The moral tragedy of socialism

Socialism is the name with which books and streets are now filled, which is heard from the people’s platform and seen on the waving banner of modern struggle, which represents for some the greatest “force or weapon in the social struggle for existence” and for others - an object of hatred and a source of fear that haunts them. Socialism is the most characteristic feature of our time, by which our descendants will recognize it; this is our problem, which requires us to exert all our strength, which deserves our full attention. “A look at the history of past centuries - this is how Prof. Peabody's view of history reveals that many periods of history are marked by certain central questions and tasks, as if each age had a special job to do. These characteristic signs of the times emerge from the past like a distant mountain range in the evening sky. We usually talk about the cultural task of Greece, about the historical position of Rome, about the calling of the Jews, about the century of the Reformation, about the time of Napoleon. The Lord of the ages, apparently, conducted the education of the human race in such a way that the teaching he needed was always impressed in his time... Sometimes the mission prescribed for an age or generation is recognized by those who fulfill it; sometimes it is best noticed from a distance, when individual life events, at the moment of their occurrence in a continuous sequence, crowding one after another, merge over time into a holistic image.” It has its task and our time. “There is no need for any learned historian in the distant future to recognize the task of our time. Despite the extraordinary achievements of the civilization of our days, despite the revolution in practical life, despite all the amazing discoveries of science, despite the majestic unity of political forces, we experience in our time an overwhelming sense of social disorder, and from this the so-called social question arises... It is the social question that gives our time a special character. The consciousness of the contradiction between economic development and the spiritual ideal manifests itself to us in the speeches of social philosophy, or takes the form of social service and law, or is expressed in a passionate cry of indignation and hatred that breaks out from hungry and desperate people, as well as from those who sympathize with them. In all these different, often unreasonable and extreme, forms, the characteristic feature of the movement of our days appears. We live in a time of social question. Never have there been such a great multitude of people, learned and unlearned, rich and poor, philosophers and agitators, men and women, who were overwhelmed by the consciousness of the inequality of chances in the social struggle, by impulses for social service and by dreams of a better social order.” If the social problem is the painful question of our time, then socialism is the most popular experience in resolving it. Socialism is the resolution of a social issue in the interests of the proletariat, from the proletarian point of view. The proletariat is one of the most characteristic social classes for modern society. The modern economic system is capitalist and presupposes two classes with opposing interests: the bourgeois class, consisting of capitalist entrepreneurs, and the proletariat class. “To understand the essence of the proletariat, we must first of all free ourselves from the idea that this word evokes in us while we have not yet read Marx: the idea of ​​the proletariat as a rabble of ragamuffins. Now the word proletariat, completely independent of its original meaning, is used in a technical sense to designate those sections of the population who are in the service and salary of capitalist entrepreneurs.” The modern solution to the social question is its solution in the interests of the proletariat, the working people. It is aimed at liberating workers from capitalist dependence, from slavery to entrepreneurs; As a means to achieve this goal, the abolition or limitation of the sphere of private property and the regulation of production on the basis of communist ownership and social organization are proposed. The modern social movement is the movement of workers in the indicated direction and people who sympathize with them, and socialism is the theoretical basis of this movement, the corresponding doctrine, or worldview. Social movements are created by history, and the founder of socialism is Marx and his fellow collaborator Engels. The main point in Marx's theory of social movements is the materialistic-evolutionary view of social development and, in particular, of the modern social movement. According to this view, society develops according to a naturally necessary pattern, and the main socio-historical processes are economic processes, and social and political phenomena are secondary, derivative phenomena. The entire essential content of history comes down to the struggle of social classes, that is, social groups, as representatives of a certain economic system. These groups are formed as an inevitable result of a certain economic relationship between production and distribution. The victory of one or another group, one or another social class is determined by “immanent” forces that produce change, first in production and economic relations in general, and then in other social relations. The modern struggle of the bourgeoisie, as representatives of the old, obsolete economic order, and the proletariat, as the representative of the new, future economic system, is a product of the same historical forces that cannot but lead to a new order... Marxian socialism has many weaknesses, primarily in scientific terms. But his weakest side is his disregard for man’s moral initiative, for his moral ideals. We do not mean specific morality, for example, Christian morality, not specific ideals - no, we mean morality in the broadest sense of the word, in the sense of any moral inspiration, personal aspiration to high goals, free efforts. And even morality in this sense has no place in Marxian socialism. Marxism simply ignores all moral energy. He knows only the “scientific” view of history, he knows the reasons and does not want to know the goals, he knows only the forces that act naturally, and does not want to know the ideals. Such one-sidedness of materialistic evolutionism should have a demoralizing and enervating effect on the adherents of socialism. Inciting class hatred with all its sad consequences, the materialist-evolutionary understanding of history should suppress any personal energy that could bring ennobling elements into the economic sphere. This shortcoming of Marxism is well revealed in the new book by W. Sombart Socialism and the Social Movement. “The theory that socialism “must” come as inevitably as some natural phenomenon, that the preaching of socialism is the preaching of truth, (in the beginning) gave to the social movement such strength as any other theory could hardly give it. It strengthened faith in the victory of the defended department, it gave confidence to the actions of the socialist parties, it undoubtedly accelerated the first consolidation of the modern proletarian movement. But over time they saw that all this was bought at too high a price. This theory lowered the ideal potencies in the social movement. As people became accustomed to proving the “necessity” of socialism with “scientific” arguments, the sense of the creative ideal and great pathos was lost. They learned to move confidently along an entire system of rails, but gradually lost the ability to spread their wings for flight. The long dominance of the socialist system could not but have a deadly influence on all idealistic impulses. There was no longer any need for a clearly outlined guiding ideal, nor was there any need for the sky-high scope of pathos: both contradicted the “scientific” nature of socialism, and the latter used analytical reason only as its only tool. “The working class - this is what representatives of Marxism definitely say - should not realize any ideals. He must only liberate the elements of a new society that have already developed in the depths of the collapsing bourgeois society.” “Of course,” continues Sombart, a social movement cannot, after Marx, return to the utopianism of its childhood; of course, if it wants to claim significance, it must preserve the foundations laid by Marx. It must always be based on a realistic-historical basis; Defenders of socialist ideas can draw strength from the knowledge that the development of modern economic life will independently create one condition after another for the transformation of a capitalist society into a socialist one. But all this should not prevent an understanding that takes more into account feelings from asserting its rights alongside a purely rational discussion of social problems; so that fantasy, idealism, moral pathos again appear on the stage. The modern social movement is overflowing with “realism.” He is threatened by the loss of those forces whose reign is in the “unreal” world of ideas. The Marxist method or the method of its application blocks his way to them. We must be inspired by ideals, we must dedicate the fire of our soul to them, temper them in the fire of enthusiasm. They are the warming sun that illuminates everything with its rays, and, like it, they should not set and should not be eclipsed, otherwise all living things will perish. The words of Saint-Simon will always be true: “only an inspired person can accomplish great things.” If this ideal inspiration disappears, the scope of the broad movement will disappear, it will dissolve in petty everyday worries, in fruitless politicking and die like a body devoid of life. And undoubtedly one of the saddest features of many defenders of the proletarian movement is that in the dusty atmosphere of everyday politics they have lost the ability to be inspired and have descended to the level of political grumps. The main channel of the newest reactionary movement against Marxism is directed into this weak side of socialism. Its representatives here, in Russia, are Pyotr Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky, Bulgakov, in Germany - Bernstein, Goere, Keugen and the Kantian socialists, in France - Sorel, Jean-Jaurès... True Marxists cannot help but take this reaction, this ethical criticism into account. Silence on an ethical issue is no longer possible for them - they are faced with a dilemma: either decisively abandon ethics for the sake of a materialistic understanding of history, or show the possibility of ideals within the limits of materialistic evolutionism. Newly published books are devoted to solving this issue: Menger’s Socialism and Ethics (a new doctrine of morality) and Kautsky’s Ethics and the Materialist Understanding of History. Let's focus our attention on them. What goal Menger sets for himself can be seen from the following words of the conclusion of his book: “In previous chapters we have seen that the introduction of the socialist system should enormously increase the level of practical morality in all areas. And yet, the socialist aspirations of old and new times are reproached for their desire to overthrow the moral foundations of the state and society. We, knowing how lies accompany power in everything, will not be at all surprised by this accusation. After all, they leveled accusations of misanthropy against Christianity too.”... So, Menger wants to show in his book that the accusations of the socialist movement of immorality are as false as the accusations of Christianity of misanthropy. One cannot help but see that the author is taking on an extremely difficult task, and one must expect in advance that he will resort to decisive measures. And our expectations are justified. In the person of Menger, socialism is waging a decisive battle with modern morality: either modern morality or socialism. Menger first of all tries to weaken and disgrace his opponent and at the same time show, in the conditions of his powerlessness, the basis of his own strength. He argues this way: morality, which is so armed against socialism, is itself not worth a damn and, on the contrary, its ideals are fully realized in socialism. At first glance, the strangeness of such argumentation strikes the eye: the ideals of overthrown morality adorn socialism. What disgraces our morality, socialism embellishes. And yet Menger develops this position with an air of complete sincerity and even, as it were, childish naivety. Moral, says Menger, is recognized as the one who adapts to the existing relationships of social forces; immoral is the one who rebels against them. The social system is created without human will; through the action of natural forces, power is given to one or another social class. And so - to submit to the established system means to be moral, not to submit to it means to be immoral. Since the achievement and conquest of power in times of crisis sometimes depends on insignificant circumstances, for example. whether the gate was broken open on time or whether there was a delay of several minutes, then in such cases the moral assessment of highly important actions is completely dependent on the case. If, for example, the Serbian royal couple had managed to escape from the Belgrade konak on the bloody night of June 10-11, 1903, then it would not have cost them much effort to defeat the officers; the latter would be executed, and their actions would be branded with shame. Now, after these officers quickly and thoroughly completed their work, they were glorified by the country's representative office as the saviors of the fatherland. If the content of morality is adaptation to existing relationships of forces, then along with a change in these relationships, the nature of moral assessments must necessarily change. Eg. the pious enthusiasm of medieval saints, their fasts and scourgings, all this served in their time as an object of veneration; now, as the power of the Catholic Church declines, little by little it has almost completely lost its moral charm. France experienced a similar revolution in the methods of moral assessment during the great revolution. Since the storming of the Bastille, the overwhelming majority of the French have considered virtuous only those citizens who adhered to the most extreme, revolutionary way of thinking and put their views into practice. But already from the moment of the fall of Robespierre and even more so after Bonaparte’s successful coup d’etat, which clearly revealed the superiority of physical force over the unorganized masses of the people, the picture completely changed: people began to be ashamed of their revolutionary way of thinking and their revolutionary actions and began to hide them. This state of affairs continued until the July Revolution, which greatly and for a long time raised the course of the revolutionary way of thinking in France. Likewise, now property is considered sacred, but when the socialist system is established, people - we can easily assume this - will be ashamed of property and despise owners. To put it briefly, nothing could be more misleading than talk about the eternal laws of morality. Nothing of the kind. These laws are as transitory as the relationships of forces that created them. There is no objective criterion of morality... Since virtue is identical with adaptation to the existing relationships of social forces, and sin and crime mean resistance to them, the content of conscience can only be the fear of the unfavorable consequences of such resistance. True, it usually happens that the established social system also determines a person’s inner world: people, forced to certain actions by external fear, then in their souls consider these actions to be good, so that internal fear is added to external fear. But this does not