Read the book: «Problems of communism»
© Alexander Lopin, 2026
ISBN 978-5-0071-1846-0
Created with Ridero smart publishing system
Introduction
The ghost of communism continues to wander around the planet and bother minds. Especially now, in the era of the crisis of imperialism degradation and the crisis of development of the communist social system, when it has become clear that consumer society is doomed. Consumer society faces the challenge of transitioning to the harmony of communist social system, the challenge of the transition to communism. The observed intensification of the struggle between imperialism and communism, which is undergoing a period of convergence with capitalism, demands a new way of thinking, a renewal of thought, and the creation of a developmental worldview as an alternative to the dominant consumerist worldview.
After defeating communism in the Cold War, imperialism gradually transitioned to a hot war. But the Russian oligarchy and bureaucracy still consider themselves business partners of the West, although in reality, imperialism wrote them off back in 2021. The situation has long since changed, but the mindset and paradigm of thinking in Russia have not yet changed.
This complex geopolitical environment requires new thinking, beginning with the fundamentals and depths of reality, to identify and calculate new paths and methods of action. The following chapters examine these paths and methods.
Information war.
Information warfare is the essence of the current sociosphere. And the battlefield in such a war is the brain — that is, thinking.
On the benefits of cognitive dissonance.
New information and new cognitive technologies force us to abandon the old mentality, which is fraught with the loss of logical thinking, although it can lead to a new paradigm and new thinking.
The struggle of hierarchies as a struggle of instincts.
Society is built as an interaction of three hierarchies — bureaucratic, commercial and cognitive as a manifestation of the instincts of dominance, consumption and curiosity.
Exploitation is necessary for development.
This is the most terrible secret of Marxism. Marx revealed it to everyone in his commentary on the Gotha Program, proclaiming the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But Marxists didn’t believe him. Admittedly, some Marxists did believe Marx, including the Bolsheviks.
The problem of communism.
Communism, understood as a social state or a consumer society, is incapable of self-development. It might be said that under communism there will be no state. But even then, communism, as a welfare society, will be incapable of self-development. Collectivism is based on the idea of consumption. For this reason, communism faces the problem of free will, as free will is incompatible with the priority of consumption. Therefore, under communism, freedom of will comes to the fore through freedom of thought and freedom of cognition.
Convergence causes divergence.
Development as the emergence of something new is divergence, that is, the bifurcation of the unified and the interaction of the resulting opposites. And convergence is the negation of past divergence during synthesis, although it leads to further divergence.
Geopolitical forecast for the next 50 years.
According to developmental theory and ordering theory, a new system develops through struggle with the old system, with the development of the new system determined by the rate of degradation of the old system. In response to this degradation, the new system is forced to evolve. After a period of degradation, the system enters a state of homeostasis and loses its ability to develop.
Information war
The current state of the sociosphere should be described as an information war. And the battlefield in such a war is the brain, that is, thinking. Thinking operates with concepts and abstractions. Thinking is only possible in the realm of ideas. Therefore, an information war is a war of ideas. The main ideological struggle is between ideas of system change and ideas of adaptation to the system’s existing state. In reality, the modern information war is a struggle of worldviews — a worldview of consumption versus a worldview of development. Dogmatics versus dialectic, degrading stability versus development. Adaptation and adjustment are the path to degradation. System change is possible only through its development.
The era of free information exchange demands free thought, and free thought only becomes so when thought is subordinated to development, when the practice of cognition is based on developmental theory as a method of cognition. Free thinking shapes precisely the kind of practice of cognition that can guide social practice. Therefore, free thinking — thinking oriented toward the development of the individual and society — wins in the information war. For personal development is only possible through the practice of social development.
Domination of society is achieved through purpose. Pure violence reduces society to the animal world. Thus, purpose dominates society. But purpose must be adequate, or, in other words, purpose must correspond to the development of the system. Communism as a purpose: the development of each individual is the key to the development of society. The practice of social development lies in the development of labor relations, the network of which is the foundation of human society. The development of the network of labor relations is possible through the conscious struggle of reasonable enthusiasts against unreasonable consumers within work collectives. This will be a permanent revolution, as Trotsky envisaged, but within the work collective. Lenin dreamed of class-conscious workers. Apparently, their time has come. Communism will be a synthesis of socialism and war communism, but to achieve this, technological superiority over imperialism will have to be achieved through social technological superiority in the course of information warfare.
What is information? Judging by the name, it is something in form, something formalized — knowledge in material form. Information, according to Wikipedia, is knowledge, regardless of its form of presentation. So, knowledge is information, and information is information. A tautology. Moreover, this is clearly anthropocentrism, since knowledge or information presupposes a person. But what about the information code of Alive Matter? Or the information interactions of Lifeless Matter, including quantum effects and quantum computers?
