Our Basic Viewpoint Concerning Journalism (1943)

Society, at its different stages of development, is said to evolve different modes of economic production- ranging from primitive mode, slavery mode, feudal mode, capitalist mode and sociological mode. Deploying Marxist literary theory, the paper focused on the effects and the implications of socio-economic evolution in A Market of Betrayals by examining the prevailing mode of production in the play, the type of social relations that exist among the people and govern their relation; those who determine these rules and the means of enforcing them as well as the implication for the opposing force and the society at large. Through textual analysis, it is established that the inherent contradictions in the world of A Market of Betrayals stem from the hidden selfish interest and hypocrisy of the dominant economic force which is in conflict with the interest of the working class. The hidden interests are presented as having universal values meant for the well-being of the people. The paper concluded that any socio-economic relations geared towards exploiting the people will eventually lead to a conflict because of its inherent contradictions. This conflict does not always resolve itself into a new position, essentially different from the original position.Keywords: Bourgeois, Proletariat, Superstructure, Hawks, Dialectical materialism

The current context of increasing global inequality, economic instability, and political polarization underscores the need to re-examine foundational theories that address social change and class conflict dynamics. This study investigates the significant impact of Hegelian philosophy on the formation of Marxist thought, specifically how Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels incorporated and transformed Hegel's dialectical method into a materialist framework. The research focuses on critical aspects of Hegelian dialectics, such as the synthesis of contradictions. It explores how these were reinterpreted to create Marx’s dialectical materialism, emphasizing the role of material conditions and social relations in shaping history and society. The research method involves a critical analysis of primary texts by both Hegel and Marx, as well as secondary literature that traces the development of Marxist theory from its Hegelian roots. By examining how Marx and Engels transitioned from Hegel's idealism to materialism, the study highlights the importance of understanding the economic base of society and its influence on cultural and political structures, a concept known as historical materialism. The findings demonstrate that Marx's critique of ideology, derived from Hegelian ideas, remains crucial for understanding how dominant ideologies serve to maintain the power of the ruling classes. This research is significant because it offers a deeper understanding of Marxism's theoretical foundations, which continue to inform contemporary social and political analysis. The relevance of this study lies in its potential to provide insights into ongoing issues of class dynamics, inequality, and social change in the modern world.

The article is devoted to the problem of the operation of law, expressed in its functions as a criterion of its validity. Based on materialistic dialectics, the thesis is substantiated that law is perceived as such only in the context of the social environment in the corresponding dynamics of relations in the context of its functional characteristics. Based on the distinction between legal reality and legal reality, the question is raised about the nature and forms of the relationship between these categories and about the relationship between the categories «real law» and «valid law». The work uses dialectical-materialistic, systemic and logical methods, as well as a socioaxiological approach to understanding law. It is concluded that the socio-axiological approach to law makes it possible to understand and recognize the real law at its value level. At the same time, the most important criterion for the validity of law, which allows you to check its actual quality, is its effectiveness — its functionality. And here the functionality of law determines its value, and the relevance of law as a system of conventional values to the balance of class interests in society is an indicator of the ideal state of its reality.

The article aims to characterize the transformations that have occurred in family agriculture by examining the social, economic and political aspects in the semi-arid region of Bahia. It has as its central axis the statement that the rural world remains an important category for the analysis of relations among social classes. For this purpose, a bibliographic review was carried out on the subject, as well as the legal frameworks that legitimize the insertion of family agriculture. This study opted for the adoption of the dialectical materialism method, since the semi-arid region is part of a set that materializes in social, economic and political relations, influencing and receiving influence from the environment. Moreover, based on data from the 2017 Agricultural Census, a quantitative analysis was made by comparing establishments belonging to the family and non-family agriculture categories. Finally, it is believed that this study may contribute to understanding the characteristics of family agriculture and encourage seeking actions and public policies that consider the peculiarities of the farmers' way of life.

Explains how cooperation was the primary form of social life practiced by the first humans for 90 % of human history. Their cooperation took the concrete form of collective/communal ownership, management, and distribution of land, tools, food, and other resources. Tribal members made collective decisions about procuring and distributing their means of subsistence. They provided for all members on the basis of morality and concern for all people. Quid pro quo market exchanges were not the basis of social relations. Interestingly, this original form of cooperation was a complete, comprehensive, and organic form that was essentially democratic and supportive. This advanced level of cooperation has rarely been achieved by contemporary cooperators. This “primitive communism” was uprooted by the advent of social classes wherein a small number of social members usurped power and wealth from the majority. The most radical and comprehensive destruction of cooperation was performed by the capitalist social class and its telos of private enrichment. Capitalism destroyed cooperation through an inexorable process of privatizing common, collective resources that were administered by a community. Capitalists replaced the community as owners and administrators of resources. The community became reduced to individual consumers of resources that were privately owned and administered by capitalists. The former collective social processes were converted into individual transactions with capitalists that were mediated by money. This privatization not only decimated cooperation, it created an unstable socioeconomic order that was subject to continual economic crises. Restoring cooperation can correct these socioeconomic problems. The antithesis between capitalism and cooperation demonstrates that capitalist social relations must be transformed if cooperation is to be restored as concrete social practice. The antithesis makes co-existence dubious. The antithesis lay out requires cooperators to be vigilant and aversive of capitalist elements.

For the purpose of understanding recent developments in Soviet historiography, it is necessary to consider its philosophical basis in the classic works of Marx and Engels. Especially pertinent are the normative orientations and epistemic foundations of Marxian social science, and the relevance of scientific socialism and historical materialism to the leading principles of not only Marxian historiography, but also political economy. Of basic importance is the dual commitment of socialist humanism to both the common good and the partisan interests of a particular class, and the dual character of materialist dialectics in its effort to be scientifically impartial and intellectually partisan at the same time. Also revealing is the high degree of correlation between “vulgar Marxist” partisanship in the social sciences and ultra-leftist heterodoxy and between “formalism” or “academicism” in social science and revisionist political persuasions.