change anything in the essence of the matter. Whether conscience is composed of external or internal fear, in any case there is an inverse relationship between conscience and strength. The higher the position occupied by a person among the powerful, the less he has to fear the social consequences of his actions and the less he will constrain himself in his activities by issues of conscience. Another thing is the lower and middle classes of the population. Already from a young age, education at school and at home, and even more subsequently their own experience, instills in them fear of social forces and a respectful attitude towards them. So Napoleon, thanks to his wars, was responsible for the death of 2 1/2 million French and, one must think, no less than a number of enemies. But in vain we would look in his numerous comments about the life he lived for even a trace of repentance, regret for the uselessly shed streams of blood. In his famous conversation with Metternich, Napoleon openly admitted that for a person like him, the death of an extra million people means absolutely nothing. All those in power also have a disdainful view of human life, or almost the same. On the contrary, a random murderer from among those without power is persecuted with equal ferocity by both society and his conscience. The same contradiction is observed in the moral assessment of crimes against property. And here, whatever thieves get away with, they beat the thieves for. Thus, power and morality are essentially the same thing; everyone is allowed what they can afford. Morality is a reflection of the existing balance of social forces. It is prescribed by the ruling classes to the subordinates. What the dominant can do is prohibited by the latter. The power of some corresponds to the slavery of others, the imaginary virtues of the first correspond to the imaginary vices of the second. The higher the position of an individual, the more freely he can coordinate his actions with his interests, without fear of the moral condemnation of others. And, conversely, the lower his position in the hierarchy of power and influence, the more devotion and dedication is required from him. There are no objective virtues and vices at all; everything depends on adaptation or non-adaptation to the existing relationships of social forces.... This is Menger’s criticism of our existing morality. Will we challenge it? No. No matter how witty it is, no matter how evil it is, we can still find it all in moralistic sermons. Yes, in reality all this happens. But does this mean that Menger completely overthrew morality? Far from it. Here is what Menger writes: “Undoubtedly, in every era, isolated saints or bright individuals rose above the low-standing crowd, who tried to fight the omnipotent power and reconcile their lives with their own moral ideal. But the actions of people, as a mass phenomenon - and the science of morality considers them only from this side - are everywhere dependent on the existing relationships of social forces." The author repeats the same thing elsewhere. Let's think about his words. He does not deny the existence of holy personalities, behind whom peoples move on the path of moral progress, but he does not assign them any place in ethics. This attitude of Menger towards the bearers of his own moral ideals is extremely strange. Imagine - a crowd of people is climbing a steep mountain. First one or the other from this crowd, the most dexterous and strong, gets ahead of the others and shakes hands with the others. Menger says that advanced people can be ignored, since they are only a few, and the rest rise only because they are given a helping hand; So in the question of climbing a mountain there is no place for strength and dexterity. But isn’t it obvious that this question is exclusively a question about advanced – strong and dexterous people? So the moral question in its essence is not a question about the crowd, but a question about the bearers of their own moral ideals, about the origin of these free, creative ideals. It doesn't mean that there aren't many such heroes. It must be remembered that the vast majority of people experience at least a few moments of high spiritual uplift and that all, or almost all people potentially possess the same moral qualities. The question about this moral ability, characteristic of all people, about these bright moments in the life of the majority and about these few heroes, is actually a moral question. By erasing all this from the realm of ethics and limiting it only to the morals and life of the crowd, Menger acts like a literary critic who, having said a lot about the color of a famous writer’s hair, about his height, his way of life, would forget to say about his poetic inspiration. Recognition of the existence of holy people, bearers of their own ideals, makes the same hole in the stronghold of positive socialist ethics as a leak in a miller's dam. No matter how small this flow is, it cannot be said that the river has stopped. Menger has no right to say that moral inspiration has ceased in humanity 1). We now move on to the most important part of Menger’s work, inscribed as follows: “Improvement of Morals.” Here we read: “There are two main ways of reforming morality: preaching a higher morality and transforming