Chapter II. Marxism-Leninism

 

5.

Auguste Cornu,

The Formation of Historical Materialism

 

The founding of historical materialism was intimately related to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ socio-political development. This formation took place on the basis of their theoretical needs which had stemmed from their struggle for the emancipation of the working class. During their transition towards communism, Marx and Engels saw the emerging problem of exhibiting the historic role of both the proletariat and communism by means of a critique of the capitalist system.

In his articles in the Deutsch-Franzosischen Jahrbucher (On the Jewish Question and in his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction) Marx proved, with the aid of an analysis of the effects of the system of private ownership, the historical role of the revolutionary proletariat in the transfor­mation of social relationships. Later in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts he composed a fundamental critique of the capitalist system, using Feuerbach’s theory of alienation. Alienation was a socio-economic phenomenon manifesting itself in the form of alienated labor. From this capitalist context there ensued both dehumanization. particularly of the proletariat, and the necessity of superseding this system by communism. His analysis of alienated labor revealed the decisive role of productive labor as Praxis in the formation of the life of men and in the evolution of history. Beginning from Praxis, the basic features of which he defined in his critique of Hegelian idealism, Marx reached his initial conception of historical materialism, showing how men in contrast to animals, transform nature in order to adapt it to satisfy their needs, and how, reciprocally, men evolve out of this transformation. This simultaneous transformation of nature and man, he believed characterized the history of man and constituted history’s essential content.

In this first general formation of historical, materialism, some of the quasi-metaphysical views of Feuerbach remained, such concepts as “true” work and “true” man, which were placed in opposition to “alienated” labor and “alienated” man, still had a role. The same is true of the Utopian division of history into a “pre-human” period (as a consequence of the system of private ownership and of alienated labor) and into a “human” period (after the abolition of this system),

Similar views, reached in a wholly different way, were discovered by Engels and set forth in the Deutsch-Franzosischen Jahrbucher, in his article describing conditions in England. In these essays, which were the outcome of his various experiences in England, he showed respectively, that communism must invariably be the result of economic evolution and particularly of the industrial revolution, historic developments which would ruin the middle class through competition and economic crises, then increase the proletariat and sharpen the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and thus lead to the communist revolution.

Due to the similarity of their basic views, Marx and Engels decided at their meeting in Paris to settle accounts with the young Hegelian, speculative philosophy. This was the occasion for the formulation of their Holy Family, in which they (in particular Marx) not only completely broke with their earlier idealistic views; but also, by means of an analysis of political and social questions from the materialist stand­point, they almost wholly rid themselves of Feuerbach’s views.

In their next phase of ideological development, set forth in Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England and in their German Ideology; they fully surmounted “true” socialist metaphysics, dogma, and Utopia.

The decisive factor pertaining to the conditions of England at that time was the industrial revolution. The quickly developing factory industry had ruined and eliminated, in ever increasing measure, artisans and small workshops, had made the big bourgeoisie the ruling class, and had created a constantly growing proletariat. The expansion of machine production, which brought about a continuous decline in wages with a simultaneous lengthening of the working day, had depressed the condition of the working class in rapid pace; but at the same time it had sharpened their class struggle against the ruling classes of bourgeoisie and landed proprietors, their exploiters. Thus, the principal class struggle no longer took place, as it had up to that time, between the big bourgeoisie (representing industrial and commercial interests) and the aristocracy, which because of its monopoly of the soil and its ownership of the mines, retained a strong position of powers but the struggle occurred between the big bourgeoisie and landed proprietors, as the ruling classes, and, on the other side, the town and country proletariats, who were exploited to the last drop of their blood. The proletariat, organizing itself in trade unions and in the Chartist Movement, had gained the rights of association and the strike (with additional political rights) in harsh and vicious struggles.

In contrast to England, where the industrial revolution was quite advanced, this same revolution was still in progress in France; and it was in its early stages in Germany.

France was still predominantly an agrarian country. During the revolution of 1789, the dispossessed aristocracy did not have the economic, social, and political bases of power it had in England. Since production still had mainly merchant and artisan features, craftsmen and petty bourgeoisie were still quite strong. Due to the rising competition with factory production, their position had already been shaken, and they did not play a significant political role in the developing census-voting-rights process. As in England, the French big bourgeoisie, after its revolution of 1830 when it had actually reached power, had replaced the aristocracy as a ruling class. The suppression of the middle class and its exclusion from political power through the census-voting-rights act led to a struggle between the agrarian conservatives, who were allied with the big bourgeoisie, and, on the other side, the middle class, which more or less attempted to sustain itself through the working class.