Therefore, information is the material form of the possible, where the possible appears as the opposite of the actual in the driving contradiction of Matter (the actual versus the possible). The possible or ideal originates from Virtuality, in which law has primacy over chance (Fig. 1).
In this regard, the impossible can move from a person’s fantasy or assumption into information only after it becomes consistent in the course of cognition and, most importantly, turns into a reflection of reality in accordance with Lenin’s theory of reflection.
Science is formalized cognition, and human cognition is a product of information, that is, a product of the possible (the lawful) filtered by reality. Without the actual, the possible remains in the virtual. Therefore, the absolutization of the lawful (determinism) leads cognition into the virtual. Determinism also creates the artificial problem of preserving information when matter falls into a black hole, that is, when matter returns to the virtual. In general, the so-called scientific approach, or empiricism, absolutizes law and, ultimately, arrives at a first impulse or God.
The possible gains freedom in consciousness in the form of concepts, abstractions, and ideas. It must be remembered that consciousness is a product of social development and evolves alongside the development of social relations. Concepts, abstractions, and ideas arise in abstract thinking through its conflict with sensory perception, and within the contradiction between order and disorder.
Cognition develops alongside the development of the conceptual basis of epistemology. Therefore, the development of philosophy should be considered in terms of the development of epistemology. First came Socrates, who articulated the problem of epistemology: «I know that I know nothing.» Plato created a theory of ideas, which are shadows of reality. Aristotle, by linking concepts with reality, essence with phenomenon, substituted essence for phenomenon, thus laying the foundations of scholasticism. Hegel completed Aristotle’s system, thereby discovering the dialectic of development. Marx purged dialectic of the primacy of the ideal and advanced the idea of conscious scientific development (philosophers must change the world). The origins of this idea can be found in Plato. Lenin discovered the method of concept formation (the theory of reflection), the mode of development (the bifurcation of the unified and the subsequent interaction of the new and the old), and the main requirements for epistemology (historicity, that is, the consideration of the object of research in its development), thereby laying the foundations of development theory. Development theory views the world from the perspective of the succession of driving contradictions. As a result, it turns out that the theory of development, as a method of cognition, completes the theory of cognition, which opens the way to the synthesis of knowledge.
The problem of transitioning from dogmatic to dialectical thinking arises. The very nature of abstract thinking hinders this transition, if only because it is so energy-consuming («too much knowledge multiplies sorrow» — Ecclesiastes). And since thinking occurs within the contradiction between abstract thinking and sensory perception, given the primacy of sensory perception, the body, through the senses, attempts to reduce the energy consumption of thinking by simplifying the thought process and even blocking it. The simplest way to do this is by believing in dogmas perceived as absolute knowledge. These dogmas enter thinking from the dominant worldview during brain development. If the dominant worldview changes, the dogmas are replaced, which can cause cognitive dissonance.
A system of dogmas develops, beginning with the mythological stage of cognition, and serves as the ideological foundation of society, for it generally affirms the law of society. This law is subsequently elevated to the law of the universe and personified as God, the Almighty. The determinism of scientific cognition is contained within the framework of this same worldview. The transition to a developmental worldview will inevitably be accompanied by cognitive dissonance, as development is a succession of driving contradictions, which rejects the absolutization of law, which is always opposed by chance. It should be noted that with a developmental worldview, absolutization of development is impossible, as development is the leading opposition in contradiction to universal connection, universal interdependence. This worldview will be followed by a worldview of order, in which order will be opposed by absolute freedom.
The question arises: can dogmatic thinking, imbued with dogma with its mother’s milk, overcome cognitive dissonance and achieve dialectical thinking? Two individuals, Marx and Lenin, are known to have emerged from the dominant worldview. Presumably, there are other examples, but these individuals have been sidelined by the dogmatic majority. Consequently, dialecticians must create their own worldview, a developmental worldview, and a corresponding cognitive hierarchy, for this is what the logic of contemporary socio-economic development, the logic of information warfare, dictates.
Dialecticians triumph over dogmatists because they advocate development, whereas the victory of dogmatists brings about the collapse of the system. Furthermore, consumers, as bearers of dogmatism, experience an internal split, which stems from the need for human development. This need arises as a consequence of consuming labor relations in the labor process; that is, human development is a characteristic of labor relations. Outside of labor relations, human development is impossible. It is precisely this unconscious need for personal development that gives rise to spontaneous enthusiasm, activism, and all manner of rebellion against order. Therefore, the task of reasonable enthusiasts is to channel this spontaneous enthusiasm toward the development of labor relations.