the existing relationships of social forces.” The sermon alone is powerless and even always actually adapts to the existing system. But “despite the unfree nature of human actions, we still cannot help but achieve an improvement in practical morality - by changing the existing relationships of social forces. Where to direct our aspirations will be shown to us by our ideal of moral perfection... Socialism must have a tremendous influence on the existing collective morality... First of all, socialism will for the first time create the basis for true love of neighbor and brotherhood. In vain did religion preach for two thousand years unlimited love for one's neighbor, while at the same time blessing the existing form of property, the military state, absolutism, in short - all those institutions that divide people. Only when socialism softens economic antagonisms or completely eliminates them and thereby destroys the partitions separating people in society, when the whole people feels like a large working society, in which common success coincides with the success of everyone, only then will the most important basis for the development of true love for man be created... The introduction of socialism will have a profound impact in other areas of moral life, it will weaken greed, destroy corrupt love... In general, in socialism In a social system, morality, as a factor in peaceful living, will have to acquire much greater importance than at present... Hunger reigns almost unchallenged in our society. Therefore, the social relations of people are dominated almost exclusively by a legal order developed to the smallest detail, and along with it, however, exaggerated morality is preached, but it does not bring much benefit and is little taken into account. But in a socialist society, where the entire people will be both an employer and a performer of work, morality will receive incomparably greater importance and will be equalized with the legal order." These are the moral pia desideria of socialism. His ideals do not extend further than this. But let us look carefully into what he himself finds possible to say about his ideals. And, above all, does socialism dare to talk about “its ideal of moral perfection”? But for him, this unexpectedly emerging ideal - Deus ex machina, no more, no less - for him it is a foreign and alien decoration. Here are the confessions found in Menger’s book: “If I talk about virtues and vices, it is only to maintain connection with inherited ways of thinking. From the point of view defended here, all morality appears to be a matter of power." And again: “We are not talking about morality in the proper sense of the word; on the contrary, we mean only actions that should flow from pure egoism.” So, for socialism, morality is just old words into which it puts completely new content: it does not know morality and ideals at all. But perhaps the supposed socialist system in the very actual relationships of people and in their corresponding internal mood will realize, in addition to their conscious efforts, our ideals, just as children are for us a model of moral perfection. Maybe it will be a system in which there will be no room for hostility, envy, competition, etc. And this question must be answered in the negative. Menger hastens to warn us that the socialist system will not be ideal in our sense of the word. “I consider it probable,” he says, that the antagonism of professional groups will continue and even gain greater strength in a socialist society, where the differences of race, nationality and religion must recede greatly into the background. Therefore, do not flatter yourself with too high hopes: only modern types of antagonism will disappear, class enmity, enmity of states, religions will disappear, but new types of antagonism will arise, the antagonism of professional groups will continue with renewed vigor. The new socialist system will retain the main features of the old system. Other groups than today will have power, different methods of pressure, they will press the individual in a different direction, but there will be the same pressure of power in the essence, the same constraint of the individual in the essence. It is easy to understand that the individual will remain with the same motives for activity as now. Having just said that “socialism will for the first time create the basis for true love of neighbor and brotherhood,” Menger on the same page he limits his words: “Of course, he says, selfishness will still remain the main motive of all human actions, and man will never love his neighbor as himself.”