Marx and the Materialist Conception of History
- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Marx and the Materialist Conception of History
Here follows a primary source document for assessing Marx and Engels’s joint understanding of the “materialist conception of history”.
I have broken Engels’s book review of the ‘Critique’ into 12 numbered paragraphs, first in English translation and then followed by Engels’s original German as printed in the 1959 newspaper article.
A photograph of the original Das Volk page containing Engels’s book review appears on page 467 of Marx–Engels Collected Works, Volume 16.
Book Review of Karl Marx:
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
by Frederick Engels
[August 1859]-
The essential foundation of [Marx’s] political economy is the materialist conception of history, whose principal features are briefly outlined in Marx’s Preface.
Diese deutsche Ökonomie beruht wesentlich auf der materialistischen Auffassung der Geschichte, deren Grundzüge in der Vorrede des oben zitierten Werks kurz dargelegt sind.
-
The proposition that “the process of social, political and intellectual life in general is determined by the mode of production of material life”; that all social and political relations, all religious and legal systems, all theoretical conceptions which arise in the course of history can only be understood if the material conditions of life obtaining during the relevant epoch have been understood and the former are traced back to these material conditions—this proposition was a revolutionary discovery not only for economics but also for all historical sciences (and sciences are historical if they aren’t natural sciences).
Es war nicht nur für die Ökonomie, es war für alle historischen Wissenschaften (und alle Wissenschaften sind historisch, welche nicht Naturwissenschaften sind) eine revolutionierende Entdeckung, dieser Satz: »daß die Produktionsweise des materiellen Lebens den sozialen, politischen und geistigen Lebensprozeß überhaupt bedingt«; daß alle gesellschaftlichen und staatlichen Verhältnisse, alle religiösen und Rechtssysteme, alle theoretischen Anschauungen, die in der Geschichte auftauchen, nur dann zu begreifen sind, wenn die materiellen Lebensbedingungen der jedesmaligen entsprechenden Epoche begriffen sind und erstere aus diesen materiellen Bedingungen abgeleitet werden.
-
Marx: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”
Marx: »Es ist nicht das Bewußtsein der Menschen, das ihr Sein, sondern ihr gesellschaftliches Sein, das ihr Bewußtsein bestimmt.«
-
This proposition is so simple that it should be self-evident to anyone not bogged down in idealist humbug.
Der Satz ist so einfach, daß er für jeden sich von selbst verstehen müßte, der nicht in idealistischem Schwindel festgerannt ist.
-
But it leads to highly revolutionary consequences not only in the sphere of theory but also in that of practice.
Aber die Sache hat nicht nur für die Theorie, sondern auch für die Praxis höchst revolutionäre Konsequenzen:
-
Marx: “At a certain stage in their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—what merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto.
From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an epoch of social revolutions.
The change in the economic foundation leads sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure …
The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production—antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals’ social conditions of life—but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.Marx: » … As in the Preface … «
-
The prospect of a gigantic revolution, the most gigantic revolution that has ever taken place, therefore presents itself to us as soon as we pursue our materialist thesis further and apply it to the present time.
Die Perspektive auf eine gewaltige, auf die gewaltigste Revolution aller Zeiten eröffnet sich uns also sofort bei weiterem Verfolgen unserer materialistischen These und bei ihrer Anwendung auf die Gegenwart.
-
However, closer consideration also shows immediately that, already in its first consequences, the apparently so simple proposition—that the consciousness of men depends on their being and not the other way round—is a fatal blow to all forms of idealism, even the most concealed. Through it, all the conventional and customary views of history are denied.
Es zeigt sich aber auch sofort bei näherer Betrachtung, daß der anscheinend so einfache Satz, daß das Bewußtsein der Menschen von ihrem Sein abhängt und nicht umgekehrt, gleich in seinen ersten Konsequenzen allem Idealismus, auch dem verstecktesten, direkt vor den Kopf stößt, hergebrachte und angewöhnte Anschauungen über alles Geschichtliche werden durch ihn negiert.
-
The development of the materialist conception in respect of even a single historical example was a scientific task requiring years of quiet research, for it is evident that mere phrases can achieve nothing here and that only an abundance of critically examined historical material which has been completely mastered can make it possible to solve such a problem. …
Die Entwicklung der materialistischen Auffassung auch nur an einem einzigen historischen Exempel war. eine wissenschaftliche Arbeit, die jahrelange ruhige Studien erfordert hätte, denn es liegt auf der Hand, daß hier mit der bloßen Phrase nichts zu machen ist, daß nur massenhaftes, kritisch gesichtetes, vollständig bewältigtes historisches Material zur Lösung einer solchen Aufgabe befähigen kann. …
-
Our party was propelled on to the political stage by the February Revolution and was thus prevented from pursuing purely scientific aims.
Die Februarrevolution warf unsere Partei auf die politische Bühne und machte ihr die Verfolgung rein wissenschaftlicher Zwecke damit unmöglich.
-
The basic outlook, nevertheless, runs like an unbroken thread through all literary productions of the party.
Trotzdem geht die Grundanschauung als roter Faden durch alle literarischen Produktionen der Partei durch.
-
Every one of them shows that action in each particular case was initiated by direct material causes and not by the accompanying phrases, that on the contrary the political and legal phrases, like political action and its results, originated in material causes.
In ihnen allen ist bei jedem einzelnen Fall nachgewiesen, wie die Aktion jedesmal aus direkten materiellen Anstößen, nicht aber aus den sie begleitenden Phrasen entsprang, wie im Gegenteil die politischen und juristischen Phrasen ebenso aus den materiellen Anstößen hervorgingen wie die politische Aktion und ihre Resultate.
Although twc uses the title “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”, it’s an Engels’ text that twc chooses to illustrate this so-called ‘Marx’, and not a text from Marx himself.Since the debate is entirely about whether Engels and Marx were using the same meaning for the term ‘materialist’, it is illegitimate to foreclose the discussion by using ‘Engels’ to determine ‘Marx’. This procedure will clearly result in the unified being of ‘Marx-Engels’, the ‘single’ origin of Leninism. twc’s method is not a comparative one, in which both Marx and Engels’ texts are compared and contrasted, but a religious method, guaranteed to produce the unified being ‘Marx-Engels’. In fact, the title for this thread should read “Engels and the Materialist Conception of History”.My advice for any comrade genuinely interested in this debate regarding Marx, Engels and the so-called ‘Materialist Conception of History’, is to read both thinkers, together with a commentary to help orientate oneself, and try to decide for oneself.I can recommend the following two texts: Karl MarxPreface and Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyForeign Languages Press, Peking, 1976http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/PI.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/Preface-introduction-contribution-critique-political/dp/B000RY60NA Terrell CarverMarx & Engels: The Intellectual RelationshipIndianaUniversityPress, Bloomington, 1983http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Engels-The-Intellectual-Relationship/dp/0253336813Especially pages 96-117, chapter 4, The Invention of Dialectics The Marx booklet also contains an appendix on pages 46-59, which is the review of Marx’s text by Frederick Engels, so there is no need to buy a third separate text.If any comrade reads these texts, and indeed others, too, and wishes to have a discussion about the difficulties of understanding Marx’s meaning of ‘materialist’ and of reconciling his usage with Engels’ much more simplistic view, then please start a new thread, and I’ll be happy to engage.
They can also look at the German Ideologyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htmJointly written by Fred and Chuck.
LBird wrote:In fact, the title for this thread should read “Engels and the Materialist Conception of History”.No, that is not in contention. “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History” is in contention.Far from attempting the impossible—to collapse Marx and Engels into a single intellectual unity, in which they agree jointly on all theoretical matters with each other—I am attempting to throw open for general discussion a source document that must be confronted when assessing “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”.Commentators, pro and con, do not dispute this document’s relevance for that purpose, mainly because there is no doubt that Engels—out of obligation and courtesy—sent the book review to Marx for his prior approval and free amendment in order to ensure it conformed to his ideas.Engels to Marx — 3 August 1859 Dear Moor, …Herewith the beginning of the article about your book.Take a good look at it and, if you don't like it in toto, tear it up and let me have your opinion.If you can knock it into shape, do so.A few convincing examples of the materialistic viewpoint would not come amiss, in place of my indifferent reference to the February revolution. [Engels retained a reference to the February revolution in the published review—see Post #1 above.]Engels to Marx — 10 August 1859 Dear Moor, …Yesterday evening, when about to write the 2nd article on your book, I was interrupted in such a way as to preclude further work.I shan’t be able to make up for lost time today and so the article will have to be put off till next week, greatly to my annoyance.Marx to Engels — 13 August 1859 Dear Engels, …‘Das Volk’ [the socialist journal that printed Engels’s book review] already wields considerable influence in the United States.For instance the preface to my book [‘A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy’] has been reprinted from ‘Das Volk’ and variously commented on by German language newspapers from New England to California.You couldn’t, I suppose, arrange to let me have your article by Wednesday, there being nothing ‘topical’ about it this time?The extant Marx–Engels correspondence (above) of August 1859 contains no evidence that Marx took any exception to the book review that Engels wrote.Now I can imagine rejoinders along the lines that on the occasion of the publication of ‘A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy’ Marx was distracted by one or more of the following contingent circumstances:In actuality, Marx was physically ill and suffering desperately (e.g., “Dear Engels, as a result of an attack of vomiting that has now lasted for two whole days, I am as weak as a fly and hence cannot write more than a few lines.” [8 August]).In actuality, Marx was undergoing extreme financial stress.In actuality, as editor of ‘Das Volk’ Marx was concerned with the journal’s survival [and, by improbable implication, Marx effectively ignored its editorial content, i.e. “he fell asleep at the wheel”].In extreme low probability, Marx was temporarily befuddled, in conformity with becoming the expectant father obsessed with the successful delivery of his ten years labour.In true ignominy, Marx grovelled before his wealthy patron Engels as vile sycophant.Alternatively, all documentary evidence to the contrary has been destroyed, or lost, by one or more of Marx, Engels or their literary executors.In any case, the surviving Marx–Engels correspondence [which I necessarily excerpted to focus on the book review] leaves little doubt that Marx at least tolerated, and at most approved of, what Engels wrote. The full contents of the Marx–Engels correspondence during this interlude are published in Marx–Engels Collected Works Volume 40, pages 478–85.So the challenge remains: why did Marx not savage Engels’s book review?Marx’s tolerance of the review’s content is what demands explanation, and hence this discussion thread on “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”.What complicates any rejoinder is the significant, but little known, circumstance that none other than Karl Marx, himself, was at the time effectively editor of ‘Das Volk’—a responsibility many commentators remain blithely unaware of!Here is how the editors of MECW Volume 40 describe Karl Marx’s relationship to ‘Das Volk’:“Das Volk — a German language weekly published in London from May 7 to August 20, 1859 — was founded as the official organ of the German Workers’ Educational Society in London. …”“Beginning with issue No. 2 Marx took an active part in its publication: he gave it advice, edited articles, organised material support, …” “In issue No. 6 of June 11, the Editorial Board officially named Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Ferdinand Freiligrath, Wilhelm Wolff and Heinrich Heise as its contributors.” [i.e. as for the later International, Marx was inevitably assuming effective editorial control.]“From the beginning of July, Marx was its de facto editor, handling all administrative and business matters, whose management until then had left ‘a great deal to be desired’, as he had earlier expressed to Engels.”“Under Marx’s management, and thanks also to Engels’s cooperation, the paper became a real communist propaganda organ. …”“However, it proved impossible to regularise its finances, and, after the sixteenth issue on 20 August 1859 [the one with the final instalment of Engels’s review], the paper ceased publication.”Having got this scarcely-appreciated Marxian background out of the way, it may be time to concentrate on the content of Engels’s review in light of the journal’s editor and the documentary circumstances surrounding the review’s publication.
twc wrote:…I am attempting to throw open for general discussion a source document that must be confronted when assessing “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”.Commentators, pro and con, do not dispute this document’s relevance for that purpose…Yes, and I wholeheartedly agree with your 'attempt to throw open for general discussion', twc.But, to do this, requires a comparison of their respective ideas, not an outlining of their personal relationship as mates, or an attempt to analyse their individual psychology, or their professional roles at work.The crux of the matter is what the pair of them meant by 'material'.It's no use saying Marx used the term 'material' and Engels used the term 'material', so they were both talking about the same thing, the 'material'.It's beyond any doubt, and always has been, that both used the term 'material'.The issue, through the line Labriola-Lukacs-Pannekoek-Hook-Gramsci-Dunayevskaya-Mattick-Avineri-Carver-Wood (and many others) is about just what 'materialism', when it is used in both Marx and Engels, actually means.Put simply, by 'materialism' Marx meant 'social production' (as opposed to 'idealism' meaning 'divine production'), whereas by 'materialism' Engels meant 'matter' (as opposed to 'idealism' meaning 'ideas').The political consequences of the adoption of Engels' misunderstanding of Marx was becoming clear even to Engels, by the end of his life, as his later letters show. But, even then, he couldn't get to the real root of the problem, and he, even at the end, continued to talk about the 'finality' of 'matter'.This 'materialism' is nothing to do with 'social production' (which means workers can change their world), but leads to the political pretence that 'matter' has the power to determine what humans do.Since that is not true, and, as Marx argued, humans create and thus can change their world, the power to change is vested in an elite, a minority with some sort of 'special consciousness', who themselves (and not workers employing democratic methods) change the world for their elite purposes.As a long line of thinkers have protested, if one agrees with 'materialism' (of the Engels' variety), then one is placing power to change into the hands of a minority, and this philosophy is ideal for Leninists, who openly say that the party is the 'active side', and not the class, who must wait till after the revolution to supposedly take power, which has been organised for them by the party.You must discuss the differences between Marx and Engels, twc.You're simply setting out to prove the existence of the unified being 'Marx-Engels'.If your theory starts with the concept 'Marx-Engels', you'll 'discover' 'Marx-Engels'.But if one employs a comparative method, the purpose of which is to build a basis for workers' power, and the democratic control of the means of production, then the differences between Marx's and Engels' conflicting 'materialisms' become very clear.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.