Hilferding proletarian dictatorship. Imperialism based on the book by Rudolf Hilferding “Financial Capital. See what "Hilferding" is in other dictionaries

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 a scientific explanation of the new phenomena of capitalism associated with its entry into the stage of imperialism. In it, Hilferding summarized a large amount of theoretical material about the emergence and activities of joint-stock companies, the formation of fictitious capital, and 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 in the 20s with a reformist-apologetic theory of “organized capitalism” and “economic democracy,” 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).

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.

Great 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...

4. Marxist theory of imperialism and its variations (R. Hilferding, R. Luxemburg, K. Kautsky, N. Bukharin, V. Lenin)

The inevitable approach at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. wars between the strongest capitalist powers for the colonial division and redivision of the world, which led to the emergence of geopolitical concepts, were reflected in Marxism in the theory of imperialism. Strictly speaking, it does not owe its origin to Marxism. The origin of the concept of “imperialism” is usually associated with ancient Rome. It denotes a policy through which a state seeks to expand its power, political or economic influence to the detriment of other states. In the 19th century, the concept of “imperialism” became established in the English language around the 1980s. The Marxist theory of imperialism was preceded by British imperialist ideology and its critique by liberal economists.

At the end of the last century, the English financial king, colonial politician and administrator Cecil Rhodes, one of the main culprits of the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, after whom the colony of Rhodesia was named, became an ardent ideologist of imperialism. According to one English journalist, a close friend of S. Rhodes, he explained to him the need for imperialism in 1895: “I was yesterday in the East End of London (working-class quarter) and attended a meeting of the unemployed. When I listened to the wild speeches there, which were a continuous cry: bread, bread!, I, going home and reflecting on what I saw, became more convinced than before of the importance of imperialism. ... My cherished idea is a solution to the social question, namely: in order to save forty million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a murderous civil war, we, colonial politicians, must take possession of new lands to house the surplus population, to acquire new areas for selling goods produced in factories and mines . Empire, I have always said this, is a matter of the stomach. If you don’t want civil war, you must become imperialists.”

British imperialist ideology was essentially consistent with geopolitical concepts of “living space.” Rejecting it, the liberal economist and journalist John Atkinson Hobson published his work “Imperialism” in London in 1902, written as a result of his trip to South Africa during the Boer War. This book was used by V. Lenin in his work “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism,” written in 1916.

In Soviet times, it became a truism that V. Lenin created the Marxist theory of imperialism. In fact, its fundamental provisions and main ideas were set out before him by the German social democrats R. Hilferding, R. Luxemburg, K. Kautsky (as well as the Austrian social democrat O. Bauer) and N. Bukharin, the preface to whose brochure “World Economy” and imperialism”, published in 1915, wrote V. Lenin.

The Marxist theory of imperialism is of an economic nature, but it also contains the theory of international relations of a certain historical period - the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. During that period, international relations, more than ever before, began to be determined by the economic processes of capitalism. Capitalism has reached an unprecedented concentration of production and capital, called “monopolistic” by R. Hilferding. The process of rapid internationalization of capital was developing and, at the same time, intense competition was unfolding on the world market. Both of these opposing trends influenced the international relations of the imperialist era, but the predominant one was the struggle of the capitalist powers for colonies and spheres of influence in order to expand markets and subjugate them with the export of capital. If D. Hobson considered imperialism a “transitional disease” of a market economy, then Marxist theorists in the works of the beginning of the century considered these contradictions to be natural for capitalism, which had entered a special phase.

