Nicolae Ceausescu Quotes

Sorry, I'm still a dialectical materialist.

I'm less influenced by any of [Karl] Marx's ideas today than I've ever been in my life, and most significantly Marx's theory of historical materialism, which I think is virtually a debris of despotism.

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.

I think the materialist conception of history is valid.

Marx profoundly affected those who did not accept his system. His influence extended to those who least supposed they were subject to it.

The classics of Marxism, while fully appreciating the significance of the Darwinian theory, pointed out the errors of which Darwin was guilty. Darwin's theory, though unquestionably materialist in its main features, is not free from some serious errors.

Despite its flaws, Marxism still seems to explain the material world better than anything else.

Our judgment and moral categories, our idea of the future, our opinions about the present or about justice, peace, or war, everything, without excluding our rejections of Marxism, is impregnated with Marxism.

Philosophy is, in the last instance, class struggle in the field of theory.

I am not sure just what Marx had in mind when he wrote that "philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Did he mean that philosophy could change the world, or that philosophers should turn to the higher priority of changing the world? If the former, then he presumably meant philosophy in a broad sense of the term, including analysis of the social order and ideas about why it should be changed, and how. In that broad sense, philosophy can play a role, indeed an essential role, in changing the world.

Marxism is now a world faith and must be allowed to enter into a continuous dialogue with other world faiths, including religious faiths

Marxism must abhor nothing so much as the possibility that it becomes congealed in its current form. It is at its best when butting heads in self-criticism, and in historical thunder and lightning, it retains its strength.

I would define myself as a Marxian, and that means of course also as a humanist.

Marxism is not scientific: at the best, it has scientific prejudices.

I would say I was still a Marxist - which is not to be confused with being a Communist. Despite its flaws, Marxism still seems to explain the material world better than anything else.

If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.

Of course, Marxism is an example of what Carl Popper would have called a 'World Three' structure, in that it's got immense power as an idea, but you couldn't actually hold up anything in the world and say: 'this is Marxism'.

I am a Marxist Leninist and I will be one until the last day of my life.

Marx and Engels are arguably history's most famous couple. Such was the closeness of their collaboration that it is not always easy to recall which works bore both names, which just that of Marx, and which just Engels.

Marxism is essentially a product of the bourgeois mind.

[Referring to Karl Marx:] ... the prince of muddleheads.

The doctrines of Karl Marx are a destroyer of all mortals.

You may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is interested in you.

No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

The existence of the: Soviet Republic, side by side with the imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end.