The development of a scientific view of history in the early works of K. Marx

Ginatulina Ol'ga Aminovna ORCID: 0000-0002-9497-5452 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities and Socio-Economic Disciplines of Perm Institute of the Federal Penal Service of Russia 614012, Russia, Perm Krai, Perm, ul. Karpinsky, 125 kylikbitva@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Undoubtedly, K. Marx is a grandiose figure not only of the XIX, but also of the XX, as well as of the XXI century. To researchers of the historical process, this person is significant, first of all, because it was K. Marx who first looked at society and history from a materialistic point of view ^[1]. Materialism as an ontological trend originated and existed for quite a long time, but all materialists before the XIX century showed inconsistency in their views. Considering the world, nature from the point of view of materialism, they remained idealists in the analysis of society and history.

Many studies have been devoted to the study of the creative heritage of K. Marx, the subject of which is a wide variety of aspects, ranging from economic to philological. In particular, much attention is paid to the early works of the thinker. This interest does not subside over time. Among the major researchers of the past, it is possible to mention such domestic and foreign authors as F.Mering, O.Kornu, V.G.Plekhanov, T.I.Oizerman, G.A.Bagaturia, M.Livshits, I.S.Narsky, L.V.Gnatyuk, M.Bur, G.Krause, V.Maizer, E.V. Ilyenkov, G.S. Batishchev, etc. The disputes of scientists around the early period of K. Marx's work unfolded around the problem of interpretation of his views. Soviet authors actively criticized foreign attempts to interpret such aspects of early K. Marx as sensuality, alienation, romanticism towards idealism and emphasized the idea of class struggle and ideological orientation. Today, with the departure of ideology from science, there is also a departure from the materialistic method proposed by the scientist. Early works are still being studied, but the emphasis is on idealistic and phenomenological moments, the subject of consideration is the problem of human alienation, human emancipation, sensuality, spirit, anthropology, existence, etc. ^[2] Often the ideas of the early period of K.Marx are opposed to later works. Hence, some authors conclude that it is contradictory ^[3]. Therefore, it is necessary to show the connection between the periods of the first and second stages in the creative development of K. Marx. The purpose of the article is to reconstruct the development of the idea of a materialistic understanding of history in the early works of K. Marx. The method itself seems to be an extremely important achievement for science and does not lose its heuristic potential for analyzing history and society in modern times.

K. Marx himself originally belonged to the idealist camp, fascinated by the dialectics of G.V.F. Hegel. His creative development, as it were, proves the position of his theory itself, the views of the thinker begin to change under the influence of his practical social activities. It is interesting to trace this evolution, starting with the early works of the thinker.

Already in K. Marx's letter to his father (1837), the thinker shows his philosophical views. He criticizes all idealists before G.V.F. Hegel (including himself), especially I. Kant and I. Fichte for their ontological views, for their desire to separate the due and the existent. From his point of view, they take the ideal construction of the world, society and compare it with reality. If reality loses, then they try to impose on the world what they think it should be. However, K. Marx speaks very positively about G.V.F. Hegel himself, calling his dialectic a "bizarre wild melody" ^[4].

Marx's time working for the Rhine newspaper makes him pay attention to economic relations. It was during this period that he moved from the positions of dialectical idealism and revolutionary democracy to the positions of dialectical materialism and scientific communism. In the debates of the sixth Rhine Landtag "On Freedom of the Press" (1842) ^[5] K. Marx notes that people's thoughts and opinions are not self-sufficient, but depend on the class to which the people who express them belong. The opposite of interests is caused by dependence on property status. Each person acts in the interests of his class, but a certain class, acting in the interests of itself, simultaneously acts in the interests of humanity, because it contributes to the development of all. This is the class K. Marx called the fourth estate – the most oppressed. Thus, he notices contradictions in the understanding of the state according to Hegel. In the debate of the sixth Rhine Landtag "On the theft of forests" (1843) ^[6] K. Marx concludes that the state is the interest of the owner, that the state is the political domination of the economically leading class.

In the work "The Justification of the Moselle Correspondent" (1943), K. Marx tries to discover objective factors that move society, that is, he finds a new view of history, the opposite of the idealistic one. Calls for seeing "the actions of objective relations where at first glance it seems that only persons act" ^[7]. The plight of the Primozelsky peasantry is explained by the imperfection of the political system, and not by climatic conditions, which the government usually referred to. An interesting position that will further lead to an understanding of the objectivity of the laws of society, even if they are formed through the relationships of people, and pass through their consciousness, but become a force independent of the will and desire of people.

