Lesson 5: Marx, Bakunin, Engels and Feuerbach

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our fifth meeting.

Synopsis of Week 5 Meeting:

1. In 1843, Karl Marx and his wife moved to Paris. There, Marx became involved with new radical newspaper, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (German-French Annals), set up by Arnold Ruge, German socialist revolutionary. Although it was intended to attract both French and German writers, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher was dominated by the latter, the only non-German writer being the exiled Russian anarcho-communist Michael Bakunin.

Bakunin has often been called the father of anarchist theory. He said after meeting Marx:

“They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.”

Let’s take this in terms of Occupy Wall Street. On the ground, these global events may appear anarchic, even freedom-loving. Many idealistic minds, including in the press, are propagating the notion of the “organic” youth movement leading us into a glorious new future filled with Steve Jobs visionaries and Bill Gates philanthropists, heading up a technological revolution in energy and other necessary components of civilization. But the facts are very different. These are aimless children, mixing with futureless old radicals and burnouts, drifting towards a message of hopefulness predicated on the same tired superstitions; namely, (1) capitalism is a Jewish plot, (2) capitalism is death for the planet, (3) capitalism is poverty for the 99%. Now, if you’ve been absorbing our synopses from prior weeks, you will see that the ideology being hastened is exactly Marxism at its purest.

The anarchic element is in the kinetic mobility of the mob. As they move from park to uptown, a degree of fear shocks through every American. What will happen? It is this anticipation upon which Bakunin (if it helps, think of him as Boris Badanov from the old Bullwinkle cartoons) hoped to capitalize. This is the “universal rebellion” from “free organization of toiling masses.” But Marx argued that such energy without direction is a waste of time. This is essentially the Russian vs. German argument. Later, we will learn that Lenin despised the Russian method!

While both social anarchists and Marxists share the same final goal (the creation of a free, egalitarian society without social classes and government), they strongly disagree on how to achieve it. Anarchists believe that the classless, stateless society should be established by the direct action of the masses, culminating in social revolution, and refuse any intermediate stage such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the basis that such a dictatorship will become a self-perpetuating fundamental. For Bakunin, the contradiction is that for the Marxists, "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved."

Bakunin was not alone in his criticism of Marxist planning. It was viewed with suspicion by every free-thinking anarchist from France to England to Russia, and beyond. The main obstacle was and remains today – “Who made you boss?” The anarchist believes in self-determination to the point that no government exists. But how this is accomplished runs immediately into trouble, for who will enforce “no government”? It obviously takes a force to remove a force, and a continuing force to protect the rights of free people to remain free. Thereby, the anarchist appears foolish.

Bakunin later wrote that Marx had convinced him of several key points:

“As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is, incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical observations... He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right.”

Elementally, Bakunin was being indoctrinated, the bomb-thrower becoming pamphleteer (as Van Jones has graduated from grandiose defender of cop-killer in Oakland, Calif. to buttoned-up advocate for fairness).

Note that Marx considered himself to be not a Russian (like Bakunin) but a German thinker, from that school of philosophy (Hegel). This is important. The German inclination for authoritarianism and order is the heart of communism. It demands cleansing of population in order to remain pure. It is highly related to insect hive behavior. Russian ideals, on the other hand, center always on pageantry, whether religious or mythical. Concerning the spread of socialism, the German takes the nationalist route, the Russian the ideological.

Bakunin was not at first a socialist, but became convinced that at the very least he needed to become chummy with Marxists, who he believed might hold the upper hand as it concerned the dialectic materialism (both linguistically and historically). And not that we are concentrating diligently on Bakunin, but his anti-Jewish rhetoric was not unlinked from Marx’s own ideas. Returning again to Occupy Wall Street, anti-Semitic remarks are now becoming not only more prevalent but also fashionable, a consequence of the anarchist hooking together with the Marxist in some sense of secure solidarity.

2. It was in Paris that, on 28 August 1844, Marx met German socialist Friedrich Engels. Engels showed Marx his recently published book, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, which convinced Marx that the working class would be the agent and instrument of the final revolution in history. Engels and Marx soon set about writing a criticism of the philosophical ideas of Marx's former friend, the Young Hegelian Bruno Bauer, which would be published in 1845 as The Holy Family.

Engels wrote:

“The condition of the working-class is the real basis and point of departure of all social movements of the present because it is the highest and most unconcealed pinnacle of the social misery existing in our day.”

When I first read this, I thought it was written yesterday. As one can readily see, nothing has changed. Business is not a personal game, but the working class do take everything personally. Insofar as it concerns social upheaval, the general disinterest of the corporation for its employee has been a message parlayed throughout history, whether as slave vs. master, serf vs. lord, or labor vs. management. Grievances are at the heart of all uprisings. And since these are never-ending, the Marxist has ample opportunity to show compassion, organize numbers for power, and finally confront the oppressor. However, Engels was not a genius, only perceptive.

The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, believe it or not, was aimed towards the German people. He wrote:

“We Germans more than anybody else stand in need of a knowledge of the facts concerning this question. And while the conditions of existence of Germany's proletariat have not assumed the classical form that they have in England, we nevertheless have, at bottom, the same social order, which sooner or later must necessarily reach the same degree of acuteness as it has already attained across the North Sea, unless the intelligence of the nation brings about in time the adoption of measures that will provide a new basis for the whole social system. The root-causes whose effect in England has been the misery and oppression of the proletariat exist also in Germany and in the long run must engender the same results.”

The scheming thus for a marriage between German ideology and communism was begun, based however erroneously upon a revolution both for and against British common law (one might say a second French Revolution patterned after a second American Revolution).