In 1910, R. Hilferding (1877-1941), who published the work “Financial Capital” in Vienna, showed that financial capital, formed by the merger of banking and industrial capital, sought to subjugate the state and use its power “in order to carry out policies expansion and annex new colonies.” The export of capital in order to weaken the effects of crises within the country became a means of subjugating poor and backward countries by countries rich in capital. R. Hilferding noted that finance capital was armed with a national idea, which in such conditions “no longer recognizes the right of every nation to political self-determination and independence.” It is interesting that Marxist analysis led R. Hilferding to assess international relations quite in the spirit of the “classical” explanation of them: “The ideal now is to ensure for one’s own nation dominance over the world, a desire as limitless as the desire of capital for profit from which it arises. Capital becomes the conqueror of the world. … At the same time, the growth of workers' power strengthens capital's desire to further strengthen state power as a guarantee against proletarian demands. This is how the ideology of imperialism arises, replacing the ideals of old liberalism. She makes fun of the latter's naivety. What an illusion in the world of capitalist struggle, where everything is decided solely by the superiority of weapons, to believe in the harmony of interests! What an illusion to expect the kingdom of eternal peace, to proclaim international law, when the fate of peoples is decided only by force. What stupidity it is to strive to transfer the regulation of legal relations within states beyond state borders.”

It is very noteworthy that when characterizing the individual capitalist’s desire for the greatest possible profit as the basic principle of his economic actions, the author of “Financial Capital” referred to T. Hobbes, who explained such a desire as “a constant and tireless thirst to increase power with power.” In other words, imperialism, according to Hilferding, further strengthened in the international sphere the relations of violence and subordination described by the author of Leviathan.

The same point of view was expressed by R. Luxemburg (1870-1919), who believed that with “ever increasing competition between capitalist countries for the acquisition of non-capitalist areas, the energy of imperialism is growing and the methods of violence it uses are intensifying.” R. Luxemburg considered imperialism “the political expression of the process of accumulation of capital in the competitive struggle for the remnants of the non-capitalist world environment, on which no one has yet laid their hands.” She argued that “the tendency of capitalism to turn into a world form of production is broken by its immanent inability to embrace all world production,” since capitalism cannot exist without other economic forms that constitute its environment and nutritious soil: “The more violence capital exhibits when it through militarism destroys throughout the world and in its native country the existence of non-capitalist strata and worsens the conditions of existence of all working masses, the more likely the history of modern capitalist accumulation on the world stage turns into a continuous chain of political and social catastrophes and convulsions, which, together with periodic economic catastrophes in the form of crises make it impossible to continue accumulation.”

Thus, R. Hilferding and R. Luxemburg argued that imperialist contradictions are insoluble within the framework of capitalism and can be eliminated only by “application of the fundamentals of the socialist economy” (R. Luxemburg), when “in a powerful clash of hostile interests, the dictatorship of the capital magnates turns finally into the dictatorship of the proletariat” (R. Hilferding).

A different point of view on imperialism was expressed by the leader of German Social Democracy K. Kautsky (1854-1938). Paying more attention to the internationalization of capital than R. Luxemburg and R. Hilferding, he hypothesized the onset of so-called “ultra-imperialism” after imperialism. He considered the formation of a “world cartel” probable, i.e. unification of capitalist powers. K. Kautsky believed that capitalism is rationally enough to adapt and resolve its contradictions not by war, but by peaceful means, through agreements. In the spring of 1915, when the First World War was already raging, confirming the economic evidence of its inevitability, he still adhered to the hypothesis of “ultra-imperialism”: “Could not the current imperialist policy be supplanted by a new, ultra-imperialist one, which would replace the struggle of national finance capitals between the general exploitation of the world by internationally united financial capital? Such a new phase of capitalism is in any case conceivable. Whether it is feasible, there are not yet sufficient prerequisites for solving this.”

