbitrarily and most frequently under the influence of philosophical moods prevalent at the time among ''ideologists of the bourgeoisie –'' with some philosopher or another: with Kant, Mach, Avenarius or Ostwald, and of late with Joseph Dietzgen. <sup>[3]</sup> True, the philosophical views of J Dietzgen have arisen quite independently of bourgeois influences and are in considerable measure related to the philosophical views of Marx and Engels. The latter views, however, possess an incomparably more consistent and rich content, and for that reason alone cannot be ''supplemented'' by Dietzgen’s teachings but can only be ''popularized'' by them. No attempts have yet been made to ‘supplement Marx’ with Thomas Aquinas. It is however quite feasible that, despite the Pope’s recent encyclical against the Modernists, the Catholic world will at some time produce from its midst a thinker capable of performing this feat in the sphere of theory. <sup>[4]</sup>
Line 68:		Line 68:
	[[Category:Library works by Georgi Plekhanov]]		[[Category:Library works by Georgi Plekhanov]]
	[[Category:Library works about philosophy]]		[[Category:Library works about philosophy]]
			[[Category:Incomplete library works]]

CriticalResist at 21:22, 5 July 2023

2023-07-05T21:22:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 5 July 2023
Line 67:		Line 67:
	== XVI. Necessity and revolution ==		== XVI. Necessity and revolution ==
	[[Category:Library works by Georgi Plekhanov]]		[[Category:Library works by Georgi Plekhanov]]
	[[Category:Library works about ~~Philosophy~~]]		[[Category:Library works about philosophy]]

CriticalResist at 21:12, 5 July 2023

2023-07-05T21:12:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, 5 July 2023
Line 66:		Line 66:

	== XVI. Necessity and revolution ==		== XVI. Necessity and revolution ==
			[[Category:Library works by Georgi Plekhanov]]
			[[Category:Library works about Philosophy]]

177.19.92.1: /* I. */

2020-11-06T20:46:02Z

Show changes

177.19.92.1 at 20:38, 6 November 2020

2020-11-06T20:38:04Z

Show changes

177.19.92.1 at 19:33, 6 November 2020

2020-11-06T19:33:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 6 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm		https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm

			== I ==

			== II ==

			== II ==

			== III ==

			== IV ==

			== V ==

			== VI ==

			== VII ==

			== VIII ==

			== IX ==

			== X ==

			== XI ==

			== XII ==

			== XIII ==

			== XIV ==

			== XV ==

			== XVI ==

177.19.92.1: Created page with "https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm"

2020-11-06T18:55:31Z

Created page with "https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm"

New page

https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm