2. EQUALITY AND ELIMINATION OF HIERARCHY

2. EQUALITY AND ELIMINATION OF HIERARCHY

It is a long time since I paid attention to the following text from the first volume of Capital by Karl Marx:

'Equality and equivalence of all kinds of labour insofar as they are human labour in general, this secret of the expression of value can be deciphered only when the idea of human equality has already acquired firmness of a popular prejudice'.¹

I noticed this phrase as early as in 1981. I read then Marx in the original German and translated it as follows:

'The secret of the expression of value, equality and equivalence of all kinds of labour as and insofar as they are human labour in general can only be deciphered as soon as the notion of human equality already possesses firmness of a popular prejudice (Vorurteil)'.²

In my opinion, my translation is better than the official one, in which the order of words has not been followed without any tangible ground, nor is there any word-for-word accuracy.³ This is confirmed by the official English translation, which, even though not being flawless too,⁴ is still better than the official Russian one.

As one can see, I have translated the main sense-bearing word milder than in the official Russian translation. However, I have indicated the original German word Vorurteil in the brackets. As a matter of fact, it may be translated in two ways, viz., prejudgement or prejudice.

But this is not very important by itself. In any case, the text shows perfectly clearly that, first, it is precisely the idea of human equality that lies at the root of Marxism, and that, second, it has been taken as an axiom, i.e. without any proof.

But is this prejudgement or prejudice really popular? For example, I have nothing similar, even in spite of the fact that I have gone through a considerable indoctrination in this direction when studying at school and university. But, as a matter of fact, I am also a representative of people.

Have there been similar ideas in literature? Yes, there have been similar ideas in the Ancient World, Middle Ages, Early Modern and Modern Periods.

In the Ancient World, one should give, of course, the first place to the philosopher Plato with his State, although he was not the only herald of the idea.

However, since the very antiquity there have also been other thinkers who have not shared the idea of equality of people and other socialist ideas at all. For example, the Plato's State with its socialist ideas can be opposed by Aesop's fables. Human inequality, rather than equality is manifested in his fables. Meanwhile, pursuant to the tradition, Aesop was a slave. This fact is therefore all the more surprising because he who was a slave, in conformity with the socialist ideas, as one would think, must have supported equality. But there is nothing similar in his fables.

One may also refer to the famous Homer with his Iliad and Odyssey. As a matter of fact, even the single personalities of the ingenious Odyssey and his faithful wife Penelope entirely contradict the idea of human equality.

It is also possible to mention the amazing book Metamorphoses or Golden Ass by Apuleius as an example. Real people of antiquity with all their wickedness and virtues are shown therein in a fantastic form, just as in Master and Margarita by M. Bulgakov with regard to the USSR of the 30th years of the 20th century. No equality is definitely visible therein.

Nothing similar is also visible in the famous antique historians Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plutarch, Polybius, Titus Livius, Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, etc. The socialist idea of human equality was thus obviously not prevalent at that time.

In the Middle Ages, Holy Scriptures, wherein people were divided into good and evil, were naturally a cornerstone of social thought. That is why one could not speak of any human equality, with exception of equality before God. Neither Peter Abelard, nor Thomas Aquinas, nor even the reformer Luther naturally knew any other equality. Only heretical movements, such as Cathars, Brothers of the Free Spirit, etc. were noted for socialist inclinations at that time. It was in those heretical movements that all socialist ideas, inclusive of community of wives, were available.⁵

But one can hardly speak of predominance of such ideas in people.

The number of heralds of the socialist ideas obviously increased in modern history. Such ideas were expressed by Thomas More, Campanella, Winstanley, Rousseau, Meslier, Morelly, Mably, Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, etc. However, I. Shafarevich's statement that ‘the socialist world-view became a trend and force towards the end of the 17th century and in the 18th century, and most thinkers were under its influence at that time’ is a little doubtful. Nobody seems to have exactly counted how many at least famous creative minds were pro and contra, not to mention the simple folk. This question is likely to be in need of a research. However, I have no doubts that, e.g., the great writers of world significance in the 18th century, such as Daniel Defoe and Johnathan Swift did not pertain to them. Also the Russian historian of the 18th century Karamzin did not pertain there.

In the 19th century when K. Marx and F. Engels wrote one feels from the first glance that socialist ideas were not prevalent. A great number of writers and philosophers in that century obviously did not share that ‘popular prejudice’ of K. Marx at all. One may refer here to such authors as Jules Verne, Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas (Sr.), Fenimore Cooper, Mark Twain, etc. in the world literature as well as Pushkin, Krylov, Griboyedov, Stanyukovich, etc. in Russia.

In the fiction, good and evil, decent and indecent persons usually fight. I have no doubts that the vast majority of fiction writers in the world both in the 19th, and later did not have that ‘popular prejudice’.

Moreover, in the foregoing it was spoken of outstanding intellectuals only. Meanwhile, people at large were then and are still adherents of the great traditional religions. But nothing similar was then, and is still today, therein either. In contrast, therein, just as in fiction, good fights against evil, there are virtuous people and villains.

Then why is the word 'popular' used here? At that time one could only refer to a comparatively small amount of adherents of the socialist idea of equality and its derivatives. They were, as a rule, intellectuals who obviously reflected the opinion of the majority of the people, whom nobody asked, very weakly, if at all.

I have read many of them. Their typical feature consists in their also just postulating the idea of human equality, just as Marx did. As a matter of fact, their idea was also a prejudgement (prejudice), although they did not directly use the word used by K. Marx. In other words, it means that it is an axiom, i.e. a statement without any proof. But what if the axiom is false? Meanwhile, it is obviously the case because it contradicts, first of all, the everyday human experience. People constantly encounter deceivers, swindlers, hooligans, thieves, slanderers, envious persons, tyrants, maniacs, etc. But this means that their axiom is false. What equality can exist between the above-mentioned evil-doers with a simple toiler, except for equality before God? And, as it de facto turns out, there is no science therein, but it is a blind irrational faith, a symbol of such a faith.

Moreover, the notion of human equality in socialists is often so stupid that even a barely literate person will hardly agree with them, provided that he has even a small life experience. For example, most socialists denied even the presence of different personal abilities.

By the way, it was also typical of earlier writings by K. Marx and F. Engels. For instance, equal intellectual aptitude of people was postulated in The Holy Family. By God, I should have been very willing to ask them, 'Have you accidentally not fallen from the moon to the earth, Messrs. Marx and Engels'? The thing is that no normal person, even one who has not gone to school, but has encountered other people in everyday life obviously can state such a thing. One person has musical abilities. Another person has artistic ones. A third person has technical ones. A fourth person those of a joiner and carpenter. A fifth person has linguistic ones etc. At the same time, they are very different even in one and the same category. Why, even animals differ in their intelligence, e.g., puppies of the same dog-parents can have different mental abilities. By the way, my aunt has told me of an extraordinarily gifted pig, which understood human speech and carried out her orders. She even has shown me this pig. Meanwhile, these Messieurs claim that people have no differences in their intelligence!

By the way, traces of such an attitude can be also found in later writings of the classical Marxist authors. For example, in Anti-Dühring, F. Engels fulminates against any division of labour. But, in fact, it is clear that it would have been possible to abolish the division of labour only provided that there had been no individual differences of people in intellectual abilities. However, F. Engels, e.g., wrote as follows:

'... a person who gives instructions as an architect for half an hour, will also push a trolley for some time, until his activity as an architect is needed once again. Fine sort of socialism that perpetuates professional pushers of trolleys!'⁶

Halloo, where are you, those who are willing to return to the pure Marxism? Do you really want to live without division of labour? Well, do so, but, please, only without me. I am neither a utopian, nor a dreamer, in contrast to Messrs. K. Marx and F. Engels. I am a realist and I prefer to live in normal, rather than in a utopian and fantastic society. I cannot worship pantocrators, i.e. all-owners, of lunar dust particles.

But what about the well-known slogan ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’? Of course, the classics of Marxism should have been congratulated on the fact that, after a long wandering through the jungle of denial of differences between people in abilities, they ultimately recognized the existence of such differences. It is likely to have been a great achievement.

But, in my opinion, it is still insufficient for a full return to reality. It was only a partial improvement of an absolutely stupid idea.

As a matter of fact, it has been known for ages that a person with smaller abilities often leaves behind a person with bigger abilities in the end result, if the former systematically trains his or her abilities, whereas the latter does not do so. By way of illustration, it is possible to take, e.g. a biography of the famous orator and statesman of the Ancient World, viz. Demosthenes. As one can learn from Plutarch, when judging by all his appearance, he was not suitable for such a career at all. Demosfen's pronunciation was inarticulate. He had a weak voice. His shoulder twitched etc. But he overcame his seemingly insuperable defects by persistent work.⁷

That is to say, abilities is a dynamic notion, rather than a static one. Abilities may be developed. However, the classics of Marxism did not have even a slightest idea thereof. Their man, by all appearances, just as is born endowed with some abilities, so will die therewith. But when one does not understand this truth a compulsory levelling of people is unavoidable not only at the so-called highest stage of development of society, i.e. under communism, but also at all stages of an implementation of the socialist ideas into life. At the same time, it is perfectly clear that lazy individuals are beneficiaries of this mistake of the classics of Marxism.

Furthermore, another very important moment in the notion of human abilities is completely lacking in the classics of Marxism. The thing is that socially significant differences between individuals are not limited by abilities alone, even when understanding them dynamically, rather than statically. As a matter of fact, quite a lot in the activities of an individual, in his or her work, depend on the direction in which his or her abilities are used.

Meanwhile, abilities can be directed to honest work, or, e.g., for thievery. The fact that very gifted, even talented, individuals may be encountered among thieves, in my opinion, is no secret for anybody, except for the classics of socialism, those of Marxism, and their followers. Moreover, abilities may be used for careerism, enrichment, getting to power by unfair means. Abilities can be also directed to gluttony, envy, greed, vanity, slander, debauchery, some mania, etc.

But it is quite obvious that the classics of Marxism did not understand this. But a failure to understand this fact unavoidably results in that an implementation of the socialist ideas cannot bring anything good. On the contrary, the resulting society must unavoidably be an exploitative one. Careerists, profit-seekers, power-loving persons, gluttons, enviers, slanderers, libertines, maniacs, etc. must be beneficiaries therein, apart from the aforementioned idlers. It is inevitable because they will be levelled with honest toilers. The energy of a honest toiler is directed to a productive work, no matter intellectual or physical. Whereas in exploiters, in a society constructed based on the socialist prejudice of human equality, the main energy goes to an unproductive direction.

Well, let us have 2 workers: A and B. One of them is a fitter, whereas the other is a turner. Both work, say, 8 hours. According to Marx, they produce an identical value. But Marx does not consider at all that, e.g., one of them could have developed his abilities and become an engineer. But he has not done so because he was lazy, or a part of his energy went aside, viz. to some unproductive activities.

By the way, I, while living in the USSR, over and over again, have met people who admitted to me that they had not been willing to study further not because of their not having had abilities, but because they could earn much more than more educated people, even without improvement of their education. And they were quite right, viz., in the USSR, an engineer and a specialist with higher education, as a rule, had a smaller salary than many categories of workers, even unskilled.

Meanwhile, F. Engels did recognize that even slaveholders evaluated educated slaves higher. Of course, based strictly on the classics, all categories of toilers must have equally earned for their work with identical duration. In the USSR, a deviation from the doctrine to a worse end possibly took place. But, as a matter of fact, even when strictly keeping within the doctrine, it is nevertheless impossible to avoid exploitation of individual by individual under socialism. It is impossible to do so due to the above idealization of man by socialists and owing to ignorance of real differences between individuals. The thing is that the main socialist idea, in fact, leads to levelling of unequal individuals. It is socialists who consider them to be equal. It is their bee in the bonnet, their blind, irrational faith. But in reality people are not so equal at all as socialists fancy. And it is impossible to level unequal people without lies and violence, without exploitation of individual by individual.

Furthermore, in a society, hierarchy is absolutely indispensable. Without hierarchy, it is like a ship without captain. And, as a matter of fact, it is not enough to elect a captain at all or to appoint him from just any Tom, Dick or Harry. The captain must go through a nautical school to learn the skill of steering a ship at first, pass graduation examinations and receive the corresponding diploma. At the same time, owing to different abilities of individuals, not every individual can be trained for a captain, all the more so, to administrate the affairs of a State. It is obvious that such a silly idea can occur only to a person who fancies that all individuals have equal abilities.⁸ Its author, of course, has not directly stated that every lady-cook can administer the affairs of a State and is right when affirming that such an administrator may be from simple folk. But he, although denying his involvement in utopianism, nevertheless obviously expresses the thought that any man can be trained in the art of administration of a State. Nevertheless, it is utopianism, based even not on the above-mentioned advanced Marxist recognition of the presence of different abilities in people, but on the viewpoint of the so-called utopian socialists and early K. Marx and F. Engels. So the third classic of Marxism, viz. V. Lenin was a pantocrator of lunar dust particles too.

By the way, Prosper Mérimée has left us a novel entitled Tamango about a successful revolt of Negro slaves on board of a French ship that transported them. They seized the ship and massacred all the whites. But none of them was able to steer the ship and to lay her course. A sad end was therefore inevitable. Such a fate must, in all appearances, must inevitably happen to any society constructed based on the moonstruck socialist ideas.

When speaking of the problem of equality, of course, it would have been wrong to leave aside the well-known statement that 'a man to man is wolf'. There is a widespread opinion that it is a description of the society and State prior to constructing socialist ones, in which a man to man is allegedly a friend, comrade, and brother.

Well, I have attempted to get an insight into this matter. It is very interesting that I have again come across a wrong translation into Russian. I have previously pointed out to an explicitly poor translation of the key phrase concerning equality in the Capital by K. Marx. Now I have to state a poor translation of the key phrase regarding inequality in the comedy Assinaria (The One with the Asses) by Roman playwright Titus Maccius Plautus (254-184 B.C.) from Latin into Russian. Here it is:

'A wolf is a man to man, all the more so an unknown one'.⁹

However, a correct translation must have been approximately as follows:

'If you do not know a man you deal with, then it is more reasonable to see a wolf in him, rather than a man'.

It is obvious that there is a great difference between the two translations, viz., the first one virtually affirms that all men are wolves to each other, even if they know each other, whereas the second one suggests that only unknown men may be suspected of being wolfs. Meanwhile, the second translation does perfectly fit in the context, in which a reasonable merchant's servant refuses to give over money to a swindler who pretends to be the steward the money are intended for.

I have found the Latin original,¹⁰ 2 translations into German,¹¹ 1 translation into French,¹² and 2 translations into English.¹³ I have no doubts that only the Russian translation misrepresents the original.

It is also difficult to doubt that the Latin text has been misrepresented not by chance, but rather purposefully, viz., in order to blacken the antique society and to extol that constructed based on the socialist ideas.

But, as a matter of fact, as it turns out, the antique society did not maintain what has been attributed to it by this mistranslation. On the contrary, it apparently used to look at people in a realistic manner and knew that a swindler might also turn up among them.

But the fact that, under the so-called Soviet socialism, many people readily took the bait of various impostors, whereas some of the descendants of the former have been regularly becoming victims of the latter even up to nowadays, may be perhaps accounted for by the fact that they have been deceived by the fabled idea of equality.

Also, when gaining insight into this matter it is difficult not to mention Thomas Hobbes and his famous phrase concerning the natural state of people, viz., Bellum omnium contra omnes.¹⁴ Here one perhaps ought to state that Hobbes is right to a large extent, although he exaggerates the human equality either. He merely exaggerates the equality in evil deeds, whereas all socialist creeds do so with regard to good deeds. As a matter of fact, of course, not all individuals are equally bellicose. Such individuals may be even in a minority. Nevertheless, they may do much harm. And a State or Commonwealth is absolutely indispensable to keep them in check.

By the way, one does not need to dig in old history books or in descriptions of savages by travellers to provide an illustration of the so-called natural state of people at all. There were rather many bloody feuds in the quite recent history of the USA in the 19th century. A description of such a feud can be found in the remarkable book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Chapters 17 and 18) by the great American writer Mark Twain. It is obvious that the American State was rather weak at that time, particularly in the remote agricultural areas, and could not properly ensure public order. It is obvious that only naive persons who idealize man and believe in human equality may fancy that people can do without a sufficiently strong State.

Meanwhile, the socialist prejudice regarding equality leads to elimination of a normal social hierarchy under which truly educated, prominent, and decent people are at the wheel of a society. Meanwhile, Marxism knows nothing about the latter people at all because it has such a notion of man in which there is no place for decent people.¹⁵

In fact, instead of a hierarchy of such persons, there is an anti-hierarchy in a society constructed based on the socialist ideas. Poorly educated, ignorant and indecent parvenus come to power therein. It was incomparably described by Mikhail Bulgakov in his famous novel A Dog's Heart in the characters of Sharikov and Shvonder.

The same process of an ascent to power of parvenus and that of a downfall of decent people can be found also in the novel Viper by Alexey Tolstoy.

It is absolutely inevitable in such a society, which, once having been constructed based on the socialist prejudice about the alleged human equality, doesn't know a real man at all. In such a society, even those more decent individuals who have found themselves in the ranks of communists and among winners by way of deception and survived in a civil war ultimately perish or are pushed down to the social bottom because they are defenceless and vulnerable in the society that is unaware of the existence of human defects. Meanwhile, socialists indeed know nothing about them because they believe in people's being good by nature and being spoiled only by their circumstances.

1It is my translation from the official Russian, the original Russian text being as follows: 'Равенство и равнозначность всех видов труда, поскольку они являются человеческим трудом вообще, - эта тайна выражения стоимости может быть расшифрована лишь тогда, когда идея человеческого равенства уже приобрела прочность народного предрассудка'.

2It is my translation from German into English, my original translation from German into Russian being as follows: Тайна выражения стоимости, равенство и равнозначность всех видов труда, так как и поскольку они вообще являются человеческим трудом, может быть только расшифрована, как только понятие человеческого равенства уже обладает прочностью народного предубеждения (Vorurteil).

3The German original text: Das Geheimnis des Wertausdrucks, die Gleichheit und gleiche Gültigkeit aller Arbeiten, weil und insofern sie menschliche Arbeit überhaupt sind, kanofficialn nur entziffert werden, sobald der Begriff der menschlichen Gleichheit bereits die Festigkeit eines Volksvorurteils besitzt». The official English translation: The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice.

4My reproach: the verb 'acquire' in the present perfect tense has been used both in the official English, and in the official Russian translation. Meanwhile, the word 'possess' in present tense is in the German original.

5I. Shafarevich Socialism as a Phenomenon of the World History, Chapter II (in Russian).

6It is my translation.

7By the way, in the novel by B. Polevoy The Story of a Real Man, a very similar, from the philosophical viewpoint, situation is described. But nobody seems to have noticed that it undermines the fundamentals of Marxism.

8'We are no Utopians. We know that any unskilled worker and any lady-cook is unable to begin administering the State now. But we […] demand to make an immediate break with that prejudice that only rich persons or officials taken from rich families can carry out an ordinary everyday administrative work. We demand that training in public administration should be conducted by conscious workers and soldiers and that it should be immediately started, i.e. that one should begin involving all workers and all the poor in this training', Lenin Will Bolsheviks Retain the State Power?', Complete Works, Vol. 34, p. 315 (my translation from Russian). As a matter of fact, he is mistaken not only in fancying that everybody is suitable for such a social role, but also in charging uneducated workers and soldiers, rather than qualified teachers, with such a training.

9 My translation from: Тит Макций Плавт. Ослы ... Перевод с латинского А. Артюшкова. Комментарии составлены на основе работ М. Покровского. Собрание сочинений в 3-х томах. Т. 1. М.: "Терра", 1997.

10‘Lupus est homo homini, non homo, quom qualis sit non novit’.

11 ‘Wenn man nicht weiß, was für 'nen Mann man vor sich hat, ist's klüger, man sieht ihn als Wolf an, denn als Mann‘. ‚Ein Wolf ist der Mensch dem Menschen, nicht ein Mensch, wenn man sich nicht kennt‘.

12‘L'homme qu'on ne connaît pas est un loup pour vous, et non un homme’.

13‚A man is a wolf rather than a man to another man, when he hasn't yet found out what he's like’. ‘A man to man is wolf, not a man, when the other doesn't know of what character he is’.

14War of all against all.

15In the 20th century, it was perhaps the former prisoner of a Nazi concentration camp, psychologist Victor Frankl who told us about such people in his book Saying Yes to Life in Spite of Everything: A Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camp with a particular force. The original: Viktor Frankl Trotzdem Ja Zum Leben Sagen: Ein Psychologe Erlebt das Konzentrationslager.