dialectics

The laws of dialectics: unity of opposites (that save energy for establishing ties and bonds between things and systems), transition from quantitative changes to qualitative (which eliminates the least viable elements) and negation of negation (that preserves the most functional elements and forms basis for new changes), are the principles of the most efficient way of self-organization of matter.

The other problem that complicates the comprehension of dialectics is the problem of dialectical contradictions (antinomies). The adepts of dialectics hold that in contrast to formal (metaphysical) logic dialectical analysis operates with contradictions (antinomies), as everything is based on and moved by the unity and struggle of opposites (thesis and antithesis). This approach was sharply criticised by many post-classic philosophers (especially by positivists) and to say the truth, this critic was partially fair, as classic dialectical concepts failed to provide a clear criterions for distinguishing dialectical contradictions from formal ones.
The main reason of such theoretical uncertainty is that dialectics has not completely emancipated from formal logic. Great dialectics (such as Kant, Hegel and Marx) continued to mix the laws of dialectical and formal logic and applied the principles pertaining only to formal logic towards definition of dialectical terms.
It should be marked that Marx made important step forward holding that both formal and dialectical logic are not the logic of mind, but the logic of the objective reality reflected in human mind. So, if proceed from the axiom that the ultimate criterion for everything (including contradictions) is objective reality, then contradictions may be defined as incompatibility of things/aspects/processes (reflected in abstract logical constructions) in the objective reality. And vice versa: the statement reflecting things/aspects/processes that are actually coexist in the real life and this coexistence is experimentally proven can not be qualified as contradictory. That which is usually called “dialectical contradiction” is not contradiction but is complementary characteristic. “Dialectical contradictions” are none other than reflections of different aspects of a single thing made from different points of view, or different reflections of the same thing/aspect produced by two (or more) subjects/objects with different characteristics.
(N. Bohr and A. Einstein understood this idea very clearly; Bohr’s principle of complementarity and Einstein’s relativity principle are vivid examples of dialectical approach towards the problems of physics.)
Let us view the well known Heraclites’ antinomy reading that sea water is the clearest and the dirtiest (for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty). This statement contains not a single contradiction as in objective reality sea water is used both by fishes and by Homo sapiens; as these organisms belong to different species they have different structure and metabolism, so the reactions of their organisms on sea water will be different. But the assertion that sea water is both salt and sweet will be by any means contradictory as in the real life sea water can not be simultaneously salt and sweet.
The ban on contradictions is valid both for formal and for dialectical logic. What should be remembered is that the final and universal criterion for qualifying any statement or conclusion as right or wrong, contradictory or not contradictory is not the laws of formal logic, but practice (reference to the objective reality).

For better comprehension of the very essence of dialectical method one should refer to etymology of the term. Dialectics comes from dialogue. Dialogues were very popular in Ancient Greece, whose philosophers contributed much to development of dialectics – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and others widely used the form of dialogue for expression of their ideas. Each participant of the dialogue (contest) presented his point of view while clashes and combinations of different and even opposite opinions produced comprehensive (multidimensional) image of the discussed subject [thesis – antithesis – synthesis].
Hegel extrapolated this scheme (pertaining mainly to the development of thought) to the development of material systems which led to formalization of dialectical method and its divergence with practice. However, polysemantic character of dialectical statements (which seems contradictory for common sense) is not the whim of armchair pundits being fond of intellectual games – it is conditioned by fluid and multidimensional nature of the objective reality.
There are numbers of phenomena and processes that can not be described in terms of formal logic demanding strict choice between two alternatives (either ... or), they require synthetic description including both thesis and antithesis. In such case synthesis is achieved due to introduction of additional elements of thought which eliminate formal contradiction between opposites and turn them into complementary characteristics. For example, if we simply say that sear water is the clearest and the dirtiest it will be a contradiction, but if we specify that for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty, the contradiction will be eliminated.

Hegel once marked that each kind of logic has its special field of application, to his mind formal logic is applicable to the problems of everyday life (submitted to the principles of common sense) while dialectical method is useful for solving more complex philosophical and scientific problems. This valuable remark was often ignored both by adepts and critics of dialectics who tried to apply dialectical principles to the problems that belong to the realm of formal logics which only discredited dialectical method.
Dialectics and formal logics are two types of logic with specific axioms and sphere of application, in this context they may be compared with and non-Euclid or classic physic and Relativity/quantum mechanic.
In the realm of formal logic (common sense) all objects and systems have constant structure (being immutable during a long period of time) and all processes have cyclical nature. In this sphere each thing has its permanent place and performs strictly definite function. According to formal (metaphysical) approach every thing may have only a single quality (meaning) and each event (process) has single and strictly definite sense. Common sense views all subjects separately and determines their quality through examining their structure and comparing it with the respective etalon. (Formal logic adequately describes the behaviour of such objects as planetary system where all objects have their permanent orbits, technical mechanisms constructed according to a certain scheme, where each detail performs definite function, living cells and organisms that have already finished their evolution and are reproduced in the same form, traditional society with constant socio-economical and political structure, etc.).
In the realm of dialectics all things and systems undergo perpetual metamorphoses and change their places and relations many times, so from the point of view of dialectics a thing as such does not have an immanent quality (predestination) – its quality appears at the intersection of connections with other objects; the same is with the sense of events – an event does not have a single interpretation, its meaning depends on the properties of the reflecting object/subject. That is why dialectical method never views a subject of study separately, but only in the context of its relations with other objects and observes all things and events from different points of view.
The subjects of study that require dialectical approach are the Universe as a whole where objects move with enormous speeds; biosphere, where living organisms undergo mutations and evolve into a new species; the industrial society with great dynamic of socio-economic changes, etc.
Formal logic is the realm of pure reason and verified knowledge – it describes systems where all important parameters may be exactly measured and which future state is quite predictable. Dialectics deals with the systems where only a part of information is accessible for study, so in this realm reason shares power with intuition.
In the sphere of common sense occasion is viewed as something unimportant which may not be taken into consideration. For dialectical mode of thinking accidental events are not less important than regular ones – a fortuity is a seed of future or a last straw that breaks the existing order and releases the Demon of changes.
The other difference between formal and dialectical mode of thinking is perception of time. Formal logic divides time into fragments that may be studied independently of each other. For common sense Past is that which has already gone, present is something which actually exists while Future is that which has not come yet.
For dialectics which views Being as a chain of negations, an object (event) is the focus of tenses. Past (the remnants of previous forms and traces of earlier events) is embedded in the Present which in its turn contains the embryo of Future. (This synthesis of time is splendidly revealed in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury that is a brightest example of dialectical mode of thinking in literature.)
For common sense Time is clocks and calendars – it views Time as something abstract and absolute that may be measured with universal etalons. Such “mechanical” approach (pertaining to Newton’s physics and metaphysic of 18-19 c.) is quite applicable to relatively small homogeneous systems consisting of standard elements which movement may be synchronised.
Dialectics views Time as an attribute of matter characterising its movement. This idea was developed and popularized by Marx and Engels, the creators of dialectical materialism; scientific proof of the relative nature of time was made by A. Einstein.
In the sphere of Being where matter is distributed not quite evenly universal etalons are senseless – each object has its own time.
Common sense prompts that the course of Time may follow only one direction (forward). In the realm of dialectics the course of Time depends on how a system uses its energy. If it is replenished with new elements its Time goes forward; if energy simply circulates from one part to another Time moves in a circle; but if he structure loses its energy and constituent parts the spiral of Time unfolds into opposite direction and the system returns to the past.
Although quantitative characteristics of Time are not absolute, this attribute of matter has universal nature and its power stretches everywhere, as the streams of energy that break ties and connections between things and elements causing more or less substantial changes, transpierce the whole Being. They may be slow down or turned into other direction, but they can not be completely stopped, so existence is none other than a perpetual dialogue with Time – different metamorphoses of material structures (regulated by the laws of dialectics) are (in their very essence) more or less adequate and successful answers to the challenges of Time.
As it has been already mentioned formal logic operates with ideal patterns and universal principles – from the point of view of dialectics any truth is relative, the only absolute recognized by dialectical mode of thinking is fruitfulness – the ability to produce results that exceed pains and losses. Dialectics justifies everything that tends to transform energy into a new quality and denies everything that leads to senseless and fruitless wasting of time and energy, as the supreme aim of Being is self-assembly – restoration of the lost integrity (namely: singularity, or if use Hegel’s terminology Absolute Idea ). Energy should be perpetually transmitted from one interim form to another until it finds the form being completely equal to the initial one which could involve in itself the rest of matter and transform it into a single entity containing the embryo of the future Universe...
It should be marked that fruitfulness (efficiency) is the universal criterion of Good. But in the static environment where all things, systems and processes exist/are reproduced in the same immutable form, the effect caused by an object/event is quite definite and predictable, so everything may be supplied with a tag: positive/negative/neutral, etc. Dialectics that deals with changeable and heterogeneous reality, considers nothing as a-priory good or vicious, right or wring, useful or useless, prospective or having no prospects. The actual meaning of everything is determined in the context of concrete circumstances, as the effect caused by something, depends not only its own properties, but also on the properties of the things it interacts with (a blow of hammer makes steel harder, but breaks glass).
An explosion of a supernova may be viewed as a destructive process, but if it leads to formation of a new planetary system serving as a cradle for highly organized biological and social forms, it may be qualified as constructive. A genetic mutation may be qualified as positive, negative or neutral only in relation with natural environment to which a mutated organism should be adapted.
Such social collisions as revolutions or civil wars may have both devastating and clearing effect depending on where and when they take place. For example Civil War of 1861-1865 in the United States (in spite of heavy losses sustained by the defeated side) was a progressive event that formed conditions for rapid economic growth. But numerous civil conflicts in Columbia (so vividly described by Garcia Marques) brought little boon to the country and turned into a chronicle disease gnawing formerly vital social organism.
Democracy with its division of power and wide civic rights and freedoms under certain conditions creates the best conditions for economic, social and cultural development, but the political order that demonstrates so many advantages, may as well be a source of disaster if a state meets with extremely serious challenges. Such situation was in ancient Athens in times of Peloponnesian War and in Western Europe in the period of World War II, when bourgeois democracy proved its inefficiency for resisting such totalitarian power as the Third Reich (Great Britain survived rather due to favourable geographical location).
Before French Revolution (1787-99) Napoleon Bonaparte was a clumsy, acrimonious and not very popular young man with very vague carrier prospects, as he possessed neither aristocratic origin nor good manners and connections necessary for achieving success in the feudal society. But after the Great Revolution had smashed the Order under which dancing skills were more important than intellectual faculties, the former outsider turned into the most powerful person in Europe.
Those who try to solve the problems of human existence (especially the problems of moral) should remember that they are much more complex and multidimensional than the riddles of Nature that is why their comprehension requires greater flexibility of mind.
Yet ancient thinkers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) marked relative and transient sense of moral and political credos as well as frequent divergence between individuals’ initial goals and final results of their deeds.
This problem interested not only philosophers, but also men of letters, and to say the truth the dialectics of human relations was much vividly reflected in the works of arts and literature than in philosophical treatises.
Since the epoch of Renaissance had renewed the progressive movement of society, artists and men of letters prove in their works that in the developing society man’s deeds should not be rigidly submitted to an age-old tradition or an abstract ideal, but must be in harmonious correspondence with the demands of the real life.
This idea runs through the works of Cervantes whose hero Don Quixote possessed by pii desiderii suffers bitter failure and destroys his life and the life of those related to him.
Shakespeare’s great losers – Harry Hotspur, Hamlet, Macbeth, Coriolanus, King Leer, Antonius, and others also illustrate the truth that even an outstanding individuality is doomed to defeat if his qualities and outlook are not in line with the objective circumstances.
