CC BY
24
Section 8. Political science
Kuppaeva Botagoz Tulegenovna, Candidate of political sciences, associated professor, Kazakh National Agrarian University, Almaty, E-mail: Bota [email protected]
MARXISM AS THE MOST POWERFUL INTELLECTUAL BREAKTHROUGH
Abstract: Marxism was a philosophy connected with revolutionary practical action, not only explaining the world, but also indicating how it should be changed. Marxism was the basis of the worldview of millions of people. This teaching placed at the center of its problems the most burning social problems of its time. Marxism was the most important spiritual force of our time. The confrontation between Marxism and Western ideology was the nerve of life, the nerve pervading the whole epoch. And today this doctrine remains in the status of one of the most theoretically developed and internationally accepted paradigms.
Keywords: Marxism, dialectical analysis method, social justice, collectivist solidarity, class conflicts, category of "one-dimensionality", theory of alienation.
Куппаева Ботагоз Тулегеновна, кандидат политических наук, ассоциированный профессор, Казахский Национальный Аграрный Университет,
Алматы, Bota [email protected]
МАРКСИЗМ КАК САМЫЙ МОЩНЫЙ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЙ ПРОРЫВ
Аннотация: Марксизм былфилософией, связанной с революционным практическим действием, не только объясняющий мир, но и указывающий, как его нужно изменить. Марксизм был основой мировоззрения миллионов людей. Это учение ставилов центр своих проблем самые жгучие социальныепроблемы своего времени. Марксизм являлся важнейшей духовной силой современности.Противостояние марксизмаи западной идеологии былонервом жизни, нервом, пронизывающим всю эпоху. И сегодня это учение остается в статусе одной из наиболее теоретически разработанных и получивших мировое признание парадигм.
Ключевые слова: марксизм, метод диалектического анализа, социальная справедливость, коллективистская солидарность, классовые конфликты, категория «одномерности», теория отчуждения.
Marxism was one of the most powerful intellectual breakthroughs, ever performed in human civilization history. Two great inventions were the basis of it: materialist interpretation of history and disclosure of capitalist exploitation secrecy. Marxism consequences and its impact on the world were so monumental that it is impossible to concern Marxism as a regular theory.
Marxism is an epoch seized in thoughts; it is a printout of real social environment and political culture of its days. Many principal Marxism ideas save its continued importance. However in new historical conditions they require critical reinterpretation. Marxism entered the thesaurus of human intellectual ideas and social powers, mind of political and social powers, complied in real structure of historical existence. New political world map arisen under its influence.
Marxism genesis became a landmark in development of human thought; an opportunity to learn and realize the deep roots of social exclusion and terms of its elimination appeared. Marxism gave a powerful impulse to the philosophy, politology and sociology.In the field of philosophical idea applied Marxism enriched the science with dialectical analysis method. Marks brightly applied qualitatively modified Hegelian dialectic to the analysis of social development, first of all, to the analysis of contradictions and tendencies of capitalistic development.
It is necessary to mention that communism was considered by Marks not as an aim, but as a method of human emancipation. "Communism, - he wrote, - is a necessary form and energy principle of the nearest future, but communism itself is not an aim of human development and form of human society" [1]. At Engels' work "The Condition of the Working Class in England" has an analogous conception of communism.Communism, due to Engels' conception, is "a matter of not only workers, but of the whole humanity" [2].
In the words of Lenin, Marxism is an integral learning, cast of the one piece of steel. It cannot be cut on "good" or "bad" pieces. Marxism is not only violence, as a midwife of new society, not only proletarian dictatorship and repressive methods of world development. Marxism is an idea of intellect practical actualization; it is an efficiency, pushed to the limit; it is a dialectic character of formalism; active existence analysis. Concepts of social justice and community solidarity are included in Marxist project's constants. Non-prejudicial inventory
of concepts and conclusions of Marxism should demonstrate the historical role of Marxism today. Marxism was a basis of ideology, culture and mentality of few millions of Soviet people. While western philosophy was and is a lot of inner circle of intellectuals. Marxism can become a starting base of new culture and new system. Range of new culture should save that positive what withstood the test of time. It is materialism, as an underlying philosophy of existence, reasonable dialectic, and historical determinism. Marxism did not disappear in the history of philosophical and political concept, it is nowhere near exhaust. Marxism includes potential of new rise of philosophy, new culture and new mentality. Probably, we need a new genius, modern Marks, who would understand spirit of his age, spirit of his epoch, and perform new intellectual breakthrough.