This assumption about the “peaceful” development of imperialism caused a violent reaction from V. Lenin, who burst into criticism of “stupid fables” and “Kautsky’s most meaningless talk about ultra-imperialism,” which, by the way, was largely thanks to which Lenin’s pamphlet on imperialism appeared. To be fair, it is worth noting that Lenin himself wrote it as a “popular essay” explaining the economic essence of imperialism and the origins of the First World War. V. Lenin (1870-1924) gave more categorical forms to the Marxist theory of imperialism, forming its well-known five characteristics 160, the essence of which boiled down to the definition of imperialism as a monopolistic stage at which “the division of the world by international trusts began and the division of the entire territory of the earth by the largest capitalist countries ended ". Since the contradictions of imperialism are rooted in its very nature, “in whatever form “inter-imperialist” or “ultra-imperialist” alliances are concluded, whether in the form of one imperialist coalition against another imperialist coalition or in the form of a general alliance of all imperialist powers,” they, repeated V. Lenin concluded R. Luxemburg, “are inevitably only “breathing spaces” between wars, divisions and repartitions of the world.

The history of the 20th century refuted this thesis of V. Lenin, overwhelmed by the idea of ​​revolution, but it did not give an unequivocal verdict regarding his dispute with K. Kautsky about imperialism. One can, of course, confine oneself to stating Lenin’s obvious mistake about “dying” capitalism, and in this sense, Kautsky, and not Lenin, turned out to be right. The rapid development of international forms of capital, the power of multinational, transnational corporations in the modern world (See Appendix No. 1), and finally, the emergence and activity of specialized financial and economic organizations of a global scale, such as the International Monetary Fund. The Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), recently transformed into the World Trade Organization, etc., undoubtedly indicate the development of precisely those tendencies that K. Kautsky had in mind in his proposal of “ultra-imperialism.” V. Lenin was mistaken not only regarding the ability of capitalism at the imperialist stage to reform and move to higher stages of development. He clearly underestimated the importance of integration trends in the capitalist world. Suffice it to recall his statement that “The United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary.”

Nevertheless, in international relations of the 20th century. Those patterns and contradictions that V. Lenin spoke about also appeared. For example, in World War II, his prediction of a clash between the United States and Japan came true: “The economic development of these countries over several decades has prepared an abyss of combustible material, making inevitable a desperate struggle between these powers for dominance over the Pacific Ocean and its coast. The entire diplomatic and economic history of the Far East makes it absolutely certain that on the basis of capitalism it is impossible to prevent the brewing acute conflict between Japan and America.”

Relations between the USA, Japan and Western Europe in the post-war period, especially from the 60-70s, were characterized by fierce trade and economic rivalry. And yet, in the international economic relations of modern capitalism, the “peaceful” trend gradually became dominant, overcoming trade and monetary and financial contradictions. This trend is illustrated by the annual meetings of the heads of state and government of the “Seven” - the seven leading economically developed countries of the world (USA, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy) held to coordinate national economic policies. But the global strategy of the industrialized countries of the market economy does not eliminate the dependence of the rest of the world on them, but is based on this historical inequality.

The export of capital, which, as R. Hilferding noted, “accelerates the discovery of foreign countries and develops their productive forces,” has been increasing since the end of the 19th century. spread complex relationships of competition and interdependence, subordination and inequality throughout the global economy.

A special place among Marxist concepts of imperialism is occupied by its interpretation by N. Bukharin (1888-1938). In a certain sense, he paid even more attention to the processes of internationalization of capital than K. Kautsky, not to mention other Marxist theorists. While R. Hilferding wrote that “the world market is increasingly divided into separate state-delimited economic territories,” N. Bukharin, on the contrary, believed that “national economic organisms” have long ceased to represent a closed whole, but “constitute only parts of a much larger sphere, the world economy.”

He defined the world economy as “a system of production relations and corresponding exchange relations on a global scale.” The connection of countries in the process of international commodity exchange, noted N. Bukharin, “manifests itself primarily in the fact of world prices and the world market,” when the level of these prices is no longer determined only by the costs of any national economy, but is equalized internationally, with the help of the telegraph.