The principal conflict, however, took place as a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and laboring classes, nevertheless taking on another form from that of England. In France the majority of the working class was still comprised of journeymen, who in increasing measure were proletarianized, and therefore closely united in their struggle with the workers connected with artisan production. Since the French working class, unlike English workers, possessed neither the right to association, nor the right to strike, nor voting rights; they wore therefore unable to organize legally, resorting to illegal strikes and demonstrations (which were jointly organized in secret societies with revolutionary members of the middle class).

Germany was first and foremost an agrarian country. In the states east of the Elbe and in the Prussian provinces, dominated by the Junkers semi-feudal conditions still prevailed. In contradistinction to Prussia, which was ruled by absolutism, the middle and south German states had more or less liberal constitutions. It was in the latter, particularly in the state of Baden, that a middle class gaining strength struggled under the influence of French ideas for liberal democratic reforms. The industrial revolution did not really begin until after the founding of the Customs-Union, which had been the prerequisite for such a development. Large-scale Industry along the lines of factory production developed in Silesia, Saxony, but above all in the Rhineland. Also arising there was a big bourgeoisie, which took (with the increase of its economic and social power) a firm position against feudalism and absolutism, particularly in the Rhineland, where it was most vigorous. This big bourgeoisie demanded with increasing energy a liberal constitution for the realization of its class interests. They thus inclined, as a result of the struggle they had at the same time been making against the proletariat, to compromise with the Prussian monarchy since this was an essential prop for the exploitation and oppression of the proletoriat. A section of the middle class broke off, especially an increasing number of progressive intellectuals, from the big bourgeoisie. This middle class section, in distinction to the big bourgeoisie, fought not towards liberal but towards democratic reforms. Those democrats believed that the democratization of the State would satisfactorily solve all political and social problems, that the State was capable of eliminating poverty. Accordingly, they principally placed themselves on the side of the working classes. The proletarian movement first developed in the Silesian revolt. From this time on the movement of revolutionary artisans evolved in growing alliance with the proletarians and, of course, in common association, forming the foundations of the spread of communism.

In their own way, the artisans played a meaningful role in the working class movement, spreading communism and utopianism. In England, there the artisans played an insignificant role in the working class movement, this utopianism could hardly develop; thus artisan communism (with a characteristic Utopian character) gained ascendancy in France and Germany.

The revolt of the Silesian weavers had a crucial influence on the development of the social movement in Germany, contributing not only to the spread of revolutionary action in the German proletariat, but also a characteristic form of Utopian socialism in Germany, “true” socialism, began to be abandoned; the German proletariat now stressed poverty as the question of the day. Most intellectuals inclining towards socialism were convinced that poverty could be eliminated only through a profound transformation of social relationships. Since most of them were Feuerbachians, they fused their humanistic theories with communistic ones. The gravest consequences of the capitalist system and of competi­tion were, they thought, the isolation and the egoism, which as the actual religion of the period had resulted in the alienation of human beings. Men could re-obtain their potentialities to lead an adequate, species-type life and become “true” men primarily through the abolition of private property, competition, and the hegemony of money.

By this shifting of the social question to a philosophico-ethical level, “true” socialism arrived at a sentimental utopia. But exactly this type of “true” socialist, which treated the actual question of poverty in its press, brought the social question to all of Germany.

Marx and Engels stood nearly isolated. Gradually there revolutionary communists appeared such as, for example, Wilhelm Wolff, Georg Woerth Joseph Weydemeyer, Edgar von Westphalen, and Karl D’Ester, allying themselves with them, and adding their own views.

After constructing historical materialism in their Holy Family, Marx and Engels separated—Marx to Brussels, working out his Theses on Feuerhach, Engels to Barmen, with his The Condition of the Working Class in England.

In Barmen, Engels set an active communist agitation in motion. He attempted to turn chiefly to the proletariat in Barmen and Elberfeld, but found no hearing among the exploited and depressed proletariat. After this initial attempt he recognized with Hess, that the bourgeoisie could be made use of as it had been stimulated by the weavers’ revolt and the growing problem of poverty. Thus they set in motion communist propaganda, in addition to debates about social problems, hoping to win over progressive citizens to communism.

