philosophy
Oct. 28th, 2011 03:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dniprovska20 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 20th 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.
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 20th 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.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}