海外反華勢力北歐首席代表 —— 瑞典前首相 Carl Bildt 雄文

        Why Marx Was Wrong     為什麼說馬克思是錯誤的

May 9, 2018  CARL BILDT （ 1949. 7. 15 - ）

On the occasion of Karl Marx's 200th birthday, the co-founder of communism has received more than a few positive reappraisals, even from Western leaders. But those arguing that Marx cannot be blamed for the atrocities that his ideas inspired should reexamine his ideas.

STOCKHOLM – The bicentennial of Karl Marx’s birth has occasioned a surge of interest in the man’s work, complete with the unveiling of a statue in his hometown of Trier, Germany.

At a celebration of Marxism in Beijing last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that, “like a spectacular sunrise, the theory illuminated the path of humanity’s exploration of the law of history, and humanity’s search for [its] own liberation.” He would go on to claim that Marx “pointed out the direction, with scientific theory, toward an ideal society with no oppression or exploitation, where every person would enjoy equality and freedom.”

Given that Xi’s words were uttered in “Marxist” China, those in attendance had no choice but to agree with them. Yet, speaking in Trier on the same day, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker offered a somewhat generous appraisal of his own: “Today he stands for things which is he not responsible for and which he didn’t cause, because many of the things he wrote down were redrafted into the opposite.”

谷歌同學譯文：

在卡爾馬克思誕辰200周年之際，共產主義共同創始人得到了不少正面的重新評估，即使是西方領導人也是如此。但那些認為馬克思不能因他的思想所激發的暴行被指責的人應該重新審視他的想法。

斯德哥爾摩 - 卡爾馬克思誕辰200周年引發了對該男子工作的興趣，並在他的家鄉特里爾德國揭幕。

中國國家主席習近平上周在北京慶祝馬克思主義時宣稱，“這個理論像壯觀的日出一樣，照亮了人類探索歷史規律的道路，人類尋求自己的解放。”他會繼續聲稱馬克思“用科學理論指出了一個沒有壓迫或剝削的理想社會的方向，每個人都享有平等和自由。”

鑑於習近平的話是在“馬克思主義”中國發表的，那些出席會議的人不得不同意他們的觀點。然而，當天在特里爾發表講話時，歐盟委員會主席讓 - 克洛德容克對自己的評價有些慷慨：“今天他代表的是他不負責任的事情，而他並沒有這樣做，因為許多他寫下來的東西被重新寫入了相反的地方。“

容克的意思並不完全清楚。畢竟，馬克思主義已經為數千萬被迫生活在政權旗幟下的人們造成了無法估量的痛苦。在二十世紀的大部分時間裡，40％的人類在自稱的馬克思主義者手中遭受饑荒，古拉格，審查制度和其他形式的鎮壓。

容克在演講中似乎暗指了標準的反駁：二十世紀整個共產黨的暴行是由於某種馬克思思想的扭曲造成的，而這個人本身幾乎不能承擔責任。

這個論點有什麼意義嗎？馬克思一生中大部分時間都在分析19世紀中葉西部工業化的政治經濟。但他持久的相關性更多地歸功於他對未來的想法以及他們對社會的影響。在考慮他的遺產時，他的思想領域不容忽視。

 馬克思將私人財產視為當時新興資本主義社會中所有邪惡的源泉。因此，他認為只有廢除社會的階級分化，才能保證和諧的未來。在共產主義制度下，他的合作者弗里德里希恩格斯後來宣稱，國家本身將變得沒有必要並且“枯萎”。這些斷言不是作為猜測，而是作為關於未來的存在的科學主張。

但是，當然，這些都是垃圾，馬克思的歷史理論 - 辯證唯物主義 - 在幾乎所有方面都被證明是錯誤和危險的。二十世紀偉大的哲學家卡爾波普爾是馬克思最強烈的批評家之一，他正確地稱他為“假先知”。如果需要更多的證據，那麼在二十世紀擁抱資本主義的國家將繼續成為民主，開放，繁榮的社會

相反，以馬克思主義的名義拒絕資本主義的任何政權都失敗了 - 而不是巧合，或者是馬克思的追隨者出現了一些不幸的教義誤解的結果。通過廢除私有制和建立國家對經濟的控制，不僅剝奪了推動社會進步所需的創業精神，一個人也自行消除了自由。

由於馬克思主義把社會上的所有矛盾看作是階級鬥爭的產物，這種階級鬥爭在私人財產時會消失，所以在共產主義建立後的不同意見是不可能的。根據定義，任何對新秩序的挑戰都必須是先前壓迫秩序的一個不合理的殘餘。

因此，馬克思主義政權實際上是他的學說的邏輯延伸。當然容克是正確的，馬克思 - 在俄國革命前34年去世 - 對古拉格不負責任，但他的觀點顯然是這樣。

在他着名的三卷本研究馬克思主義電流研究報告中，波蘭哲學家萊茲澤克科拉科夫斯基在青年時期成為馬克思主義批評家之後，指出馬克思對人們幾乎沒有興趣，因為他們實際上是存在的。他寫道：“馬克思主義很少或根本沒有考慮到人們出生和死亡，他們是男女老少，健康或生病的事實。因此，“在他眼中，邪惡和痛苦除了作為解放的工具之外沒有任何意義;他們純粹是社會事實，而不是人類狀況的重要組成部分。“

科拉科夫斯基的見解有助於解釋為什麼在面對複雜社會的現實時，接受馬克思的機械和決定論主義的政權不可避免地必須轉向極權主義。他們並不總是完全成功;但結果一直是悲慘的。

習近平認為，過去幾十年中國經濟發展是馬克思主義繼續有效性的“鑄鐵證明”。但是，如果有的話，這恰恰相反。請記住，純粹的共產主義中國產生了“大躍進”和“文化大革命”的饑荒和恐怖。毛澤東決定剝奪農民的土地和企業家的企業，其結果可想而知是災難性的，共產黨中國政黨從此放棄了這種教條方式。

在毛的繼任者鄧小平的領導下，中國共產黨發起了中國經濟的“大開放”。1978年以後，中國開始恢復私有制，允許創業，結果也不亞於壯觀。

如果今天中國的發展受到任何阻礙，那麼在效率低下的國有企業和壓制異見的情況下，這仍然是馬克思主義的殘餘。中國的集權式一黨制與一個現代化，多元化的社會是不相容的。

在馬克思誕生200年之後，反思他的知識遺產顯然是明智之舉。然而，我們應該這樣做並不是為了慶祝，而是為了接納我們的開放社會，反對他虛假理論中潛藏的極權主義誘惑.

卡爾比爾特  CARL BILDT

自2009年起為PS寫作

卡爾比爾特是瑞典外交部長，從2006年到2014年10月，1991年至1994年擔任總理，當時他就瑞典加入歐盟進行談判。着名的國際外交官，曾擔任前南斯拉夫歐盟特使，波黑高級代表，聯合國巴爾幹問題特使，代頓和平會議聯合主席。他是互聯網治理全球委員會的主席，也是世界經濟論壇歐洲全球議程理事會成員。

It is not entirely clear what Juncker meant by this. Marxism, after all, has inflicted untold misery on tens of millions of people who have been forced to live under regimes waving its banner. For much of the twentieth century, 40% of humanity suffered famines, gulags, censorship, and other forms of repression at the hands of self-proclaimed Marxists.

In his speech, Juncker seemed to be alluding to the standard counterargument: that communist atrocities throughout the twentieth century were due to some sort of distortion of Marx’s thought, for which the man himself can scarcely be held responsible.

Is there anything to this argument? Marx spent most of his life analyzing the political economy of the industrializing mid-nineteenth-century West. But his enduring relevance owes more to his ideas for the future, and the implications they would have for society. In considering his legacy, this area of his thought cannot be ignored.

Marx regarded private property as the source of all evil in the emerging capitalist societies of his day. Accordingly, he believed that only by abolishing it could society’s class divisions be healed, and a harmonious future ensured. Under communism, his collaborator Friedrich Engels later claimed, the state itself would become unnecessary and “wither away.” These assertions were not made as speculation, but rather as scientific claims about what the future held in store.

But, of course, it was all rubbish, and Marx’s theory of history – dialectical materialism – has since been proved wrong and dangerous in practically every respect. The great twentieth-century philosopher Karl Popper, one of Marx’s strongest critics, rightly called him a “false prophet.” And, if more evidence were needed, the countries that embraced capitalism in the twentieth century went on to become democratic, open, and prosperous societies.4

By contrast, every regime that has rejected capitalism in the name of Marxism has failed – and not by coincidence or as a result of some unfortunate doctrinal misunderstanding on the part of Marx’s followers. By abolishing private ownership and establishing state control of the economy, one not only deprives society of the entrepreneurship needed to propel it forward; one also abolishes freedom itself.

Because Marxism treats all contradictions in society as the products of a class struggle that will disappear when private property does, dissent after the establishment of communism is impossible. By definition, any challenge to the new order must be an illegitimate remnant of the oppressive order that came before.

Thus, Marxist regimes have in fact been logical extensions of his doctrines. Of course Juncker is right that Marx – who died 34 years before the Russian Revolution – was not responsible for the Gulag, and yet his ideas clearly were.

In his landmark three-volume study Main Currents of Marxism, the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski, who became a leading critic of Marxism after having embraced it in his youth, notes that Marx showed almost no interest in people as they actually exist. “Marxism takes little or no account of the fact that people are born and die, that they are men and women, young or old, healthy or sick,” he writes. As such, “Evil and suffering, in his eyes, had no meaning except as instruments of liberation; they were purely social facts, not an essential part of the human condition.”

Kołakowski’s insight helps to explain why regimes that have embraced Marx’s mechanical and deterministic doctrine inevitably must turn to totalitarianism when confronting the reality of a complex society. They have not always fully succeeded; but the results have always been tragic.

For his part, Xi views China’s economic development over the past few decades as “cast iron proof” of Marxism’s continued validity. But, if anything, it is exactly the other way around. Remember that it was the China of pure communism that produced the famine and terror of the “Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution.” Mao’s decision to deprive farmers of their land and entrepreneurs of their firms had predictably disastrous results, and the Communist Party of China has since abandoned that doctrinaire approach.

Under Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, the CPC launched China’s great economic “opening-up.” After 1978, it began to restore private ownership and permit entrepreneurship, and the results have been nothing short of spectacular.

If China’s development is being held back by anything today, it is the remnants of Marxism that are still visible in inefficient state-owned enterprises and the repression of dissent. China’s centralized single-party system is simply incompatible with a modern and diverse society.

Two hundred years after Marx’s birth, it is certainly wise to reflect on his intellectual legacy. We should do so not in celebration, however, but to inoculate our open societies against the totalitarian temptation that lurks in his false theories.

Carl Bildt

Writing for PS since 2009 

52 Commentaries

Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to October 2014 and Prime Minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Europe.

當代的卡爾·馬克思 —— 習 近 平 ！