 Roused by the rapid propagation of communist ideas and their success in these meetings, they organized meetings in Elberfeld. In his speeches Engels maintained that communism was not an abstract theory, not a utopia, but rather the necessary outcome of the development of the capitalist system, which through competition and crises resulted in the ruin of the middle class, the intensification of the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and hence inevitably to communism. He founded this prognosis on an analysis of the consequences of free trade and protectionism, both contributing in his opinion to a communist transformation of social relationships in Germany. Because these meetings looked squarely at the ominous results of existing arrangements, the authorities moved towards their suppression.

Another possibility for propagating communism opened up for Engels and Hess through the founding of the socialist magazines Der Gesell-schaftsspiegel and the Rheinischen Jahrbucher zur gesellschaftlichen Reform. Founded by Engels as the first socialist organ in Germany, the Gesellschaftsspiegel hopefully was to rectify completely the modes of living not only of German, but also of English, French, and Belgian workers.

Also, Engels outlined in his correspondence with Hess and Marx a critique of Stirner’s work, The Ego and Its Own. Since his materialist world view was not yet as firmly established as Marx’s, Engels came up with the idea that Stirner’s theory, with the appropriate interpretation, could be used by communism. Nevertheless, Marx rejected this attempt, deciding that in his firm conviction one could not arrive at an accurate view of man and his history, if like Stirner one separated the individual from his social relationships.

Engels furnished a crucial contribution to the formation of historical materialism and scientific socialism thereafter with his work, The Condition of the Working Class in England. This work is the first from the standpoint of historical materialism, a closing exposition of an historical epoch. This study formed in him a healthy counterbalance against the influx of German matters, especially against “true” socialism, which for a while he nearly joined upon his return from England. Marx was also enabled by this work to feel an unconditional partisanship for the proletariat, and coupled with his profound analysis of economic and social relations he was to gain an evolving revolutionary standpoint.

Despite the economic, social, and ideological measures which were at its command, the bourgeoisie was not able to prevent the struggle of the proletariat from steadily sharpening. Instead of isolated, fierce rebellions, now it was able to organize because of trade unions and Chartism, leading resolute trade unionist and political struggles. In the growing consciousness of his class interests, the proletarian removed himself further and further from utopianism and reformism, since he was growing in maturity and gaining the clear knowledge that the only way to his liberation was through communist revolution. In the same measure as the bourgeoisie, which had previously been a progressive class in its battle against feudalism and absolutism, became conservative, the proletariat came as the representative of the future, as the new progressive class. Engels rid himself of the Feuerbachian metaphysic and humanism, by moving away from “true” socialisms he produced, completely independently of Marx, an essential contribution towards the formation of historical materialism. From his analysis of English conditions he brought forth—certainly not as systematically summarized, nor as clearly formulated as in Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach—the fundamental principles of historical materialisms An accurate knowledge of history can only be obtained by way of an exact and thorough analysis of real relationships, found, indeed, beneath the spoilage of the idealistic and Utopian ways of thinking. The historical process had essentially depended upon the development of the forces of production and upon the transformation of social relations, which produce the class struggle. The forces of production—in the case of modern England fundamentally transformed in the industrial revolution—had determined the division of labor and property relations, i.e. social and political relationships, as well as men’s habits and notions.

The views of men, their ideology, like their social relations have a class character, since they depend on the material conditions of man’s life and reflect them. Beliefs, therefore, were not the result of anything beyond class-derived ideas, since philosophy, religion, morals, and law served as a distinct method of justification for the interests of antagonistic classes; and the battle of ideas and principles in reality was but the reflection of the conflict over the realization of material interests. Hence there follows the obsolete character of the idealistic view of history, as far as the history of ideas is actually determined, and the absence of relevance of any theory detached from practice.

These general principles of historical materialism that formed the foundations of Engels’ analysis of the conditions of the working class in England, in the meantime, were not worked out systematically and clearly formulated by Engels but more or less factually used and more or less presupposed. In addition, moreover, his analysis contained idealistic remnants, which however, did not come into serious tension with his generally materialistic account. Also Engels had not arrived at the high level of generalization that Marx had reached; in addition, he left this function of acquiring theoretical knowledge to Marx, Engels emphasizing his own incisive research into the connections between social questions and economic relationships, and herein lay his advantage over Marx.

In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx had won his insight into the meaning and role of praxis (about the time Engels finished his work), crystallizing it in his Theses on Feuerbach, in which, fully overcoming the Feuerbachian metaphysic, he set down the essentials of his new materialist Weltanschauung. In his Theses on Feuerbach Marx did not bring forth, as in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts and to some extent later in The Holy Family, “alienated” and “true” man, but praxis as man’s productive activity. From this standpoint of praxis he criticized Feuerbach’s philosophy, setting down the principles of dialectical and historical materialism, almost in antithesis to Feuerbach.