... These words reek of hopelessness. The moral ideal eludes the socialist like an elusive shadow, like an unrealizable dream... Kautsky’s book does not correct a hopeless case either. This latter believes Darwinism to be the basis of ethics. The moral law is nothing more than an animal instinct, homogeneous with the instinct of self-preservation and reproduction - this is precisely the social instinct, which, like all instincts, is developed in us by the struggle for existence. All these are not new thoughts, and Kautsky does not contribute anything worthy of attention to his detailed exposition of Darwinian ethics. For him, the numerous objections that have already been raised against Darwinism in ethical science do not exist. However, he himself considers Darwinism insufficient. “Darwinism had not yet solved the entire ethical problem; Even if it is possible to derive moral aspiration, duty and conscience, as well as the main types of virtues from social instincts, the latter lose their power when it comes to explaining the moral ideal. In the animal world it is impossible to discover even the slightest rudiments of it. Only a person is able to create ideals for himself and strive for them. Where do they come from?... But even before Darwin substantiated his theory, which revolutionized the world of thought, a doctrine arose that revealed the secret of the moral ideal. This was the teaching of Engels and Marx." Thus, Kautsky makes the main subject of his book an explanation of the moral ideal, which, in his opinion, not only does not contradict Marxism, but in it finds its complete solution. The ethics of Marxism is based on a materialist understanding of history, and the understanding of ethics that follows from this philosophy can also be called materialist. In historical materialism, it is necessary to distinguish between the evolutionary view of society and the proletarian-materialist direction of evolutionism that joins it (as opposed to reactionary-idealistic evolutionism). Marxism in this regard is a materialist theory of social development, starting from a proletarian point of view. What is the moral significance of this theory? Neither as a thinking being, nor as a moral being, man is significantly different from an animal. But its peculiarity is that a person in his entire being depends on society, it dominates over him, and therefore only through understanding the uniqueness of society can one understand him. And the peculiarity of human society lies in its continuous change, because, unlike animal society, human society is subject to continuous development due to the progress of technology. Starting from this, the author then shows in some detail what changes economic development brings to the moral factors received from the animal world, what different forms it gives to the power of social instincts and virtues, how it either expands or narrows the sphere of social morality. Technical progress forms the basis of the entire development of mankind: everything that distinguishes man from animals is based on it, and not on any special Divine spark. Morality, language, knowledge - all this is just the result of the technical development of human society at its different stages. The very invention of a tool makes possible the division of labor, which unites human society in a way that animal society cannot be united. Primitive communism has its own morality, the emergence of private family property produces changes in it, it changes even more with the development of money, it is influenced by changes in the way of warfare, it experiences the effect of competition, weakening social instincts. Universal trade created by capitalism unites humanity and creates the basis of a universal morality, too prematurely and groundlessly expressed by Christianity; but the same capitalism not only entails the general exploitation of all nations by Europeans, it also creates class struggle and class morality in society itself. Class struggle becomes the most widespread, the most general and constant form of struggle for the existence of individuals in human society. For morality, it has the following significance: on the one hand, it weakens social instincts in relation to the entire given society, but they appear on a larger scale within the class, the happiness of which for the mass of individuals is identified with general happiness. In this case, a moral difference is formed between individual classes - among some of them morality develops predominantly. The classes in which the class struggle strengthens social instincts and virtues are precisely the exploited, oppressed classes, striving to improve their situation; they do not take part in the capitalist exploitation of other nations. The future fate of morality is connected with the fate of the proletariat. But there is a special moral factor - moral laws? Undoubtedly, but they are explained partly by habit, partly by social instincts. Their source is in needs closely related to social relations. The social requirements presented to an individual are so often repeated, so correct, that they turn into a habit that is passed on to offspring in the same way as the inclination towards special types of hunting is passed on to hound dogs. Thus, for example, a feeling of modesty is formed - the habit of covering certain parts of the body, the exposure of which is considered immoral. Of course, moral laws cannot be explained by habit alone; moral norms can only become habitual because they correspond to deep social needs, and ultimately correspond to social instincts deeply embedded in human nature. But in any case, there is an undoubted connection between moral laws and social needs. And since such a connection exists, then any change in society should entail a change in certain moral principles. These changes in morality are necessary precisely because every social form for its existence requires certain moral principles adapted to it. Recognition of the power of moral laws, this apparent