On the benefits of cognitive dissonance
«A number of experiments conducted by psychologists in recent years have shown that the higher a person’s level of education, the more stubbornly they refuse to change their point of view in the face of contradictory information. Simply put, it’s easier, on average, to convince someone with only nine grades and a corridor than someone with two degrees. As far as I remember, this has been tested, including on supporters of all sorts of conspiracy theories. Why? There are various theories. Perhaps an educated person is more skilled at inventing counterarguments. Perhaps their belief system is internally more logical, and they can’t abandon some element of it without jeopardizing the core. Perhaps education gives a certain confidence in one’s own intellectual superiority, which prevents one from admitting one’s own mistakes. Whatever the case, the fact remains: education and intellectual skills not only do not guarantee against delusions, but often hinder the elimination of them.» (from the internet).
Fichte in his Jena period. Kubitsky, Alexander Vladislavovich (1880—1937). «When his system is attacked, the dogmatist is truly in danger of losing himself.» Dimly aware of his own wrongness, powerless to repel the attack on his system, «he defends himself with fervor and ferocity.» He «becomes heated, distorts facts, and would initiate persecution if it were in his power.» Thus, the inability to recognize one’s true independence and self-worth, «a character inactive by nature or weakened and crippled by spiritual slavery» — these are the causes that create the ground for dogmatism; and it will disappear when these factors disappear.
So, the whole problem with dogmatism lies in spiritual slavery, that is, the lack of freedom of thought. Therefore, dogmatists’ confidence in their own intellectual superiority is merely a defensive reaction to a latent fear of being wrong — a hidden intellectual inferiority complex. Most likely, the problem lies in cognitive dissonance, that is, cognitive breakdown. Abstract thinking filters incoming information and continually seeks new doses of doping, that is, acceptable information. Therefore, theories die along with their proponents. Every theory is based on certain initial axioms and is doomed to revolve within their boundaries, constantly bumping into them and not daring to transcend them, for by doing so, it will inevitably destroy itself. Thus, every theory is a closed system that unsuccessfully attempts to reflect the open, evolving system of the universe. A blockage of consciousness occurs, prohibiting (tabooing) any departure beyond the palisade of initial axioms, although these axioms are merely ideal entities. But the difficulty is that these ideal entities are concepts of abstract thought and are tightly linked to sensory perception, which, in turn, is tightly linked to human physiology. This is the reason for the cognitive breakdown that occurs when old theories collapse.
There’s also a purely mercantile interest at play here. As they say, people in science are spiteful, envious, petty, vindictive, and deeply immoral. The theft of scientific ideas, backbiting, manipulation of grants and articles, and the use of administrative resources to harm competitors are rampant in the scientific community. There are a few truly outstanding people who have proven themselves to be decent.
«I believe because it’s absurd.» Feelings control consciousness, feelings direct consciousness. I believe what feels good to believe. Sensory perception controls abstract thinking. The fact is, the brain gets pleasure when it realizes it doesn’t have to change its worldview, that it doesn’t have to rebuild its thinking patterns. Therefore, in the realm of information exchange, it seeks examples of confirmation and rejects examples of denial. I believe because it’s absurd, but it feels good. Consequently, the masses are information addicts.
Cognitive dissonance is accompanied by excruciating withdrawal, against which the brain defends itself by blocking consciousness. This can’t happen because it can never happen. Propaganda operates on feelings: «our minds are seething with indignation and ready to wage mortal combat.» But at the same time, in conditions of free information exchange, the brain itself selects information that pleases it, rejecting or involuntarily blocking information that disrupts its belief system or undermines its faith.
Free will is the process of realizing one’s social purpose. But this requires awareness of one’s social purpose. Consequently, the practice of cognition comes to the fore. Therefore, free will is possible only for rational people, who thereby become reasonable enthusiasts.
Every theory is a dogmatic theory, for it cannot contain the struggle of contradictions within itself. Every theory is determinism, and determinism is doomed to ascend to some abstract unity or axiom. For example, Euclid’s theory ascends to the sum of the angles in a triangle, and Einstein’s theory to the speed of light. These axioms are presented as a primary essence, sometimes shaped like God or another fundamentally unknowable entity. Therefore, determinism logically leads to agnosticism, since it cannot, in principle, model the contradictory nature of the evolving world. Determinism absolutizes universal connection, the connection of everything with everything. But in reality, development breaks old connections to create new connections. Therefore, it is necessary to consciously maintain the primacy of development over interconnectedness.