Attitude to Marxism was different. From pervasive denial to intention to use his ideas. Marks's social and economic views, gnoseology and theory of proletarian dictatorship were the fair games from western scientists. There is no any more or less significant Marxism theory, which did not face criticism, doubts or rebutment. For example, an idea about defining role of existence in relation to consciousness, about the meaning of economic aspect in social development, law of value and added value, statement about pauperization, about tendency to earnings dilution, about capitalism elimination, about a way and exercise of social revolution performance.
For western science the characteristic feature is an intention to assimilate separate fragments, ideas, Marxism concerns, to borrow its research designs and certain problematics. For example, in 20-s K. Mannheim borrowed the problematic of cognitive social predicament from Marxism and called it as the sociology of knowledge. E. Fromm tried to convert Marxism theory of alienation and use it in criticism of modern capitalism. Veber's theory of ideal types is an assimilation of Marxism method of idealization. Subsequent to Marks I. Schumpeter started to research the problematics of economic development. Schumpeter uses Marxism methodological principles in his capitalism concept - analysis of structural and institutional aspects of capitalistic system as well as consideration of its system in real time.
Western theorists also tried to prove the existence of different "Marxism" opposing to each other or by areal parameters:"European", "Asian", "African" "Marxism"; or
by national ones: "Soviet", "Chinese"; or by political ones "totalitarian", "statist" "Marxism".
Western scientists studied to find challenges in Marxism study and provide different variants of Marxism -Leninism - on the basis of it.They claimed that there are significant differences between "young" Marks and "mature" Marks; between Marks and Engels; between Marks and Lenin; between "young" Lenin (period of "Materialism and empiriocriticism") and "mature" Lenin (period of "Philosophical books"), that there are challenges between Leninism and Marxism, between Leninism and "soviet" Marxism. Western marxologists thought that Leninism is "a theory of revolution in precapitalistic societies" or that Leninism should be characterized as "an appliance of Marxism to the countries with non-industrialized economics and with a prevalent peasant population" [3].
In "Dictionary of international relations" published by Western University of Michigan the following Marxism variants are specified. 1) Economic, political, social theories of K. Marks and F. Engels - dialectical materialism is absent; 2) Leninism, which is introduced as a "theoretical interpretation and practical application of Marxism by Lenin"; 3) Stalinism, theoretical interpretation and practical application of Marxism by Stalin from 20-s to 1953; 4) Trotskyism. Race for power between Trotsky and Stalin is mentioned after Lenin's death; 5) Titoism is considered to be a theory and practice of national communism;
6) Contribution of Khrushchev to communistic doctrine and its application in USSR in the period of 1953-1963.
7) Maoism is introduced as a theory of civil war in backward peasant and semi-colonial countries [4].
One of the famous American sociologists Talcott Parsons also didn't ignore Marxism. In his two works: 1) "Social Classes and Class Conflicts in the Light of Recent Sociological Theory" in the book "Essays in Sociological Theory", 1949; 2) "Few notes about K. Marks's sociology" in the book "Sociological Theory and Modern Society", 1967, Parsons definitely states his point ofview concerning Marxism [5].
The sociologist breaks integral inner structure of Marxism down. He separates Marxism as an ideology from Marxism as a science. He separates Marks-sociologist and Marks-economist. Parsons treats Marxism as a psychosocial personality theory. Also in these works he enunciates a conclusion about theoretical desuetude
of Marxism as a social study.Parsons criticizes Marxist theory of class struggle. Due to the scientist's opinion Marks is mistaken when he narrows all class conflicts down single model of conflict between bourgeois class and proletariat. Parsons thinks that conflicts in industrial society are not the determining factor of development. Class conflicts are inevitable and unrecoverable. It means that Marxism theory of classless society is quixotic. The sociologist thinks that exploitation by Marxism as the main source of class antagonism is a result of accidental confluence of several factors which could be independent in other circumstances. As for the problem of alienation, due to Parsons' opinion, it is nothing more than nostalgia for discredited condition of agrarian or handicraft shop community. Bourgeois are aristocrats subject to frustration, but proletariat is peasants subject to frustration.Due to Parsons' opinion, dramatics of capitalism became not topical, and along with this the problem of exploitation and alienation passed.
