6. INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS
6. INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS
As one can see, K. Marx has
virtually made a frank confession that his doctrine had been based on
a prejudice.
But I have not taken it for
granted. After all, there are cases when people say themselves
slander, stipulate themselves. that his doctrine had been based on a
prejudice.
For this reason, an attempt to
apply a realistic notion of man to the fundamental ideas of socialism
and Marxism, viz., those of equality and elimination of private
property, church, and family has been made. In so doing, collapses
like those of houses of cards were observed. It gives grounds to
draw a conclusion that, specifically in this case, K. Marx has told
the truth. His doctrine has been indeed based on a prejudice about
human equality, unrealistic notion of man, idealization of man.
Moreover, an attempt to verify
the K. Marx' statement that the prejudice was popular has been made.
The verification has revealed an extreme doubtfulness of such a
statement. This research demonstrates that that prejudice he spoke
of was not popular at all, but it was only a blind irrational faith
of some intellectuals.
An assumption was also made that
a widespread dissemination of the prejudice-based doctrine is related
to a deception which gives an appearance of its scientific nature,
although there is virtually no scientific nature therein. The
allegedly scientific nature of this doctrine was concocted, it is the
verbal or wordy veil, meant for disguising its profound
anti-scientific essence.
I. Shafarevich in his brilliant
analysis of the socialist ideas arrives at a conclusion that their
implementation is to result in an extinction of all mankind, its
death.
In my opinion, this conclusion
is perfectly correct. However, I. Shafarevich suggested that some
strange thirst for death, which reminds me of the Sigmund Freud's
drive toward death and self-destruction. I believe that I.
Shafarevich is mistaken here. The socialist ideas do objectively
lead mankind to a sad end. But at the same time people do
subjectively fancy that they will result in a salvation,1
that they are a road to a kingdom of freedom,2
or that they will bring a true freedom.3
His mistake is likely to have been caused by the fact that he has
not raised a question as to whom the socialist ideas are beneficial.
If one raises answers it, then it becomes clear, as I have already
shown, that they are beneficial to idlers and also to individuals who
are prone to direct their abilities to diverse vicious
preoccupations, rather than to honest and conscientious work. It is
to such people that the socialist ideas are beneficial, the idea of
human equality being central and principal. An implementation of
this idea makes it possible for these groups of people to live at the
expense of toilers in fact exploiting them.
Hence it is clear that these
ideas have been created by unscrupulous and indecent individuals in
order to realize their passions, rather than to liberate mankind.
Unfortunately, they have succeeded in deceiving many people. Among
the latter, in principle, there are perhaps many good individuals who
are good by nature. But they have become victims of this deception.
There exists a
popular Russian saying whose English counterpart
is as follows: 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'. Well,
a hundred years ago, in 1917, Russia, under an influence of the
deceivers, took a fancy for catching two birds in the bush. The
attempt failed. Meanwhile, the bird that had been already in the
hand escaped and flew away.
A conclusion for the future is
as follows: It is indispensable to hold popular sayings in esteem
and, in particular, not to try catching two birds when already having
one in the hand.
1A
fragment from The Internationale:
'Producers,
let us save ourselves, decree
the common salvation'.
3Слова
известной итальянской песни коммунистов
«Bandiera rossa (Красное знамя)»:
«Soltanto il comunismo è vera libertà (лишь
коммунизм — настоящая свобода)».
Comments
Post a Comment