Is Marxism a Christian herbalism?

Marxism and Belief

Uwe-Jens Heuer

316 pages | 2006 | EUR 19.80 | CHF 35.10
ISBN 3-89965-176-6 1

Title not available!

Short text: A Marxist debate about belief and religion in Marxism and its history, with a chapter on religion and socialism using the example of the GDR.

One of the strongest forms of ideology is belief. In the form of religious belief, it played a role in world history and still plays it today, as can be seen from the virulence of religious fundamentalisms. Social and political movements are repeatedly charged with religion. Marxism, both as a worldview and as a social movement, is confronted with the accusation of quasi-religion. The path from utopia to science ultimately led to a new "doctrine of salvation", for which the "psychographic" misery of former devout disciples also speaks. On the other hand, Marxism is castigated as scientism for which categories such as faith and hope do not exist and which consider all problems to be solved.

Uwe-Jens Heuer shows which internal theoretical views on religion and belief can be found among the Enlightenmentists, Marx and Engels themselves and their first students. On the other hand, he examines the history of socialism in the area of ​​tension between belief, science and politics. In doing so, he faces the challenge of examining the twofold reproach against Marxism. He concludes that as the teaching of the past, Marxism must insist on the dominance of knowledge, but also need belief as the basis of activity and personal commitment.

The author:
Uwe-Jens Heuer was a legal scholar in the GDR and a member of the Bundestag for the PDS for eight years. Latest book publications: Im Streit. A lawyer in two German states (2002), Marxism and politics (2004).

