Marx's ideals and reality - whose revolution is it?

Why is an effort to establish communism not desirable? What were Marx's ideals and how were they reflected in the practice of Czechoslovak socialism?
V the second part let's look at what revolution is. What would Marx say about what had happened in his name in the last century?

Karl Marx
Karl Marx

V previous work I dealt with what is in Marx's conception of work and freedom and what the ideology of communism actually sought to address.

Whose revolution is it?

I have to point out one fundamental mistake ideologies as such through the citation of the Manifesto:

"However, the Communist Party does not stop growing for the brightest possible time among the workers consciousness of hostile opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, so that German workers can immediately take advantage of the social and political conditions which the bourgeoisie must create as a weapon against itself, so that immediately after the overthrow of the reactionary classes in Germany the struggle against the bourgeoisie itself may begin. "

Did the workers even know why? They knew the causes of the situation, they knew what the communists could offer them? The workers were real the architects of the revolution? After all, revolutions are always born in intellectuals, and unless the workers have been perfectly instilled with socialist consciousness and they have subsequently brought up their own intellectuals, this the revolution was not theirs.

Lenin probably later relied on this phenomenon in Russia when he founded the so-called avant-garde party. It had to consist of revolutionaries devoted to party work and perfectly trained for it. Of course, there could be no question of instilling socialist consciousness if these efforts are made primarily to maintain power. Here it begins deformation of the whole communist theory.

Marx argued that man's being determines his consciousness. To some extent, this is certainly true when it comes to natural evolution. But if the social regime is to be changed, social values ​​must be changed. People would first have to be brought to the right understanding and thinking - this would determine their problem-free social existence and then further strengthen their consciousness. If this part of Marx's theories was taken dogmatically, it is no wonder that socialism ultimately he ended up in a dead end. Marx created only a theory of communism, which was based on a completely naive idea of ​​man. The paths to its implementation had to be taken by others - those who, calling themselves experts, certainly did not embody this naive idea and took his ideas seriously, without the possibility of building on the experience of such a regime and without deeper practical (adaptive) application to real life.

I have to ask what led Marx to present such a bold presentation of his ideas about society. He really leaned on his own naive idea of ​​people? Did he not anticipate misinterpretation and implementation of his ideas?

Lost in translation

 The phenomenon that strikes me in particular is the meaning lost in translation, whatever the work being translated. Marx in connection with "works"Talked about"production". "Production"But was translated into some languages ​​as"production“. Who feels at least a little the difference between production and manufacturing, may get the idea that this is where the stumbling block is often located. It is almost frightening the consequences of these subtle mistakes.

If the essence disappears in this way, the socialism through which communism is to be achieved becomes just a kind of empty form. It is perhaps possible, through this empty form of man, to teach the ideals that they no longer exist? It is a pity that, just as Marx devoted himself to the image of man and the critique of capital, he no longer had a chance to devote himself to the practice of his extensive theories…

After all, it is not written anywhere in the Manifesto of Communism that workers should remain in large factories and, one by one, become mere machine accessories after their apprenticeship. The manifesto did not claim that in an ideal society young people should stop being led to independence, that they should not be educated in various fields, it did not claim that culture should be "forbidden".

He was definitely against the cold struggle between the East and the West, and most importantly, he was against the globalization one equality, a situation where everything is from of the same doughwhen the diversity of the world, the original culture, is lost. "Everything is the same in England, France and Germany!" Marx protested. Did functionalist architecture in the Czech lands differ from functionalism in Moscow in the twentieth century? Marx was against imperialism as a result of capitalist development.

"Growing industrial control, credit, increasing wealth, monopolization, dumping policy, capital exports, economic struggles between nations and expansion into the Third World, where freedom, democracy and equality are the first victims"…

Nothing we don't know from today. Although these causes are disappearing in socialism, the result is again the same - the Soviet occupation was certainly imperialism. Everything Marx would like to avoid is clear from the Manifesto of Communism. And I dare say that such a Manifesto should be a basic tool of any direction or ideology. So once again I have to ask, is it even possible to achieve your goal by a way of far away from ideals?

In the following, last part of the article I will mention the differences and similarities between socialism and capitalism and their influence on man in the practice of the 20th century.

Comments are off.