concession to idealism on the part of socialism, apparently goes even further. Moral standards do not change to the same extent as social needs, but rather more slowly than the latter. Strengthening their habit, they take deep roots and can lead an independent existence for a long time, while technological progress and changes in social needs move forward. The same thing happens not with morality alone, but with the entire complex ideological superstructure over the economic foundation - religion, law, art. There is an undeniable interaction between the economy and this spiritual superstructure. However, socialism immediately stipulates and limits its concession. This spiritual superstructure, and in particular morality, influences the development of social life only as long as it corresponds to the social needs that gave rise to it. On the contrary, as soon as moral laws become independent, they immediately cease to be an element of social progress. They freeze, become a conservative element, an obstacle to progress. Thus, in human society, something can happen that is impossible in animal society - morality, from a necessary connecting element, becomes a means of unbearable constraint on social life. New social needs that are being created require new moral standards. A necessary conflict arises between new social demands and old morality. We now come to the most interesting thing - the last paragraph in Kautsky’s book, entitled “moral ideal”. Our time is a struggle of class contradictions, and this struggle puts a special imprint on the eternal struggle between old and new morality. In our time - a time of class struggle - the ruling classes stand for the old morality. If in a non-class society certain moral positions are held only through habit, then with the emergence of class contradictions, the preservation of certain moral positions becomes a matter of interest, often even a very strong interest. In order to keep the exploited classes in obedience, they resort to means of force, physical coercion - and these coercive means also serve “morality”... This is how Kautsky deals with the old, that is, with the prevailing morality. Don't say loud words to him - from the textbooks of this morality. He can answer you: this morality is beneficial to the ruling classes, from behind the banner of loud words this shameless benefit peeks out, barely hidden. All your high moral principles serve only to soften the hearts of the subordinate classes, lull their minds, weaken their will. This high duty is preached only to the disadvantaged. In practice, your lofty morality invariably comes down to exploitation, inequality, and dependence. Kautsky says something completely different about the new morality—the morality of the proletariat. If the growing contradiction between changing social conditions and the frozen morality of the conservative and precisely the ruling classes is expressed in growing immorality, the growth of hypocrisy and cynicism, often going hand in hand with the weakening of social instincts, then this contradiction leads to completely different results for the exploited classes and those striving upward. Their interests are in complete conflict with the social basis that created this morality. They do not have the slightest reason to hold on to it, but, on the contrary, every reason to oppose it. The more they realize the opposition of their interests to the entire ruling order, the faster their moral indignation grows in them, the more they contrast the old morality they inherited with the new one, which they would like to make the morality of the whole society. Thus, in the rising classes, a moral ideal arises, which, as these classes grow stronger, becomes bolder and bolder. And at the same time, it is precisely in these classes, thanks to the class struggle, that the strength of social instincts especially develops, so that along with the courage of the new moral ideal, the enthusiastic attitude towards it also grows. The same phenomenon that causes ever-increasing immorality in the conservative, declining classes, in the rising classes increasingly creates a morality that can be characterized by the name of ethical idealism (as opposed to philosophical idealism)... This new moral ideal is essentially purely negative in nature, is nothing more than the opposite of the prevailing morality... This moral ideal is nothing more than a complex of desires and aspirations caused by contradictions modern conditions... Let us stop here and ask: does Kautsky have any grounds for speaking about the moral ideal of the proletariat? Doesn’t it follow from his words that in the socialist movement of the proletariat we are talking only about economic desires and means of struggle - nothing else? And if we agree with Kautsky that, despite the height of traditional morality, the ruling classes have no right to talk about it, since they make it an instrument of oppression, then he must agree with us that no matter how high the new morality of the proletariat, for the latter it is only a weapon of struggle, that therefore, from the proletarian, or socialist point of view, it is impossible to talk about morality and moral ideals. Kautsky also describes the positive side of the proletarian ideal - if not the abolition of all professional