Reading sample 1

Chapter 1
Marxism and Faith - the Problem In my book "Marxism and Politics" [1] I wanted to present the possibilities and limits of politics in the view of Marx and Engels and the corresponding considerations in the Marxist school. This made it necessary to focus in particular on the relationship between economics and politics. The considerations on the role of ideology, on the power of ideas, especially Marxism itself, were largely left out. The strongest form of ideology is belief. In the form of religious belief, it played an important role in world history and probably still plays it today. At present it is mainly characterized by the concept of fundamentalism. So I saw both theoretical and current political reasons for the subject of "Marxism and Belief". Here, too, in the interests of being an introduction, I do not want to present the entire literature, which now includes entire libraries, but rather let the authors themselves have their say. This time, this concerns not only the Marxists, but also - according to the theme - the testimonies of the various religions. As in the earlier book, the richness of the answers given so far excludes the creation of a correct line from which one deviates to the right or left. The reader will quickly notice that the same is true of religions. Today, Marxism (including the work of Lenin) is chalked up to two things in its relationship to faith. It is about both the past and the present. At one point he is accused of having been or at least becoming a quasi-religion. On the other hand, the accusation is raised that he relied too much on science, that categories such as belief and hope did not exist for Marxism. It is obvious that the two critiques are actually mutually exclusive. However, this does not prevent the feature section in particular from combining the two. Of course, the features section is not necessarily bound by logic. Already in the dispute between Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, Bernstein raised considerable accusations against Marx of a lack of scientific knowledge. On August 26, 1897, Bernstein wrote to Kautsky that, in contrast to the method, he could "only partially" recognize the results of Marx and Engels. [2] On September 1, 1897, he exacerbated the fact that he was seeing more and more weak points in theory, and referred in particular to Marx's failure on the third volume of Capital. His letters were the letters of a party man, not a source of history, it was said on October 23, 1897. Kautsky countered Bernstein on July 26, 1898: "You have thrown our tactics overboard, our value theory, our philosophy." Their close, even friendly collaboration was over. To Bernstein's concern that no one would dare to support him anymore, Kautsky replied that he did not think he could prevent anyone from taking sides with Bernstein. "You are just as much a church father as I am and enjoy the same reputation." (November 30, 1898) Schelz-Brandenburg, the editor of these letters, assessed the whole thing as a struggle of an Bernstein, "who wanted to prevent this theory from being caged," against a party politician who had made Marxism an ideology which then became the basis for Lenin's Marxism and for the legitimation of the "failed social order". [3] Certainly the statement made by the two Church Fathers is not entirely wrong, two ideologues also argued with one another here. At the same time, however, Bernstein really wanted to defend the scientific character of Marxism against Kautsky and Marx themselves. This was openly stated by him in 1899 in his work "The requirements of socialism and the tasks of social democracy" using the example of the famous section "Historical tendency of capitalist accumulation" in Chapter 24 of Volume 1 of Capital (MEW Vol. 23 , P. 789). [4] Here, as in the rest of the work, there is a "dualism that consists in the fact that the work aims to be a scientific investigation and yet to prove a thesis that was ready long before its conception." Here is another element of utopianism from the Communist Manifesto. Marx was "after all a prisoner of a doctrine," a dialectical scheme. [5] He himself opposes "that science should be treated as such, differently from a thing outside the party" (ibid. 206). The social democracy is in need of Kant, "who goes into judgment with full severity with the traditional doctrinal opinion, which shows where its apparent materialism is the highest and therefore the easiest misleading ideology" (ibid. 219). Bernstein already experienced violent rejection at the Stuttgart party congress in October 1898, and then even more so at the party congress in Hanover in 1899, where his supporters received only 21 votes. However, practical policy was more and more determined by the spirit of Bernstein. If it was still about conflicts within the party, after the First World War and the emergence of the communist movement, attacks on Marxism from outside were carried out with considerably greater force. In 1919 Werner Sombart summed up the "devastating criticism" of Marxism in the last generation. He referred to the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the theory of the concentration of capital, the socialization theory, the accumulation, impoverishment and collapse theory. [6] None of this found grace before his eyes. From this he deduced the conclusion: "Marx was wrong in essential points. Now the believing Marxist was in a similar situation to the believing Christian when the natural sciences tore down the foundation on which the Bible is built." He now learned to see that "all belief, both in God and in