3. A year later Marx would write Theses on Feuerbach, best known for the statement that "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it". This work contains Marx's criticism of materialism (for being contemplative), idealism (for reducing practice to theory) and overall, criticizing philosophy for putting abstract reality above the physical world. It thus introduced the first glimpse at Marx's historical materialism, an argument that the world is changed not by ideas but by actual, physical, material activity and practice.

The "Theses" identify political action as the only truth of philosophy. In one example, Marx says:

“Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically.”

Because “objectivity” must be embraced over all “subjectivity” Marx was consumed that any thing beheld was riddled with inconsistent doctrine concerning it. Thus, the “holy family” (you may conceive this as Trinity or simply as a righteous family unit) is the product of the “earthly family” (that is, doctrines formed through, according to Marx, faulty or unstable observations), and both may be destroyed by attacking the concepts of education, particularly at the elementary level. Naturally, righteousness being the main target of the Marxist, this entails dissolution not only of willy-nilly public education but also of non-state-sponsored religious catechisms, and of private education (including home schooling and tutoring). Eventually, dissolving these will weaken the family unit to its basic atoms, that is, to useful citizens rather than individual minds.

The attractiveness of such a philosophy (which it is) cannot be overstated. It promises the end to war, jealousy, hatred, crime, and violence. Nevertheless, downplayed is the necessity of coercion and extermination. Force must be used, at least in the beginning, to remove people from their pre-existing self-determination. Thus, re-education camps. Those who cannot be dissuaded from their individual “atomistic” thought processes must be either isolated (enslaved) or removed (killed). This is known to them as “compassion.” But why is it attractive? Elitism. Those who “know better” feel it is their “duty” (some to God, some to the state) to flush out the “trash.” This is master racism.

Another “thesis” reads thus:

Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man [menschliche Wesen = ‘human nature’]. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence is hence obliged:

1. To abstract from the historical process and to define the religious sentiment regarded by itself, and to presuppose an abstract — isolated - human individual.

2. The essence therefore can by him only be regarded as ‘species’, as an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way.”

Marx takes apart Feuerbach’s cautious optimism for humanity as the same “dumb” reasoning accorded also to those humans who think they are individual thinkers but who are in fact herd thinkers. Marx’s objective is to isolate even those who are “verge thinkers” insofar as they do not disagree with Marx but also do not fully agree with him. Marx is purging Feuerbach while at the same time integrating him.

The intellectual argument Marx uses, however, is faulty. Rather than establishing any true knowledge on man’s nature, Marx establishes only the incongruity of Feuerbach. That is, he has not much to say except in negative terms, and therefore all of Marx’s conclusions come out as destructive impulses. He knows how to wreck but not really how to build. It is the philosophy of a spoiled child. It is the same with his “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a platitude built upon the despoiling of the former societal structure, lavishing into a utopian enterprise founded upon... those same “dumb” humans! Therefore, Marx’s intercourse with truth is only as vibrant as it remains distant from his other forays, because you can’t have it both ways!

A bit deeper, Marx makes the obvious error, removing himself as one of the flawed beings. Naturally so, for he is the “savior.” But if it seems that he can only stand by either contradiction without responsible observation, or else by comparing himself through relative morality by virtue of his IQ, you are correct. He is nevertheless a god of imperfection who, if subjected to his own standard, must himself be reeducated. Naturally, however, like all master racists, he is given to himself providence for his many contributions to the cause.

Another of his fallacies lies in this conclusion:

“The highest point reached by contemplative [anschauende] materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is the contemplation of single individuals and of civil society [bürgerlichen Gesellschaft].”

That is, selfishness in the “old” way (individualistic, for oneself) is no good, and is furthermore construed from religion, specifically the Jewish religion (re-read On the Jewish Question). If you will recall from previous synopses, Marxism posited the downfall of society as a consequence of living in capitalism, which Marx connoted as an inhuman construct deriving straight from Judaism and Judaic thought, manifested in the “atomistic” philosophy (“it’s all about me”) which automatically derides collectivism. This is the Marxist grand slam: knocking Torah (God’s Law), capitalism, individuality, and revolt against Marxism in one swipe.

It, however, never seems to occur to Marx that his philosophy (which he constantly refuses to name as such) makes him an enemy of his own state. For if individuality, the manifestation of that subjective materialism which builds the fantasy world of creative separateness, while at the same time clinging to the notion of communion with God, is incorrect thinking, then Marx is the leader of that parade. He is in fact a Hun, but worse so in that he deems himself and those like him to be “chosen” (there is no other way to put it).

All who follow Marx must obviously abandon their logic and humanity in order to enter that elite membership. Ah, but there’s the rub! Such an argument doesn’t work on the Marxist for he already believes that rejection of Marxism is inhuman! Marx’s redefinition of “selfishness” under a “new” banner of “human society” or “social humanity” (thesis 10) is the proof. Simply, if you are anti-Marxist and/or individualistic, you are against humanity. You are “selfish” in the bad way rather than selfish in the “good” way. Marx is now your god, Marxism your Torah.

This is why Torah is most important – it resolves you to God and His word, not to interpretations or even “faith.” Faith in what? Feelings? Philosophies? Remember, Marxism cares not if you believe in God, as long as you follow the rules which benefit humanity... as they see it (of course). Torah is a pre-existent canon of regulation which withstands the accusations of any and all, especially those with differing lifestyle choices. Once, however, you acquiesce to the whim of “compassion” over Law, you are a Marxist. If you think Torah is archaic for certain commandments, you are a Marxist. If you think the Constitution has outlived its usefulness in the name of compassion, you are a Marxist.

“Theses on Feuerbach” is therefore not a document of dust and triviality, but a manuscript which must be thoroughly understood before you can push back correctly against the Marxist.