Can one still think after Gulag?
Born from philosophy, the Marxism claims materialists of Antiquity, those of XVIlle century andHegel (1770-1831); it put philosophy at the capacity in the ex-USSR, like in China, in the form of the Marxism itself, promoted with the row of official philosophy, taught in an obligatory way, with the results which one knows: triumph over the single thought, drives out with the opponents, believing and all them "deviating ideological", psychiatric internments, rehabilitation, washings of brains, tortures and, in the last analysis, assassinations.

Why philosophy it could guarantee
thus violence?
Isn't this the sign that there is something which does not function with the kingdom of the thought?
This is not because it is dangerous to be made advise it of the prince when one is philosophical like Plato (428-348 av.J.-C.) orMachiavel (1469-1527)?
Isn't this also because it is serious to want to build a new man by education like made humanistic Rebirth?
Isn't this finally that it is a little insane to want to make set out again the history with zero like wanted it the French revolution of 1789?

The error of the Marxism

All these questions developed by those which one calls today the "new philosophers" (see pp. 52-53) but also, before them, by thinkers as Raymond Aron (1905-1983) show a thing: with the obviousness, it missed with the Marxism a philosophy. While recommending to make economy the base of the company and philosophy its top, Plato thought that the money and the capacity were to serve the thought and not the reverse. From where its idea of a philosopher-king, so badly included/understood, meaning that one puts the capacity at the service of philosophy and not the opposite. While wanting to be delivered idealism *, the Marxism ran the counter to this attitude. Under pretext of return to concrete and to change the economy in order to release the man, it made of the policy a philosophy obliging philosophy to serve the policy. Result: in the same time when the policy became an ideological place occupying itself of wanting to modify the consciences, philosophy became a political place, worried by questions of being able and about fight for this one.Pascal (1623-1662) recommended that one does not confuse religion and policy to prevent that, the political divergences becoming of the religious businesses and the religious divergences of the businesses of States one does not lead to tyranny. It seems that the Marxism made this error.

The crisis of the Marxism poses an important problem. It is often thought that the error of the Marxism was to deny the individual.
Also glorifie one this last to free itself some. In fact, the problem is different. When the man is caught for God and that it makes his philosophy a religion, it falls into an idolatry which makes it insane. From where need for keeping its distances and for not confusing political and philosophy or philosophy and religion (seeLiving with faith). As a practitioner the worship of the individual, one makes an error today. Instead of leaving the idolatry, one replaces an idol by another.