politics, must not seek its justification in any scientific truth." The decisive factor is passion, the will to act (ibid. 98f.). It is now a matter of "uncovering the overstepping of competencies in science" and, above all, "saving religious conviction from the clutches of science" (ibid. 100). The "endeavor to free socialism from the entanglements of Marxism, however, found strong support in the circles of practitioners", which, however, again goes at the expense of the ideal and pathos (ibid. 101-103). Apparently, for Sombart, Marxism was both scientifically and ideally at an end. In the case of the Bolsheviks, however, strong "idealism" is now being established. "Its disseminators are believers in spirit: they are not so concerned with what their doctrine works as that it is pure," he writes of Lenin's "State and Revolution". "Like all sect founders, the Bolsheviks believe that they are in sole possession of the true doctrine of salvation" (ibid. 144). The Communist Manifesto is "the gospel of the present revolution to this day". Like their bitter opponents, they could appeal to Marx, but just to the revolutionary Marx. In a word, your teaching is the "essentially negative attitude towards the world", towards both the supersensible and the real. They are opponents of the state as well as of capital. The Bolshevik is "the anti-man" (ibid. 145-147). The Bolsheviks only loved "the idea of ​​destruction" (ibid. 149). They are "fighters of faith without a belief" (ibid. 150). After this destruction, however, after reading the latest declarations from 1918, the depiction of a reform building follows (ibid. 185). In this portrayal of the specter of Bolshevism, all elements were already found that then became violent state doctrine in German fascism with the help of Goebbels’s propaganda machine. In Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" from 1925 and 1927 it was proclaimed for all who wanted to read: "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of nature and replaces the eternal prerogative of power and strength The mass of numbers and their dead face ... As the basis of the universe, it would lead to the end of any order that could be understood by human beings. "[7] The fight against Marxism could not be waged by force alone. "Every worldview, be it more religious or political - sometimes the limit is difficult to determine here - fights less for the negative destruction of the opposing world of ideas than for the positive assertion of its own ... The fight against a spiritual power with However, the means of violence is only defense as long as the sword itself does not appear as the carrier, herald and disseminator of a new spiritual doctrine ... to bring about the side it supports "(ibid. 188f.). In 1914 it would have been necessary "to use all military means to eradicate this pestilence" (ibid. 186). What applies to domestic policy must all the more apply to foreign policy. "The fight against the Jewish world Bolshevization requires a clear attitude towards Soviet Russia. You cannot drive out the devil with Beelzebub" (ibid. 752). With Bolshevism the Jews came to the fore in Russia. "The end of the Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state. We are destined to witness a catastrophe which will be the most powerful confirmation of the correctness of the ethnic racial theory" (ibid. 743). There was no mention of science here. The one doctrine of salvation should be opposed nationally and internationally to another, stronger one with terror and war. The collapse of this "doctrine of salvation" occurred almost suddenly with the devastating defeat. Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich analyzed: The disappointment in the Führer mobilizes feelings against him, "the disappointment that his omnipotence was inconsistent." If the Führer, so they write further, "is refuted by reality, if he loses in the world-political game of forces, then not only he perishes, but with him the incarnation of the ego ideal of the masses fanatical by him." [8] A "Religious founder" who promises to be able to walk across the water must not go under. Due to this quick total rejection of Hitler and his ideology, not only was there no accounting for the forces that brought him to power, but there was also no insight into the connection between this "ideological brew" and the ruling ideology of the Weimar Republic and the German Empire. The Mitscherlichs then found (1967!) Resignedly that a large number, if not the majority of the residents of the Federal Republic had not succeeded in "identifying in our democratic society with more than their economic system." [9] This grand ideology could the system it served did not outlast the loss of the war it had prepared and justified. However, essential elements of its components, which had long since marked German history, remained, above all anti-communism. As little as the Nazi ideology arose out of nothing, just as little did it leave anything behind. Anti-Bolshevism was preserved - in new forms. It was noteworthy, wrote the Mitscherlichs, "that in the long-standing relationship of the Federal Republic to the United States, our main adversary and main enemy also remained ours" (ibid. 71). Former communists played a leading role in this. Arthur Koestler published an article entitled "Anatomy of a Myth" in the USA in 1944. The left neglected the role of belief, of the mythical, but then belief returned in fascism and in Soviet myth, whereby it was primarily about the Soviet myth in the European left. [10] In the heroic age, Soviet myth and reality would have agreed to some extent (ibid. 139). The messianic prophecy was fulfilled (ibid. 140). Like earlier symbols, "The Golden Age, the Promised Land and the Kingdom of Heaven", Russia now offered "wonderful compensation for a life of privation and the futility of death ... The commandment to defend Russia became detached from reality and became the spiritual defense of a belief against the external intervention of doubt. Progress had found its lost religion again: Soviet Russia became the new 'opium for the people'. " "The interests of the world proletariat were subordinated to the interests of the Soviet Union ... The motherland of the proletariat was the fortress that had to be preserved, even at the cost of sacrificing people outside the fortress" (ibid. 141f.). The communist parties took on the role of "involuntary midwives of fascism". But why have the millions in the West swallowed all of this - constant course changes and party cleansing - asks Koestler. His answer is, "because the real believer (be it the Christian, be it the Soviet myth supporter) is usually happier and more balanced than the atheist or Trotskyist", and for this very reason develops unconscious defense mechanisms against the truth (ibid. 143), with the sympathizers having more flexible mechanisms. But there is also the danger that idealists would turn into traitors (ibid. 146). Apparently, as Koestler wrote in the introduction, there is a deep human need for connection with the absolute, the "oceanic feeling" as Sigmund Freud called it (ibid. 17). [11] In 1950, published by Richard H. Crossman, first in English and in 1952 in German, a book was published with the memories of three "activists" Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone and Richard Wright and the "devout disciples" André Gide, Louis Fischer and Stephen Spender, below the programmatic title: "A God Who Wasn't". The function of this book as a whole was to offer ex-communists as the best witnesses for the prosecution. [12] Koestler describes his development as a revolutionary, the breakup of the party in 1933, a trip to the Soviet Union, participation in the Spanish civil war and his resignation from the party. In December 1931, at the age of 26, he had joined the KPD, impressed by the collapse of the idyllic domestic middle class and the misery of the millions of unemployed. He worked for the party, got to know bureaucratic functionaries, the party prepared for illegality without really realizing the seriousness of the situation. He himself then wrote, concluding this development: "Memory usually gives the past a romantic aureole. But if you have forbidden a belief ... it is the other way around ... I have tried to recapture the mood on these pages , in which I experienced these events, and I am aware that this failed. Shame, anger and irony merge into the representation; the enthusiasm of that time appears as pathetic confusion; the inner certainty of those days as the fantasy of one Drug addicts ... All of us who let ourselves be caught by the great illusion of our time ... either fall into the opposite extreme or are condemned to a lifelong shame. "[13] In Soviet Russia he saw Asian backwardness, saw the victims of the Hunger, "but all of this was easy to swallow for those who were in the state of grace of absolute faith" (ibid.56-58). After returning from Spain (he was incarcerated in Franco Spain for four months), he refused to declare the POUM (radical left party with Trotskyist tendencies) treasonous (ibid. 65). In the spring of 1938 he publicly proclaimed war on the communists: "There is no infallibility of a person, a movement, or a party" and "A harmful truth is better than a useful lie" (ibid. 69). When the swastika flag was hoisted in Moscow in honor of Ribbentrop in 1939, it was finally over for him (ibid. 70). The report of the writer Ignazio Silone is of a different kind. For him it is not enough to be honest, it is also a matter of maintaining integrity (ibid. 77). He grew up in the mountainous regions of southern Italy, whose social conditions were "bursting with rawness, hatred and deceit" (ibid. 78). For him, the encounter with the labor movement was the discovery of a new part of the world. For him, "joining the party of the proletarian revolution" was "like a conversion, a limitless surrender". It was said to "break with one's own relatives, it meant not to find a position" and to shake one's own inner world (ibid. 93). The enthusiasm of the youth in Russia was genuine, but was undermined by the lack of democratization. At a preparatory meeting of the Comintern in 1927, a declaration against a pamphlet by Trotsky that nobody knew was supposed to be adopted. Silone refused. Togliatti, who had also participated, explained to him that this undoubtedly uncomfortable state of the Comintern had to be accepted. Silone resigned from the Communist Party, but did not join any of the sects. "But my belief in socialism ... is more alive in me than ever." It is "back to what it was when I first rebelled against the old order ... the need for real brotherhood." "With common theories one can perhaps found a school, but not ... a culture, a civilization, a new form of human coexistence" (pp. 107-109). In 1966 Arnold Künzli psychographically analyzed a connection between Jewish self-hatred and Karl Marx's vision of the mission of the proletariat, which Marx never spoke of. [14] He suspects that the climax of his Jewish self-hatred reached in "'On the Jewish Question" ... led to such a radical repression of his Judaism and thus to such a radicalization of his alienation "that he psychologically got into the situation of a drowning