In his work "On the Jewish Question" (1843), he criticizes B. Bauer for reducing human emancipation only to emancipation from religion. K. Marx calls for turning from "criticism of heaven" to "criticism of the earth" ^[8]. To look for the keys in social contradictions, and not in the worldview of a person and society. Egoism, individual interest is a consequence of contradictions in civil society, and not signs of human nature or ideological moods.

In the introduction To the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law (1843-1844), K. Marx opposes Hegel in that he explains all social contradictions by the existence of religion. K. Marx concludes that the anatomy of civil society should be sought in political economy. He puts forward the idea that social being determines social consciousness. Formulates the position that the proletariat finds its ideological weapon in philosophy, and philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat. Nevertheless, the thinker does not detract from the role and significance of social consciousness, the role of ideas in society (although the concepts of social consciousness and social being themselves will be theoretically substantiated later). He writes about the role of theory and ideas. "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism with weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it takes possession of the masses" ^[9]. However, not any idea can master the masses, but only one that corresponds to the level and development of society, that is, ultimately, ideas are not self-sufficient, but grow out of the most objective reality. Therefore, the purpose of social transformations is to change the structure of society, and not the ideas of society, as other thinkers argue about it. The only condition for human emancipation can be the destruction of private ownership of the means of production and alienation in labor.

In the Economic and Philosophical manuscripts of 1844, K. Marx disagrees with the representatives of political economy for postulating the position of an equivalent exchange between goods and between capital and labor. According to Marx, the more a worker invests in the object of labor, the more he loses himself. He aptly notes that capital increases labor, however, K. Marx does not introduce the concept of "surplus value" here.

The central problem of this work is the alienation of a person in the process of work. Man is alienated not only from the product of labor, but also in the process of labor. For him, work is only a means of maintaining life, and not a condition for self-development. Man alienates his own essence from himself and man from man. Labor produces not only the product, but also the worker himself. Marx writes about exploitation under capitalism: "a man (a worker) feels free to act only when performing his animal functions — when eating, drinking, in sexual intercourse, at best still settling in his home, decorating himself, etc. — and in his human functions he feels only like an animal" ^[10]. The worker's personal life is turned against him, does not depend on him, does not belong to him. This is self-alienation.

In the same work, he gives a characterization of society through a person. Society is a person in his relationships. This definition differs from metaphysical interpretations in that it emphasizes the material relations of people between people, which bind them into society, rather than considering society as a mechanical sum of individuals, which ultimately does not allow one to notice the essence of a person, and leads to idealism. But this does not mean that a person can be dissolved in a relationship, therefore it designates a person as an objective being. "An inconspicuous being is an impossible, non-existent being" ^[10]. It shows the distinctive property of man that man is the only being in the world that is a universal being. "But the animal produces ... one-sidedly, whereas man produces universally; it produces only under the power of an immediate physical need, whereas man produces even when free from physical need, and in the true sense of the word only produces when he is free from it; the animal produces only itself, whereas man reproduces all nature..." ^[10].

Formulates a person's attitude to nature. Man resurrects nature, not destroys it. Here lies a deep thought about the purpose of man. That the world in its development has reached such a form of its own that will allow developing the dormant possibilities of nature, that man differs from animals in that he transforms nature, thereby transforming himself. Nature is an inorganic human body. However, the concept of "labor force" is not formulated in this work.

The following work is a joint one with F. Engels' "The Holy Family" (1845). The purpose of this work is to rid philosophy of the mystification of the Young Hegelians (B. Bauer, D. Strauss). K. Marx and F. Engels believes that spiritualism is the enemy of real humanism, because it tries to impose on the world, reality, society what they should be. Observing individual things, idealists build abstract concepts, and then impose this framework on reality, instead of proceeding from the objective laws of the development of society.

Analyzing the history of Modern philosophy, K. Marx and F. Engels show that the line of materialism of that period was divided into two branches, one went into mechanicism (R. Descartes), and the other gave rise to a branch of socialism (J. Locke). They criticize the first, and discover valuable points in the second. K. Marx highly appreciates the contribution of F. Bacon, calling him the ancestor of materialism and all experimental science of Modern times, for his experimental method, and for the fact that he still does not reach mechanicism in his teaching. This will be done later by T. Hobbes, who systematizes the materialism of F. Bacon and expresses the leading feature of that era in the form of a metaphysical approach to the analysis of reality. And J. Locke would rid F. Bacon's philosophy of theism and create his own theory of sensualism, from which later E. Condillac would develop the ideas of socialism. After all, if a person's soul is a "blank slate" and from birth people have neither a good nor an evil nature, then society makes them so, and the social structure needs to be changed. "If a person's character is created by circumstances, then it is necessary, therefore, to make the circumstances human" ^[11]. Thus, the authors try to draw the thread of the formation of a materialistic view of society, criticizing idealism in every possible way as a doctrine that is untenable for practical changes in society. From their point of view, ideas are not able to go beyond any limits and are not able to implement anything, for this real people and their material activities are needed.

The next joint work of K. Marx and F. Engels is considered mature – "German Ideology" (1845-1846). Here the authors present their concept of a materialistic understanding of history and society, and give arguments. Formulate the concepts of "mode of production", "productive forces", "forms of communication", "social being", "social consciousness".

They show that despite the fact that people endowed with consciousness act in society, and it seems at first glance that people first think and then act, in fact there is something that does not depend on the will and desire of people. This is labor, the transformation of nature. Because a person differs from an animal in that he does not find anything ready in nature, and before he engages in the thought process, it is necessary to produce the means necessary for life itself.

The provisions of the materialistic understanding of history sound clearly: "Consciousness can never be anything other than conscious existence, and the existence of people is the real process of their life … It is not consciousness that determines life, but life determines consciousness" ^[12].

Also in this work, the authors formulate an understanding of the essence of man: "People can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion, by anything at all. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce the means of life they need, a step that is conditioned by their bodily organization. By producing the means of living they need, people indirectly produce their own material life..." ^[12]. Man is a material being, living human individuals. The only being in the world that produces its own essence. Introduces the concept of lifestyle. "What is the vital activity of individuals, so are they themselves, ... their vital activity coincides with what they produce and how they produce. What individuals are, therefore, depends on the material conditions of their production" ^[12]. Gives a classification of society by forms of ownership (tribal, ancient, feudal).

He argues for a materialistic understanding of history "... people must be able to live in order to be able to 'make history'. But life requires first of all food and drink, shelter, clothing and something else. So, the first historical act is the production of the means necessary to meet these needs, the production of material life itself" ^[12]. Further, in a letter to Annenkov dated December 28, 1846 ^[13], the thinker clearly states that the methods of exchange and consumption, as well as the political structure and all other elements of society will depend on the level of development of productive forces. The objectivity of the historical process is also manifested in the fact that people do not choose, but find a certain level of development of productive forces ready. It shows that the substance of history is man himself. History is nothing but human development.

In the work "The Poverty of Philosophy" (1847), K. Marx gives a materialistic interpretation of political economy. Criticizes Proudhon for petty-bourgeois socialism. The categories of mature teaching are used in the work. The position of the materialist understanding of history about the determining role of productive forces is formulated. "A manual mill gives you a society with a suzerain at the head, a steam mill gives you a society with an industrial capitalist" ^[14].

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, one can already find a systematic exposition of the materialist understanding of history. It formulated ideas about the class struggle and the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution. The conflict between productive forces and production relations is shown. At a certain stage, production relations become a brake on the development of productive forces, then they are discarded, and new more developed ones come in their place. The ideal of a society in which "the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all" is depicted ^[15].

In the Preface to the critique of political economy, Marx briefly formulates the main provisions of the materialist understanding of history and society. People enter into material relations in the production of their own lives, these relations do not depend on human consciousness. Production relations correspond to the concrete historical level of development of productive forces. Production relations constitute the economic structure of society, the real basis above which the legal and political superstructure rises. "People's consciousness does not determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness" ^[16]. Society cannot move to a new stage of development before the productive forces develop. The challenges facing society arise when the material prerequisites have matured. The bourgeois formation is the last antagonistic formation.

Thus, one can observe how consistently and logically the main provisions of K. Marx's materialistic concept of society grew. Ultimately, it acquired a holistic and complete character and acted as a kind of method for analyzing social contradictions. It is impossible to agree with a number of authors that the thinker is internally contradictory ^[3], some inconsistent positions are represented by different stages in the creative development of the thinker and are steps towards the formation of a unified theory.