Marxism Unmasked from Delusion to Destruction.pdf 7471KB
Marxism Unmasked from Delusion to Destruction.pdf 7471KB
Marxism Unmasked from Delusion to Destruction.pdf 7471KB
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
are not mpon^ble for all die nomense <strong>to</strong>day.<br />
What is die influence of dm Marxian doctrine on ideas? The<br />
philosopher Rene Descanes (1596-1650), who lived m die earH'<br />
seventeendi century; believrd that man had a mmd and that man thmks,<br />
but that animals were merely machines. Marx said, of course, Descartes<br />
lived m an age in which the "Manufakturpenoden," the <strong>to</strong>ok and<br />
machines, were such that he was forced <strong>to</strong> explain his theor\' by saving that<br />
animals were machines. Albrecht von Hailer (1708-1777), a Sv^iss,said the<br />
same thing m the eighteenth century (he didn't like liberal govmmient s<br />
equaht>' under law). Betwren these twT> men. lived de La Mettne, who also<br />
expbmed man as a machine. Therribrr, Marx's concept that ideas wnr a<br />
product of the <strong>to</strong>ob and machines of a particular era is easily dnpfpvcd<br />
John Locke (I632-17(MJ, the vkrll-knou-n philosopher of empiricism,<br />
declared that e\rrything in mens minds comes trom sensual experience<br />
Marx sa>-s John Locke %%-as a spokesman for the class doctrine oi the<br />
bourgeoisie This Icadi <strong>to</strong> hat) dilferrnt deductxms <strong>to</strong>om the v^Titings ot'<br />
Karl Marx: ( 1 ) The interpretation he fp\T <strong>to</strong> Descartes is that he was bvmg<br />
in an age when machines ^ftrrr introduced and, therribfr. Descartes<br />
rxpUincd the animal as a machine, and (2) The interpreutKXi he giwv<br />
<strong>to</strong> John LtKkr % imptracion—thai it came trom the fact thai he was a<br />
rrprrscnuiisT ol* bourgeois clam mferests Here arc two tncompacible<br />
rxpUiutiom <strong>to</strong>r the source ol' ideas The (um of these two expbiutionft. <strong>to</strong><br />
the cHri I that ideas itr baseil on material pfoductnr iotcrx, the <strong>to</strong>oh and<br />
tiuchinrs. is irmomibblr with the scvond. namely that clast inceirsts<br />
dctrrmine ideas<br />
Aiitmling <strong>to</strong> Marx. e\rr > -bod\- is ibcred—b%' the material productivr<br />
<strong>to</strong>nes—<strong>to</strong> think in such a «b-ay thai the rrsuk showi-s hn class inierrsts.You<br />
(hink in the was in whuh \xtut "inierrsts* forte voo <strong>to</strong> think, you think<br />
aiiording !*> sxnir class "inierr*t»" Your "iniercsts** »rc something<br />
iiulcpcndcnt «>l sxnir mind umH \xhu ideas Your "interrsis" exM in the<br />
\%itrtd jpart tnnii sxnir ideas i 'onsequcniK. the p<strong>to</strong>duction of >nour ideas is<br />
tuH truth Ik-<strong>to</strong>rr the appearance ol KaH Marx, the notion of truth had no<br />
meaning <strong>to</strong>r the \%hole his<strong>to</strong>rical pctkhI What the dunking ol'the people<br />
pnHliiird ui the past wa« ah»-a>-s "ideokig%-." not truth<br />
"lc\ ulei>Ktg\irt*' in hratue v^rtr ^^rll adsrrtised b>- NapolcOQ<br />
|l7r)«>-tK2l|. \sho laid esrrvihing vkxnili be all right in FraiKe but fer<br />
these "idc»>lt>:uc»* In 1HI2. Nap