More than anyone else among the Marxist theorists of imperialism, N. Bukharin noted the role of technical progress in the formation of the world economy: “The more developed means of transport, the faster and more intense the movement of goods, the faster the process of merging of individual local and “national” markets takes place, the sooner the single production organism of the world economy grows.” As proof, he cited impressive statistics of an increase with “astonishing speed” in the length of rail tracks at the end of the 19th - 20th centuries, an increase in the tonnage of the merchant fleet, and the expansion of the telegraph network, especially through the laying of submarine cables, the total length of which reached 515,578 km by 1913. He stated that W. Sombart’s position about the “declining importance of international relations” in the economy was completely incorrect. N. Bukharin noted that only for 1903-1911. international trade increased by 50%.

On this basis, he made the following conclusion: “This connection of countries in the process of exchange is by no means of the nature of a simple accident: it is already a necessary condition for further social development, and international exchange turns into a natural process of economic life.”

Having recognized that the process of internationalization of economic life under imperialism is conditioned by the objective course of social development, technical progress, N. Bukharin, however, argued that this process is opposed by “an even stronger tendency towards the nationalization of capital and closure within state borders,” since the benefit of “national” groups of the bourgeoisie from the continuation of a specific struggle “is a much greater value than the loss from the losses associated with them.”

According to Bukharin, “ultra-imperialism” is abstractly possible as “peaceful,” but in reality “world capitalism will move towards a universal state trust through the absorption of the weak,” and, as the “most valuable and largest theoretician” of the party, as the Bolshevik leader himself called him, figuratively put it , “stop this fight with “home remedies”, i.e. not a social revolution - that would mean shooting peas at an elephant.”

In our opinion, it is N. Bukharin’s analysis of the trends in economic internationalization and the conclusion about the formation of the world economy that constitute the most powerful side of his interpretation of imperialism, and not the quickly proclaimed final thesis that “the working class will rise up against the system” (imperialism - G.N. ).

It is clear that revolutionary theory, as the main matrix in the analysis, modeled Bukharin’s concept of imperialism, which is not entirely consistent with ideas about the growing interconnectedness of the world capitalist economy. By showing it as a single organism, a “special environment,” N. Bukharin essentially foresaw the dominant trend of world economic development. Moreover, he was one of the first theorists who (along with R. Hilferding) formulated the concept of the “center of the world production system” (“several cohesive, organized economic bodies, or “great civilized powers”) and the “periphery” (“periphery of countries undeveloped, with a semi-agrarian or agrarian system”).

Hilferding, Rudolf) is an outstanding representative of the so-called Austro-Marxist school. In 1909 he published the book “Financial Capital”, which became very famous. According to Lenin, “this work represents an extremely valuable theoretical analysis of the newest phase in the development of capitalism.” During the war, Hilferding was in the moderate opposition, heading, along with Kautsky, the German independent Social-Democrats. party. In October 1920, during a split in the party hall in Halle, Hilferding found himself in the ranks of the right-wing minority that refused to merge with the Communist Party. Since 1922, after the merger of his party with the Scheidemannites, Hilferding has evolved so much that he now serves as the leader of the united party. At the end of 1923, Hilferding, who had previously resolutely fought against the participation of the Social-Democrats. in bourgeois governments, he himself is included as Minister of Finance in Stresemann's coalition cabinet, which sought to save the German bourgeoisie from the brewing revolutionary events. Since the summer of 1924, Hilferding edited a new journal, Gesellschaft, which clearly illustrates Hilferding's renegadeism and his complete theoretical rejection of revolutionary Marxism. /T. 13/

