an attempt to start a seminar around "Thesis on Feuerbach" of Freidrich Engels

Thesis on “Ludwig Feuerbach” of Engels

Prepared for the theoretical seminar proposed by Fractal Vortex, and organized by A. A., in October 2002

Key: In red – thoughts addressed to self; in blue – thoughts to the prospective audience, at the seminars and abroad, supposedly Marxist

Now, I feel it is good that we will begin our seminar with the work, which is known to all Marxists. And especially it is good that it is work that touches upon philosophy of Marxism, i.e. the most comprehensive view of reality. Our thoughts will bounce off this work, and in our comments on it we will clearly draw a dividing line amongst ourselves – where we differ and where we’re the same.

My thoughts on this work must be presented in forms of theses. These must be “clear as the day”, for I will have to argue them out with the audience which I know will take them, initially, in a hostile manner (for I, e.g. will overturn the long believed assumption of Marxism that it is “proletariat” which deserves to be seen as “the Savior”). So proofs must be evident.

* * *

In exploring something, we should go from what is “known” to what is unknown. That is why we have chosen to review first work of fundamental value to Marxism, such as “Ludwig Feuerbach” of Engels.

It should be evident that Engels does a poor job of presenting the wealth of Hegel’s system. Moreover, since none of the participants of our seminar has had the ambition to understand that system for him/herself, Engels’ presentation is perceived with reverence. So what should be done, in the future, is to discuss the entire philosophy of Hegel in a comprehensive way. This will form the “ground”, a “primer” for the more comprehensive views on knowing. For, if “dialectics” is perceived as the highest, and not rather as the synthesis of knowledge at the end of XVIII century, no next step is possible. There is no one who climbed higher than Hegel in all the major branches of development. Some scientists, such as Einstein, did so in separate spheres, but they presented no comprehensive world view. So: analysis of the entire philosophical system of Hegel is the next step to Marxists, overcoming the limitations of Marxism. It should be planned as one of our next seminars. I suggest it will be the first one, as soon as we cover other “basic” texts of Marxism, i.e. get the whole spectrum of the problem.
(That is the reason I wanted to study Hegel with Sydney Morgenbesser rather than Marx. I was already a Marxist, and needed to overcome my own limitations. Morgenbesser was not a Marxist yet, and so he desired to exchange some more thoughts on the subject with a restless, revolutionary student.)

(So, in preparation for the seminars, I think my “Thesis on dialectics of Hegel” will serve as a nice guide. It is not complete in all instances, but overall is not bad. May be supplemented by further studies, such as that of “Logic”, but I don’t think that is the best use of time.)

Engels clearly states that first there is a revolution in thought, and then there is a social revolution. Now, this clearly goes against the “materialist” conception of history, whereby “matter is primary, and thought is secondary”. Rather, in line with modern physics, we should perceive that “matter” and “thought” are 2 different aspects of the same thing (just like energy and matter). They continuously influence each other. Moreover, dominance in this relationship continuously changes in favor of the “ideal”, i.e. thought! This goes along with the progress of civilization, and hence growth in consciousness. For example: war. If at the dawn of the civilization raw physical force played the dominant role, today it is information that determines to a large extent the outcome of a battle. That is not to deny that force is necessary to “finish” the job, but that plays a secondary or tertiary role.
(Perhaps even more important than “information” on the battlefield is the conviction that one is right, that one is fighting and is ready to die for a just cause. Let’s call it “enthusiasm for truth and justice”. For example, it is this conviction which guided terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center and Pentagon in the U.S.)

(In this changing relationship between “thought” and “matter”, force of the brain and force of the muscle, we see hope for women, for their emergence from the position of servitude, weakness and dependence and oppression.)

(Another example: revolution in Russia happened first because of the higher consciousness of Russian social-democratic movement, in spite of Russia lagging behind in technology.)

It should be understood that logical development = historical development. These two are different aspects of the same process. Hence, if we are interested in a comprehensive development of knowledge, we should observe the historical development of the Universe, from its creation to the present state of society (its social problems and problems in its knowledge). This, properly, is the next stage to presenting the entire Hegelian philosophy. Here, we shall have a chance to examine the latest theories on the creation of the Universe, as well as the structure of matter. (On the way, we will have to address again the question of existence of “a Creator” and “lawgiver to the Universe”, and hence battle with religion, as it is creeping anew). Here, we shall have a chance to examine various sciences (such as Earth science and biology) and proceed to take an overview of social theory (since Marx) and theories of knowledge. Development of this seminar, with myself leading and others contributing, must lead to a development of a new comprehensive system, a world view that should supplement, or replace in certain parts the outdated Marxist world view.

Study of knowledge should proceed along the following:

study of development of nature
study of development of human society
logic appears as the process which appears all along in the two former studies, at a mature stage of these studies (when we study similar, congruent processes). Hence, it can be perceived both as an independent doctrine, and one which is inseparable from the concrete manifestations, just like the study of “war” in both an independent doctrine, and inseparable from the study of the society of the times.

(In fact, I can and I should excuse myself from presentations on the “known” aspects of Marxism for the sake of preparation and development of this higher view. It will not be confined to Kiev, but will have global repercussions.)

(The above is development of a program proper – from Marx to Hegel, to a new synthesis of knowledge. Very simple!)

Ultimately, we’re attempting to survey facts and laws now existing in various sciences, and generalize these into laws more general than those which exist in any science. This is the next stage in learning, a truly unified theory (and not “unified theory” in the sense in which it is postulated in physics, as simply a theory to explain all the existing physical forces). The usefulness of this theory will be in that its general laws will help researches in particular branches with their research, as its general conclusions will be drawn upon and applied in particular branches of learning.

5. Engels writes:

The Middle Ages had attached to theology all the other forms of ideology — philosophy, politics, jurisprudence — and made them subdivision of theology. It thereby constrained every social and political movement to take on a theological form

Today, the same is true in regard to science. Everything is “science”, i.e. learning which is spread out into branches seemingly not connected with each other (“the tree of knowledge” image). Hegel was the one, for example, who wanted to make philosophy a science. Same was true, earlier, for Leonardo da Vinci. He aimed at making art a science. Science is essentially a study of separate things and processes, through the methods of observation, thinking and experimentation. But it is possible to study all the process taken together, in their interconnection. “Philosophy” may not be the name for this approach, for philosophy often substitutes mental creations for gaps in knowledge (thus being a kind of semi-religion). Philosophy has shown itself in history as a progressive force when it acted as a stepping stone on the way to science. But philosophy comes close to the kind of attitude to learning we have in mind. Thus, for example, Einstein was treated as “scientist-philosopher”. And take such modern universal men as Isaac Asimov – a writer, a scientist, an educator. And perhaps in the last role, he is most important. His science-fiction “Foundation” series is merely a lure to become interested in knowledge, and its struggle with the decaying “Empire”. It is the people who champion knowledge against the corrupting influence of the “Empire” who are the hero’s of today’s science fiction, and capture the imagination of youth.

Another way of seeing these “new people” is to see them as all-around, “Renaissance” women and men. It is people trained both in physical and mental labor, uniting them both to further their Grand goal. It is people who approach knowledge not from a view of “profession”, but rather in unifying way. It is the people who already partially abolished class divisions of society in their own lives, and will attempt to help others to do this for themselves.

It is from this group of people, gradually forming today, that we can expect a “theory of the future”, i.e. a sequel of the Marxist theory.

(New attitude to knowledge)

For a beginner, it is better to commit a mistake of seeing the “savior” in proletariat rather than in bourgeoisie. This way, at least, s/he is honest about Marxist theory, and is not selling oneself to one’s own capitalist class. However, proletariat, even proletarian movement, such as we see today – unions, strikes, etc. – will not do the job of conceiving and organizing the overthrow of capitalist system world wide. They have never done so! Instead, it was “the new people”, if we use the expression of Chernishevsky.

6. In parallel with the theoretical program, we should be pursuing our struggle in the practical sphere of winning our material existence. Essentially, this struggle is the same as that of trying to obtain greater knowledge, and apply or use it towards some end. All modern industry relies on advanced forms of knowledge, such as computers, languages, biology, physics, etc. A modern man/woman should strive towards excellence in one of these fields. Upon achievement of that, s/he gains power to lead others. This authority can be used to organize “pockets of practical resistance”, i.e. production centers which run without either a capitalist motive (a profit, derived from exploitation of hired labor-power), or a stifling bureaucracy (as in the decaying state industries and services). This is truly the meaning of the slogan “power to the people”. It is people taking that power due to their superior knowledge.

We should remember that in the same manner the bourgeoisie “dissolved” the power of the feudal order. It was these isolated at first “pockets of resistance”, upon the body of feudal relations, that eventually grew into capitalist economic system worldwide. Essentially, I propose “practical democracy”, which involves both producers and consumers, or users, working together, without the intermediary of “an entrepreneur” or “administration”. Strategic problems of planning should be performed first by “a leader”, then by a producers’ collective together with the users of the product or service.

Thus, practical activity of “revolutionaries” is not demonstrations or pickets, etc. but rather is obtaining knowledge and thinking of applying it in new ways, organizing production in a liberating fashion. Really, they have no choice if they want to live freely, and not cringe before the powers that be! In this sense, progress is predetermined…

7. In Goethe and in Hegel we find the idea that the moving force of historical development is evil (personified by Mephistopheles). One more time, we can find this to be true, as in the present we see new round of imperialism, aggressive expansionism on the part of the most advanced capitalism. This expansionism pursues two basic goals: a) to crush the remnants of socialism, b) a more traditional goal of gaining cheaply scarce resources, raw materials, products for its industries, cheap labor power, etc. Hence, an understanding of our times requires examining the history of this tendency of capital to expand and conquer (which we really see from its dawn). It also requires examining in great detail the struggles going on currently, as in the propaganda and diplomatic attack (supplemented by air strikes) which the U.S. is waging against Iraq. An understanding of our times is essential to propose a serious program.

8. Moreover, if we accept that “all political struggles are class struggles”, we should be ready to answer what social classes are now playing the dominant role in the political struggles on the arena of Ukraine, former Soviet Union in general, and all formerly “socialist” and “communist” countries as such. The principal parties that we see leading the people are the bureaucrats who want to return to the status quo (to “USSR” for example) and the bureaucrat-capitalist symbiosis which wants to drive the country towards capitalism. In between of these, we notice maneuvering of various small parties, trying to block themselves with this or that major camp (as for example “the block of Yulia Timoshenko” in Ukraine). The workers we mostly perceive as involved in economic struggles (as in trade unions striking and picketing various ministries). True, they undergo a kind of political education, on the way, but in a very slow and tedious way – too slow to expect anything revolutionary. So, questions emerge:

- What is happening in former “socialist” countries in more detail?

- Are we all going down the Yugoslav scenario?

- What can be done?

Once again, it appears that the clash of two “evils” (“nostalgia” and “reformers”), together with the force exerted by the international capital, may in the end produce something good, just like Goethe and Hegel noticed.

9. Socialist revolution is a series of revolutions, gradually achieving its goals more and more successfully. Let’s notice that the bourgeoisie was attempting to rise to power continually, over the period of centuries! For example, Engels notes the Reformation in Germany, led by Luther, in the XVI century – this led to disappearance of Germany from the map of European nations. Hence, this was a dismal failure for German bourgeoisie. In XVII century, we have the English revolution, led by Puritans. This was one of the first cases where bourgeoisie successfully took the reigns of power, although also after a prolonged struggle, which included Restoration of Stuarts, and then again a new revolution to get rid of them again. In XVIII century we have the French revolution. Perhaps we can project similar upheavals against capitalist system. First such upheaval took place in France, in 1871, and ended in dismal failure – murder of Parisian Communards. Second anti-capitalist upheaval took place in Russia – in 1905 and 1917. Right now we’re going through the stage of battling the Restoration. Following WWII, other similar upheavals achieved success – most notably in Yugoslavia, in 1945 and China, in 1949. We should notice, that most of the successful anti-capitalist rebellions took place in the course of wars started by ruling capitalist circles – either that of Napoleon III of France (against Prussia, in 1870), or in the course of Russian defeat from Japan, in 1905, or in the course of defeat of Russia in WWI, in 1917. Hence, it is safe to think that the future anti-capitalist rebellion will also take place in the course of a struggle against an imperialist war.

Summary:

Somebody who wants to change the world should first master the rudiments of Marxism. These include such works as “Ludwig Feuerbach” of Engels, “State and Revolution” by Lenin, and “What is the USSR” by L. Trotsky.
Studying the Hegel’s system is the next step for Marxist. First, we should study something, then be able to present it.
The next stage after presenting the entire Hegelian philosophy is the study of the development of knowledge. Here, the subject is essentially the same (e.g. the Universe), but yet in each particular branch of science it appears as different – atoms in physics, molecules in chemistry, plant and animal kingdom in biology, etc.
We attempt to lift learning to a stage of generalizations above any one science. This stage of learning will unite both theoretical and practical experiences, thus leading the way towards a classless society.
Practical (as well as theoretical!) activity of any one young woman and man today should be aimed at winning various forms of knowledge. These forms will give to the young people power over others, and will allow them to lead – in theory as well as in society. One more time, we should remember the slogan of Lenin: “To study, to study, to study!”
Imperialism is reborn in modern times. It pursues both its traditional goals (markets, raw materials, etc., as in Iraq) and a new one (wiping out pockets of socialism). Hence, a modern program is incomplete without examination of its histories, as well as modern manifestations.
Study of modern imperialism (in its interrelationship with Third World Countries) should be supplemented by the study of the decay of the former “socialist” states. We may expect imperialism to strike here, as it did in Yugoslavia, and start a new war leading to a new stage in global socialist revolution.

the "end"

p.s. Very little came out of this seminar. Anshakov, who was in charge of organizing the seminar, simply did not understand the idea why it is necessary to study Hegel beyond the level presented by Engels in "Thesis on Feuerbach". Anshakov did not understand the need for unification of knowledge. He is all too "practical". And even though 2 other members of the seminar backed me up, saying that they should give me a chance to make a presentation on Hegel at next seminar, the protests were too weak. These protesters in the end followed Anshakov, who is their leader.

October 2nd, 2002

Other materials related to work with people from "Workers' Resistance"