man". The consequence of this, however, was that in the introduction to the criticism of Hegel's philosophy of right, "the repressed Judaism in Marx became even more powerful". "The people of Israel ... celebrated their resurrection in the proletariat, unconsciously ... The correspondence of Marx's vision of the salvation-historical mission of the proletariat with the biblical prophecy of the salvation-historical mission of the people of Israel is so perfect ... that the Text by Marx - one replaces the proletariat with 'Israel', class with 'people' and vice versa - often seems to be taken from the Bible "(ibid. 636). This belief, however, he concluded, "has been proven to be a myth today" (ibid. 817). In 1983, in an anthology, "Marx Today" [15], he noted a contradiction between orthodoxy and heresy in socialism (ibid. 75). Richard Löwenthal spoke of Marx's this world religion, the secular prophet Marx's expectation of salvation, which is now on the decline (ibid. 115, 131f.). In a hearing of the Enquete Commission of the German Bundestag on February 12, 1993 on the subject of "Marxism-Leninism and the Social Reorganization of the Soviet Zone-GDR" Konrad Löw received the sub-topic "Was the SED state Marxist?" Opportunity to build on aggressive anti-Marxism, but now based on the totalitarian doctrine. Marx believed in a "salvation-historical necessity of a worldwide communist order". Löw declared: "All the essential characteristics of totalitarianism are fulfilled by its postulate of a dictatorship of the proletariat." He referred among other things to his lecture on "Marx and terrorism - Was the favoring of the terrorist Red Army faction by the GDR ideologically justified?" crime-inducing, criminogenic ideology. [17] For the features section Hans-Dieter Schütt is quoted from many statements of a similar kind: "If Marxism may have been a religion of clarity that redeemed the existing world by repurposing history into a thread-like, clearly visible, legally achievable upward development - so may Now, in times of new brilliant winners, everything that is confusing, incomprehensible, and dark is understood as an expression of resistance and turning away ... It is logical that, for example, theaters are going back to throwing up the very idea of ​​transcendence beyond political fantasies of redemption .. . Theater and religion, that is no evasion from the need of the times. " Gunnar Decker wrote a little later: "The history of salvation continues up to Hegel and Marx, secularizes the expectation of the kingdom of God. History follows a plan and has a goal ... Anyone who came from the East had learned to undermine the rituals of power inconspicuously it is clear that all of the happiness speeches were pure lies. " Then it goes on: "The weeds grow ineradicably in the garden of scientification", and finally: "There are no more handles in the spiritual world since it started moving in 1789." [18] So much for the examples for the accusation of Quasi-religion. The criticism of belief in science can begin with Dostoevsky, who in his last novel "The Karamazov Brothers", completed in 1880, quotes one of the brothers, Aljoscha Fjodorowitsch: "If he had convinced himself that there is no such thing as immortality and God, he would immediately admit it passed over to the atheists and socialists, because socialism is not just a workers' question ... but mainly an atheistic question, the question of the current incarnation of the Babylonian tower, which is expressly built without God, not to reach heaven from earth, but to bring heaven down to earth. "[19] Another brother, Ivan Fjodorwitsch, explains:" A law of nature: 'Man must love mankind' - would not exist at all, and if there were still love on earth up to now, would this not happen according to a natural law, but only because people still believed in their immortality. " If one "destroyed in man the belief in his immortality, in him not only love, but in general every living force for the continuation of earthly life" dried up, everything would "be allowed, even ogreophobia." Egoism, even to the point of crime, would "not only be allowed to man, but should be recognized for him as the inevitable, most sensible and possibly noblest way out in his situation". "There is no virtue if there is no immortality" (ibid. 113f.). The Staretz Sossima, as a representative of Russian faith, proclaims: People want to "follow science, just with the help of their reason, but already without Christ, and they are already proclaiming that there is no crime, there is also no sin. And of theirs." They are also right from their point of view: if there is no God for you, what is a crime at all? In Europe the people are rising up against the rich by force "(ibid. 515f.). In 1909 Max Adler, the Austro-Hungarian Marxist Social Democrat, reviewed Karl Kautsky's book from 1896 (second edition in 1909) on the origin of Christianity. I will go into this in more detail in Chapter 3. Kautsky applied the materialistic conception of history in a brilliant way. He gave "insight into the inner workings of historical life". He reveals to us "first of all the glamorous, victorious and power-brimming Roman world as a world of decay". Kautsky has shown that the ancient economic order "despite its apparent external progress towards a large slave business and a highly developed money economy was a technical and economic step backwards behind the level of petty-bourgeois agriculture that it supplanted". This resulted in the effect of a conception that was directed towards divine help, "where all earthly help seemed to fail". [20] Kautsky had also uncovered the revolutionary character of Judaism at the time, its national messianism (ibid. 429f.). What is missing, however, is the representation of the power and passion of religious consciousness, religious progress and the role of concrete people, such as Paul. The real shortcoming lies in the fact that in his materialistic philosophical basic view of religion "a separate consciousness reality, one of the original functioning of psychic life" is denied, it merely represents "false consciousness, a more or less conscious deception, at best an illusion", which means the discovery of a new stage of "the life of thought and feeling" in the form of a religious movement is misunderstood (ibid. 431f.). Hermann Cohen, Paul Natorp, Rudolf Stammler and others advocated an ethical foundation of socialism based on Kant before the First World War. [21] Walter Benjamin, who fled the fascists on the French-Spanish border in 1940, committed suicide, wrote shortly before his death: "The conformism that has been at home in Social Democracy from the beginning is not only attached to its political tactics, but also in their economic ideas ... There is nothing that has corrupted the German working class to the same extent as the opinion that they swim with the flow. Technical development was seen as the gradient of the current with which they thought they were swimming. " The vulgar Marxist concept of work "only wants to see the progress in mastery of nature, not the regression of society." [22] "In his conception of a classless society, Marx secularized the concept of the messianic time." In contrast, in the SPD "from Schmidt and Stadler to Natorp and Vorländer ... the classless society ... was defined as an endless task." "In reality there is not a moment that did not bring its revolutionary opportunity with it ... as a chance for a completely new solution in the face of a completely new task." "Perhaps the revolutions are the grip of the human race traveling in this course (of world history U.-J.H.) for the emergency brake" (ibid. 167f.). "The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of emergency' in which we live is the rule. We have to come to a concept of history that corresponds to this" (ibid. 160). In 1944 Koestler criticized the left's purely rational stance. At a "communist" writers' congress, André Malraux asked about the brave new world: "And what can be said about the man who is run over by a tram?" We were all "cut off from the belief in a personal continuation of life." "The Gothic man had an answer to this question. The seemingly accidental was part of a higher plan. Fate was not blind." "But the only answer that Malraux got after an embarrassing silence was: 'In a perfect socialist transport system there will be no accidents'." [23] Leszek Kolakowski opposed the attempt in 1957 to "derive duty from necessity and." to gain the criteria of moral judgment from the supposed knowledge of historical regularity. " He explained sarcastically: "When the zoologists come to the conclusion that the era of man on earth is coming to an end and that the era of the ants is dawning, the philosopher of history has nothing else to do than recommend everyone to voluntarily join the anthill to leave their skeleton there; that will certainly be an advantage for progress once it has been established that progress is the law of history. "[24] From the present there is a statement by Jan Rehmann in the Dictionary of Marxism edited by Wolfgang Fritz Haug added. Marx and Engels would have treated belief as religious belief as opposed to thought and theory. The Philosophical Dictionary published in the GDR also only mentions religious belief under faith, as "thought and action standardized by religious beliefs". [25] But wherever the revolutionary mobilization of faith occurs, "it is a matter of constellations in which faith is invoked against the prevailing forms of religion." [26] Overall, Marx and Engels had given German cultural Protestantism "a religious concept of faith leave, which they say goodbye in the course of criticism of religion ... There is no question of the vital beliefs of reciprocal reliability, which religion gives a specific form. " The criticism of religion is "largely practiced in the name of science and (it) is renounced to extract what is religiously formed from this form" (ibid. 799). With the characterization of Marxism-Leninism as a scientific worldview [27] the problem was only apparently solved. I have cited a number of pieces of evidence here for the criticism of Marxism for over a century, which has often been fundamental, for the reproach of the quasi-religious on the one hand, of scientism on the other. In my opinion, there are right and wrong things to be said in the evidence. A refutation or confirmation could not be made in this chapter. Here it was only a matter of showing the historical permanence of the criticism on a few examples and thus making the need for serious discussion clear. This argument itself is the subject of the whole book. From all this, the task arose for me to sketch both a history of religion and a history of Marxism, in order to then finally develop my, of course, very preliminary reflections on the place of faith in Marxism on this basis. As far as the history of Marxism is concerned, I was able to draw on a considerable amount of my own work. The field of religion, on the other hand, was uncharted territory for me. Here I had to rely heavily on overview representations by others, especially by Hans Küng, and I was only able to resort to a large number of sources in isolated cases, especially on Luther and in Chapter 5.

[1] Uwe-Jens Heuer, Marxism and Politics, Hamburg 2004.
[2] T. Schelz-Brandenburg (ed.), Eduard Bernstein's correspondence with Karl Kautsky (1895-1905), Frankfurt a.M./New York 2003. See U.-J. This year, revisionism controversy, in: Junge Welt, Easter 2004.
[3] T. Schelz-Brandenburg, Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky. The emergence and change of social democratic party Marxism as reflected in their correspondence 1897 to 1932, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 1992, p. 397f.
[4] K. Marx / F. Engels, Werke Vol. 1ff., Berlin 1964ff., Henceforth cited as MEW.
[5] E. Bernstein, The requirements of socialism and the tasks of social democracy, 2nd edition 1921, new edition Berlin / Bonn 1984, pp. 207-209.
[6] W. Sombart, Socialism and Social Movement, Jena 1919, pp. 72-98.
[7] A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, Munich 1941, total circulation of all previous editions 7.6 million, later growth to 10 million is assumed.
[8] A. Mitscherlich / M. Mitscherlich, The inability to mourn, Leipzig 1990, pp. 41, 44, 71, 82.
[9] Ibid, p. 42.
[10] A. Koestler, The Yogi and the Commissioner, Baden-Baden 1974, pp. 134-138.
[11] Cf. S. Freud, Das Unbehagen in der Kultur (1930), Frankfurt a.M./Hamburg 1953, p. 91.
[12] That is also the quintessence of the preface by N. Podhoretz to the 1987 new by R.H. Crossman published edition of the book "The God That Failed", German "Ein Gott, who None was", Zurich 1950. F. Borkenau characterizes in his closing remarks to the German edition the autobiographical confession of renegade communists as an indispensable "element in the struggle of the higher civilization their self-assertion against oriental despotism "(p. 297). M. Boveri quotes in volume 3 of her study "The betrayal in the 20th century" the self-testimony of the American Whittaker Chambers: The informer "has this special knowledge because he knows those faces, voices, lives of others and once in theirs Trust, lived in a common faith with them ... ... If it weren't for all of that, he would be worthless as a denunciator. Because he is valuable, he is protected by the police "(Zwischen den Ideologies: Zentrum Europa, Hamburg 1957 , P. 164). The hymn HM Broders and most of the other authors of the course book 116 "Verräter" from June 1994 on betrayal in contrast to "steadfastness, which indicates nothing other than intellectual immobility and lazy self-sufficiency" (treason must be, p. 3), T Rothschild countered: "That it is insights that make someone take positions today that he fought earlier, I believe ... only if there is some risk involved in defending them" (French kisses with power, Friday of 8.7.1994).
[13] A God Who Wasn't, Munich 1962, p.51f.
[14] A. Künzli, Karl Marx. A Psychography, Vienna / Frankfurt a.M./Zurich 1966.
[15] Marx today (Ed. O.K. Flechtheim), Hamburg 1983.
[16] K. Löw, Was the SED State Marxist ?, in: Materials of the Enquete Commission "Processing the History and Consequences of the SED Dictatorship in Germany" (12th electoral term of the German Bundestag), published by the German Bundestag, Baden -Baden / Frankfurt aM, Vol. III / 1, p. 26, p. 31-32.
[17] The Black Book of Communism, Munich / Zurich 1997, p. 821.
[18] H.-D. Schütt, Gott-Los, in: Neues Deutschland from June 11, 2004; G. Decker, Without a dream is always just madness, ibid.
[19] F.M. Dostojewski, The Karamasoff Brothers, Munich / Zurich 1952, p. 44.
[20] M. Adler, Karl Kautskys "Urchristentum", in: ders., Selected writings (A. Pfabigan and N. Reader eds.), Vienna 1981, p. 427f.
[21] W. Eichhorn, History and Moral Law: The dispute about "ethical socialism", session reports of the Leibniz Society, vol. 243, year 1998, no. 4, p. 39.
[22] W. Benjamin, On the Concept of History, in: ders., Allegorien Kultureller Experience, Leipzig 1984, pp. 161f.
[23] A. Koestler, loc. Cit., Pp. 137f.
[24] L. Kolakowski, Der Mensch ohne Alternative, Munich 1961, pp. 90-92.
[25] Philosophical Dictionary (Eds. G. Klaus and M. Buhr), Leipzig 1974, Vol. 2, p. 1052.
[26] Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism (Ed. W.F. Haug), Vol. 5, Hamburg 2001, pp. 787-792.
[27] Philosophical Dictionary, op. Cit., P. 1287.

Reading sample 2

Belief in Marxism