Since Feuerbach had neglected practice, he did not consider man in his relationship to society, but rather principally in his affective relations to either men and to nature, society being conceived by him as the totality of these naturalistic, affective individuals as species-types. This is how his misplaced approach stood on social questions, particularly concerning the religious life (which was for him essentially composed of psychic processes). Nothing else came out of the problem of the relationships of Thought and Being. Only if one proceeds from praxis, Marx showed, can one gain a correct conception of the individual in his active relationship to nature and society, conceiving society as the totality of economic and social relationships.

In Brussels in April, I845, Marx explained the general principles of his materialistic philosophy to Engels. It impressed Engels pro­foundly, since the connections between economic, social, political, and ideological development stood out clearly and on a high plane of abstraction, which Engels’ work lacked.

While in England, Engels had strengthened his materialist outlook through studies in political economy. He made intimate contact with the leaders of the “League of the Just” and of Chartism; thus he was taking part in these movements on an international scale, immediately influencing the leaders of various countries in the workers’ movement.

The revolutionary role of the proletariat was even better under­stood now, strengthening also the conviction that the proletariat would be successful in the end, and that it would support historical materialism. Such support would entail a relentless elimination of idealism, dogmatism and utopianism. This was the presupposition of their joint work, The German Ideology. In this work a general exposition of the fundamental principles of historical materialism was made, doing battle with the Young Hegelian speculative philosophy, the latest form of idealism, settling accounts with Bruno Bauer and particularly with Stirner. Moreover, they began to analyze Utopian socialism, while submitting “true” socialism to a critique.

Their exposition went in the direction of an analysis of the principal periods of history, which was almost the antithesis of the idealistic theory of history constructed by bourgeois historians and philosophers. Bourgeois historians, who had not taken into account the fundamentals of history, viz. the production of material life and the economic and social relationships given birth by them, in addition to neglecting these, had seen the driving forces of history in religion, and political struggles. This idealist view of history had further stimulated the speculative philosopher to reduce the evolution of history to that of Spirit.

In opposition to these bourgeois historians and philosophers, Marx and Engels held out the axiom that the essential and decisive factor in the shaping of history was man’s own production of his material life. As Engels had first set forth in his work on the conditions of the English working class, Marx and Engels traced back the social, political, and ideological to their respective economic relationships.

They distinguished three principal epochs in the development of history. In the first man lived a beast, a product of nature, since he was yet not capable of transforming himself through his productive activity. In the second men were able to transform nature in increasing measure already, developing themselves on the basis of the evolution of their reason and techniques. The third epoch divided itself into four principal periods according to the modes of production, the division of labor, and hence their respective property relations.

The first is that of collective tribal ownership, which conformed to its primitive way of life and to its modes of production. It developed the first division of labor, and indeed the beginnings of the separation of city and country, and it gave birth to slavery.

The second period is that of ancient community and state ownership. The separation of city and country advanced, and slavery became an integral part and distinct form of productive labor. In their cities there was produced a wider division of labor, brought about by the differentiation between industry and commerce and between manual work and mental labor. This also occasioned for the first time a tremendous, overall class conflict, viz. that between masters and slaves.

The third period is that of feudal or estate property. In this period the principal means of production centers on the soil, the aristocracy as landed proprietors performing the leading social and political role. As the ancient rulers exploited the slaves, so did the nobility the serfs, and this also resulted in similar class struggles. Corresponding to the relations in rural feudal society, a strict hierarchical structure was also exhibited in the cities. In the guilds there was apparent a hierarchical character in the separation between masters, journeymen, and apprentices. Commerce gradually moved towards the limits of the cities, becoming the principal thrust of economic and social progress. With the growth of commerce and industry the bourgeoisie developed as an ascending class; it fought against the aristocrats and guilds, its oppressors, and also against journeymen and the city plebian strata. Due to limited industrial production and rudimentary business transactions, Capital still had an indigenous character, soil or work­shops being the main components of property. This was the basis for production, and consequently the division of labor was only gradually progressing.

The fourth period is characterized by the passage of production chiefly towards artisan manufacture and then to factory production, and as a result from the feudal to the capitalist system. The formation and development of artisan production were promoted by the rise of commerce and the regular growth of fluid capital. From the discovery of new areas in Asia, Africa, and America and the founding of colonies, commerce developed, especially maritime commerce.

The expansion of sea trade and artisan production accelerated the accumulation of fluid capital and created the necessary conditions for building a money market with banks, paper money, and state credit. Simultaneously a profound social and political transformation was accomplished. In relation to commerce and artisan production, agriculture failed to increase in importance. Moreover, aristocrats and guilds lost economic and social power to the upcoming big bourgeoisie.

Now the demands of industrialization grew in such a way that artisan production was no longer able to satisfy them: here the rapid progress of technology made possible a new means of production, artisans were gradually replaced by the factory, in which machine production was employed in increasing measure by steam power. The rapid rise of big industry, which now surpassed commerce in importance, brought a speedy improvement and expansion of the means of transportation and communication, hastened the accumulation of fluid capital, and produced a pro­found transformation of the relationships of men and nations to one another through the increasing division of labor between industry and commerce and through the change in property relations.

As a result, the overall reification of social relations robbed human relations of their personal character, which became commodity relations instead. At the same time, there was a change in the class structure of society.

The power of the big bourgeoisie grew, and it rose to be the ruling class. They subjugated all non-capitalist countries and in their own countries all other classes.

With its class interests accomplished, the big bourgeoisie decided the course of capital and states, deciding also questions of religion, morality, and political economy. By its endeavor to ensure its class rule through economic, social, political, and ideological means, the big bourgeoisie in the meantime struck at the growing resistance of  the proletariat, which, almost as its antithesis, was produced with it from large-scale industry. The battle between bourgeoisie and proletariat intensified in proportion to the exploitation of the proletariat and the stage of its awareness of class interest.

The proletarian, for whom labor was not a free, creative activity, but forced upon him, depressing him in proportion to the increase in that which he produced, was forced to sell his labor as a commodity, being ruled by the limitations of commodity production and circulation. From the oppression and exploitation to which he was abandoned, he could only liberate himself by a relentless class struggle against the bourgeoisie. By means of his revolutionary activity the proletariat takes over the leading historical role, which in modern history had previously belonged to the bourgeoisie The successful accomplishment of the communist revolution had two conditions : the full development of the capitalist system and a clear class consciousness in the proletariat. The latter required overcoming all illusions and mysti­fications by which the bourgeoisie had attempted to confound the proletariat, and the elimination of utopianism.

The communist revolution was fundamentally distinct from earlier social revolutions, since those had aimed merely at installing a new ruling class, whereas they did not intend to overcome the exploitation of other oppressed classes. By a radical elimination of the capitalist system, individuals would be able to own the entirety of the forces of production and their products, and hence bring out the totality of their capabilities.

From this exposition of the general outlines of history, the principles of historical materialism wore established, and not implicitly and indirectly, as in Engels’ earlier work, but explicitly and intentionally. One started with actual men as they are seen in their economic and social activity.

In distinction to animals, who live simply in terms of what nature directly offers them, men are able to transform nature by their productive activity, adapting nature to meet their needs. And thus nature does not remain for man, as for the animal, primeval nature, but rather in increasing measure becomes nature transformed; thus man, unlike the animal, almost always constructs his natural milieu. By transforming nature man develops himself. This simultaneous transfor­mation of nature and man as the result of productive processes con­stitutes the essential content of history. The development of the forces of production is the decisive element of history.

Since man cannot isolate his needs from others and must constantly satisfy them with others, his productive activity necessarily has a social character. Social relationships are determined by the actual level of the forces of production. A given mode of production corresponds to a definite form of social intercourse, i.e. the social relations which were suited to channel these productive forces.

Consequently, it is clear that history is to be understood only in association with the development of the productive forces, since they determine not only the social but also political and ideological relationships.

In the system of private ownership, the development of the forces of production led to a concentration of ownership in the hands of a minority, to a division of society into haves and have nots, and therefore to class struggles.

The process of history was brought about by the dialectical evolution of the forces of production and social relationships. As a result of the steady development of the forces of production on the basis of increasing needs, the respective social relationships emerged which corresponded to the specific level of the forces of production, which then became obstacles for wider development, thus having to be replaced by others suited to the new status of the productive forces.

The replacement of one social order by another is the outcome of social revolutions based on class conflicts. The development of the forces of production (together with the social modes) determine the ideological spheres. Man’s spiritual life is the product of his activity, just as his material life is. Consciousness and thought, consequently, cannot be separated from social relations, of which they are the reflection. Ideology, i.e. the totality of religious, philosophical, moral, social, and political ideas, changes in proportion to the changes in economic and social relationships. This explains why the dominant ideas are always those of the ruling class. Out of the increase in productivity and the division of labor, a rapid development and differentiation of consciousness and thought results. The increasing separation of manual and mental labor led to the founding of a special human category, the thinker. Thereafter there arose a division between social existence and consciousness :  this is the origin of ideology.

Through an inversion of the real relationships between Thought and Being, the ideologues came to their view that Being did not give rise to Consciousness, but rather Consciousness brought Being about, and therefore spiritual activity was basic for them. They thereby brought Spirit to the fore by considering it as something existing independently from material life, as determining men’s lives, conceiving it as the motivating force and essential content of history. Consequently, they saw in history nothing but a succession of ideas.

Alienation arose from this spiritualization of real relationships, and alienation similar to that of the religious kind. Absolutized ideas such as the State and Law appeared as alien, ruling powers. As with religious alienation, Marx and Engels found that secular alienation could only be overcome by eliminating the social relationships which had given birth to them.

German speculative philosophy was to be understood as the ideological mirror-image of Germany’s backward economic and social conditions. The German bourgeoisie remained quite weak until the creation of the Customs-Union. Here lay the root of its idealist attitude to political questions. Kant’s idealism transformed subsequent German speculative philosophy, particularly Hegel’s, which reduced history to the development of the Spirit. For Hegel history was a dialectical unfolding of concepts, the self-realization of the Absolute Idea.

Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner had brought this idealist view of history to a climax, By the subjectivization of the Hegelian philosophy, they had reduced Hegel’s Objective Spirit to consciousness-in-general or to an absolutized Ego, which in contrast to the absolute Idea, was not both subject and object in close connection with the world, but which developed steadily in opposition to it. By means of this subjectivization of Spirit (and also of the dialectic), history became the outcome of the goals of absolute self-consciousness or of an absolutized Ego. Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner were misled into believing that history could be manipulated by extreme acts of the will; this was due to the fact that they did not possess Hegel’s universal knowledge. Thus then, their speculative philosophy became an abstract performance, pure phraseology.

Since they shared Hegel’s belief that Spirit determined the course of history, they felt that the transformation of real relations could be obtained by a critique of false ideas. Bruno Bauer reduced man to the concept of Self-Consciousness, referring to man’s world (i.e. the totality of economic, social, and political relationships) as “Substance”.

The relation of Self-Consciousness to Substance Bauer elevated to the fundamental problem upon which the destiny of man rested. The problem of the critique of absolute critique, of “critical” criticism, was freeing Self-Consciousness from the domination of Substance, particularly Religion and State; and especially, Bauer felt, the “masses” had frustrated the development of Self-Consciousness.

The Young Hegelian liberal movement seemed to him the most significant in history; it was suppressed in 1842. In reality what vanished that year was not really a liberal movement, not a steadily growing bourgeois movement, but the long-winded liberalism of the Young Hegelians.

Stirner’s speculations surpassed those of Bruno Bauer’s. He brought the process of the subjectivization of Hegelian philosophy to its limit. Instead of considering man in his relations to society and human life in historical context, both of which are determined by the forces of production and social intercourse, Stirner saw men as isolated individuals, leaving them to atrophy as absolutized egos. As Bruno Bauer’s Self-Consciousness developed in constant contradiction to Substance, the Stirnerian ego developed by a constant opposition to society, an ego which denied and rejected everything which society had to frustrate it, setting itself in motion and maintaining itself as an absolute, unique ego. The meaning and goal of history was the recovery of this uniqueness by true egoists. Therefore we have the Stirnerian division of history into two principal periods, into prehistory, in which men were not yet self-conscious egoists, and into the unique period of history, in which man set himself in motion as an egoist.

The first period of history broke down into the infancy of mankind in which men had a realistic attitude towards the world and remained partially in nature, and into the adolescent period, in which men took up an idealistic posture to the world and sought for its essence. In this way they freed themselves from nature’s domination, withdrawing into spirit.

As a consequence of this hypostatization of Spirit, concepts became the ultimate substance by which man was oppressed. Thus the world was changed into a world of ghosts, of hobgoblins, in the course of which men became madmen. The rule of fixed ideas consequently developed so that ideas were sanctified, and from this canonization arose a hierarchy which was to crush men. The fundamental origin of this hierarchy (under which Stirner put various kinds of authority, Church, State, Society, Party, etc.) was the respect paid to fixed ideas.

To set real egotists in motion men must free themselves from the domination of “fixed” ideas and of hierarchies. Liberation would result from the desecration of “fixed” ideas, i.e. by means of purely spiritual acts. Consequently, Stirner fought in the same manner as Bruno Bauer, freeing us from false ideas.

In his critique of political liberalism, Stirner absolutized State and Law, instead of considering them in their connection to economic and social relationships. Furthermore, he treated the question of private property abstractly, neglecting the connection between modes of production and ownership, and therefore failing to understand property as a mode of production. In his polemic against social liberalism, under which he subsumed communism, Stirner also proceeded speculatively. He took the position that it also suppressed the individual, as liberalism had, indeed especially by hindering individuals from becoming private owners. That had been the origin of pauperism. To abolish pauperism, he accordingly put forth a Utopian method: Repudiation of money, free labor, etc.

The unique person creates himself, a self-constructed in opposition to every association, a self-opposing anything not adequate to himself and frustrating to his development. Such self-creation took place, as in Bruno Bauer, through the destruction of false ideas, i.e. by a transformation of consciousness.

By dissociating himself from all sacred cows, the unique person reached his uniqueness, making the entire world his own. Stirner’s unique one realized itself as hypostatized ego, but really only as a caricature of a real man.

With their pseudo-revolutionary phraseology, Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner reflected the backwardness and wretchedness of German conditions. Bruno Bauer’s Song of Songs of self-consciousness and Stirner’s encomium of the unique one were the glossed over image of the illusions of the German petty bourgeoisie. Stirner’s apologia for uniqueness particularly suited the swaggering attitudes of the Berlin Philistines, who blustered more and more loudly against the conditions which had to be endured. In this way, since they could not transform their conditions, Stirner’s philosophy actually rested on an arch-conservative foundation. It was the expression of the wishes of the petty bourgeois who desired to retain the capitalist system and to realize his interests within this system.

Marx and Engels settled accounts with speculation and dogmatism conclusively. They rounded off their materialist philosophy by opposing each idealist thesis with a materialist one. With their critique of Utopian socialism, Marx and Engels now had a firmly based materialist Weltanschauung, particularly to pit against the specifically German form of “utopian” socialism, viz. “true” socialism, which was increasing its influence over the German working class.

The character of “true” socialism was explained by its distorting circumstances. This initial German liberalism was the idealist, mystified opposite of English and French class struggles. In contradistinction to the English and French socialists and communists, who were defending in practice the interests of the working class, coupling this with a critique of capitalist relationships; the “true” socialists proceeded on the basis of a speculative socialism, seeing it primarily as a theoretical question. This also resulted in the movement having a literary character, in the main, degenerating partly into phrase mongering.

Since “true” socialists transformed socialism into a dizziness of feeling, it became dangerous for the struggle of the working class, for in Germany there was as yet a weak revolutionary proletariat. This made it necessary for Marx and Engels to come to grips with “true” socialism. They began with a critique of its founders Feuerbach and Hess.

Feuerbach, they believed, could not complete his critique of idealism or correctly round out his materialism, since he had not taken practice into account. Indeed he saw man as a sensuous object, not as sensuous activity. He did not view man as active and productive, continuing to bring out an abstract, generalized outlook on “man”, and misdirecting him by considering only the relationships of man with nature. This explained his philosophy’s deficiencies. Feuerbach thought of nature in its original form, neglecting the fact that the primitive, immediate connections of man with nature had been increasingly replaced by the results of man’s productive activity. This accounted for Feuerbach’s contemplative view of nature and his passive worship of its glory and omnipotence.

He also saw human relationships from this same contemplative perspective, criticizing them not from a social but from a generalized, anthropological perspective. This led him, furthermore, to invent a reified, undifferentiated individual, the concept “man”. Feuerbach had spoken of an “essence” common to all men. Society thereby became a “species”, and social relationships turned into a hypostatized species-life. Initially, “true” man arose as the realization of the species-type in the union of I and You. And thus the emotional relationships of love and friendship had an essential role for Feuerbach. This anthropological mode of reflection had a fragmenting result on materialism and history, his materialism turned out to be quite unhistorical, and the view of history idealistic, and thereby also Utopian.

In his version of utopianism, humanity’s existing miserable con­dition was juxtaposed against an ideal condition, history being set the goal of realizing it. To resurrect the “true” man, one must overcome religious illusions; thus Feuerbach advanced a vague form of humanism, calling it communism. Feuerbach’s outlook on history showed that he was not in a position to master the social situation. Every discrepancy between being and essence he explained as an unhappy fall in which nothing essentially changed. Therefore, he denied the necessity for the oppressed class struggling. Above all, disharmonies are caused by religion, in which man alienated his species-being into God. The problem was an object of consciousness, to be overcome through enlightenment and intelligence.

Moreover, Feuerbach stimulated Hess’ concept of communism. For Hess the solution of practical and theoretical problems required a critique of bourgeois society from the standpoint of Feuerbachian humanism. The English and French had not been able to do this, since they had concentrated on the practical side of social problems, neglecting the theoretical side, since they had not reflected upon the nature of man and his alienation.

Alienation interested Hess in its socio-economic form, rather than its religious variety. This type of alienation was brought about by the system of private property, which made free activity (uniting labor and joy) impossible because profit seeking and competition reigned, transforming men into isolated, egoistical individuals. Within the capitalist system, which ruled and oppressed him, man’s activity had been forced upon him as slave labor, turning the product of his labor into commodities, and therefore into money, which had become man’s true God. By separating the worker from the product of his labor, society was divided into haves and have nots, and gave rise to widespread exploitation, turning society into a jungle. There was but one way to set man frees replacing the capitalist system by communism. This metamorphosis could not be accomplished at once or violently, but would be advanced gradually and peacefully, and indeed chiefly through enlightenment and education. Through the abolition of private profit, competition, profit seeking, and exploitation, harmony could rule among men, such as is exhibited in nature.

On the basis of a steady march towards enlightenment and its miraculous power, love flowed from Hess’ doctrine into a humanistic communism] all of this resulting only in injury to the proletarian class struggle. This was the reason for the necessity of a critique of Hess.

Nature had been considered by the “true” socialists as a harmonious whole, since they failed to see the bitter struggle ruling there. This idyllic view of nature finds its correlate in their concept of the original society. This harmony in society had been destroyed by the rise in the world of private property, which had the consequence of isolating men and generally spreading egoism and exploitation. Individuals and society thus became abstractions, when the individual was thought of as the incarnation of singleness, society the embodiment of generality, when the relations between society and the individual were viewed as being constituted by the relationship between generality and individuality.

From their idealized concept of human activity, the “true” socialists erected their critique of bourgeois society. The characteristic of this kind of society for the “true” socialists as well as for Hess was the separation of work and joy, which split was occasioned by the antithesis of owner and non-owner, thus rupturing society into haves and have nots.

United with the sentimental, idealist character of “true” socialism was its literary tendency and its tendency to throw phrases around, all of this reaching its zenith with Karl Grun. Armed with German “science” Karl Grun gave a good scolding to the French theoreticians, since they were unconcerned with the “essence” of man. Since his views were not based on a knowledge of economic and social relationships, his reflections were but phantasies.

Meanwhile Georg Kuhlmann was up to his tricks in Switzerland. With him communism degenerated into quackery, reflecting the lack of a vigorous proletariat in his country. The inclination to prophesy, which had already been noticeable in W. Weitling and A J Becker, attained its zenith with Kuhlmann, who proceeded to mangle communism with bombast and a prophecy of a kingdom on earth.

Marx and Engels showed that Utopian socialism must necessarily fall into phraseology, that the hypostatization of the ego brought out an incredible antithesis of individual and society. Such a critique is a sound one from Stirner to Nietzsche, to today’s existentialists, who also explain human relations with the aid of an hypostatized individual.

The next stage in the socio-political development of Marx and Engels was brought about in their present, direct participation in the class struggle of the proletariat. Its socio-political expression appeared in the founding of Communist Correspondence Committees, the Deutschen-Brusseler-Zeitung, and the Communist League, in which was pursued a critique of utopianism and reformism through discussions with Ruge, Heinzen, Weitling, and Proudhon; such things expanded and deepened Marx’s economic understanding. The principal outcome of their ideological development and their newly won revolutionary tactics was to be expounded in The Communist Manifesto, which appeared on the eve of the Revolution of 1848.

Marx and Engels now saw the state clearly as the lackey of business and the instrument of the ruling class; they advocated its unconditional destruction for the realization of the proletariat’s goals. They showed their fundamental analysis of the capitalist system and bourgeois society to others, in which the proletarian struggle is sharpened by capitalism’s evolution, inevitably resulting in a communist revolution, which would only be victorious when the proletariat resolutely understood its class interests and eliminated all mystifications.

 

HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY. GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC