Marxism Unmasked from Delusion to Destruction.pdf 7471KB

""'—'•"'"- '-r.,,„,„.
which ,s possible only .n a society, which is itself the product of ideas
The term material" fascinated people. To explain changes in ideas,
changes in thoughts, changes in all those things which are the products of
Ideas. Marx reduced them to changes in technological ideas. In this he was
,7J',?"funf; ^""^ """""P'"' "''"''"" ^"^^^8 f^rd^^^nd von Helmholtz
I1B21-1894) and Leopold von Ranke [1795-1886] interpreted history as
the history of technology.
It is the task of history to explain why definite inventions were not put
into practice by people who had aU the physical knowledge required for
their construction. Why, for instance, did the ancient Greeks, who had the
technical knowledge, not develop railroads?
As soon as a doctrine becomes popular, it is simplified in such a way
as to be understood by the masses. Marx said everything depends on
economic conditions. As he stated in his 1847 French book [The Poverty of
Phihsophy], he meant that the history of factories and tools developed
independently According to Marx, the whole movement ofhuman history
appears as a corollary to the development of the material productive forces,
the tools. With this development of tools, the construction of society
changes and as a consequence everything else changes too. By everything
else, he meant the superstructure. Marxian authors, writing after Marx,
explained everything in the superstructure as due to definite changes in the
production relations. And they explained everything in the production
relations as due to changes in the tools and machines. This was a vulgariza-
tion
. a simplification, of the Marxian doctrine for which Marx and Engels
were not
t not completely responsible. They created a lot of nonsense, but they