THERE MUST BE MARXISM "godless"?

 This question arose in my connection with the reading of the dispute between Vorobievsky and A. Lanschikovym at number 34 and number 35 "Literary Russia". Marxism should be a religion! - Following the authors of the book "POSTPERESTROYKA: a conceptual model of the development of our society, political parties and public organizations" - says one. No, Marxism must be godless! - Objected to it on the other. Who is right? To clarify such situations in the world has a very classic image of a convex-concept: it is about two-Scholastics, one of whom milked the goat, and the second at that time had shabby times a sieve, so as not to spill a single drop of the mammals of the truth ... And in the debate about ideas that happens often. I would argue that in the event of such a controversy is not right one. For godless Marxism did not have to be, as he does not have to be a religion. Although for the sake of truth must be said that the views of both opponents is not groundless. Ground for such opinion is very much a real tradition. Besides tradition, until very recently decorated, not only in thoughts and words, but still in the frame and social institutions. We have in mind still alive the traditions established by the People's Commissar of Education Lunacharskii. It's in his personal spiritual evolution has consistently taken two different points of view: first, that Marxism - this "new world religion", then, that Marxism - is "the greatest destroyer of religion." Very many people think, or commercials, or so even now ... However, between Scylla and Charybdis of religiosity godlessness Marxism, in my opinion, is confident because he, at least, is first and foremost - r and l on a of r and I. A philosophy - the science of rigorous, it prohibits knowingly confuse two different things, to what are, for instance, include religion with Marxism as a philosophy and religion with Marxism as a social / hence, political, ideological, state, etc. / institute. A rule that today, few involved in the ideology is going to perform. And so thoughtfully match between a "left" ... the heel with the "right" ... ear! In other words, Marxism puts a commitment to meet all the criteria of the most common world of classical philosophy. And even then, more precisely, with it, to erect a building of its scientific and historical identity, its philosophical and ideological identity. It is from this infinitely important factor - belong to the world of the philosophical tradition - and explains its dramatic historical fate. In particular, this drama is very similar to the drama of Socrates, whom Marx called "embodied philosophy", thereby recognizing that if his outlook would like to philosophical truth, it should choose and the bitterness that lies in the bowl of hemlock, with all the ensuing consequences. What is it, this drama? In short, that the truth of life with a capital faced with life itself with the letters small. In modern parlance, there is, so to speak, "privatization" of Truth. And if the media do not accept it / he otherwise, as a rule, and can not! /, It / decide for yourself who is "it": Truth with a capital or life with a young? / Kills Socrates, and then rehabilitates them, cursed for centuries of unjust judges. Specifically, what Socrates was executed for contempt of paternal, ie accepted gods. What, according to the Athenian layman, it consisted of disrespect? Paradoxically, that the gods in general and in particular domestic ... he respected too! Offbeat thought: to honor the gods are not so much because everyone else is, but because the gods that certainly deserve! Therefore, Socrates himself swore the dog, so as not to swear native gods, showing personal modesty in thinking about them. From his conversations it appears that the general mind of the philosopher is to tell the gods that we are of them know nothing, but only argue about the people on their (people's) ideas about the gods. Incidentally, in this case it appears that the ability of human cognition has a divine power, and in the affairs of the human and the divine most sacred object is ... a "good person". Summing up the theology / or anthropology / Socrates, can say: Atheism WITHOUT Atheism - this is the main maxim of every sound philosophy of mind. Who violates this maxim, that automatically turns beyond philosophy itself, and all of its innovations in the field of vision are philosophically quite reasonable. And it is - the law. And the law that Marx himself fully to acknowledge, while agreeing that personified the philosophy - is primarily Socrates. To remove the inevitable tension and possible doctrinaire perplexing paradoxical conclusion, I shall refer to the following fact. According to the testimony of Plekhanov, Engels basic philosophical core of his worldview likened Spinozism and George Valentinovitch question: "So you think ... old Spinoza was right in saying that the idea and for no other than the two attributes of the same substance ? "- replied:" Of course, old Spinoza was quite right. " But the old man Spinoza, as we know, after Socrates was able to develop his philosophical materialism, atheism, without any ... Unfortunately, both authors explicitly polemic / by A. Lanschikova / implicitly / y Vorobievsky / this overriding fact is completely ignored. However, the ignoring, as noted, followed by Lunacharskii and a huge body of official state Marxists, whom he trained. But then it should be noted: All tags darts, which, in Marxism hurled A. Lanschikov have, of course, striking force. But they hit something that is Marxism, which turned out to be ... without Marx. And of those, therefore, the Marxists, who have learned the philosophy ... without thinking. Consequently, ethics ... without morality, aesthetics ... without a sense of beauty, and scientific socialism ... without the communist world, but with the Communist phraseology. Privatization of Truth from the man in the street - this is her bitter fate of the world. In our case, it can be summed up as: Marxism - is, of course, the most consistent with P and h a n e n e and private property. But it is possible to private ownership and Marxism itself! And instructive science on this is "the history of the Communist Party" as an academic discipline, which has yet to be written. The history of repression against the "Marxist Marxism Marxism on the part of the official to be its most important chapter ... Characteristically, Vorobievsky spends seemingly the same idea as me. Calling, followed by the authors' POSPERESTROYKI ... "to save communism" from the communists, "he firmly and rightly calls them" a stronghold of anti-communism. " But is it possible in principle to take this long ago a late operation, previously confused by the concept of "communism"? Let us explain. There is a logical rule: do not turn over! For instance, if the statement "all negros - people" certainly is true, then that's turning it would lead to absolute absurdity: Everyone - negros. If such operations are not recommended on the warehouse yard carry, even with wooden boxes, then for sure, especially since you can not do in the laboratory of categories of science with the concept of "communism". Meanwhile, the Kant of his all and sundry! Judge: communism - the doctrine of universal justice - often referred to us. Therefore ... -? Consequently, any doctrine of universal justice - that is communism! - Heard many-voiced chorus of newly "theorists." But one can not "turn over"! This - is illogical. And just this common illogic can be put on a supposedly communist plank of Christ and Buddha, Aristophanes and Plato, Mohammed and Marx. In a word, all intelligent and good people. However, we know that everything that is done for evil, is usually "good" reasons ... May ask: so what, Marxism has no relation to universal justice? Of course, has! But he specifically stipulates that "justice" as "truth" has always come across on the regular "privatizer" who want to profit at the expense of others. Hence, Marxism will certainly stipulate under what conditions he has to do with it. In this clause - the whole crux of the matter. This essence consists in the fact that to build socialism without the working class movement - it's like to cook semolina ... without milk. There seems to be possible, but not tasty. Quickie, then! Hack, allowing scarce nowadays drink plenty of milk someone else's "good uncle". Speaking philosophically, "Justice" should enter into a true relationship to life, but the "truth" in relation to the people to be good and true. Where this rule is violated, the philosophy that there is no "absolute truth". Man of the people finds injustice, calling it "godless" in the usual everyday language. It is no coincidence! After all, Plato believed that the "Justice" - is a general law of life, like the gods and men ... In short, the Absolute Truth is the "truth is concrete". Meanwhile, most of today's critics and defenders of Marxism are silent about the main point: that Marxism - not just communism, but communism proletarian. Consequently, it is, of course, equality, and justice and kindness and all that jazz, but on one condition without fail. This "kindness" is not a working account! For if justice / not to mention the sausage, etc. / even enough for the job, then it is definitely enough room for everyone. It really becomes a "Universal". But why is it not at the expense of workers? We have, what, worse? - The cry is heard today universally different souls. It is here that, in answering this question, and born a historical and scientific world outlook of Marxism as a comprehensive personality humanism. The answer can be summarized like this: because today, human civilization is arranged so that the sincere and assertive in fighting for humanity and democracy, on the job simpler and easier to forget. A kind of shock was born in 1989. the movement of miners to an illustrative example. And historically, the fact that this means that the end has come as a socialism without the working movement and the corresponding Marxism without Marx ... Today's "theoretical" misunderstanding of Marxism has its own history. Moreover, here there and its a classic, which starts to sound again. For the third year in Ekaterinburg City operates a seminar on Russian philosophy. It unites all those who are seriously busy today dismantling ideological rubble left to us from the time when the philosophical science of the Urals completely dominated by various forms of corporate and professional ignorance and administrative monopoly. In short, the seminar involved as enthusiastic amateurs, and many well-known philosophers of the Ural region. Among these candidates Philosophy V. Buckshutem, L. Maple, Goncharov, AV Knyazev, N. Smolnikova, Kuznetsov, social scientists E. Surovtseva, E. Rakhova, Ph.D. V. Kopal, Andreev, B . Emel'yanov, Vetoshkin and others. This year's first meeting was held in the small hall of the Central House of Culture of the officers and was devoted to Father Sergius Bulgakov article, which carries the name "Karl Marx as a religious type," / See: Our contemporary, № 10, 1990. / I must say that discussion of this issue was of an acute and rapidly-emotional. There was everything: and unthinkingly-orthodox defense of the holy names, and giddy enthusiasm for the overthrow of the old heroes and pseudo-objective stance of a false pluralism: they say, all a little bit right / wrong or all /, since there is no one truth, many people, so many truths ... And yet, in my opinion, the tendency has prevailed concrete historicism. Its essence is simple: pluralism is not appropriate in science, and a bazaar. Truth is one, but it is concrete. In other words, every thing, whether it's outlook is reflected in it, or life, should be assessed logically, ie, based on her own. As part of a serious collective analysis of the speakers drew attention to a deep paradox in the title of Bulgakov. In fact: Marx and suddenly ... religious type! Unusually somehow ... And if the presumption seriousness of the author as a philosopher, here, of course, you should not laugh, not cry, but to understand. What is it exactly? Judge for yourself. According to its ideological formations Marx is generally considered an atheist. That is a supporter of the negation of God. Mean? ... So Bulgakov philosopher, no less, says that in principle a religion ... without God. Paradoxically, the fact! For only in this case we can agree with the title of his article. But we go further. Times can a religion without God, and God is possible ... without religion. In other words, no-bozhnoe attitude towards religion, and no-religious relationship to God ... It is in life and history. When, for instance, broke down the old church and deify the new boss. And in the history of philosophy and science happens: God can be denied to - religious, but it is possible to recognize - atheistic, outside, so to say religion. In philosophy, for example. So, again without ... Atheism Atheism - is this not a paradox. And this paradox is not beyond the thinking mind, and is entirely within the boundaries of it. So there must be a godless Marxism? - Contrary to the objective logic of its own self-reasoning Bulgakov positive answers to this question. Look like? To this end, the author of articles on religious typicality of Marx have to say this: "Marx himself did not call himself a disciple of Feuerbach, who was in reality, preferring reason to call himself a disciple of Hegel, who was not." What's the subtlety? And in that, if Marx - feyerbahianets, then it is in principle possible to incriminate "godless", and if a Hegelian, then no. For Bulgakov knows what Hegel, following Spinoza, God was able to m s a l and t b, but not on t p and q and Sufficiency. The same ability, which is called the D and A l e a t and a second, he would have to admit, and for Marxism ... The most temperamental debate unfolded at a seminar on the thesis Bulgakov that Marxism does not know the person and knows only the "lonely" society. More precisely, impersonal community of people ... "Like we said, Marx remains inaccessible religious issue, it is not concerned about the fate of individuality, it is entirely absorbed in that it is a b u m and for all individuals, non-personal in them," equating it to zero balance - he writes. Here is formulated one of the central points of controversy in the world with Marxism. Meanwhile, to refute such an assertion is not difficult. We say to refute the textual. Simply refer to the letter of Marx to Annenkov, December 28, 1846, which reads as follows: "As a society, whatever its form? Product of the interaction of people ... Hence the necessity of a conclusion: social history people have always just / italics - VM / history of their individual development, whether they realize it or not. " No-personal Marxism derived from its no-religion, believes Bulgakov. So be it. After all, personality - is the image of God in man's soul ... But the question is: Is it, for example, Christianity, claiming that all people are equal before God, all credits to the person purely automatically? Not at all! Otherwise it will not differ from the true faith just superstition. In short, as Marxism does not deny automatically figure in history, and Christianity does not automatically approve a person to God. Both Marx and Christ - both the same believe that the man doomed to become a person on the sole ground that he - a man. But at the same degree he is doomed and hard work "it be!" ... We have to admit that the article Bulgakov on Marx is a strange mixture of philosophical depth and ordinary human bias. That is to say, human, all too human ... Written in the beginning of this century, in 1906. It is today virtually the entire arsenal of basic philosophical claims to the worldview of Marxism. The end of XX century on the merits here little added. For example, rising in his polemic to fundamental generalizations, A. Lanschikov the question: What is Marxism? - Categorically states: "Marxism - a native son of positivism." Well, let alone the lack of spirituality, Darwinism and godlessness Nietzscheanism logically follow from this by themselves. But is this true? The famous Russian scientist M. Kowalewski testified once: "From conversations with Marx, it was easy to deduce the belief that the foundation of its economic and political doctrines was the philosophy of Hegel. He once told me point blank, it is logically possible to think of the dialectical method, well, non-logical - albeit on a positive. " "This cheesy positivism" - Marx spoke of him, calling the so-all philosophy, specializing in verbal parasitizing another's intellectual work products. Incidentally, the Russian classical philosophy, too, belonged to positivism as "bourgeois spiritual." Its patriarch, Vladimir Solovyov his master's thesis in 1874 called "The Crisis of Western Philosophy from the coincidental explanation:" Against positivism, which revealed their lack of spirituality and illogic. As the methodology of any bourgeois, positivism was a stranger and a philosophical materialist Marx and religious philosopher Vladimir Solovyov ... What does this mean? And does it mean that seriously arguing about Marxism as a proletarian, ie anti-bourgeois communism, it can not be put on a par with Darwin, Nietzsche, or Lunacharsky. Here a number of very, very different. Rather, it will be Socrates, Plato, Spinoza and Hegel, who is known to be very well understood that the idea of God - This is not to deny it ... xxx xxx xxx ... Once Hegel called a true rose on a cross the universe. Who wants a rose, that he should want, and a cross. And in fact, materialism, ie, method of concrete truth, is fraught not only of gratitude people. But if philosophy reveals spikes ingratitude, it is from them and keep us safe ...

  Valery Molchanov, PhD, August - September 1991 Published: - "Science of Ural», № 15 (565), June 1992 - "The Problem of Man: Past and Present." Proceedings of the philosophical seminar, No. 2., Moscow, Russia - Ust-Kamenogorsk, 1992. (Editor - Gusev. NV)