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HILFERDING RUDOLF

Hilferding), Rudolf (August 10, 1877 - February 10, 1941) - one of the leaders of the German. Social Democratic Party 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 Social Democratic Party "Vorw?rts", took a centrist, Kautskyite position, defending unity with the social chauvinists. After the October Revolution, G. became the enemy of the Soviets. power, proletarian dictatorship. Hiding behind left-wing phrases, he contributed to the strangulation of the revolutionaries. movements in Germany. Being factual leader of Germany "independent social-democratic party" and the editor of its center. organ "Freiheit" (1918–22), G. supported the tactics of an agreement with the Scheidemannites. After the unification of the “independents” with the Scheidemann party in 1922, G. was twice mined. finance in coalitions bourgeois pr-wah. In 1933 he emigrated to France. In their theoretical G.'s works were Ch. arr. How. economist. In his work “Böhm-Bawerks Marx – Kritik”, in the book: Marx-Studien, Bd 1, 1904, Russian translation 1920, 1923), G. criticized the bourgeoisie. economists who tried to refute Marx’s system, but he “defended” Marx as a neo-Kantian, often replacing the materialist. dialectics by Kantianism and Machism. The largest production G. – “Financial Capital” (“Das Finanzkapital”, 1910, Russian translation 1912, 1925 and 1959). Lenin, characterizing this work as a valuable theoretical work. analysis of the “newest phase in the development of capitalism”, at the same time emphasized the characteristic G. “well-known tendency to reconcile Marxism with opportunism” (Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 183). The developed theory of finance. capital as the dominance of banks over industry contains a number of distortions in the understanding of the essence of imperialism. G. did not consider monopolistic. modern character capitalism as the main feature of imperialism, highlighting the changed role of money. capital. His theory of money is a variation of bourgeois. nominalistic theories of money. Considering the theory of credit, G. revised the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to decrease, discovered by Marx. Ignoring the division of the world, the significance of parasitism and the decay of capitalism during the period of imperialism, G. opportunistically tried to soften the severity and depth of capitalism. contradictions. He distorted the Marxist theory of crises and put forward the position that crises gradually soften. After World War I, G. became an apologist for the so-called theory. "organized capitalism" and "economic" democracy. He wrote about the growth of “peaceful” tendencies in imperialist policies. state-in. G. absolutely groundlessly believed that the imperialist. the war destroyed the possibility of further wars and simultaneously created internal. conditions that eliminate the danger of revolution; that the concentration and centralization of capital, the growth of trusts and cartels lead to the elimination of competition, anarchy of production, and crises; that “organized capitalism” means the transition of capitalists to socialism. the principle of planned production. Therefore, G.’s task was to, with the help of consciousness. society regulation to transform capitalist. the economy in the economy, led by a “democratic state,” which G., ignoring the class nature of the state, portrayed as an organ for the implementation of socialism. To do this, according to G., you only need to win the majority through propaganda and resort to coalitions. politics with the bourgeoisie. G.'s "theories" justified "business cooperation" with the bourgeoisie and contributed to the onset of monopoly. capital for the working class. Opportunistic G.'s theory of "organized capitalism" was taken up by the revisionists of the 2nd International, Trotskyists, Bukharinists, and others. Lenin subjected G.'s "theories" to devastating criticism. People like G. exercise “the influence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat from inside the labor movement, from inside the socialist parties...” (Lenin V.I., Soch., 4th ed., volume 31, p. 256). Lit.: Lenin V.I., Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, Works, 4th ed., vol. 22 (Preface to the French and German editions and chapters 1, 3, 8 and 9); his, The Third International and its place in history, ibid., vol. 29; his, Heroes of the Berne International, ibid.; him, How. the bourgeoisie uses renegades, ibid., vol. 30; his, Notebooks on imperialism, [M.], 1939. A. Myslivchenko. Moscow.

HILFERDING

(Hilferding), Rudolf (August 10, 1877 - February 10, 1941) - one of the leaders of the German. Social Democratic Party 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 Social Democratic Party "Vorwärts", took a centrist, Kautskyite position, defending unity with the social chauvinists. After the October Revolution, G. became the enemy of the Soviets. power, proletarian dictatorship. Hiding behind left-wing phrases, he contributed to the strangulation of the revolutionaries. movements in Germany. Being factual leader of Germany "independent social-democratic party" and the editor of its center. organ "Freiheit" (1918–22), G. supported the tactics of an agreement with the Scheidemannites. After the unification of the “independents” with the Scheidemann party in 1922, G. was twice mined. finance in coalitions bourgeois pr-wah. In 1933 he emigrated to France.

In their theoretical G.'s works were Ch. arr. How. economist. In the work “Böhm-Bawerks, as a critic of Marx” (“Böhm-Bawerks Marx – Kritik”, in the book: Marx-Studien, Bd 1, 1904, Russian translation 1920, 1923), G. criticized the bourgeoisie. economists who tried to refute Marx’s system, but he “defended” Marx as a neo-Kantian, often replacing the materialist. dialectics by Kantianism and Machism.

After World War I, G. became an apologist for the so-called theory. "organized capitalism" and "economic" democracy. He wrote about the growth of “peaceful” tendencies in imperialist policies. state-in. G. absolutely groundlessly believed that the imperialist. the war destroyed the possibility of further wars and simultaneously created internal. conditions that eliminate the danger of revolution; that the concentration and centralization of capital, the growth of trusts and cartels lead to the elimination of competition, anarchy of production, and crises; that “organized capitalism” means the transition of capitalists to socialism. the principle of planned production. Therefore, G.’s task was to, with the help of consciousness. society regulation to transform capitalist. the economy in the economy, led by a “democratic state,” which G., ignoring the class nature of the state, portrayed as an organ for the implementation of socialism. To do this, according to G., you only need to win the majority through propaganda and resort to coalitions. politics with the bourgeoisie. G.'s "theories" justified "business cooperation" with the bourgeoisie and contributed to the onset of monopoly. capital for the working class. Opportunistic G.’s theory of “organized capitalism” was taken up by the revisionists of the 2nd International, Trotskyists, Bukharinites, and others.

Lenin subjected G.'s "theories" to devastating criticism. People like G. exercise “the influence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat from inside the labor movement, from inside the socialist parties...” (Lenin V.I., Soch., 4th ed., volume 31, p. 256).

Lit.: Lenin V.I., Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, Works, 4th ed., vol. 22 (Preface to the French and German editions and chapters 1, 3, 8 and 9); his, The Third International and its place in history, ibid., vol. 29; his, Heroes of the Berne International, ibid.; him, How. the bourgeoisie uses renegades, ibid., vol. 30; his, Notebooks on imperialism, [M.], 1939.

A. Myslivchenko. Moscow.

• -, 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...

  Encyclopedia of the Third Reich

• - Rudolf, one of the leaders of Austrian and German social democracy and the 2nd International...

  Modern encyclopedia

• - 1. Alexander Fedorovich - Russian. Slavic scholar, historian and Russian collector. epic Corresponding member AN. One of the prominent representatives of the Slavophiles. Genus. in the family of a major official in Warsaw. Graduated from Moscow. university...

  Soviet historical encyclopedia

• - choreographer of the second half of the 18th century, compiler...
• - author "Manuals for the study of Hindustan", p. March 25, 1862, regiment, library. Mikhail...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - famous Slavist and Russian. ethnographer, b. July 23, 1831 in Warsaw, p. direct diplomat. office, office senior secret Ch. committee according to device rural comp., † in Kargopol June 20, 1872...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - translator...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - German director troupes in St. Petersburg, under Elizaveta Petrovna...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - choreographer, was the court choreographer in Vienna and in 1759 was sent, at the request of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, by the Austrian court to St. Petersburg for some time to improve Russian ballet and introduce "...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - engraver and painter, according to P. N. Petrov, who came to Russia under Catherine II. Only one of his engravings is known: “View of the village of Kolomenskoye”...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - Hilferding, Alexander Fedorovich - famous Slavist. He completed a course at Moscow University in the Faculty of History and Philology...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - famous Slavist. He received his initial education in the house of his father, who was the director of the diplomatic chancellery under the governor of the Kingdom of Poland...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - Viennese choreographer who arrived in Russia around 1760 to bring ballets to the “best new taste of perfection” in the advent. stage...