Publication Details

Abstract

It is necessary and rightful to require that the imperfections of a work should be understood and explanated from the conditions in which its idea or its more elaborated form — the project — has been realized, because the conditions in which we realize this idea, this project, really determine, influence and limit our activity and, therefore, they must be taken into account as early as when the idea is being realized and also in the evaluation of people’s activity. However, a one-sided concentration on the conditions of people’s activity can lead us to such an exaggeration of the role of these conditions, that the aspects of the interests and creativity of the subject of creation as well as the subject’s responsibility escape our attention, and a one-sided conception of the determination of people’s activity by conditions will prove us eventually that „under given conditions nothing else and otherwise could have been done than what and how we did.” Such a „criticism” of a ready work eventually justifies and pardons its realizers. It is not so radical, inexorable, arousing and effective as a criticism which confronts the ready work with its original idea and concentrates on the analysis of the realizers’ activity in the process of the realization of this project. It is true that in this second way of criticizing the shortcomings of a ready or realized work, we can unjustifiably lose sight of the determining influences of the conditions under which we realize the original idea or project of the work and, hence, approach the creators of this work as absolutely free and creative subjects who are not determined by the outer conditions and, therefore, are absolutely responsible for the given work. In such a procedure all deformations of the ready work (with regard to the original project) will seem to be caused by its realizers only, while an analysis will show when and at which stage of the realization of the project these deformations occurred. This way of confrontation of the ready work with its project and the analysis of the procedure of the realization of this project will not satisfy us either as to the ready work or as to ourselves. The question, immanent to the above way, to what degree that what we created corresponds to what we wanted to create, or the question of how much is the ready work deformed in comparison with the original project, turns into the following questions: who from among the realizers, and to what extent, is guilty and responsbile for the deformations of the work; whether what we created is what we wanted to create, or if it is already something else; if that which we created still can be somehow' repaired and brought into harmony with the original project; if it is not necessary to complete, change or entirely throw away the original project. In the realization of a certain project, a work arises which can be more or less deformed, with regard to the project. However, this will be a realization of a given project and not of some other project, there will be deformations of the given work and not of some other work, it will be an abortion of the given thing and not of some other thing. It is possible that the we shall create will obtain, in human relations, an entirely differen meaning than that which we followed and gave it when creating it. This does not depend on us any more and we cannot be held responsible for it. It would be absurd, however, to create, by means of the realization of a given project, something quite different from that, the project of which we are realizing. This is possible only in such a case that, during the creation of the work, we exchange the original project, or somebody else from among the creators would inconspicuously do so. It is possible when, e. g., our master builder keeps from the originally projected building only its name, fagade, some procedures and stages of the work, but he changes its prnicipal purpose, content, and character. In this case, the realization of the original project is not involved any more, but the realization of an entirely different project whose characteristic is objectively different though this building is being demonstrated by its name, façade or some procedures as the originally planned building. These are the basic points of the paper in which the author tried to confront the scientific project of socialism — as the society hitherto the most humane, democratic, and in which „free development of every one becomes a condition of the development of all people” — with its practical realization.