Class Conflict and Consensus: Marx and Tocqueville

"POLITICAL MAN The Social Bases of Politics" by SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC., GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 1960

Àìåðèêèéí óëñ òºðèéí ñîöèîëîãè÷ Ñåèìîð Ìàðòèí Ëèïñåòèéí /Seymour Martin Lipset (March 18, 1922–December 31, 2006) / “Political man” áóþó Óëñ òºðèéí àìüòàí çîõèîë íü äýëõèéí 20 ãàðóé õýëíýý 400 000 õóâü õýâëýãäñýí àëäàðòàé çîõèîë þì. Òóñ çîõèîëûí 1-ð á¿ëãèéí Áþðîêðàò áà Àðä÷èëàë õýñãèйг толилуулж байна. Орчуулга нь ардаа байгаа.

Class Conflict and Consensus: Marx and Tocqueville

It was after the French Revolution that the problems of conflict versus consensus came into focus. The revolutionaries were naturally primarily concerned with furthering conflict, the conservatives with maintaining social stability. But for many years few men analyzed the conditions under which conflict and consensus were or could be kept in balance.

The most articulate spokesman for viewing conflict as the central interest in the study of politics was Karl Marx, and, as much of the later analysis in this book indicates, he had many fruitful insights into its causes. Alexis de Tocqueville, on the other hand, was the first major exponent of the idea that democracy involves a balance between the forces of conflict and consensus.

To Marx a complex society could be characterized either by constant conflict (even if suppressed) or by consensus, but not by a combination of the two. He saw conflict and consensus as alternatives rather than as divergent tendencies that could be balanced. On the one hand, he projected consensus, harmony, and integration into the communist future (and to some degree into the communist past); on the other hand, he saw conflict and absolutism as the great fact of history in the epoch between ancient primitive communism and the coming success of the proletarian revolution.

Marx's conception of the harmonious future society had significant bearing on his sociological outlook. The political system which he projected was not institutionalized democracy, but anarchy. This meant in particular the end of the division of labor, for elimination of the differentiation of roles in the economic spheres of life would, according to Marx, eliminate the major source of social conflict:

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.3

This statement is not simply Marx's daydream about a utopian future. It describes one of the basic conditions of communist society, for communism "is the true solution of the antagonism between man and nature, [and] man and man...." 4 It is the elimination of all social sources of differences, even the distinction between town and country. 5

Since consensus is impossible in a stratified society dominated By an exploiting class, Marx could not conceive of the sources of solidarity in precommunist society. His primary interest was an analysis of the factors making for the strength of the contending forces. He was, however, never really interested in understanding the psychological mechanisms through which the interests of individuals are disciplined, even for the purpose of increasing class strength. In an interesting passage, written when he was young, Marx did raise the problem in Hegelian terms:

How does it come about that personal interests continually grow, despite the person, into class interests, into common interests which win an independent existence over against the individual persons, in this independence take on the shape of general interests, enter as such into opposition with the real individuals, and in this opposition, according to which they are defined as general interests, can be conceived By the consciousness as ideal, even as religious, sacred interests. 6

But he never tried to answer the question. 7 He was basically un- concerned with society's need to maintain institutions and values which facilitate stability and cohesion. To Marx, social constraints did not fulfill socially necessary functions but rather supported class rule.

Marx's theory has no place for democracy under communism. It has only two mutually exclusive social types: a society of conflict and a society of harmony. The first type, according to Marx, is inherently destructive of human dignity and must be destroyed. The second is freed of the sources of conflict and, therefore, has no need for democratic institutions, such as safeguards against state power, the division of powers, the protections of juridical guarantees, a constitution or "bill of rights." 8 The history of the Russian Revolution has already demonstrated some of the dire consequences of operating with a theory which deals only with nonexistent ideal types -- that is to say, with societies of complete harmony and societies of constant conflict.

At first glance, Tocqueville's theory seems to be similar to Marx's, since both men emphasized the solidarity of social units and the necessity for conflict among these units. (For Marx the units were classes; for Tocqueville they were local communities and voluntary organizations.) However, Tocqueville, unlike Marx, deliberately chose to emphasize those aspects of social units which could maintain political cleavage and political consensus at the same time. He did not project his harmonious society into the future and did not separate in time the sources of social integration and the sources of cleavage. The same units -- for example, federal and state governments, Congress and the President -- which function independently of each other and therefore necessarily in a state of tension, are also dependent on each other and are linked By political parties. Private associations which are sources of restrictions on the government also serve as major channels for involving people in politics. In short, they are the mechanisms for creating and maintaining the consensus necessary for a democratic society.

Tocqueville's concern for a pluralistic political system resulted from his interpretation of the trends of modern society. Industrialization, bureaucratization, and nationalism, which were bring-ing the lower classes into politics, were also undermining the smaller local centers of authority and concentrating power in the state leviathan. Tocqueville feared that social conflict would disappear because there would be only one center of power -- the state -- which no other group would be strong enough to oppose. 9 There would be no more political competition because there would be no social bases to sustain it. He also feared that consensus as well would be undermined in the mass society. The atomized individual, left alone without membership in a politically significant social unit, would lack sufficient interest to participate in politics or even simply to accept the regime. Politics would be not only hopeless but meaningless. Apathy undermines consensus, and apathy was the attitude of the masses toward the state which Tocqueville saw as the outcome of an industrial bureaucratic society.

His study of America suggested to him two institutions which might combat the new leviathan: local self-government and voluntary associations. Involvement in such institutions seemed to him a condition for the stability of the democratic system. By disseminating ideas and creating consensus among their members, they become the basis for conflict between one organization and another. And, in the process of doing so, they also limit the central power, create new and autonomous centers of power to compete with it, and help to train potential opposition leaders in political skills. 10

The approaches of Tocqueville and Marx did not result in contradictory analyses of the functions of various social institutions, although they did make for very different evaluations. Marx's statement that religion is the "opiate of the masses" is a recognition of its integrative function. Tocqueville also recognized the "opiative" quality of religion: "Religion, then, is simply another form of hope." 11 To Marx religion was a source of delusion for the lower strata, a mechanism to adjust them to their lot in life, and to prevent them from recognizing their true class interests.  

Tocqueville, conversely, saw that the need for religious belief grew in direct proportion to political liberty. The less coercive and dictatorial the political institutions of a society became, the more it needed a system of sacred belief to help restrict the actions of both the rulers and the ruled.

Karl Marx, The German Ideology ( New York: International Publishers, 1939), p. 22.

Quoted from the French edition of The Holy Family, in G. Gurvitch, "La Sociologie du jeune Marx," Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 4 ( 1948), p. 25.

Karl Marx, op. cit., p. 44.

K. Marx, "Ideology -- 'Saint Max,'" Gesamtausgabe, I, 5, p. 226, quoted in The German Ideology, p. 203.

The best Marxist discussion of the problem of the development of class cohesion and the transcending of personal interests in favor of class interests may be found in Georg Lukacs, Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein ( Berlin: Malik, 1923).

See his attack on the bill of rights of the Second French Republic as a sham in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, in V. Adoratsky, ed., Selected Works of Karl Marx ( Moscow: Cooperative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR, 1935), pp. 328-2

For an elaboration of these ideas see S. M. Lipset, M. Trow, and J. S. Coleman , Union Democracy ( Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956).

Tocqueville, op. cit., p. 321.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I ( New York: Vintage Books, 1954), pp. 9-11. The drift toward a mass society through the elimination of local groups and intermediate centers of power between the individual and the national state has been analyzed by Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1953).

Óëñ òºðèéí ñîöèîëîãè

Àíãèéí çºð÷èë áà çºâøèë: Ìàðêñ áà Òîêâèëü

/орчуулга/

Хавчуурга:  Манай нэг багш энэ Мартин Липсет гэдэг хүний Улс төрийн амьтан гэдэг номыг олоод, нэг хэсгээс нь орчуулаад бие даалт хийж ир гэсэн юм. Энэ зохиолыг олох гэж их удсан даа. Сүүлд нь интернэтээс мөнгө төлж тодорхой хэсгийг нь худалдаж аваад орчуулаад арай гэж даалгавраа гүйцэтгэсэн. Агуулга, доторх зүйл нь надад  тэр үедээ тийм ч чухал биш санагдаж байсан. Одоо дотор нь юу гэж бичсэнээ ч сайн санахгүй байна. Уг нь бүхэл зохиолыг нь уншиж үзвэл сонирхолтой байж магадгүй л юм байна лээ. Гэхдээ зөвхөн мэргэжлийн хүмүүст шүү. Хэрэгтэй хүмүүстээ хэрэгтэй байх гэж бодож байна. Ямар ч байсан компьютероо ухаад байж байсан ий юм олдохоор нь блогтоо тавьчихья гэж бодлоо.

Ôðàíöûí õóâüñãàëûí äàðàà çºð÷èë áà çºâøëèéí àñóóäàë õóðöààð òàâèãäàæ ýõýëñýí. Õóâüñãàë÷äûã õàðâàë òýä çºð÷ëèéã èë¿¿ àãóóëäàã áà õàðèí êîíñåðâàòèâ÷óóä íèéãìèéí òîãòâîðòîé áàéäàëä àíõààðäàã. ßìàð íºõöºëä çºð÷èë áà çºâøëèéí ò¿âøèí òýíöâýðòýé áàéñàí, ìºí áàéõ âý ãýäãèéã îëîí æèëèéí òóðø ñóäàëñàí öººõºí õýäýí ñóäëàà÷èä áàéíà.

Ǻð÷èë áà çºâøëèéí àñóóäëûã ººðèéí ñóäàëãààíû ãîëä òàâüæ ñóäàëñàí íýã òîìîîõîí ñóäëàà÷ áîë  Êàðë Ìàðêñ /Karl Marx/ áºãººä ò¿¿íèé á¿òýýë¿¿äýä àíàëèç õèéõýä óã àóóäëààð íýëýýä ã¿íçãèé ñóäàëñàí õàðàãääàã. Àëåêñèñ äå Òîêâèëü / Alexis de Tocqueville / áîë àðä÷èëàë íü çºð÷èë áà çºâøëèéí óÿëäàà õîëáîî, òýíöâýðòýé áàéäëààñ õàìààðäàã ãýñýí ñàíààã äýìæäýã ÷èãëýëèéí 1 òîìîîõîí òºëººëºã÷ þì.

Ìàðêñûíõààð íèéãýì íü áàéíãûí çºð÷èë ýñâýë çºâ뺺ð ë òîäîðõîéëîãäîõ áîëîâ÷ ýíý õî¸ð íü õîñîëñîí áàéõ áîëîìæã¿é ãýæýý. Ìàðêñ çºð÷èë áà çºâøëèéí àñóóäëûã ñóäëàõäàà çºð÷èë, çºâøëèéã òýíöâýðòýé áàéëãàõ ãýäýã òàëààñ áèø  ººð ºíö㺺ñ õàðæ ñóäàëñàí áàéíà. Ò¿¿íèé ¿çñýíýýð 1 òàëààñ çºâøèë ãýäýã íü èðýýä¿éí êîììóíèñò íèéãýì äýõ çºâøëèéí àñóóäàë õàðèí çºð÷èë íü ò¿¿õýí äýõ äàðëàã÷ äàðëàãäàã÷ àíãèéí õîîðîíäîõ àñóóäàë áºãººä àæèë÷èí àíãè áóþó ïðîëåòàðèéí õóâüñãàëòàé õîëáîãäîæ ÿðèãäàõ àæýý.

Ìàðêñûí íèéãìèéí ñóäàëãààíä èðýýä¿éí ýâ íàéðàìäàëòàé íèéìèéí òóõàé ¿çýë ñàíàà ÷óõàë áàéð ñóóðü ýçýëäýã. Ò¿¿íèé òºñººëæ áàéñàí óëñ òºðèéí ñèñòåì íü àðä÷èëàëñàí èíñòèòóò áèø õàðèí àíàðõè. Ýíý íü ýäèéí çàñàã äàõü õ¿ì¿¿ñèéí ¿¿ðýã ðîëèéí ÿëãàâàðòàé áàéäëûã àðèëãàõûí òºëººõ àæèë÷èí àíãèéí õºäºë㺺í ýöñèéí ¿ð ä¿íäýý íèéãìèéí çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人íèé ¿íäñýí ýõ ñóðâàëæèéã óñòãàíà ãýñýí ñàíààã èëýðõèéëæ áàéãàà þì.

Êîììóíèñò íèéãýìä ¿éë àæèëëàãààíû ãàíö ë òºðëèéã ººðºº õàðèóöàí ã¿éöýòãýäýã òýð òàëààðàà áóñäààñ äàâóó ýçýí áàéõã¿é, õ¿í á¿ð ººðèéí õ¿ññýí ¿éë àæèëëàãààíû òºðºë, ñàëáàðò àæèëëàæ àìüäðàõ áóþó ººðººð õýëáýë çààâàë àí÷èí, çàãàñ÷èí, ø¿¿ìæëýã÷ áîëîõã¿éãýýð ºã뺺 àí õèéæ, ºäºð çàãàñ áàðüæ îðîé íü ø¿¿ìæ áè÷èæ áîëîõ áîëîìæèéã íèéãýì ººðºº îëãîõ áºãººä õ¿íä íýã ºäºð ººð àæèë ººð íýã ºäºð áàñ ººð àæèë õèéõ áîëîìæèéã îëãîíî. /Ýíý íü êîììóíèñò íèéãýìä ýðõýëäýã àæèë áóþó ¿éë àæèëëàãààíû ÿìàð íýãýí òºð뺺𺺠áóñäààñ äàâóó ýðõòýé õýí íýãýí áàéõã¿é áóþó á¿ãä ë èæèë òýãø ýðõòýé ãýäãèéã èëýðõèéëñýí áîëîëòîé. Á.̺íõãýðýë/

Èðýýä¿éí òóõàé àâ÷ ¿çñýí Ìàðêñûí ºäðèéí ç¿¿ä øèã ýíý èëýðõèéëýë áèåëýõýä àìàðõàí áèø þì. Ò¿¿íèé ¿çñýíýýð êîììóíèçì íü õ¿ì¿¿ñ õîîðîíäûí áîëîîä õ¿í áàéãàëèéí õîîðîíäîõ ýâëýðø¿ã¿é çºð÷èë áóþó àíòàãîíèçìûã øèéäâýðëýõ ¿íýí çºâ øèéäýë áàñ íèéãìèéí ÿëãàðëûí ¿íäýñ, øàëòãààíûã óñòãàõ áîëîìæ þì ãýæýý.

̺ëæèã÷ àíãè äàðàíãóéëñàí, îëîí ÿíçààð äàâõðààæñàí íèéãýìä çºâøëèéí òóõàé ÿðèõ íü áîëîìæã¿é þì ãýæ Ìàðêñ ¿çýýä êîììóíèñò íèéãìèéí ºìíºõ íèéãýìä áàéæ áîëîõ ýâ ñàíàà, ýâ íàéðàìäàëòàé àìüäðàëûí òóõàé îãò áîäîîã¿é áàéíà. Ò¿¿íèé ãîë ñîíèðõîë íü õýðõýí òýìöýõ âý òýìöýëä ÿëàõûí òóëä ÿìàð äàâóó õ¿÷òýé áàéõ âý ãýäýãò ÷èãëýæ áàéëàà. Ãýõäýý ò¿¿íèé ñóäàëãàà õ¿íèé ôèçèëîãèéí àñóóäàëä àíõààðààã¿é þì.

Ìàðêñûí îíîëûí êîììóíèçì äîð àðä÷èëëûí ÿìàð íýã çàé áàéõã¿é áàéõã¿é. Ýíä çºâõºí õî¸ð òºðëèéí íèéãýì áàéõ áºãººä íýã íü çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人íèé íèéãýì íºãºº íü ýâ íàéðàìäàëòàé íèéãýì. Ǻð÷èë ìºðãºë人íèé íèéãýì íü õ¿íèé òºðºëõèéí ýâäýí ñ¿éòãýõ ìóó øèíæ ÷àíàðòàé õîëáîîòîé áºãººä óñòãàãäàõ ¸ñòîé. Ýâ íàéðàìäëûí íèéãýì íü çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人íèé íèèãìèéí äàðààõ ÷ºëººò íèéãýì áºãººä ýíý íèéãýìä õ¿íèé ýðõèéí òóíõàã ýñâýë ¿íäñýí õóóëü, ìºí ø¿¿õ ¸ñíû áàòàëãàà, ò¿¿íèé õàìãààëàë, ýðõ ìýäëèéí õóâààðèëàëò, òºðèéí çàñàãëàëûí ýñðýã òýìöýã÷èä, áàñ àðä÷èëñàí èíñòèòóò øààðäëàãàã¿é þì. Îðøèí áàéäã¿é èäåàë íèéãìèéã ë çºâõºí ãîë áîëãîñîí îíîëä òóëãóóðëàñíû óðøèãò äàãàâðûã Îðîñûí õóâüñãàëûí ò¿¿õ áàòëàíà. Òýãýõýýð íèéãýì íü áàéíãûí çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人íèé íèéãýì ýñâýë ýâ íàéðàìäëûí ãýñýí õî¸ð ë õýëáýðòýé ë áàéíà.

Çýðâýñ õàðàõàä Òîêâèëü / Tocqueville /-èéí îíîë íü Ìàðêñûíõòàé èæèë þì øèã ñàíàãäàõ áºãººä òýä àëü àëü íü íèéãìèéí íýãæ, õýñãèéã òýð äóíäàà çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人íèé ýõ ñóðâàëæ áîëæ áóé õýñãèéã îíöëîí ñóäàëñàí áàéíà. /Ìàðêñûí õóâüä íèéãìèéí íýãæ, õýñýã íü àíãèóä Òîêâèëèéí õóâüä îðîí íóòãèéí áîëîîä ñàéí äóðûí áàéãóóëëàãóóä þì./ Ãýõäýý Ìàðêñòàé àäèëã¿é íü Òîêâèëü óëñ òºðèéí çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人í áà çºâøëèéã àëü àëüíûã íü áèé áîëãîæ ÷àäàõ íèéãìèéí íýãæ, õýñã¿¿äèéã çîðèóäààð ñîíãîí àâñàí áàéíà. Òýðýýð èðýýä¿éí ýâ íàéðàìäàëòàé íèéãìèéí òóõàé òºëºâ뺺ã¿é, õàðèí íèéãìèéí çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人íèé áà çºâøëèéí ýõ ñóðâàëæóóäûã õàìòàä íü àâ÷ ¿çñýí þì. Èæèë íýãæ, õýñýã, òóõàéëáàë õîëáîîíû áà ìóæèéí çàñãèéí ãàçàð, êîíãðåññ áà åðºíõèéëºã÷ íü áèå áèåíýýñýý õàðààò áóñ áàñ õàðèëöàí óÿëäàà õîëáîîòîéí äýýð óëñ òºðèéí íàìóóäààð õîëáîãäñîí áàéäàã. Çàñãèéí ãàçðûí õÿçãààðëàëòûí íýã ýõ ñóðâàëæ áîëîõ õóâèéí ýâñýë õîëáîîä /Õóâèéí ýâñýë õîëáîîä ãýäýã íü Òîêâèëèéí ãîë àíõààðëàà õàíäóóëæ ñóäàëñàí íèéãìèéí íýãæ, õýñýã áóþó îðîí íóòãèéí áàéãóóëëàãà áîëîîä ñàéí äóðûí áàéãóóëëàãóóäûí òóõàé áîëîëòîé. Á.̺íõãýðýë / íü õ¿ì¿¿ñèéã óëñ òºðä õîëáîõ íýã ÷óõàë ñóâàã áîëäîã. Òîâ÷îîð õýëýõýä õóâèéí ýâñýë õîëáîîä íü  àðä÷èëñàí íèéãýìä çàéëøã¿é øààðäëàãàòàé çºâøëèéã áèé áîëãîæ, õàäãàëæ õàíãàæ ÷àäàõ ìåõàíèçì þì.

Òîêâèëü îð÷èí ¿åèéí íèéãìèéí òóõàé ñóäàëãààíû ¿ð ä¿í áîëîõ ïëþðàë óëñ òºðèéí ñèñòåìèéã èë¿¿ àíõààð÷ ñóäàëñàí áàéíà. Àæ ¿éëäâýðæ¿¿ëýëò, áþðîêðàò ¸ñ, íàöèîíàëèçì çýðýã íü íèéãìèéí äîîä àíãèéã óëñ òºð ð¿¿ àâàà÷äàã áºãººä ìºí æèæèã ýðõ ìýäýëòí¿¿äèéí õ¿÷èéã ñóëðóóëæ ýðõ ìýäëèéã òºðä, ëåâèàôàíä òºâëºð¿¿ëäýã. Òîêâèëü ýðõ ìýäëèéã ãàíö ººðòºº òºâëºð¿¿ëñýí òºð áèé áîëæ ò¿¿íèéã ñºðºí çîãñîõ ÿìàð íýã ººð á¿ëýã áàéõã¿é áîëæ áàéæ íèéãìèéí çºð÷èë ìºðãºë人í áàéõã¿é áîëîõ âèé ãýæ áîëãîîìæèëñîí. Òýãâýë òýíä ÿìàð ÷ óëñ òºðèéí ºðñºë人í áàéõã¿é áºãººä ó÷èð íü ò¿¿íèéã áèé áîëãîæ õàíãàæ ÷àäàõ íèéãìèéí áààç ñóóðü ¿ã¿é þì. Òîêâèëü ò¿¿í÷ëýí ìàññûí íèéãýìä çºâøèë ¿íý öýíýã¿é áîëîõ âèé ãýæ áîëãîîìæèëæ áàéëàà. Òàñàðõàé íèéãìèéí íýãæ áóþó àëü íýãýí á¿ëýãò õàìààðàãääàãã¿é õóâü õ¿ì¿¿ñèéí õóâüä òýä óëñ òºð, íèéãìèéí ÿìàð íýãýí íýãæ á¿ëýãëýëä îðîëöîëã¿é ãàíöààðàà õîöîðäîã áºãººä ìºí óëñ òºðä îðîëöîõ õàíãàëòòàé ñîíèðõîëã¿é ýñâýë àëèâàà ÿìàð ÷ äýãëýìèéã õ¿ëýýí çºâøººðºõºä áýëýí áàéäàã. /Îð÷èí ¿åèéí íèéãýìä áèå õ¿í ãàíöààðàà þó ÷ õèéæ ÷àäàõã¿é, íèéãìèéí ÿìàð íýãýí á¿ëýã, õîëáîîíû ãèø¿¿í áîëæ áàéæ ë óëñ òºðèéí ¿éë àæèëëàãààíä íºëººëæ, ¿ð ä¿íä õ¿ðíý. Õýðýâ íèéãìèéí àëü íýãýí á¿ëýãò, ýâñýë õîëáîîíä õàìààðàãäàõã¿é áîë òóõàéí õ¿í ãàíöààðàà ¿ëäýæ óëñ òºðä îðîëöîõ ñîíèðõîëã¿é,÷àäâàðã¿é, ÿìàð ÷ õ¿÷ ÷àäàëã¿é õ¿í áîëíî ãýñýí óòãàòàé áîëîëòîé. Á.̺íõãýðýë/

Òîêâèëèéí Àìåðèêèéí ñóäàëãàà íü øèíý ëåâèàôàí /leviathan/ áóþó á¿õíèéã çàëãèã÷ á¿õ ýðõ ìýäëèéã äàí ãàíö ººðò òºâëºð¿¿ëñýí “ìàíãàñ òºð” ¿¿ñýõýýñ ñýðãèéëæ ÷àäàõ õî¸ð òºðëèéí èíñòèòóòûã ñàíàë áîëãîñîí áºãººä ¿¿íèé íýã íü îðîí íóòãèéí ººðºº óäèðäàõ Çàñãèéí ãàçàð /local self government/ íºãºº íü ñàéí äóðûí õîëáîî ýâñýë /voluntary organization/ /þì. Ýäãýýð èíñòèòóòóóä íü àðä÷èëñàí ñèñòåìèéã òîãòâîðòîé áàéëãàõ ÷óõàë ¿íäýñ þì ãýæ òýðýýð ¿çñýí áàéíà. Ýäãýýð èíñòèòóòóóä íü òºâëºðñºí ýðõ ìýäëèéã ñààðóóëæ, õÿçãààðëàæ ìºí ¿¿ñýí áèé áîëîõîîñ ñýðãèéëæ ÷àäàõ áºãººä óëñ òºðèéí àìüäðàëä õ¿÷òýé ºðñºëäºã÷ õ¿÷èí áîëæ ÷àäàõ ëèäåð¿¿äèéã áèé áîëãîõîä òóñàëäàã.

Ìàðêñ áîëîí Òîêâèëèéí ñóäàëãààã õàðàõàä òýäíèé íèéãìèéí ÿíç á¿ðèéí èíñòèòóòóóäûí ôóíêö, òýäãýýðèéí çºð÷èëä àíàëèç õèéñýí ñóäàëãàà íü òèéì ÷ ¿ð ä¿íòýé áàéãààã¿é áºãººä òýäíèé ãàðãàñàí  ä¿ãíýëò¿¿ä ýðñ ÿëãààòàé áàéíà. Ìàðêñûíõààð øàøèí áîë àðä îëíûã ìóíõðóóëàã÷ õàð òàìõè ãýæ ¿çñýí áîë Òîêâèëü øàøèí ìóíõðóóëàõ øèíæ ÷àíàðòàé áîëîâ÷ õ¿íèé èòãýë áèøðýëèéí ë íýãýí õýëáýð ãýæ ¿çñýí. Ìàðêñûíõààð øàøèí íü íèéãìèéí äîîä äàâõðààíûõíû òººðºãäºë áºãººä òýäíèé àìüäðàë õóâü çàÿàã çîõèöóóëäàã ìåõàíèçì áºãººä òýäíèéã æèíõýíý àíãèéí ñîíèðõëûã òàíèí ìýäýõýýñ ñýðãèéëæ áàéäàã. /Øàøèí íü íèéãìèéí äîîä äàâõðààíûõíû èòãýë íàéäâàð áºãººä òýäíèéã ººðñäèé㺺 òàíèí ìýäýõýýñ ñýðãèéëæ áàéäàã áóþó ÿäóó ç¿ä¿¿ àìüäðàëòàé ãýäãèéã ººðñäºä íü óëàì ìýäð¿¿ëæ ñýòãýëýýð óíàãàõààñ ñýðãèéëæ èòãýë íàéäâàð ºãäºã ìóíõðóóëàã÷ òºäèé ë ç¿éë ë ãýñýí ñàíààã èëýðõèéëñýí áîëîëòîé. Á.̺íõãýðýë/

Òîêâèëü õàðèí Ìàðêñûí ýñðýãýýð øàøèí íü óëñ òºðèéí ýðõ ÷ºëººòýé øóóä õîëáîîòîé áàéíà. Àëáàäëàãà, äèêòàòóðã¿é àðä÷èëñàí íèéãìèéã áèé áîëãîõûí òóëä çàõèðàã÷ áîëîí çàõèðàãäàã÷ íàðûí ¿éë àæèëëàãààã õÿçãààðëàæ áàéõ ÿìàð íýãýí íóóö èòãýë áèøðýëèéí ñèñòåì áàéõ õýðýãòýé áºãººä ¿¿íèé ¿¿ðãèéã øàøèí ã¿éöýòãýæ ÷àäíà ãýæ ¿çæýý.

Б.Мөнхгэрэл

Share