differences, not the abolition of the division of labor, then at least the abolition of all social differences and contradictions arising from private ownership of the means of production, the liberation of the proletariat, the elimination of the subordination of women to men, the elimination of national contradictions and wars.... “Where can one find such a moral ideal that would open up such luxurious prospects”? asks Kautsky solemnly. Yes, we say, all this is good. But it is another matter when they are outraged by the war for purely moral reasons, and another matter when they want to free themselves from its burden. No one will call a deserter fleeing from under the banner a hero; no one praises the army that bowed the banners and thereby eliminated bloodshed. The liberation of the proletariat and women is a wonderful thing, but for the proletariat itself, for the women themselves who are interested in this liberation, it is only about this interest. They are interested in the new morality in the same way as the ruling classes were in the old one, and for them, just as for the latter, interest cuts off the path to the height of the moral ideal. There are people who feed on labor, and there are people who feed on religion; as far as food is concerned, religion for these people is equated with a craft and the sanctity of religion for them is replaced by the profit of the department. All interested should not talk about the shrine. All this is extremely convincing. Kautsky’s book is remarkable in that it clearly justifies these thoughts. Following speeches about the new moral ideal of the proletariat, he writes: “As an impulse for the class struggle, as a means of rallying all the forces of the rising classes and inducing them to fight against the existing, the moral ideal is a powerful weapon in overcoming the existing. But – Kautsky hastens to weaken even this utilitarian meaning of the ideal – new social conditions depend not on the moral ideal, but on given material conditions, technology, the natural environment, the character of the neighbors and ancestors of the existing society, etc.” Those who attach greater importance to the ideal will be disappointed. “The ideal, fulfilling its historical mission and serving as an impulse to destroy the old, always leads to bitter disappointments and turns out to be an illusion.” Kautsky hastens to prevent such disappointment. Raising an ideal with one hand, he humiliates it with the other hand, he tramples it into the dirt, he does not want to preserve the slightest illusion. “Now,” he writes, “the moral ideal is revealed to us from a purely negative side as a protest against the existing moral order, and we recognize its significance as an impulse for the class struggle, a means of rallying the forces of the revolutionary classes and inducing them to fight. But at the same time, the moral ideal is deprived of its guiding force. The direction of social development in reality depends not on our moral ideal, but on certain given material conditions... The materialist understanding of history for the first time completely deprived the moral ideal of the character of a decisive factor in social development and taught us to establish our social goals solely based on knowledge of given material foundations... The moral instinct and moral ideal do not represent a goal, but only a force or weapon in the social struggle for existence; the moral ideal is a special weapon that is used under special conditions of the class struggle... But this ideal has no place in scientific socialism, in the scientific study of the laws of development of the social organism in order to understand the necessary tendencies and goals of the proletarian class struggle... Ethics can only be an object of science; the latter's task is to explore and explain both moral instincts and moral ideals; but science should not accept any instructions from ethics regarding the results to which it should arrive. Science stands above ethics, its results are just as little moral or immoral as necessity is little moral or immoral... The conscious goal of the class struggle in scientific socialism turns from a moral ideal into an economic one. So, according to the view of socialism, morality is not a goal, but a means - a temporary means of economic struggle. Where and when was morality most degraded? Where and when was it trampled upon with greater shamelessness and less secrecy? But two more words in conclusion. By degrading morality, socialism needs it. “Social democracy, writes Kautsky, as an organization of the proletariat in its class struggle cannot do without moral indignation against the exploitation of class rule”... For the success of this struggle, it is necessary “not only high mental development, but also fighting ability, the desire to fight and, above all, a strong moral feeling, strong social instincts, an ardent desire to serve the oppressed classes.” But if socialism needs morality as a means of class struggle, then who has worked more to weaken this means than socialism with its materialist understanding of ethics, reducing morality to an animal social instinct? By declaring the moral ideal an illusion, socialism reduces its significance to zero. And this is the moral tragedy of socialism. You might be interested in: