(1) My childhood was wonderful. (2) As a child, there was no money, there was no interesting work, but all this was a matter of gain. (3) But in childhood there was a father and mother.
-I love you...
(12) My mother and I lived nearby, but as if in different worlds. (13) These worlds came into contact only once, when a story happened that turned out to be more interesting than all the adventures and undertakings: playing football, shooting from a self-propelled gun and launching rockets.
(19) She shared her plans with her loved ones, and they laughed at her.
(21) And yet one day my mother was able to captivate me with her plan.
(25) At six o’clock in the morning, we, helping each other, shifting buckets of purchased cherries from hand to hand, dragged ourselves to the airfield. (26) On a bare field there was a trailer and a couple of green “corn husks” were spending the night.
(31) With a whistle in our ears, holding buckets of cherries in our shaking hands, we stepped onto concrete field airfield.
(36) But I began to understand this only now, having matured. (37) When I remember this story, I am overcome with the desire to be in childhood, to find my mother there and tell her what I never said, what was not customary to say in our family, but what was implied, like the air around us:
(38) Now I can only say this in a dream, and, rising up, as if on a “corn farm,” I again see the earth beneath me, swaying and rounding at the edges... (39) Mom is next to me, we exchange glances . (40) We are flying on an airplane, we are full of bright plans.
(According to Yu. Nechiporenko *)
Show full text
The most important person for us in childhood is our mother. She spends all her strength for custody and care of their children. But it often turns out that the child takes this for granted and does not show love in return. It is the problem of indifferent attitude towards parents that is posed in the text.
Sometimes it happens that children become so immersed in their own affairs and worries that they stop paying attention to their parents. The author of the text, for example, talks about what in his there was no place for his mother in games, he did not notice his mother’s care, although, as he says, he consisted of ninety percent of her. His mother did not hear well-deserved words of love and gratitude from her son.
I completely agree with Yuri Dmitrievich Nechiporenko. There are many examples in the literature showing what terrible consequences an indifferent attitude towards parents can lead to.
The work of K. Paustovsky “Telegram” shows the relationship between the mother, Katerina Petrovna, and her daughter, Nastya. Anastasia is so busy with her own affairs that doesn't pay attention to a telegram from mat
Criteria
- 1 of 1 K1 Formulation of source text problems
- 2 of 3 K2
Books and publications:
Yesterday I walked in the forest... - "Soviet Schoolboy", 10, 1988. Father's story - "Children's Literature", 12, 1988. Good avant-garde (about the artists Nikolai Krashchin and Andrei Karpov) - "Interlocutor", 21, 1989. Find out yourself (about the paintings of Alexander Zakharov) - “Student Meridian” 8, 1989. Brahmapudra (story) “Literary Newspaper”, 31.1.90. My father is the head of communications (story) - "Pioneer", 4, 1990. Marc Chagall - "Tram", 6, 1990. The story "Two Dogs" and ten essays "Strange Artists" - an almanac for family reading "Crow" M. : "The Word", 1990. Muse, Beekeeping (stories) - almanac "Teply Stan", 1990. Journey into the unknown (about visual books by Telfer Stokes) - "Student Meridian", 1, 1991. Little Bronya (about artists' actions) - "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" (hereinafter - "NG") 20.4.91. Kazimir Malevich - "Tram", 4, 1991. Wassily Kandinsky - "Tram", 7, 1991. Laugh and whistle, Camp (stories) - "Schoolboy's Calendar, 1991" Three women and other stories - collection "Moscow Circle", M.: "Moscow Worker", 1991. Leftism-Vasilism (story) - collection "Freedom Square" M.: 1991. Living Lens (about the painting of Oleg Tselkov) - "Student Meridian", 9, 1991. About the poems of Vsevolod Nekrasov - almanac "Teply Stan", 1992. About the paintings of Oleg Golosiy - "Decorative Art", 1-6, 1992. The first dog (story) - "Periwinkle", 3-5, 1992. Willow (story) - "Rural Youth" , 4-5, 1992. Unleashed demon - "The 20th Century and the World", 5, 1992. Thick echo (review of the magazine "Solo") - "Literary review", 11-12, 1992. Ship in Furman Lane (about young artists) - "Youth Calendar 1992". Poetry of sobriety (about Kholin's poems) - "Literary News", 1, 1992. Geese, geese (story) - "Bonfire", 8, 1992. Alone in the field (about the paintings of Garif Basyrov) - "Smena" 10, 1992. New books about poverty about wealth (Pososhkov's prose) - "Literary review", 1-2, 1993. Prophets (story) - "Hearth", 2, 1993. Faith and career (story) - "Capital", 4, 1993. Tennis (story) - Tennis+ magazine, 6, 1993 (see here). Mythologization of old age and passion (about the prose of Vladislav Otroshenko) - "NG",; 17.8. 1993 The art of mockery (about the actions of artists) - "Ogonyok";, 39, 1993. The child as a law - "Atlantis" magazine, 1, 1994. The beauty of emptiness (about the prose of Evgeny Laputin) - "NG", 11.3. 1994. Help for postmodernity - "NG", 3.6.94. Poetry of conversation (about the poems of Yan Satunovsky) - "NG", 18.7.94. It’s not in vain that we were, are and will be (about Georgy Obolduev) - “NG”, 25.8.94. Laymen on the air - "NG", 10/18/94. New formation - emanative formatism - "Russia XX1", 11-12, 1994. Elite as a superethnos - "The 20th Century and the World", 11-12, 1994. Logic of the Russian language - Abstracts of the international symposium "Logic, philosophy and methodology of science", vol. 5, Dubna, 1995. Chief artist of the museum (about Konstantin Khudyakov) - Stas magazine, 1, 1995. Nina Sadur’s book “Witch’s Tears” - “Ogonyok”, 14, 1995. Post-imperial thinking and postmodernity - “Moscow”, 7, 1995. Book “Lead Me Blind” by Vladislav Otroshenko - “Ogonyok” ", 38, 1995. Blind guardians of the cedar forest - "NG" 5.1.96. Stories by Igor Kholin - "Ogonyok", 3, 1996. Image of prestige - "NG", 21.8.96. "Wooden Paradise" by Konstantin Mamaev - "Ogonyok", 26, 1996. Red bear and blue fish - "Moscow", 7, 1996. Nightclubs of Moscow - "Moscow", 10, 1996. Morality of information - "Moscow", 11, 1996. The art of the holiday - "Moscow", 12, 1996. The spirit of culture - "Magic Mountain" N 5, 1996. Shpak (story) - collection "120 texts for school presentations", M.," Bustard", 1996. Wherever you go, there is yang and ying - "NG" 96. The art of the imageless - magazine "Amadeus" 1, 1997. Patents and potentialities of contemporary art - "Decorative Art", 1 -2, 1997. Collection of Sergei Malyutin - " New house", 1, 1997. Detlit pills or the triumph of seriality - Stas magazine, 2, 1997. Private happiness or insinuation (the story was published under different pseudonyms and titles) - "Friendship of Peoples", 6, 1997. Sumerian dances "Food of the Gods" - "Pilgrim" magazine, summer 1997. Chinese Diogenes - "Our House", 6, 1997. "Living Pictures" and "Living Theater" - "Moscow", 7, 1997. Sebastian (story) - "The Word", 9- 10, 1997. Europe begins with Russia - magazine "Our House", 10, 1997. Prize consciousness - "Moscow", 12, 1997. Painting, Gardening, Justice (essay) - catalog "The World of Sensual Things in Pictures - the end of the twentieth century ", M., 1997. Emanative formatism - "Digital Beetle", 1, 1998. Royal genre - "New Youth", 1-2, 1998. Moscow special (story) - "The Word", 2, 1998. Artist's independence - "Moscow" - "Banner", 10, 1998. Gaito Gazdanov - "Tatiana's Day", 12, 1998. People and mummies - "Evening Moscow", 18.1.99. The rough sea (story) - "Tatyana's Day", 30, 1999. Mask of human rights - "Tatyana's Day", 32, 1999. Give me a foothold - "Tatyana's Day", 33, 1999. The meanings of Russian culture - "Tatyana's Day", 33, 1999. The right of the trembling creature - "Tatyana's Day", 34, 1999. Conferences dedicated to Gaito Gazdanov - "Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences, Series of Literature and Language", volume 58, number 4, 1999 (www.maik.rssi.ru). Shipka (story) - "Pampas", 3, 1999. How Katya Byakina and I trained the winner of the Kremlin Cup - "Pampas", 5, 1999. Scary guy - "Pampas", 6, 1999 Swiss artist in Russia: a story about the spirituality of the walls - "Stool", April, 2000. Blagoveshchensk, Amur - "Slovo" magazine No. 1, 2000. I wanted to create a team - "Children's Literature" magazine No. 1, 2000. Solar needles - almanac "Kolobok and two giraffes" No. 2, 2000.
Publications after 2000:
A full-fledged image (about the work of the artist Alexander Moskvitin) - Moscow, No. 6, 2001
From "University Stories"
Testaments of Pushkin – Newspaper “First of September”, No. 13, 2002
Publican (red-haired senator) – Moskovsky Vestnik, 2003
To Belgrade! (essay) - translation into Serbian language, "Russian Almanac", Belgrade, No. 10, 2005
Apostles of the Flood (essay) - "Daryal", 2005.
Fortran graduate student
Pussy, Pig and Mouse, Hedgehog and Samopal - in the collection “New Stories”, M., Makhaon, 2006.
Contacts:
yurii.nechiporenko (a) gmail.com
Born in the city of Rovenki, Lugansk region, in the family of the head of a communications center, Dmitry Alekseevich Nechipurenko. Spent my childhood among electronic devices. I learned to solder before I could read and write. Adolescence was spent making gunpowder for self-propelled guns and mixtures for explosive packages. At school he served as Chairman of the physical education committee. After winning the Olympics in mathematics, he entered the Faculty of Physics of Moscow State University, where he became captain of the volleyball team. He continued his studies at the Department of Biophysics and in graduate school at the Institute of Molecular Biology of the Academy of Sciences. He defended his first dissertation in biophysics in 1983.
After reading “School for Fools” by Sasha Sokolov, he composed the story “My Father is the Head of Communications.” The story found a home in 1990 in the magazine "Pioneer", in company with texts from the children's writers club "Black Hen". The first literary work, about a trip to Children’s Book Days in Uzbekistan, was published in the magazine for the blind “Soviet Schoolboy” in 1988 using dotted Braille. Having become close to the circle of poets of the Lianozovo group and the Chertkova group, he devoted his first critical articles to the poets of Samizdat: the work of Vsevolod Nekrasov, Yan Satunovsky and the “genius of bohemia” Igor Kholin (with whom he was friends until his death). Later he wrote about Georgy Obolduev (see here) and Stanislav Krasovitsky (see here). In total, he published about five hundred stories, articles and reviews (some under pseudonyms).
Achievements in the science of biophysics can be considered the discovery of an unusual “parallel form” of the DNA molecule (1988, co-authored with N. Churikov), in cultural studies - the construction of a fair model of Gogol’s world (1996), which became widespread after the publication of the article “Gogol’s Cosmogony” (2002) . Thus, the main scientific achievements obtained in studies around DNA and around Gogol (which is no wonder - after all, Gogol’s texts are something like the DNA of not only Russian, but also world culture). Developed the concept modern society(emanative formatism, see here). He was the initiator of a number of artistic events related to Sumerian-Babylonian mythology. He founded the art group “Food of the Gods,” whose performances were included in the encyclopedia “Russian Actionism of the 1990s.”
He appeared on television and hosted the program “Meanings of Russian Culture” on “People's Radio”. Participated in performances of the art group "Blind". He starred (as a presenter) in the Franco-German film about the artistic life of Moscow (1996), in the film “The Fourth Life” (about Gaito Gazdanov, 2005, directed by Rafael Gasparyants), “Three Secrets of Gogol” (2007, directed by Ilya Ivanov).
He created the literary "Society of Friends of Gaito Gazdanov". Participated in the organization of six international conferences on Gazdanov (Vladikavkaz, Moscow, Kaliningrad) and the publication of a collection of works “Gazdanov’s work in the context of Russian and Western European literature”, M., 2008. Participated in the opening of the monument at Gazdanov’s grave in the Sainte-Geneviève-de-de-cemetery Bois, gave lectures on the work of Gazdanov in Belgrade and Novi Sad as part of the project “Gazdanov in Yugoslavia” (author – Zorislav Paunkovich).
He taught at the Lyceum at the Russian State University for the Humanities, at the College of Marketing (lectures on the theory of performance and the history of world culture), at the Natalia Nesterova University (lectures on the psychology of journalism, 2005-2007, as a professor). He collaborated with the publishing center "Black Hen", with the seminar "Idiom" at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and is a member of the Children's Writers Club at the library. Gaidar. He made presentations at many international conferences and meetings of writers, critics and translators (Belgrade, Warsaw, Vienna, Gdansk, Nizhyn, Yuryev-Polsky) and biophysicists (Belgrade, Dubna, Prague, Pushchino, St. Petersburg, Sveti Stefan, Kharkov, Tsakhkadzor , Chelyabinsk, etc.) He performed in many children's libraries and boarding schools in Moscow, Moscow region, Uzbekistan, in the Baltics, Murmansk, Nizhny Novgorod, at evenings in Bulgakov's house (Lola Zvonareva's salon) and Central House of Writers.
Member of the International Society of Writers' Unions, member of the Association of Art Critics: since 2003 he has headed the Literary and Art Studio of the Physics Faculty of Moscow State University, since 2008 - the Poetry Club "Free Moods" at Moscow State University.
He created a new educational magazine for teenagers, “Pampas”, and has headed it since 1997 (the paper version was published by the publishing house “Veselye Kartinki”; now the magazine is published on the Internet).
Since 2002 – Editor-in-Chief of the online review “Russian Life” and the teenage magazine “Electronic Pampas”.
Winner of the Moscow magazine award (1995), winner of awards from a number of online publications, the Sergei Mikhalkov award (2008), and the Cherished Dream award (2009).
[back ]
If you want information about your works to appear in our catalog, write to us by email zharptiza (a) rambler.ru(“a” in brackets is changed to @) or in the guest book.
Attention! All literary works on the site are protected by Russian copyright law.
Hilferding I
Hilferding
Alexander Fedorovich, Russian Slavic scholar, collector and researcher of epics, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1856). In 1852 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. With great philological accuracy, G. wrote down 318 epic texts (“Onega epics,” 1873). He was the first to apply the method of studying the repertoire of individual storytellers and raised the question of the role of the creative personality in folklore. G. owns significant works on history. G.'s views on the nature of the relationship between the Slavs and Germans. Feudal invaders and colonialists were opposed by the nationalist traditions of the Germans. historiography about the cultural role of the Germans. elements in glory. lands. G.’s historical works “The History of the Baltic Slavs” (1855) and “The Slavs’ Struggle with the Germans on the Baltic Sea Coast in the Middle Ages” (1861) have not lost their significance. In 1871-72 he made trips to collect epics in the Olonets province, where he died. Works: Collection. soch., vol. 1-4, St. Petersburg, 1868-74; Onega epics, 4th ed., vol. 1-3, M. - L., 1949-51. Lit.: Sokolov Yu. M., In the footsteps of Rybnikov and Hilferding, in the collection: Artistic folklore, No. 2-3, M., 1927; Bazanov V. G., A. F. Hilferding and his “Onega epics”, in the book: Onega epics, 4th ed., vol. 1, M. - L., 1949. Works: Böhm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik, in the book: Marx-Studien, Bd 1, W., 1904 (Russian translation - Böhm-Bawerk as a critic of Marx, M.,). Lit.: Lenin V.I., Complete. collection op., 5th ed. (See Reference volume, part 2, p. 428).
Big Soviet encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .
See what "Hilferding" is in other dictionaries:
- (Hilferding), Rudolf (August 10, 1877 – February 10, 1941) – one of the leaders of the Germans. With. Dtiya and the 2nd International, theorist of Austro-Marxism, who switched to the position of social reformism. In 1906–15 – editor of the center. German organ With. d tii Vorwärts ,… … Philosophical Encyclopedia
- (Hilferding) Rudolf (1877 1941). One of the leaders of Austrian and German social democracy and the Second International, theorist of Austro-Marxism, like-minded person of Karl Kautsky. In 1909 he published the highly acclaimed book Financial... ... 1000 biographies
- (Hilferding) Rudolf (1877 1941), one of the leaders of Austrian and German social democracy and the 2nd International. He was one of the first to analyze new trends in the development of capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. in work Financial... ... Modern encyclopedia
Alexander Fedorovich (07/2/1831 06/20/1872), Russian Slavic scholar, historian and collector of Russian epics. One of the prominent representatives of the Slavophiles. Graduated from Moscow University (1852). In 1856 59 he was Russian consul in Bosnia. Since 1867 chairman... ...Russian history
1 . Alexander Fedorovich (2.VII.1831 20.VI.1872) Russian. Slavic scholar, historian and Russian collector. epic Member corr. AN (since 1856). One of the prominent representatives of the Slavophiles. Genus. in the family of a major official in Warsaw. Graduated from Moscow. un t (1852). In 1856 59... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia
- (German: Hilferding) German or Jewish surname. Famous speakers: Hilferding, Alexander Fedorovich (1831 1872) Russian Slavist and folklorist. Hilferding, Rudolf (1877 1941) Austrian and German Marxist and leader of the Social Democrats ... Wikipedia
HILFERDING- Alexander Fedorovich (07/2/1831, Warsaw 06/20/1872, Kargopol, Olonets province), historian, Slavic philologist, ethnographer. Genus. in the family of a native of Saxony, director of the diplomatic chancellery under the governor of the Kingdom of Poland. Got homemade... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
Choreographer of the second half of the 18th century, composer of ballets. (Vengerov) ...
Translator 1804 (Vengerov) ... Large biographical encyclopedia
- ... Wikipedia
Books
- Collected works. T. 1. 1. History of the Serbs and Bulgarians. 2. Cyril and Methodius. 3. Review of Czech history. , Hilferding A.F.. The book is a reprint of 1868. Despite the fact that serious work has been done to restore the original quality of the publication, some pages may...
Lev Davidovich Trotsky
Problems of the international proletarian revolution. Basic questions of the proletarian revolution
Problems of the international proletarian revolution. Basic questions of the proletarian revolutionLev Davidovich Trotsky
The combination in this volume of two books published at different times (“Terrorism and Communism”) and “Between Imperialism and Revolution”) is justified by the fact that both books are devoted to the same main topic, with the second being written in the name of an independent goal (defense our policy towards Menshevik Georgia), is at the same time only a more concrete illustration of the main provisions of the first book using a particular historical example.
In both works, the main issues of the revolution are closely intertwined with the topic of the political day, with specific military, political and economic events. Minor errors in assessments or partial violations of perspective are completely natural and completely inevitable. It would be wrong to correct them retroactively, if only because particular mistakes reflected certain stages of our Soviet work and party thought. The main provisions of the book retain, from my point of view, their entire force today. Because in the first book we're talking about about the methods of our economic development during the period of war communism, I advised the publishing house to attach to the publication, as an appendix, my report at the IV Congress of the Comintern on the new economic policy Soviet power. In this way, those chapters of the book “Terrorism and Communism” that are devoted to the economy from the point of view of our experience of 1919–1920 are introduced into the necessary perspective.
Leon Trotsky
Problems of the international proletarian revolution. Basic questions of the proletarian revolution
PREFACE
The combination in this volume of two books published at different times (“Terrorism and Communism”) and “Between Imperialism and Revolution”) is justified by the fact that both books are devoted to the same main topic, with the second being written in the name of an independent goal (defense our policy towards Menshevik Georgia), is at the same time only a more concrete illustration of the main provisions of the first book using a particular historical example.
In both works, the main issues of the revolution are closely intertwined with the topic of the political day, with specific military, political and economic events. Minor errors in assessments or partial violations of perspective are completely natural and completely inevitable. It would be wrong to correct them retroactively, if only because particular mistakes reflected certain stages of our Soviet work and party thought. The main provisions of the book retain, from my point of view, their entire force today. Since the first book deals with the methods of our economic development during the period of war communism, I advised the publishing house to include in the publication, as an appendix, my report at the IV Congress of the Comintern on the new economic policy of Soviet power. In this way, those chapters of the book “Terrorism and Communism” that are devoted to the economy from the point of view of our experience of 1919–1920 are introduced into the necessary perspective.
Both books combined here, directed primarily against the Russian Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, did not, as far as I know, meet with any semblance of theoretical evaluation on their part. And no wonder: the petty-bourgeois parties brought into circulation by the revolution have lost all interest in the theoretical formulation of the main issues of the revolution. What remains of these parties lives on insinuation, slander, petty trickery, petty servanthood and petty handouts.
German Menshevism, possessing a much greater force of historical inertia - the cast-iron roller of the proletarian revolution has not yet passed along its spine - responded with a number of critical and polemical works, among which the first place in hopeless vulgarity is occupied by the learned words of Kautsky. Those of his arguments that provided at least some support for revolutionary criticism were appreciated in their time by Comrade Radek. There is absolutely no reason to return to these questions here. German Menshevism, like world Menshevism, is doomed - it will go through its path of decay and rot to the end.
This does not mean at all, however, that in the theoretical realm we can continue to live like rentiers on interest from old capital. Vice versa. The theoretical development of questions of the revolution - not only its methods (which is mainly the subject of this book), but its material foundations - is now more urgent and obligatory for us than ever before. In terms of its complexity, the era we are experiencing has no equal in the past. The immediate revolutionary prospects, as they stood before us in 1918 - 1920, seemed to have moved away, the struggle of the main social forces took on a more protracted character, and at the same time, tremors did not stop for a minute, threatening either military or class , then a national explosion. The intense theoretical work of revolutionary thought on understanding and assessing the internal forces of the world process and their often contradictory tendencies is the key, first of all, to the principled and effective self-preservation of the Communist Party, and then to its victory.
The degeneration of revolutionary parties occurs unnoticed, but is revealed catastrophically. German Social Democracy, under the leadership of Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, entered life with completely different feelings and thoughts with which 50 years later, under the leadership of Scheidemann and Ebert, it entered world war. Over the course of half a century, generations gradually renewed themselves, and what was only temporary and private for the old people was deposited in the minds of the young as a foundation. The base practicality of the young influenced, in turn, the old, moving the party lower and lower from its revolutionary position. The first Russian revolution (1905) was reflected in Germany primarily in that it disrupted the automatic process of belittling the party, causing a rise in revolutionary sentiment among the best part of the younger generation and - as always, at the same time! – theoretical interests. Elements of the radical wing of German Social Democracy, and later the Spartacists, fed from this source. But on the whole, the party of V. Liebknecht and A. Bebel met the war and revolution completely degenerated and raised the executioner Noske on its shield.
The tactics of a united front and struggle for transitional demands currently being pursued by the Comintern is a necessary policy for communist parties bourgeois states in the current preparatory period. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that this policy at the same time conceals undoubted dangers of fragmentation and even complete degeneration of communist parties if, on the one hand, the preparatory period is too long, and if, on the other hand, the daily work of Western parties does not will be fertilized by active theoretical thought, covering the dynamics of the main historical forces in full.
The same danger faces, to a certain extent, our party, in the country of proletarian dictatorship. Our work is, of necessity, specialized and goes into detail. Issues of state frugality, scientific organization of labor, lowering the cost of industrial products, profit and accumulation should now occupy a central place in the life of the party. Without correct, systematic work and without real and lasting successes in this area, everything else will be belated agitation, i.e. pathetic and vulgar chatter. But, on the other hand, even our undoubted economic successes would threaten to weaken and shake the party, giving rise to narrow practicalism, departmental and business limitations, and petty struggles in it - if the theoretical thought of the party does not continue to fight to take more and more new positions , fertilizing all our work with the correct global and internal orientation. Myopic practicality on one pole, agitation skimming the surface of all issues on the other - these are two undoubted dangers or two polar expressions of the same danger that await us on our difficult road.
This danger would become fatal if we allowed a break in the theoretical tradition of the party. In the field of material culture we have seen and continue to see how difficult it can be to restore when the continuity of work is disrupted - but here the disruption was inevitable, arising from the very nature of the class struggle and its revolutionary culmination. In the ideological field, we, as a party, least of all need revolution; on the contrary, maintaining ideological continuity is now the most imperative requirement of revolutionary thought. The line of our further theoretical development is sufficiently determined by two points in the kingdom of thought: one of them is Marx, the other is Lenin.
A synthetic coverage of the situation on the basis of a materialistic, deeply drilling analysis of its main elements represents the essence of Marxism (with an advantage in the direction of historical foresight) and Leninism (with an advantage in the direction of effective conclusions). The peculiarities of both arise not from the difference in methods, but from the difference in eras. Leninism can be defined as Marxism translated into the language of the era of imperialist agony of bourgeois society.
Although Lenin the theorist himself always gave a generalized expression of what Lenin the politician did, nevertheless, and even better to say precisely because, the theoretical study and generalization of Lenin’s revolutionary work over the course of a third of a century represents an independent and enormous task, work on which in itself can and should become a school for theorists of the party of a new call. From this point of view, the creation of the Lenin Institute by our Moscow party organization represents an undertaking of first-class importance. The entire party must come to the aid of Moscow here, for the entire party will in the future quench its spiritual thirst from this source...
Capitalist society is in its death throes. However, his agony became prolonged, in accordance with the powerful vital inertia of the body. We see how, after the desperate post-war convulsions, relative “calm” sets in, some semblance of balance is established between the vital functions of the capitalist organism, revolutionary prospects seem to blur and fade, the bourgeoisie is filled with arrogance, and in its weakest, Apennine, area it establishes the dictatorship of the pea jester. On the scale of great historical foresight, a jester is a jester. But for today's revolutionary struggle, a jester armed with the apparatus of the imperialist state is a great political factor. In this gap - between the bloody dictatorship of imperialism and the clownish mask of a harlequin and charlatan - history fits all the variety of means and methods of the outlived exploiting class. Our time is always fraught with surprises: a bloody threat can be resolved by buffoonery, but the buffoonery of the imperialist bourgeoisie is always fraught with bloody crimes.
The protracted current era is fraught with the possibility of sudden disruptions in tempo and deep upheavals. Our sober, cautious, balanced policy must therefore retain the ability to make sharp turns. Otherwise, a new revolutionary wave, taking the Communist Party by surprise, could put it out of action. And this would almost certainly mean a new defeat for the revolution. The Party's intense theoretical work, linking yesterday with tomorrow, is a necessary condition for the Party to maintain its ability to make sharp turns.
From questions of “politics”, in the narrow sense of the word, the theoretical attention of the party must again descend deeper, to questions of economics - not only of our Soviet economy, but also of the world capitalist market. In this main historical laboratory, forces are now being regrouped and prepared for a new era of open civil war. Already the III Congress of the Comintern, as soon as changes in the pace of development were outlined, reminded the headquarters of the communist parties of the need to lower the probe of analysis more deeply to determine the future path. If then some comrades were ready to see this as almost “economism” (!), now it is unlikely that such an assessment will meet with anyone’s support. In his report on the situation of the Communist International at the XII Congress of our Party, Comrade Bukharin devoted significant space, and not by chance, to an analysis of the economic state of the most important countries. The time for summary revolutionary generalizations has passed. It will come again when the current semi-stable equilibrium is exploded by the contradictions that are constantly accumulating within it. But for now this explosion is only being prepared. Attention to the economy! This is what the current period requires from party thought, and it demands it strictly. For if in pure politics much can be grasped by scent and on the fly, then in economics the matter is more difficult: here we need serious and conscientious work of studying the facts in their quantitative and qualitative relationships. But only such a collective scientific work capable of preserving the freshness and elasticity of party consciousness.
Automatic movement along the same track is not, of course, following tradition, for precisely the greatest and most glorious tradition of our party lies in its incomparable maneuverability, from the angle of which retreat, like advance, are only links of one and the same plan. A sharp turn requires a lot of effort, thought, and will: you need to understand the need for a turn, you need to want it and make it. Narrow practicalism is just as incapable of this as wind-blown agitation: both types are equally prone to confusion, cowardice and panic in moments that require a particularly high concentration of consciousness and will. The preservation of the party tradition, that is, in essence, the preservation of the party itself, is conceivable only by introducing the young generation to the independent theoretical development of issues of the revolution in close connection with all our domestic and international activities.
There is and cannot be any reason to doubt that we will cope with this task, like all others!
P.S. This volume consists of works that more or less generally (“theoretically”) cover various issues of the revolution. The works included in this volume were written, however, not as theoretical studies, but as militant political works, which left a defining stamp on them. In the very form in which they were created, under the pressure of a certain need of the day, they are printed on these pages.
The entire volume has been prepared for publication and is provided with notes by Comrade. E. Kaganovich, to whom I express my sincere gratitude here.
L. Trotsky. Terrorism and communism
PREFACE
The reason for this book was Kautsky’s learned libel of the same title
(#litres_trial_promo). Our work began during the period of fierce battles with Denikin and Yudenich and was more than once interrupted by events at the fronts. In those difficult days when the first chapters were written, all attention Soviet Russia was focused on purely military tasks. First of all, it was necessary to defend the very possibility of socialist economic creativity. We could engage in industry little more than what was necessary to serve the fronts. We were forced to expose Kautsky's economic slander mainly by analogy with his political slander. Kautsky’s monstrous assertions that Russian workers are incapable of labor discipline and economic self-restraint, we could refute at the beginning of this work - almost a year ago - mainly by pointing out the high discipline and military heroism of Russian workers on the fronts of the civil war. This experience was more than enough to refute the petty-bourgeois slander. But now, several months later, we can turn to facts and arguments drawn directly from the economic life of Soviet Russia.
As soon as the military pressure weakened, after the defeat of Kolchak and Yudenich and our delivery of decisive blows to Denikin, after the conclusion of peace with Estonia and the start of negotiations with Lithuania and Poland, a turn towards the economy took place throughout the country. And this one fact of the rapid and concentrated transfer of attention and energy from one task to another, deeply different, but requiring no less sacrifice, is indisputable evidence of the powerful vitality of the Soviet system. Despite all the political trials, physical disasters and horrors, the working masses are infinitely far from political decay, moral decay or apathy. Thanks to a regime that, although it imposed great hardships on them, made sense of their lives and gave them a high purpose, they retain exceptional moral elasticity and an ability unparalleled in history to concentrate attention and will on collective tasks. Now in all branches of industry there is an energetic struggle to establish strict labor discipline and increase labor productivity. Organizations of the party, trade unions, management of factories and factories compete in this area with the undivided support of public opinion of the working class as a whole. Factory after factory voluntarily, by resolution of their general meetings, lengthen the working day. St. Petersburg and Moscow set an example, the province follows St. Petersburg. Subbotniks and Sundays, i.e. Voluntary and free work during leisure hours is becoming increasingly widespread, involving many, many hundreds of thousands of male and female workers. The intensity and productivity of labor on subbotniks and Sundays differs, according to reviews of experts and according to the evidence of figures, at exceptional heights.
Voluntary mobilizations for labor tasks in the party and in the youth union are carried out with the same enthusiasm as before for combat tasks. Labor volunteerism complements and spiritualizes labor service. The newly created labor service committees cover the entire country with their network. Involving the population in mass work (clearing roads of snow, repairing railway track, forest cutting, procurement and delivery of firewood, simple construction work, oil shale and peat extraction) is becoming increasingly widespread and systematic. The ever-expanding involvement of military units in labor would be completely impossible in the absence of a high labor upsurge...
True, we live in an environment of severe economic decline, exhaustion, poverty, and hunger. But this is not an argument against the Soviet regime: all transitional eras were characterized by similar tragic features. Each class society (slave, feudal, capitalist), having exhausted itself, does not simply leave the stage, but is forcibly swept away through intense internal struggle, which directly causes participants often more hardships and suffering than those against which they rebelled.
The transition from a feudal economy to a bourgeois economy - an upsurge of enormous progressive significance - is a monstrous martyrology. No matter how much the serfs suffered under feudalism, no matter how hard life was and is being for the proletariat under capitalism, never have the misfortunes of the working people reached such severity as in eras when the old feudal system was forcibly broken down, giving way to a new one. The French Revolution of the 18th century, which reached its gigantic scope under the pressure of the suffering masses, itself for a long period extremely deepened and aggravated their misfortunes. Could it have been different?
Palace coups, ending with personal shuffling at the top, can be carried out in short term, almost without affecting the economic life of the country. Revolutions, which draw millions of working people into their whirlpool, are another matter. Whatever the form of society, it rests on work. By separating the masses from work, drawing them into struggle for a long time, thereby disrupting their production ties, the revolution thereby deals blows to the economy and inevitably lowers the economic level that it found at its threshold. The deeper the social revolution, the larger the masses it involves, the longer it lasts, the greater the destruction it causes in the production apparatus, the more it devastates social reserves. The only conclusion that follows from this, which does not require proof, is that civil war is harmful to the economy. But blaming this on the Soviet economic system is the same as blaming a new human being for the birth pangs of the mother who brought him into the world. The goal is to reduce the civil war. And this is achieved only by decisive action. But it is precisely against revolutionary determination that Kautsky’s entire book is directed.
Since the publication of the book we are examining, not only in Russia, but throughout the world, and above all in Europe, major events have occurred or significant processes have advanced, undermining the last foundations of Kautskyism.
In Germany, the civil war became increasingly violent. The external organizational power of the old party and professional democracy of the working class not only did not create the conditions for a more peaceful and “humane” transition to socialism, which follows from Kautsky’s current theory, but, on the contrary, served as one of the main reasons for the protracted nature of the struggle with its ever-increasing bitterness. The more conservative the German Social Democracy has become, the more strength, lives and blood the German proletariat, devoted to it, is forced to expend in a series of successive attacks on the foundations of bourgeois society, in order, in the process of the struggle itself, to create for itself a new, truly revolutionary organization capable of leading it to final victory. The conspiracy of the German generals, their fleeting seizure of power and the bloody events that followed showed again what a pathetic and insignificant masquerade the so-called democracy is in the conditions of the collapse of imperialism and civil war. Democracy that has outlived itself does not resolve a single question, does not soften a single contradiction, does not heal a single wound, does not prevent uprisings either on the right or on the left - it is powerless, insignificant, deceitful and serves only to confuse the backward strata of the people. , especially the petty bourgeoisie.
The hope expressed by Kautsky in the final part of his book that the Western countries, the “old democracies” of France and England, crowned with victory, will give us a picture of a healthy, normal, peaceful, truly Kautskyan development towards socialism, is one of the most absurd illusions . The so-called republican democracy of victorious France is currently the most reactionary, bloody and corrupt government that has ever existed in the world. His domestic policies are built on fear, greed and violence as much as his foreign policies. On the other hand, the French proletariat, deceived more than any other class has ever been deceived, is increasingly moving towards the path of direct action. The repressions that the government of the republic brought upon the General Confederation of Labor show that even syndicalist Kautskyism, that is, hypocritical conciliation, has no legal place within the framework of bourgeois democracy. The revolutionization of the masses, the bitterness of the owners and the collapse of intermediate groups - three parallel processes that determine and foreshadow the imminence of a brutal civil war - have been in full swing before our eyes in recent months in France.
In England events, different in form, follow the same basic path. In this country, whose ruling class is now, more than ever, oppressing and plundering the whole world, the formulas of democracy have lost their meaning even as an instrument of parliamentary quackery. The most qualified specialist in this area, Lloyd George, is now appealing not to democracy, but to an alliance of conservative and liberal property owners against the working class. There was not a trace of the democratic vagueness of the “Marxist” Kautsky left in his arguments. Lloyd George stands on the basis of class realities and precisely because of this he speaks in the language of civil war. The English working class, with its ponderous empiricism that distinguishes it, is approaching that chapter of its struggle before which the most heroic pages of Chartism will fade, just as the Paris Commune will turn pale before the imminent victorious uprising of the French proletariat.
Precisely because historical events have developed their revolutionary logic with stern energy over these months, the author of this book asks himself: is there still a need for its publication? Is it still necessary to theoretically refute Kautsky? Is there a theoretical need to justify revolutionary terrorism?
Unfortunately yes. Ideology plays a huge role in the socialist movement, by its very essence. Even in empirical England, a period has arrived when the working class must make an ever-increasing demand for a theoretical generalization of its experience and its tasks. Meanwhile, psychology, even proletarian psychology, contains within itself the terrible inertia of conservatism, especially since in this case we are talking about nothing other than the traditional ideology of the parties of the Second International, which awakened the proletariat and were until recently so powerful. After the collapse of official social patriotism (Scheidemann, W. Adler, Renaudel, Vandervelde, Henderson, Plekhanov, etc.), international Kautskyism (the headquarters of the German independents, Friedrich Adler, Longuet, a significant part of the Italians, the English “independents,” the Martov group, etc. ) is the main political factor on which the unstable equilibrium of capitalist society rests. It can be said that the will of the working masses of the entire civilized world, directly spurred on by the course of events, is currently incomparably more revolutionary than their consciousness, which is still weighed down by the prejudices of parliamentarism and conciliation. The struggle for the dictatorship of the working class means for the current moment a fierce struggle against Kautskyism within the working class. The lies and prejudices of conciliation, which still poison the atmosphere even in parties gravitating towards the Third International, must be thrown away. This book should serve the cause of the irreconcilable struggle against the cowardly, half-hearted and hypocritical Kautskyism of all countries.
P.S. Now (May 1920) clouds have gathered over Soviet Russia again. Bourgeois Poland, with its attack on Ukraine, opened a new offensive of world imperialism against Soviet Russia. The greatest dangers, again rising before the revolution, and the enormous sacrifices imposed by the war on the working masses, are again pushing the Russian Kautskyites onto the path of open opposition to Soviet power, i.e. in fact, on the path of helping the world stranglers of socialist Russia. The fate of the Kautskyites is to try to help the proletarian revolution when things are going well enough for it, and to create all sorts of obstacles for it when it especially needs help. Kautsky has more than once predicted our destruction, which should be the best proof of his, Kautsky’s, theoretical correctness. In his downfall, this “successor of Marx” has reached the point where his only serious political program is speculation on the collapse of the proletarian dictatorship.
He will be wrong this time too. The defeat of bourgeois Poland by the Red Army, led by the communist workers, will be a new manifestation of the power of the proletarian dictatorship and will deal a crushing blow to petty-bourgeois skepticism (Kautskyism) in the labor movement. Despite the crazy confusion of external forms, slogans and colors, modern history has extremely simplified the main content of its process, reducing it to the struggle of imperialism with communism. Pilsudski is fighting not only for the lands of Polish magnates in Ukraine and Belarus, not only for capitalist property and the Catholic Church, but also for parliamentary democracy, for evolutionary socialism, for the Second International, for Kautsky’s right to remain a critical hanger-on of the bourgeoisie. We are fighting for the Communist International and the international revolution of the proletariat. The stakes are high on both sides. The fight will be stubborn and difficult. We hope for victory, because we have all the historical rights to it.
I. RELATION OF POWERS
The argument that is invariably repeated in criticism of the Soviet regime in Russia and especially in criticism of revolutionary attempts to transition to it in other countries is the argument from the balance of forces. The Soviet regime in Russia is utopian because it “does not correspond to the balance of forces.” Backward Russia cannot set itself the tasks that would have been possible in the days of advanced Germany. But it would also be madness for the German proletariat to seize political power into its own hands, since this “at the present time” would upset the balance of forces. The League of Nations is imperfect, but it corresponds to the balance of forces. The struggle to overthrow imperialist rule is utopian; the balance of forces corresponds to the demand for amendments to the Treaty of Versailles. When Longuet hobbled after Wilson, it was not because of Longuet’s political flabbiness, but in honor of the law of the balance of forces. Austrian President Seitz and Chancellor Renner should, in the opinion of Friedrich Adler, exercise their petty-bourgeois vulgarity in the central posts of a bourgeois republic, otherwise the balance of power will be disrupted. Two years before the World War, Karl Renner, then not yet a chancellor, but a “Marxist” advocate of opportunism, explained to me that the June Third regime, i.e. The union of landowners and capitalists, crowned by a monarchy, will inevitably last in Russia for an entire historical era, since it corresponds to the balance of forces.
What is this balance of forces, a sacramental formula that should determine, guide and explain the entire course of history, wholesale and retail? Why does the actual formula of the balance of forces in the current Kautsky school invariably act as an excuse for indecision, inertia, cowardice, treason and betrayal?
The balance of forces means anything: the achieved level of production, the degree of class differentiation, the number of organized workers, cash in the coffers of trade unions, sometimes the result of the latter parliamentary elections, often the degree of compliance of the ministry or the degree of impudence of the financial oligarchy - most often, finally, the overall political impression that is created by a half-blind pedant or by a so-called real politician, even if he has mastered the phraseology of Marxism, but in reality is guided by the most vulgar combinations, philistine prejudices and parliamentary “signs”... Having whispered with the director of the police department, the Austrian Social Democratic politician in the good and not so old years always knew with certainty whether a peaceful street demonstration on May Day was permissible in Vienna “according to the balance of forces”. For the Eberts, Scheidemanns and Davids, the balance of power was not so long ago measured with complete accuracy by the number of fingers that Bethmann-Hollweg or Ludendorff himself held out to them when they met in the Reichstag.
According to Friedrich Adler, the establishment of a Soviet dictatorship in Austria would be a disastrous violation of the balance of power: the Entente would doom Austria to famine. As proof, Friedrich Adler, at the July Congress of Soviets, pointed to Hungary, where at that time the Hungarian Renners, with the help of the Hungarian Adlers, had not yet succeeded in overthrowing the power of the Soviets. At first glance, it might indeed seem that Friedrich Adler was right in relation to Hungary: the proletarian dictatorship there was soon overthrown, and its place was taken by the ministry of obscurantist Friedrich. But it is quite permissible to ask whether this latter corresponded to the balance of forces? In any case, Frederick and his Hussars could not have been temporarily in power if not for the Romanian army. From here it is clear that, when explaining the fate of Soviet power in Hungary, one has to take into account the “balance of forces”, at least within two countries: Hungary itself and neighboring Romania. But it is not difficult to understand that one cannot stop there: if the dictatorship of the Soviets had been established in Austria before the onset of the Hungarian crisis, the overthrow of Soviet power in Budapest would have been an incomparably more difficult task. Therefore, it is necessary to include Austria, along with the treacherous policy of Friedrich Adler, in the balance of forces that determined the temporary fall of Soviet power in Hungary.
Rudolf Hilferding
Hilferding Rudolf (1877-1941). One of the leaders of Austrian and German social democracy and the Second International, theorist of Austro-Marxism, like-minded person of Karl Kautsky. In 1909 he published the book “Financial Capital”, which became very famous. After the First World War he came out with a revision of Marxism. In 1922, after the merger of the independents with the Scheidemannites, Hilferding became the leader of the united party. Evolving all the time to the right, in 1923 he entered Stresemann's cabinet as Minister of Finance. In 1923 and 1928-1929 - Minister of Finance of Germany. Since the summer of 1924, editor of the magazine "Gesellschaft".
Hilferding, Rudolf (Hilferding), (1877-1941), one of the leaders of Austrian and German social democracy, theorist of the so-called Austro-Marxism. Born on August 10, 1877 in Vienna in the family of a wealthy businessman. As a medical student he joined the Austrian Social Democratic Party. After graduating from university, he moved to Berlin, where he collaborated with Neue Zeit, the theoretical organ of German Social Democracy, writing articles on issues of Marxist economic theory.
In 1907-15, editor of the central organ of the German Social Democratic Party "Vorwärts". In his main work, Financial Capital (1910), Hilferding made one of the first attempts to give scientific explanation new phenomena of capitalism associated with its entry into the stage of imperialism. In it Hilferding summarized the great theoretical material about the emergence and activities of joint-stock companies, the formation of fictitious capital, described the stock exchange; examined the process of subordination of small capitals to large ones; defended the thesis about the maturity of capitalism to replace it with socialism.
In 1924, Hilferding was elected to the Reichstag, where he sharply criticized the growing Nazi movement. He twice served as Minister of Finance: in 1923 in the Stresemann government and in 1928-29 in the Müller government.
After the Nazis came to power in 1933, Hilferding was forced to leave Germany: first he went to Denmark, then to Switzerland and finally to France. The Vichy government handed Hilferding over to the Gestapo. He died in a Paris prison on February 10, 1941.
Material used from the Encyclopedia of the Third Reich - www.fact400.ru/mif/reich/titul.htm
Rudolf Hilferding (August 10, 1877, Vienna - February 1941, Paris) - Austro-German social scientist and politician, a prominent theorist of Austro-Marxism. Together with M. Adler, he organized the publication “Magh-Studien”, in which the most important works of Hilferding were published. In 1907 - 16th editor of the central organ of German Social Democracy “Vorwärts”. In 1918-22 - editor of Freiheit. In 1923 and 1928-29 - Minister of Finance in the coalition governments of Germany. After emigrating, he worked in Switzerland, then in France, where he died in a Gestapo prison. In his work “Bohm-Bawerk, as a critic of Marx” (Bohm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik.-Magh-Studien, Bd 1. Wien, 1904), Hilferding set out to refute the Austrian economist’s adjustments to Marx’s labor theory of value. At the same time, he, like other Austro-Marxists (and unlike Marx), believed that Marxism should be interpreted as a “purely scientific” theory that has nothing to do with ideology. Hilferding's main work, “Financial Capital” (Das Finanzkapital. Wien, 1910), is devoted to the analysis of the newest phase in the development of capitalism and the rethinking of Marx’s “Capital” in relation to new conditions. In contrast to Marx, who believed that the value of a commodity is created only by the labor spent on its production, Hilferding declared the law of value to be the law not of production, but of the sphere of circulation. From this he deduced the “organizing” role of financial capital as the dominant force in the development of society in the era of imperialism. Studying the process of formation of monopolies, Hilferding, for the first time in economic science, analyzed the new category of “constituent profit”, revealed the mechanism of formation of fictitious capital, etc. The concentration and centralization of capital, the growth of trusts and cartels lead to the elimination of competition, anarchy of production, and crises. Within the framework of “organized capitalism,” the economic role of the state will be greatly strengthened, commodity fetishism will disappear, and a “consciously regulated society” will emerge, which, according to Hilferding, will contribute to the transition to the socialist principle of planned production, the gradual development of financial capital into socialism. The prerequisites for a civilized transition to socialism are a coalition of the Social Democratic Party with bourgeois parties and parliamentary reformism. The role of the ideology of liberalism, according to Hilferding, needs to be reassessed: if in the era of industrial capital it was progressive, then in the era of financial capital it loses its significance, because it comes into conflict with the interests of “organized capitalism” and conscious regulation.
A. T. Myslivchenko
New philosophical encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Guseinov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Mysl, 2010, vol. I, A - D, p. 526.
Hilferding, Rudolf (10.VIII.1877 - 10.II.1941) - one of the opportunist leaders of Austrian and German social democracy and the 2nd International, theorist of Austro-Marxism. Born in Vienna into a bourgeois family. During his student years he became a Social Democrat. In 1907 he moved to Berlin, where he joined the centrist Kautskyites. In 1907-1915, Hilferding was editor of the Central Organ of the German Social Democratic Party "Vorwärts". As one of the leaders of the Independent Social Democratic Party and editor of its Central Organ "Freiheit" (1918-1922), Hilferding advocated unification with the right-wing Social Democrats. He was hostile towards Soviet Russia and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Since 1924 - Member of the Reichstag. In 1923 and 1928-1929 - Minister of Finance in the coalition bourgeois governments. After the Nazis seized power, he emigrated to France (1933). Handed over to the Nazis by the Vichy government, he was imprisoned, where he died. In his main work “Financial Capital” (1910; Russian translation 1912, 1925 and 1959), Hilferding, according to V.I. Lenin, gave a valuable theoretical analysis of imperialism, but showed “... a certain tendency to reconcile Marxism with opportunism ..." (Works, vol. 22, p. 183).
Hilferding's historical concept revised the materialist understanding of history. In his work "The Historical Problem" ("Das historische Problem", published posthumously in "Die Zukunft", 1956, H. 2, 3), he argued that the decisive factor in the development of history is military violence, which also determines the economy. Hilferding believed that since the results of violence cannot be foreseen, then “this already determines that the knowledge of the laws of history encounters limits.” Since state power, according to Hilferding, determines the development of the economy, one of the tasks of the historian is to study not the interaction of economics and politics, but the subjective will, the psychology of the bearers of state power. Having come out with a reformist-apologetic theory of “organized capitalism” and “economic democracy” in the 20s, Hilferding argued that the concentration and centralization of capital and the growth of monopolies lead to the elimination of competition and crises. “Organized capitalism,” according to Hilferding, means that capitalists are moving to the socialist principle of planned production. Ignoring the class nature of the state, Hilferding portrays the “democratic state” as an instrument for the implementation of socialism. Hilferding's opportunistic theories were criticized by V.I. Lenin.
V. A. Krylov, A. G. Myslivchenko. Moscow.
Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 4. THE HAGUE - DVIN. 1963.
Literature: Lenin V.I., Soch., 4th ed. (See Reference volume, part 2, p. 194).
Read further:
IN AND. Lenin. Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. See Preface, chapters 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 - about Hilferding.
Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).
Historical figures of Germany (biographical index).
Germany in the 20th century (chronological table).
Essays:
Böhm-Bawerk as a critic of Marx. M., 1923;
Financial capital. The newest phase in the development of capitalism. M., 1959.
Literature:
Marxist philosophy in the international labor movement in the end. 19 - beginning 20th century M., 1984, p. 323-324, 336-345.
Lenin V.I., Soch., 4th ed. (See Reference volume, part 2, p. 194).