The sources of class conflicts, due to the scientist's opinion, are contest, authority and discipline, strategic positions, different cultural types. Under this approach Parsons excludes the problems of creation and assumption of added value, problem of property and attitude to it.Parsons tries to prove that Marks's social forecasts are groundless. Contrary to Marxism's forecasts no pauperization process is noticed in capitalistic states; class polarization is absent; in industry man power doesn't increase proportionally to workforce productivity and number of mental workers; class solidarity is substituted by national or ethnic one; there is no regression of government machinery in socialist society.
Parsons thinks that Marks's forecasts are untenable for other cases too. Revolutionary situation, which is due to Marxism, is connected with the level of industrial development of the country, is untenable. Parsons refers to experience of France in XIX century. In economic terms it was less developed than modern England. Though it was France suffering from penetrating class conflicts. Socialistic revolutions, as the scientist mentions, happened not in the most developed capitalistic countries.As for the subject of revolution, it has been changed. Class ground is displaced towards from proletariat to peasantry.
Also, due to Parsons' opinion, Marks missed three issues in his theory: 1) "Durkheim's problem", or the problem of social connections and roles of institutes;
2) personal theory, human motivation and role of cultural codes in activity stipulation; 3) "Verber's problem", or the problem of place and role of ideas and factors of culture in social system.These problems did not receive appropriate theoretical development. Marks takes into account only material factors, paying no appropriate attention to the system of values. Also limitation of Marxism is in fact that it avoids the problematics of social structure and social organization of the system. Parsons tries to prove that Marks didn't develop the theory of structure and functions of socialistic society. Here Parsons doesn't consider that Marxism developed such theories - it is the concept of classless society, planned distribution and liquidation of alienation.
As for methodological criticism of Marxism, here Parsons indicates two aspects. He thinks that the meaning of Marks's researches is limited by the frames of just one historical epoch - epoch of early capitalism. The next remark of the sociologist comes down to that Marxism methodology doesn't allow to make universal generalization, comprised all social systems and historical periods. That is why Parsons limits Marxism by definite dimensional and time extents.
As for the method, here the sociologist accuses Marks of the fact that in his researches he doesn't follow methodological principle: liberty from values. Parsons thinks that one cannot pass value judgments of social or political character in the name of science. Due to Parsons' opinion, Marxism, scientific socialism in particular, mixes two incommensurable systems of values: ideological and scientific ones. Ideological system is attributed the status of scientificity. Marxism is simultaneously a science and ideology, as a theory and as an activity program.
Parsons denies any cognitive value of Marxism for modern age. In theoretical and methodological terms Marxism is proclaimed to be "obsolete", "psychologically naive" and referred to "penetrated" period of development. Marxism stays within the frames of XIX century. Marks's study comes down only to four points, which are proclaimed to be only significant. This is the specific form of materialism; concept of society as integrity, controlled by dichotomy; confluence of economic and political factors and principle of historicism.
The next scientist, who tried to contradistinguish his theoretical structure to Marks borrowing the list of his statements (conceptional machinery), was Herbert Mar-
cuse. American philosopher of German origin, "thought leader" of staunch left rebellious young people of 60-s. During the events of May-June of 1968 in France, Italy and other European countries Marcuse's papers, and first of all his book "One-Dimensional Man" became bestsellers. 450 thousands exemplars of "One-Dimensional Man" were sold in France for the period of May-June of 1968.
In 1964 this programmatic work of Marcuse "One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society" was published. Ideas described in "One-Dimensional Man" quickly made Marcuse a popular ideologist of "new leftist", an idol of oppositional student movements of 60-s and one of the most important western philosophers. Core idea of Marcuse's book is an idea of "one-dimensionality".
Category of "one-dimensionality" allows, due to Marcuse's opinion, to commit the essence of this society clearly and concisely. "One-dimensionality" is uniformity, lack of well-defined and efficient alternative (social, political, ideological). That is a commonality and unidirectionality. "One-dimensionality" means the lack of confrontation, any criticism, any overrun of existing attitude system, institutes, evaluations, conciliation with the existing system. In social and political terms "one-dimensionality" means the lack of social powers, withstanding to existing social relations and heading to overturn them inside the society. Due to Marcuse's opinion there are no antagonistic powers within the frames of the system, because both proletariat and bourgeoisie persecute the shared objectives and share common political ideals.
Lifestyle of developed industrial society is one-dimensional. Worker and entrepreneur watch the same TV-programs, movies, read the same printed press, use the same hyped tooth paste, drive own automobiles. Foremost, they both are mostly satisfied by these amenities and don't feel the aspiration to destroy the existing pattern of requirements and push its limits. "One-dimensional" art, "one-dimensional" language, as well as radio, cinema, TV, advertisement allow influencing proletariat's mind in such a way that he begins to think in direction, beneficial for augmenters. His proletarian mind becomes blunt, the working class ceases to be "a class for itself", i.e. revolutionary class.
Marcuse links the formation of "one-dimensional" society, "one-dimensional" person with his "one-dimensional" consciousness with new forms of human control,
based on the modern science and techniques, on "technical rationality".Marcuse distinguishes three elements in them. 1) System of creation and satisfying of submitted requirements. 2) All-permeating communication media -TV, radio, printed press."When worker and owner enjoy the same TV program and visit the same leisure area..." 3) New forms ofsocial control. Due to Marcuse's opinion, theories of human relationship at the enterprise and used science about influence on human mentality prevent the possibility of oppositional climate's formation [6].
Domination of class powers in terms of developed industrial society loses political character under new control forms. Labor leaders' transfer to the positions ofsocial partnership, methods of economic cessions, contagion of "welfare state" theory, western democracy - all of this liquidate class struggle, due to Marcuse's point of view.
Capitalism created powerful centers of mass brainwashing, of development and implementation of the standards not only in material field, but also in spiritual life of the society. The culture becomes "mass"; the culture suppresses the individuality of mass consumer and deprives him the own face. Intellectual producer of the middle class lives on the standard mental food, his mind is controlled and driven, and it seems to him that the whole world is "one-dimensional" and standard. Due to the philosopher opinion the disaster is in that mass culture in the terms of capitalism gives a rise to "one-dimensional". i.e. obedient and non-critically thinking person [6, P. 59].
Due to Marcuse's ideas, human consciousness defines their behavior, their solutions, and evolution of the history therewith. He distinguishes two ways of thinking - bi-dimensional and one-dimensional. The first one pushes the frames of reality, struggles for passing of that reality on behalf ofbetter reality. The second one considers reality as a mentality implementation and denies any thought's pushing the frames of the existing reality.
Scientific and technical revolution gave such communication media and human mind control that allow defining their way of thinking and political opinions "in one-dimensional way" and preventing the rise and forming of revolutionary class mentality of proletariat. Due to Marcuse's point of view, the level and speed of production powers and production of mass consumption articles do not only satisfy the vital requirements of the crowd, but also create new requirements, replacing the class requirements of the proletariat.
Marcuse finds "the reasonable one-dimensionality" to be a negative characteristic of his modern society. This society is irrational, Marcuse says. Marcuse thinks that due to the fact that direct open and enforced control gives a place to administrative, ideological and psychological control, the nature of work is changed and also certain rise of living standard is observed.It doesn't matter that the most of the people of one-dimensional" society doesn't understand its addiction "Slaves under developed industrial civilization are the slaves with sublimated feelings, but they are still the slaves." [6, P. 32]. In his concept Marcuse gives negative estimation - mostly because development of that society deforms the liability and skills of the individual and devotes him to definite even though conceal slavery (Mancurtism). Marcuse concludes that such a society should be destroyed by revolution and replaced by the essentially innovative society. He dreams about social revolution.
Student unrest in the latter half of 60-s, dissatisfaction by bureaucratization and militarization of the society from the side of intellectuals gave Marcuse the basis for "Political foreword of 1966", for "Eros and civilization", and then for a foreword for French publication of "One-dimensional man" (1967) to speak about young students and intellectuals as about the forces, having revolutionary potential.
At the work "The End of Utopia" (1967), "An Essay On Liberation" (1969) Marcuse forms new concept of revolution: concept of world revolution, where he raises a question about processes, carried in "the Third World" and about its' interconnections with dynamic of social changes in "developed industrial countries", as well as about concept of revolution concerning developed countries themselves. Due to Marcuse's opinion, radical students and intellectuals are "detonator" and "catalyst" of revolution in developed industrial society and its motivating force. Due to his opinion, they can begin anticapitalistic revolution.
Concept of Marks led him to reconsideration of Marxism thesis about proletariat as a revolutionary class of capitalistic society. Marcuse denies neither proletariat existence itself nor presence of challenges in modern capitalism.However, due to Marcuse's opinion, the newest means, equity drawdown of manual labor, increase of the role of office workers, manufacturing automation lead to decrease of the worker's political voice. Student
unrest of 60-s and dissatisfaction by growing bureaucratization and militarization of the western society led Mar-cuse to the idea about young students' and intellectuals' being a force having revolutionary potential. At works "The End of Utopia" (1967), "An Essay on Liberation" (1969) these ideas were developed. Due to the philosopher's idea, students and intellectuals are the catalyst of revolution, its motivating force; they awake proletariat and lead them.
Marcuse mentions that intellectuals themselves, or young people themselves or ghetto population itself or all of them together are not able to blow a society up. They are "avant-garde", "catalyst", "detonator", they are the force of oppositional concentration, but in the best case they would lead to disintegration of the society, due to Marcuse's opinion. Later Marcuse in his "An Essay on Liberation" calls a working class a potential revolutionary force and writes that new concept of revolution comes down to the period of enlightenment, preceding the material alteration, the period of education, but education inverted to practice: demonstrations, confrontations, revolt. Marcuse found the problem of "the agent of historical action" to be postponed and, ultimately, he estimated the role of students and intellectuals as pessimistic, as a role of working class.
Therefore, Marcuse tried to generate new revolutionary ideology, competitive to Marxism.At works "The Obsolescence of Marxism", 1967, and "Reason and Revolution" Marcuse was against Marxism. He accuses Marxism that it doesn't contain the certain vision of the future.At the work "Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis", 1958, Marcuse writes that theory of socialism is not a study, directed to the future. The philosopher tries to prove that denying the past and defining future prospects Marxism stays at the level of social structures and relationship, that it doesn't postulate the change of character of technology and productive forces.I.e. Marxism is not critical enough, burden with traditions; it reduces a jump from "pre-his-tory" to "the history" of the person to transformation in the field of social relationship. Marcuse analyses an issue of the subject of revolution. Marxism ground of proletariat role as a subject ofsocialist revolution is given a significant meaning.The philosopher thinks that proletariat really was the only one meaningful revolutionary class in XIX century. But capitalism of XIX century was subject to significant alterations dashed Marks's conclusions. As Marcuse
writes in "One-Dimensional Man", nowadays reality of modern industrial societies converted Marks's theory of "proletariat" category to myth. Working class lost its revolutionary potential and not able to play a role suggested by Marks anymore.Marcuse thinks that due to growing economical welfare proletariat becomes a prisoner of the same requirements and means of its satisfaction as bour-geoisie.Capitalism arrested the labors by golden chains. The field of requirements controlled by advertisement and entertainments encouraged it. Due to Marcuse's opinion, working class loses its revolutionary potential as long as it confluent with capitalistic system. The philosopher rejects proletariat as a subject of revolution.
If proletariat is not a revolutionary force Marxism is not able to pretend to the role of progressive ideology. That is Marcuse's conclusion.Marxism lost its meaning for modern ages due to its insufficient radicalism and also due to obsolete role ofworking class. Marcuse thinks that some theoretical concepts are valuable in Marxism, for example, theory of profit as an aim of the present system, theory of immanent contradictions of capitalism and impossibility ofits application within its frames, about submission of the person and his requirements to market relations.
Marxism is obsolete as an ideology, as the philosopher says. Marxism is a museum specimen, study of the past, which lost its meaning nowadays. Marcuse interprets Marxism as a theory which refers to "human prehistory", limits the meaning ofMarxism by class societies and proclaims Marxism to be historically obsolete due to the fact that proletariat lost its potential as the main impelling power and subject of revolution.
Jurgen Habermas is a German sociologist, representative of the second generation of Frankfurt's, offers metaparadigm theory of communicative activity, based on analysis of human communication, cooperation and dialectic.Through its prism he analyses democracy, morality and right of late capitalism.Habermas is an author of the following works: "Democracy, Mentality, Morality", "The Theory ofCommunicative Action", "Knowledge and Human Interests", "Technique and Science as Ideology".
Habermas criticizes the following in Marks's theory - theory of value and immiserating, study about basis and superstructure, facilitated, due to his opinion, concept of interconnection between productive forces and productive relations. Habermas aims at development of such problems as study about transformed forms of
consciousness, analysis of ideology, study of the problems of communication and criticism of materialization of social communicative relations. With the help of theoretic synthesis, activity concepts, rationality, social communicability Habermas tried to lay the foundation of renew critical theory, which could deeper and fully influent the development of modern society. For development of new concept of communicative activity and consciousness Habermas mobilizes everything more or less valuable what exists in western spiritual heritage.
Habermas pretends to extend large-scale theory of the society and builds theory of communicative activity as its beginning, basis.Habermas, offering and developing the theory of communicative action, first of all critically redefines Marxism. Habermas proclaims, that his aim is "to develop theoretical program, which I understand as a reconstruction of historical materialism" [7, P. 95].
Theory of alienation created by Marks appeals to Habermas. Due to Habermas opinion, alienation by Marks is interpreted quite unilaterally - within a context of production relations, apart from social networking and communicative actions of people. Marks didn't investigate human communications themselves. That is more important problem, concerning the whole society, than contradictions and alienation in one economic field of society. Habermas at his work "Knowledge and Human Interests" criticizes Marks for the fact that he narrows everything down to labor, that communication and human relationship do not exist in philosophical and historical generalizations of the classic [8].The scientist distinguishes importance of labor and communication. While labor is "persistent natural requirement of human life" for Marks, for Habermas communication is the most important social cultural feature. The labor as a purposeful rational action should be opposed by the labor as a communicative activity, i.e. free and creative labor.
Western scientists draw a parallel between Habermas's and Marks's concepts.While Marks saw a way to liberty and overcoming of alienation in annihilation of capital as a private property, Habermas saw it in elimination of barriers on the way to natural original communication.
In all his researches Habermas always dialects with Marxism. He often uses elements of Marxism analysis. At work "Knowledge and Human Interests" the philosopher says that Marxism should be narrowed down social content. Habermas finds Marxism to be a type
of systematic consciousness, the subject of which is a social problematics. Marxism subjects not to the rules of empirical verification, but to the regularity of social psychology and ideology. Marxism theory is aimed to be a criticism. Marxism can't prescribe any technical directives for society changes, because as a criticism it cannot be "interpreted" to the language of instrumental norms. That is why such its statements as a call to creation of proletarian party and preparation for socialistic revolution should be recognized as a mistake.
At the work "Technique and Science as Ideology" of 1968 Habermas thinks that historical materialism is not suitable for modern capitalism, which experienced two types of alterations. The first alteration is connected with a phenomenon of state interventionism, i.e. state activity in economic field. The activity of the state protects economics from destructive crises and depressions. It brings significant alterations for historical materialism. Due to interventional activity of the state the basis character is changed. Basis political structure comes to the foreground, apart from narrow economical one.
The second alteration is connected with approach of science and technique.Habermas considers two issues: the first concerns the evaluation of productive forces from the point of its role in the process of social release. The second one concerns the law of value. The development of productive forces does not always release a person from governmental structures. Due to Habermas's opinion, technique and social practice are two fields, subject to different regularities. With the development of technique and science technical approach to human and social issues is spread. As for the issue of value law, due to Habermas, it is not applicable for modern capitalism. Different types of qualified difficult labor are not narrowed down to simple labor and expression in the units of labor hours. Scientific information also became independent factor of delivering value. Theory ofvalue is always in the thick of criticism from the side of western scientists. This theory is in the basis of such Marxism concepts as Marxism political economy, theory of added value, theory of exploitation. Habermas's conclusion narrows down to the fact that law of value is not applicable to the terms of modern capitalism.
At the work "Technique and Science" Habermas replaces Marxism term of productive forces by term of labor, or by the term of object-oriented rational action.
Productive relations are opposed to the terms of interaction, communicative action, institutional frames, or organization principle. In the field of labor, due to Habermas, the processes of education and assimilation of technically useful information are carried, and in the field of interaction processes of socialization and personality formation are performed. The first field corresponds to technical interest, the second one - to the practical one.
As Habermas thinks, it is possible to detach four social formations: primary, traditional, capitalistic and post-capitalistic. In the first formation the kinship system plays the role of organizational principle, in the second one - the political system, in the third one - economical system.
Habermas also considers the history of human development from the different point of view.Before capitalistic epoch the field of interaction dominated and comprised the field of productive activity. In phase of progressive capitalism the separation of these fields is performed, and production field becomes independent. For modern ages the headship of technical activity is a characteristic feature.I.e. on the first stages of human history original communication existed. Authentic sympathy was reached thanks to immediate communication. Economic, political, informational structures appeared after it apart from consciousness and liberty of people began to expropriate people from natural communications, and hereby from themselves.
Due to Habermas's opinion ideal is the emancipated society with mutual communication, free from coercion and supremacy.Dialogue of everybody with everyone. It rejects any forms of control, from treatment of pharmacologic agents and gene engineering to control, based on use of cybernetics, system analysis, and solutions' theory. Due to Habermas's point of view, the only method of control is self-administration, based on free approval of knowledge and value, which is approved by the way of "Socratic dialogue". Also Habermas thinks that essential condition of that ideal is an elimination of the classes and the state, ideology as a "false consciousness", i.e. all the factors limiting inter-human communication.
The main issue at Habermas's works is his intention to reveal potential of human consciousness, developed in racialization and modernization of actions of individuals and social groups, in formation and rational improvement of that what for human society was created: cooperation (interaction), human communication.
One of the characteristic features of Aron Raymond's works is a keen criticism ofMarxism philosophy. R. Aron criticized different treatments of Marxism: dogmatic treatment, existentialistic interpretation of Marxism by J. P. Sartr; Marxism of L. Althusser. In 1955 Aron published a book "The Opium for the Intellectuals", in which he tried to antagonize the influence of Marxism.
Due to Aron's opinion, Marks overestimated the meaning of class conflicts. Stating, that capitalism is not able to distribute all the benefits of technical progress between everybody, Marks proclaimed about future shocks, which should lead directly to elimination of classes and all the prejudices, common for capitalism. Aron thought that Marxism in modern life became a peculiar religion. Aron writes: "K. Marks called religion an opium for people. Church, whatever it wants or not, strengthens established prejudice. It helps people to bear or forget their endurances instead of avoiding them. Being at the mercy of religious ideas, person of faith becomes indifferent to existing public peace" [9]. Due to Aron's opinion, Marxism ideology, which was transformed to generally accepted religion by the state, can be criticized from the same points of view. It also teaches masses to obey and establish absolute power of governors. However, Christianity did not allow despotism of governors. Secretary General of communistic party retains the right to "rewrite" the history of communistic party.
Aron mentions that communistic religion in modern ages has absolutely different meaning in comparison with Christian religion. Christian "opium" makes people passive, communistic "opium" impels people to rebellion.
In the last chapter of "The Opium for the Intellectuals" he writes that Marxism ideology in its presentation of history and future repeats the scheme, peculiar for Judeo-Christian idea and presentation of chiliasts about millennial empire. The following features are peculiar for it: criticism of the existing; turning point connected with apparition of elected person or group; promised future, represented in the most glowing colors. Functions of Messiah is taken upon proletariat as an elected class, as "collective rescuer"; turning point is a socialistic revolution; God's Kingdom or millennial empire is a classless socialistic society.
The philosopher doesn't notice any groundings of historical Messiah for working class at Marks's works. Aron says that Marxism doesn't have any empirical
validations and draws strength from myths. That is why Marxism doesn't only have a structure of myth, but also can be considered as a myth, as the modern variant of dream about future millennium.
However, Aron tries not to downgrade himself to the level of primitive anti-communism. Aron doesn't reject economic terms of Marxism and proclaims: "Any wealth is created by labor and being multiplied as a result of added value, which is withdrawn by exploiters from workers of own country and workers of periphery" [10, P. 412]. Due to his words, "Marxism theory of added value owes its popularity to the fact that it is irrefutable" [11].
As for Marxism categories of "productive forces, productive relations, class struggle, class consciousness, and moreover, basis and superstructure, they can be used in any sociological analysis. Trying to analyze Soviet and American societies myself, I gladly start with economic condition and even with condition of productive forces, and then come over to productive relations, and then to social relations. Critical and methodological use of these terms is allowed for understanding and explanation of modern, and maybe even any, society" [11, P. 190].
Marking the great contribution of Marxism to historical interpretation, which was represented before it as a chaotic agglomeration, Aron wrote: "even ifwe become Marxists or not - we are saturated with historical points of view of Marxism" [11]. Aron opposed his "philosophy of history" to Marxism sociology - historical materialism. In his philosophical criticism he opposed "young" Marks to the "mature" one. The basis for it was "Eco-
nomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", where humanism prevails under economic determinism.
Marks saw the task of philosophy in change of the world. Aron in his work "Imaginary Marxism", recognizing philosophical status of Marxism, refuses to consider it as a scientific study [12].
However, notwithstanding total criticism from the side of western philosophers and politologists, in the western science there is no alternative to Marxism equal to it by deepness, immensity and practical embody. "Shumpeter being not a Marxist once noticed that all the people writing about society would like to have the same coefficient of realized forecasts as Marks did" [13]. Marxism was a philosophy connected with revolutionary practical action, not only explaining the world, but also indicating how to change it. Marxism was a basis of world view for millions of people. This study centered on the most burning social problems of its age. Marxism was the most important spiritual power of modern age. Opposition of Marxism to western ideology was the nerve of life, a nerve, penetrating all the epoch. And nowadays this study keeps the status of one of the most theoretically developed and received the worldwide acceptance of paradigm.
In the Soviet system Marxism philosophy served as the basis of all social sciences and proved their integrity, there is no such integrity on the West. Western science cannot opposite to Marxism any integral consistent alternative, able to become the basis of natural-science and social knowledge.
References:
1. Marks K. Engels F. - W. - Vol. 42. - 127 p.
2. Marks K. Engels F. - W. - Vol. 2. - 516 p.
3. Mordginskaya E. D., Nikitin V. A. Anti-communism of right leaders and theorists of social-democratic reformism / In col.: Ideology of the modern reformism.- M., Science.- 1970.- 445 p.
4. International Relations Dictionary. USA. Western Michigan University,- 1969.- 125 p.
5. Parsons T. Fact and Theory in Social Science.- N.Y.,- 1964.- 140 p.
6. Marcuse H. One - Dimensional Man. - N.Y.,- 1964.- 28 p.
7. Habermas J. Communication and the evolution of society. Boston,- 1979.- 95 p.
8. Habermas J. Knowledge and human interests. Boston,- 1970.
9. Aron R. Opium for intellectuals.- M.,- 1995.- 300 p.
10. Aron R. Peace and war between nations.- M.,- 2000.- 412 p.
11. Aron R. Stages of sociological idea.- M.,- 1993.- 412 p.
12. Aron R. Imaginary Marxism.- M., - 1993.
13. Quotation of Aron R. History lessons.- Paris,- 1989.- P. 234-235.