Goethe’s Faust throws challenge to commonly accepted moral norms and religious principles but in spite of all is justified and saved (together with his beloved Margaret). While the self-definition of Mephistopheles as a “part of the Power that would always wish Evil, and always works the Good” breaks stereotypical view on the nature of Good and Evil.
Leo Tolstoy a great apologist of man’s seeking and striving for his true predestination, specified in his War and Pease this dialectics of good and evil. The fortunes of his main heroes are perpetual alternations of triumphs and disasters, when easy victory or wishful thinking leads to tremendous catastrophe which in their turn opens wider prospects and helps to change things for better...
History and literature give us numerous evidences of relative nature of commonly accepted principles and stereotypes and absolute significance of all deeds and creatures that serve for immortality of the mankind.
Comprehension of dialectical method is much more difficult than comprehension of formal logic as mastering the dialectical mode of thinking can not be reduced to learning a set of rules and patterns. Mastering dialectics may be compared with learning swimming or riding bicycle. There are certain rules that facilitate acquiring the skill, but even the best trainer or manual can not explain by means of words how to keep balance and what it is. A person should feel this specific state.
Dialectical method in its very essence is the ability to keep the equilibrium of mind in very fluid and shaky reality; to think in terms of dialectics is to be able to merge the stream of consciousness with the stream of Being, to plunge into the whirlpool of events and grasp their deepest sense, to step into the labyrinth of alternatives and catch the only guiding thread that shows the way to Eternity.

philosophy

20 c. did not change the conditions for philosophic studies for better. The lack of trust to abstract theories caused deep estrangement between philosophers and industrial/post-industrial society. As a result they lost the ability for selfless and unbiased searching for truth whatever it reads. To dare to look in the face of truth one should love the world he lives in and have weighty reasons to believe that in spite of all his work is necessary and interesting for others.
The ultimate objective of classic studies was true and objective knowledge. Sure, they contained many errors, but these errors were caused mainly by informational and methodological gaps. Classics were often mistaken, but never cunning – the authors of post-classic studies used to ignore unsuitable facts or fitted them to the conclusions dictated by the necessity to resolve or soften their personal contradictions with the contemporary society.
Hegel in his Philosophy of Right defined philosophy as “its own time raised to the level of thought”. This metaphoric interpretation of the notion reflects the very nature of philosophic study: it analyses and systematises all essential facts that have become known by the current period of time, finds the most universal laws and principles and produces the most general and large-scale picture of reality.
If paraphrase Hegel, the post-classic philosophy may be defined as the thought sank to the level of its own time. Philosophy ceased to be a supreme wisdom viewing things and events sine ira et studio, and degraded to the status of ideology reflecting the objective reality in the light of interests of a certain social group.
As usual, there are two ways a theory (or a work of arts) may influence public’s mind and gain popularity:
1) It may be a true and objective reflection of reality (or its aspect) useful for practical activity.
2) It may be somebody’s subjective view on reality, but as the author is a typical representative of a social category gifted with bright abilities for expressing his thoughts in a consistent theoretical (or attractive aesthetical) form, he finds numbers of followers among the similar, who feel deep concordance between the author’s ideas and their own moods and views and find the apology for their dubious deeds. It this case his works serve as ideology.    
Modern thinkers attracted public mainly the second way and often played the role of “spokesmen” for different parties of intellectuals.   
The status of this social class has always been very shaky and uncertain as it has never had efficient means for defending its rights and interests. The wealthy classes possess material values that are still a strongest control lever; politicians and officials have power and authority; working masses are oppressed, but they are very numerous and directly operate means of production, so if they strike they may compel the upper classes to listen to their demands. But those who deal with spiritual values are powerless, unprotected and dispersed. That is why the intellectuals almost never act independently, but together with more numerous and powerful class, so the interests of the smallest and the weakest social group are often hidden behind the interests of its stronger political ally. However, irrespective of what ally the intellectuals choose (the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie or the working masses) they pursue their own ends that are: 1) to form comfortable conditions for cultural development and satisfaction of spiritual needs; 2) to accept a person’s educational level and intellectual aptitudes as the chief criteria for determining his position in social hierarchy. 
It should be taken into consideration that the motives of the intellectual elite usually differ from those pertaining to other classes. Usually a person’s convictions are determined by his economic interests proceeding from his place in the system of production. But those producing ideas and cultural values have very indirect relation to the industrial process, so for them economic interests play an important, but secondary role. The political choice of an intellectual and his attitude towards the existing social system depends mainly on his individuality – he will support that political line which promises the most real opportunities for his personal self-realisation. So, the class of intellectuals is the most divided and its representatives often choose the opposite sides of barricades.          
In the industrial/post industrial society the position of intellectuals became especially shaky and uncertain. Rapid economic and cultural development made education accessible to greater number of individuals and increased dramatically the quantity of enlightened people, but it did not guarantee them the proper position in society. This caused additional tension: high intellect developed by education always raises high ambitions and if it is combined with prominent leadership skills, it raises strong will to power. At the first sight free-enterprise system that eliminated the most of class prejudices and barriers opened wide prospects for creative and broadly minded individuals. But actually these prospects were very illusive. The paradox was that bourgeois revolutions that became the hour of triumph for a number of prominent historical figures (such as Cromwell, Robespierre, Marat, Napoleon, etc.) led to emergence of socio-economic system, where bright political talents were in very little demand. The times of qualitative transformations of political structure carried on by powerful rulers passed very soon and were shifted by long period of quantitative increase of productive capacity provided by private entrepreneurship. Since the mid of 19 c. capitalism did not need demiurges that could form the shape of a new social order, but rather industrious craftsmen that should finish the work and maintain political superstructure in a proper condition. The laws of market economy with its permanent disproportion between the offer and the demand had an effect on all aspects of the life of bourgeois society including politics: the educational system produced numbers of individuals inspired by humanistic ideas and being eager to change the life of the whole society for better, while the political system rejected them. But superfluous people are much more dangerous than superfluous commodity: they may unite in a party and plot revolution.
In 1848 (when K. Marx and F. Engels published their Communist Manifesto) the intellectual leaders of revolution received the ideology that spread all over the world like a fire and which influence on people’s mind can be compared only with the influence of world religions. The key idea was simple and genial: to agitate, organize and lead the working masses, to come to power on the wave of class struggle between the exploited and the exploiters and initiate a global social experiment aimed at transforming the bourgeois (class) society into the communist (classless) one.
Archimedes, a great expert on the laws of nature once said: “Give me a place to stand and I will move the Earth”. Karl Marx, a great expert on the laws of society could say: “Give me a class I could use as a social ground and I will turn over the World”. Proletariat seemed to be the most suitable political ally: this class was well-organized and concentrated in mega polices, unlike a farmer or a petty bourgeois which took decisions on production and acted as relatively independent subject of political process, a worker was a 100% executor, a screw in the industrial mechanism, who had neither competence, no experience of taking important decisions and whose political consciousness was a kind of tabula rasa – hence, proletariat (enlightened and agitated by intellectuals-revolutionaries) could serve as an effective mean with the help of which a handful of ambitious dreamers could submit the whole society to their will and change its structure according to their own ideals.
The additional reason of why Marxists viewed workers as the moving force of communist revolution is their relative indifference to national questions and their contradictions with national bourgeoisie. This feature was very helpful for solving the problem of nation’s unequal development that was especially urgent for Germany (Marx’s native country).
In 19 c. this state was considerably backward its permanent rivals – England and France. German bourgeoisie was weak and politically inexperienced and could not successfully compete with the bourgeoisie of other Western European states; small land, scanty natural resources and political division also hampered the country’s economic development. For not to be finally thrown back on the roadside of historical progress this nation had to neutralize its main external rivals and concentrate its efforts on speeding up its economical, political and social development. Marx understood that bourgeois democracy with its primacy of private interests and division of power between several institutions was unable to realize that tasks; while socialist order (implying centralized planning and management of industrial processes carried on by people with remarkable intellectual and moral qualities) seemed to be much more effective for rapid and comprehensive modernization of a backward state and opening wider prospects for self-realization of individuals whose skills and faculties were not demanded within the free-enterprise system.
Although German economy was not the most developed in Europe, Marx wrote in his “Manifesto”: “The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried under the more advanced conditions of European civilization, and with much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the 17-th and of France of 18-th c...” This statement is lack of logic as it compares the incomparable things: the nineteenth century German proletariat and the working class of England and France of seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The author consciously or subconsciously concealed the fact that the contemporary English and French proletariat was much more numerous, mature and politically experienced than that of his native country and that is why should play the leading role in the future revolution.
Marx’s predecessor, G. Hegel openly expressed pan-Germanic ideas holding that Prussian monarchy was the ideal state and an incarnation of the World Spirit – the chief theoretician of Proletarian Revolution often masked his primary concern about the destiny of Germany with the idea of proletarian internationalism. (Later, the leaders of Soviet Russia will act the same way to spread socialism all over the World and avoid competition with the countries that had better conditions for economic development). The matter was that the experience of previous (bourgeois) revolutions showed: the nation that had dared to overthrow its government inevitably met with hostility of its neighbours which consequently led to economic blockade and military intervention. It was clear that Germany with its scanty resources and vulnerable geographic location would not be able to defend its revolution, so it was necessary to unite the working class of many countries and synchronize proletarian revolutions at least in three European states (England, France and Germany). The revolutionary unit of the most influential European nations would help to protect new social order, to equalize the level of their economic development and eliminate competition between them from which the weaker part (Germany) suffered most of all.
However, the victory of proletarian revolution occurred other time and place. German communists overestimated the maturity of European capitalism and underestimated the progressive role of Junkers, whose leader Bismarck was able to consolidate the nation and improve its international status. But Russian Empire of the beginning of 20^th century was an ideal place for socialist revolution. Retarded and controversial development of Russian capitalism eroded social ground of the monarchy (which by that time had completely lost its popularity) but did not create firm basis for bourgeois democracy. Russian intelligentsia had always been highly inspired with revolutionary ideas, as due to specific way of historic development of their country, the abyss between the ideas (borrowed from Europe) and semi-Asian political and economical realities was terrifying; Russian proletariat was the poorest and the most oppressed and unlike the proletariat of Western-European states really had nothing to loose. The state had huge territory, reach natural resources and numerous populations ready to resist any foreign intervention, so socialist government could stay at power for pretty long time being surrounded with aliens. And there is no wonder that socialist revolutions occurred in underdeveloped states, as initially the idea of such revolution was elaborated and propagated by representatives of the nation that was far from vanguard of world progress; it is economic and political backwardness that makes socialist revolution more probable, increasing the sharpness of class contradictions and facilitating political alliance between leftist intelligentsia and the working class.
In developed capitalist states socialist revolution was hardly probable: colonial wars, colonization of virgin land (in 19c.) and economic expansion (in 20c.) absorbed the most active social elements; liberal political system (acting as a “valve” that lowers pressure in social mechanism) and constantly improving standards of living reduced the intensity of class struggle. That is why revolutionary parties were not too much active and influential among the working masses and intellectuals.
But in retarded social systems the situation was quite different. Rigid political structure and outdated industry provided very poor opportunities for self-realization and very vague prospects for improving living standards. So, the most intellectual, energetic and initiative persons were forced out to the margin and readily joined various revolutionary parties. Severe repressions initiated by autocratic government only strengthened revolutionary movement, selecting the most courageous, cunning and devoted participants and finally turned sporadic political circles into combatant underground organizations with strict discipline and well-elaborated political strategy. At the same time social ground for bourgeois democracy was very narrow and shaky: national bourgeoisie that failed to win world markets and lived in the shadow of monarchy for too long time had relatively moderate economic capacities, demonstrated indecisiveness and political infantilism; the middle class was very scanty; the major part of society consisted of semi-patriarchal rural population and overexploited proletarians getting no profit from transition to capitalism. That is why when monarchy (dictatorship) was toppled the class of capitalists was unable to fulfil its political and economic programme, satisfy the demands of people, restrain anarchy and hold power. On the contrary leftist parties demonstrated higher efficiency and political competence. Being accustomed to extreme conditions, led by highly intellectual charismatic leaders (who had nothing to loose and hence nothing to fear) they claimed for expropriation and redistribution of property (that impressed poor and ignorant masses more than al promises of illusory civic rights and liberties) and acted as a powerful core which attracted neutral social elements, involved them in its own orbit and organized them around itself. As a result bourgeois revolution developed into socialist one.
Marx often repeated that practice is the main confirmation of any theory, implying, of course, that his own concept was completely in line with the objective laws of society. History proved: the development of capitalism may lead to proletarian revolution (in some countries). But it mercilessly shattered Marx’s deepest believe that such revolution will lift humanity to the higher level of progress. Socialist states (living according to Marx’s economic theory) showed inability to create more productive industry as well as more liberal and humane political system and turned into gravestones for the lost illusions.
The intellectual leaders of revolution had no doubts: they knew how to rule the society and could do it better than mediocre bourgeois politicians[1]. They were sure: abolition of money and private property together with planned economy and compulsory labour conscription would considerably enhance productivity of labour. In practice all these measures led to dramatic decline of production and caused active protests of the masses that broke another illusion concerning worker’s loyalty to socialist ideas. The working class will support any government that provides the acceptable standards of living and will oppose any one unable to satisfy worker’s basic economic needs. That is why the working masses of the most prosperous states (in spite of all) remained loyal to bourgeois order and thus buried the hope for the world proletarian revolution.
When studying the history of socialist revolutions in different countries, one can not help coming to the conclusion that they followed the same scenario. After a series of experiments that failed to make socialist economy more productive than the free-enterprise system communist party split into several fractions that started cruel and uncompromising struggle with each other. As usual the vanguard of revolution (the intellectual leaders and fanatics), who needed power to make the world different was defeated and exterminated by more pragmatic comrades (mainly the former representatives of the lower classes) being ready to change the world anyway to get and hold power. The latter better understood the needs and mentality of the masses and could better correlate their political plans with moderate economic potentiality of their countries. To survive and preserve the leading positions in society they turned socialist state into political instrument for alienation and redistribution of the produce, oppression of any opposition and manipulation of mass consciousness, which had been serving for pretty long time until socialist economic exhausted the most of its resources and became incapable to bear the burden of competition with more productive capitalist states.
But, in spite of the evident fact that socialist experiment was a failure Marxism will remain to be one of the most popular ideology as long as bourgeois society will bear titans and heroes and throw them under the power of pygmies.
 

---

[1] Great Russian writer F. Dostoyevsky, the author of “The Devils” found very clear metaphor to reveal the nature of revolutionary movement. Devil was a God’s creature, the fallen angel of light who in pride tried to usurp the position of God. But God was stronger – he cursed the insurgent and deprived him of the power to do good things. Revolutionaries were enlightened persons, who had received good education and breeding due to their belonging to the wealthy classes. Being unsatisfied with their position in social hierarchy they raised against the order that had engendered them, but their rebellion was motivated mainly by their personal ambitions, they took their subjective need to play a leading role in society and reorganize socioeconomic structure according to new principles for objective necessity of such reorganization. The free-enterprise system was still viable and did not require basic changes to enhance its productivity - under such conditions the experimentalists were unable to change things for better. Like Devil they had to lure people with material values and constantly misled them, promising Paradise on the Earth, but actually driving them to the Hell, being a living evidence for the eternal truth: Good may easily turn into Evil if it fails to find a decent place.