Schon länger plante ich mich näher mit dem Marxismus auseinander zu setzen. Als Einstiegshilfe wählte ich aus der Serie des katholischen Philosophen Peter Kreeft (* 1937) das Buch „Socrates Meets Marx“. In einem (fiktiven) sokratischen Dialog werden die zentralen Argumente diskutiert – und auch gleich hinterfragt bzw. widerlegt. Es wird sehr gut herausgerbeitet, dass der Marxismus die Charakterzüge einer Religion trägt. Hier ein Auszug:
(SOCRATES) Let’s review what you say the bourgeoisie has done. First, it “has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’.” So you are claiming that bourgeois Romeos say to bourgeois Juliets, not “I love you”, but “How much do you cost?” Second, “it has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour.” So you claim there are no saints or mystics left in bourgeois societies. Third, “it has resolved personal worth into exchange value.” So you claim that nurses, social workers, and the like no longer serve the poor and weak because they see them as having any personal worth but only because of their “exchange value”. They think they will get rich from the poor somehow. Fourth, it has converted all freedoms into free trade. So you claim that Capitalism has abolished all previous freedoms as no previous tyrant was able to do and has created a new one, as no previous merchants were able to do. Fifth, “it has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers.” So you claim that Capitalism has removed the love of health from physicians, the love of justice from lawyers, the love of God from priests, the love of beauty from poets, and the love of truth from scientists. None of these love his work any more, only his wage. And you say that this radical change of attitude happened just because the economy is now based on interest or capital. Sixth, it “has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” So you claim that the new economy has erased one of nature’s strongest instincts, the love and loyalty between spouses and siblings and even mother-love. I see why you call this radical and revolutionary: a change in human nature itself, even in human instincts.
MARX: I’m glad you see my point, Socrates.
Kreeft lässt die beiden Kontrahenten immer wieder zusammenfassen, um was es geht. Zum Beispiel so:
(SOCRATES) We were investigating three questions about the revolution you said the bourgeoisie had wrought. The first question was whether the catastrophic things you said happened did in fact already happen in your time; and, if not, whether they would soon happen and become clearly visible later. We have already seen the answer to this question; it has been settled, not by argument, but by history. It is your own chosen god, history, who judges you. The second question was whether the bourgeoisie could be powerful enough to cause all these effects, or whether, instead, other forces might not have more power to bring happiness or unhappiness to human individuals and families, relationships, and communities. That is a very large question, and we should discuss it at length sometime, especially because the vast majority disagree with you there. Is the economic system really so Godlike, so omnipotent and omnipresent? But we have already taken too many detours, and we must focus on your book, so I will confine myself to my third question now. You say the bourgeoisie have abolished things you describe as “idyllic” and “reverent” and replaced them with things you describe as “pitiless”, “naked self-interest”, “callous”, “icy”, “egotistical”, “shameless”, and “brutal”.
Es wird nicht das letzte Buch von Kreeft sein, das ich mir zu Gemüte führe.