海外反华势力北欧首席代表 —— 瑞典前首相 Carl Bildt 雄文

        Why Marx Was Wrong     为什么说马克思是错误的

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.”

谷歌同学译文：

在卡尔马克思诞辰200周年之际，共产主义共同创始人得到了不少正面的重新评估，即使是西方领导人也是如此。但那些认为马克思不能因他的思想所激发的暴行被指责的人应该重新审视他的想法。

斯德哥尔摩 - 卡尔马克思诞辰200周年引发了对该男子工作的兴趣，并在他的家乡特里尔德国揭幕。

中国国家主席习近平上周在北京庆祝马克思主义时宣称，“这个理论像壮观的日出一样，照亮了人类探索历史规律的道路，人类寻求自己的解放。”他会继续声称马克思“用科学理论指出了一个没有压迫或剥削的理想社会的方向，每个人都享有平等和自由。”

鉴于习近平的话是在“马克思主义”中国发表的，那些出席会议的人不得不同意他们的观点。然而，当天在特里尔发表讲话时，欧盟委员会主席让 - 克洛德容克对自己的评价有些慷慨：“今天他代表的是他不负责任的事情，而他并没有这样做，因为许多他写下来的东西被重新写入了相反的地方。“

容克的意思并不完全清楚。毕竟，马克思主义已经为数千万被迫生活在政权旗帜下的人们造成了无法估量的痛苦。在二十世纪的大部分时间里，40％的人类在自称的马克思主义者手中遭受饥荒，古拉格，审查制度和其他形式的镇压。

容克在演讲中似乎暗指了标准的反驳：二十世纪整个共产党的暴行是由于某种马克思思想的扭曲造成的，而这个人本身几乎不能承担责任。

这个论点有什么意义吗？马克思一生中大部分时间都在分析19世纪中叶西部工业化的政治经济。但他持久的相关性更多地归功于他对未来的想法以及他们对社会的影响。在考虑他的遗产时，他的思想领域不容忽视。

 马克思将私人财产视为当时新兴资本主义社会中所有邪恶的源泉。因此，他认为只有废除社会的阶级分化，才能保证和谐的未来。在共产主义制度下，他的合作者弗里德里希恩格斯后来宣称，国家本身将变得没有必要并且“枯萎”。这些断言不是作为猜测，而是作为关于未来的存在的科学主张。

但是，当然，这些都是垃圾，马克思的历史理论 - 辩证唯物主义 - 在几乎所有方面都被证明是错误和危险的。二十世纪伟大的哲学家卡尔波普尔是马克思最强烈的批评家之一，他正确地称他为“假先知”。如果需要更多的证据，那么在二十世纪拥抱资本主义的国家将继续成为民主，开放，繁荣的社会

相反，以马克思主义的名义拒绝资本主义的任何政权都失败了 - 而不是巧合，或者是马克思的追随者出现了一些不幸的教义误解的结果。通过废除私有制和建立国家对经济的控制，不仅剥夺了推动社会进步所需的创业精神，一个人也自行消除了自由。

由于马克思主义把社会上的所有矛盾看作是阶级斗争的产物，这种阶级斗争在私人财产时会消失，所以在共产主义建立后的不同意见是不可能的。根据定义，任何对新秩序的挑战都必须是先前压迫秩序的一个不合理的残余。

因此，马克思主义政权实际上是他的学说的逻辑延伸。当然容克是正确的，马克思 - 在俄国革命前34年去世 - 对古拉格不负责任，但他的观点显然是这样。

在他着名的三卷本研究马克思主义电流研究报告中，波兰哲学家莱兹泽克科拉科夫斯基在青年时期成为马克思主义批评家之后，指出马克思对人们几乎没有兴趣，因为他们实际上是存在的。他写道：“马克思主义很少或根本没有考虑到人们出生和死亡，他们是男女老少，健康或生病的事实。因此，“在他眼中，邪恶和痛苦除了作为解放的工具之外没有任何意义;他们纯粹是社会事实，而不是人类状况的重要组成部分。“

科拉科夫斯基的见解有助于解释为什么在面对复杂社会的现实时，接受马克思的机械和决定论主义的政权不可避免地必须转向极权主义。他们并不总是完全成功;但结果一直是悲惨的。

习近平认为，过去几十年中国经济发展是马克思主义继续有效性的“铸铁证明”。但是，如果有的话，这恰恰相反。请记住，纯粹的共产主义中国产生了“大跃进”和“文化大革命”的饥荒和恐怖。毛泽东决定剥夺农民的土地和企业家的企业，其结果可想而知是灾难性的，共产党中国政党从此放弃了这种教条方式。

在毛的继任者邓小平的领导下，中国共产党发起了中国经济的“大开放”。1978年以后，中国开始恢复私有制，允许创业，结果也不亚于壮观。

如果今天中国的发展受到任何阻碍，那么在效率低下的国有企业和压制异见的情况下，这仍然是马克思主义的残余。中国的集权式一党制与一个现代化，多元化的社会是不相容的。

在马克思诞生200年之后，反思他的知识遗产显然是明智之举。然而，我们应该这样做并不是为了庆祝，而是为了接纳我们的开放社会，反对他虚假理论中潜藏的极权主义诱惑.

卡尔比尔特  CARL BILDT

自2009年起为PS写作

卡尔比尔特是瑞典外交部长，从2006年到2014年10月，1991年至1994年担任总理，当时他就瑞典加入欧盟进行谈判。着名的国际外交官，曾担任前南斯拉夫欧盟特使，波黑高级代表，联合国巴尔干问题特使，代顿和平会议联合主席。他是互联网治理全球委员会的主席，也是世界经济论坛欧洲全球议程理事会成员。

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.

当代的卡尔·马克思 —— 习 近 平 ！