The question arises: can there be dialectical theories? Only a theory of cognition based on developmental theory adopted as a method of cognition can be dialectical. As it turns out, the theory of cognition is a contradictory unity of developmental theory and ordering theory. The only way to overcome cognitive dissonance and the subsequent cognitive breakdown is to think in contradictions in accordance with developmental theory as a method of cognition.
Marxism is not a dogmatic theory and, therefore, does not adhere to determinism. Therefore, Marxism has been unsuccessfully criticized from the standpoint of determinism. The essence of Marxism is the contradiction between production and consumption, or the same contradiction in the form of labor relations and exchange relations. Lenin approached the understanding of development as «the bifurcation of the one into mutually exclusive opposites and the interrelationships between them.» Lenin then outlined a method for presenting the theory of development, which consists of finding «the simplest, most ordinary, fundamental, most widespread, most commonplace, billions of times encountered relation» that would contain «all the contradictions» of the object being studied, the phenomenon — in our case, development. Such a simple, ordinary, fundamental relation for development is undoubtedly the «bifurcation of the one» and the subsequent interaction of opposites. However, the one is not primordial, but is a product of previous development.
The encounter with the contradictions of existence forces dogmatic abstract thinking to invent new entities to theoretically justify the original dogmas or axioms. As a result, abstract thinking evolves. Within Christianity, particularly within its Western version, scholasticism arose, which in Hegel’s system reached its apex in the form of abstract dialectics. But Hegel’s dialectic ascended to the absolute idea as some kind of primordial unity; that is, here we have the same determinism, only a side view. Only Marx revolutionized cognition by moving to the study of the actual contradictions of development.
It should be noted that the one is the opposite of the many, just as discontinuity is the opposite of extension, the finite is the opposite of infinity, the photon particle is the opposite of the electromagnetic wave, and so on. Therefore, determinism, which rejects the contradictory nature of development, can only reflect the world one-sidedly and is incapable of describing development in principle. As Kozma Prutkov noted, a specialist is like a gumboil; his fullness is one-sided.
It should also be remembered that historically, Hegel’s theory of abstract dialectics arose within Christianity as the realization of Jesus’s testament — a conscious striving for God as the personification of good, which opened up freedom to abstract thought. This can be read in Hegel’s «Life of Jesus.» As a result, man becomes the subject of cognition, albeit abstract cognition. Other religions have failed to rise to this level. Judaism and its counterpart, Islamism, were unable to completely overcome paganism, turning God into their own property. Hinduism remains a diversified system of paganism to this day. Interestingly, Buddhism, which originated within Hinduism, was soon supplanted. Buddhism rejects abstract thinking or subordinates it to sensory perception, as does yogic practice. Chinese ideology is built on the absolutization of the state (Confucianism and Legalism). Taoism is a synthesis of Buddhism and yogic practice.
The religious worldview is built on self-awareness. Self-awareness is consumer thinking, as self-awareness is based on the recognition of individual needs (which represents progress relative to primitive consciousness). This implies the dogmatic nature of self-awareness and consumer thinking, for individualism underlies thinking, through which social demands are recognized. Self-awareness is based on social dogmas, dogmas of social consciousness, or worldviews adapted to self-awareness, with which they can be used to control people in the interests of the social system.
The current practice of controlling the masses, whose thinking is typically based on self-awareness, is carried out by playing on the basest animal instincts, the most important of which is the instinct of self-preservation or fear. Therefore, people are first intimidated by real or imaginary threats through the use of public consciousness. Then, as a defense, not a plan or theory is offered, but a group of people who supposedly possess methods of defending against the threat. And finally, people are forced, by the very need to overcome fear as a negative emotion, to believe in their saviors. People are freed from fear through faith. Along with faith comes a dose of pleasure and positive emotions in the form of a sense of security and pride in being among the saviors of a given social system or of all humanity. Subsequently, faith (dogmatic thinking) hinders criticism of the initial intimidation.
Naturally, after the collapse or degradation of a social system, doubts about previous beliefs or old dogmas arise. This results in cognitive dissonance and cognitive breakdown. The transition from self-awareness to reason within the framework of thought is only possible through cognitive breakdown. The fact is that human thinking initially develops as dogmatic thinking. The transition to dialectical thinking, that is, to thinking in contradictions, requires understanding the evolutionary picture of the developing world. To think dialectically, one must consider the development of contradictions, for the developing world is woven from contradictions. The transition from self-awareness to reason is simultaneously a transition to free will. Free will is a transition from the practice of cognition to subjectivity, which in reality means the creation of a developmental worldview by reasonable enthusiasts.
