Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophical Thought
Reference:

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
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8728.2022.8.38607

EDN:

WTNVGJ

Received:

12-08-2022


Published:

02-09-2022


Abstract: The subject of this study is the dynamics of the ideas of materialism in the views on society and the history of K. Marx. The object of research is the early works of the thinker (the 40s of the XIX century). The author pays special attention to the reconstruction of the method developed by K. Marx for the analysis of history and society. The relevance of this topic lies in the fact that a retrospective look at the method created by K. Marx will allow it to be applied more effectively in modern social research. The methods used are the analysis of primary sources, as well as comparative-historical, analytical-interpretive, hermeneutic methods.   The novelty of the research lies in the fact that historical reconstruction is carried out through the prism of a modern scientific approach to the analysis of society, the essence of which is in the progressive unfolding of human nature. As a result, it is revealed that at the beginning of his creative career K. Marx took the position of dialectical idealism and revolutionary democracy. However, the practical activity of the thinker allowed him to gradually ideologically evolve, which is shown in this article. And already in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, we can observe the quintessence of the theory of materialism in views on society and history. This theory is at the same time a method, an analysis tool that has not lost its heuristic value and is applicable to the analysis of modern society.


Keywords:

early Marx, historical materialism, materialistic understanding of society, the materialistic method, materialistic understanding of history, a letter to my father, german ideology, economic and philosophical manuscripts, the holy family, Marx and Modernity

This article is automatically translated.

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.

References
1. Musaelyan, L.A. (2018). Marx and modernity. New ideas in philosophy, 5 (26), 4-20.
2. Rybakov, N.S. (2009). The problem of man in early Marx. Bulletin of the Pskov State Pedagogical University. Series: Social-humanitarian and psychological-pedagogical sciences, 7, 3-28. Preobrazhensky, G.M. (2009). On the concept of "emancipation" in the early works of K. Marx. In the book: Citizenship in Russia. Under the general editorship of V.D. Mekhedov, V.F. Blokhin. Bryansk, 275-284. Sunami, A.N., Trufanov, G.A. (2019). A Conflictological view of the concept of alienation in the early works of Karl Marx. In the collection: Humanitarian knowledge and spiritual security. Collection of materials of the VI International Scientific and Practical Conference, 465-473. Preobrazhensky, G.M., Starikova, E.V. (2020). Naturalistic interpretation of sensuality in the works of early Marx. Philosophical Journal, 13 (1), 36-52. and others .
3. Gizha, A.V. (2018). The legacy of Marx: the main stages and assessments. In the collection: Marxism and modernity: alternatives of the XXI century Materials of the international scientific conference. Ser. "Socio-humanitarian studies of Donbass scientists", 58.
4. Marx, K. (1955-1974). A letter to my father in Trier. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 41, 12.
5. Marx, K. (1955-1974). Debates of the Sixth Rhine Landtag "On freedom of the press and on the publication of the protocols of the estate Assembly". Complete Works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1, 30-84.
6. Marx, K. (1955-1974). Debates of the sixth Rhine Landtag "On the theft of the forest". Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1, 119-160.
7. Marx, K. (1955-1974). Justification of the Moselle correspondent. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1, 193.
8. Marx, K. (1955-1974). To the Jewish question. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1, 415.
9. Marx, K. (1955-1974). To the criticism of the Hegelian philosophy of Law. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1, 422.
10. Marx, K. (1955-1974). Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 42, pp. 91, 163, 93.
11. Marx, K., Engels, F. (1955-1974). The Holy Family. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 2.
12. Marx, K., Engels, F. (1955-1974). German ideology. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 3, 25, 19, 26.
13. Marx, K. (1955-1974). Marx — Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, December 28. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 27, 401-412.
14. Marx, K. (1955-1974). Poverty of philosophy. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 4, 133.
15. Marx, K., Engels F. (1955-1974). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Complete works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 4, 447.
16. Marx, K. (1955-1974). Preface to the critique of Political economy. Complete Works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature, 13, 7

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

On the one hand, this work is devoted to a sufficiently developed topic in Marxist bibliography, but, on the other hand, today, to a large extent, in the Russian research tradition, there has been a departure from the dogmatic perception of Marx's texts, and a search is underway for new aspects of his works. The author is trying to go in this direction. Critical tone in the assessment of Marxism remains a characteristic feature of many publications in Russia. It is obvious that some part of our intelligentsia wants to present Marx's teaching as a utopia, as a marginal worldview, unequivocally refuted by history. Meanwhile, in the West, even open opponents of Marxism perceive Marx's theory as one of the influential philosophical teachings of the XIX–XX centuries. Marxist theory arose not so much as a successor to the ideas of Utopian communists, but as a legitimate heir to the harmonious theories and sometimes brilliant insights of the golden age of Enlightenment, the age of realism. It incorporated many important provisions developed by the Western philosophical historical tradition, which were subsequently developed by researchers of various fields and, moreover, not always less successfully than by Marxist theorists. Being a natural result of the previous development of philosophy, Marx's theory contains a powerful heuristic and especially humanistic potential that has not been fully revealed. Therefore, for a modern extremely rationalized, dehumanized civilization, many of Marx's ideas are very relevant. Already in the works of the transitional period, the founders of Marxism quite clearly identified the problem of man as the main problem of their philosophy. This led to a revision of the Hegelian concept of history, according to which man is the means, the material for the realization of the ultimate goals of history. on this issue, Marx was more impressed by L. Feuerbach's position, under the influence of which he comes to the conclusion that history does not do anything, it does not fight in any battles! Not “history”, but a person, a real living person – that's who does all this, possesses everything and fights for everything. In other words, from the point of view of the founders of Marxism, man is not only an object, but also a genuine subject of the historical process. The turn of Marx and Engels towards man, of course, occurred under the influence of L. Feuerbach, but not only. Blatant injustice, alienation, poverty, and inhuman conditions of existence have defined the central theme and task of the theory being created. Philosophy, which wants to really change the conditions of human existence, cannot limit itself to describing and explaining the world. It must be radical. In short, the practical orientation and creative nature of Marx's philosophy are due to the fact that the focus of its attention is on man and his living conditions. Therefore, it is far from accidental that the founders of Marxism begin the analysis of the historical process with specific individuals and the way they exist. Accordingly, in explaining society, Marx and Engels single out from the whole variety of social relations as the initial, fundamental ones that arise in the production and reproduction of individual and generic human life. In short, Marx became a materialist as he formed a materialistic view of man and his position in society. Thus, back in the 40s, the founders of Marxism identified the basic components of the theory being created: man, materialism, humanism, orientation towards practical solutions to the most important problems of the era. All of them are interconnected, one leads to the other, but the central (and main) of them in Marx is the problem of man. Therefore, in formulating his task in the field of social philosophy, Marx writes: "We need to know what human nature is in general and how it is modified in each historically given epoch"[8]. In the light of the above, it is difficult to agree with the point of view existing in philosophical literature, according to which Marx did not pay due attention to a person, an individual, a personality[9]. Marx's substantial approach to the historical process is connected with the nomination of man as the central problem of philosophy, which allowed him to consistently carry out the principle of materialism and humanism simultaneously in his theory. According to Marx, people are the true substance of history. The substantial essence of people is manifested in their way of existence. By producing the necessary means of subsistence, satisfying their needs, people also produce their material life. This productive activity of people, according to Marx and Engels, is not only the "basic condition of all history", but also the "first historical act", the "first historical deed", which has been carried out daily and hourly since humanity appeared. In Marxist theory, the historical process is rooted in the way man exists. The embeddedness of the historical process in the way of existence means that the substantial properties of man are manifested primarily in social production. For Marx and Engels, a person is a subject, an object (object) and at the same time the result of social production. Since the production of material life is a prerequisite of history, it is clear that the same real individuals are the subject, object and result, and at a certain stage of development, the goal of the historical process. Hegel assigned a similar role in his philosophy of history to the spirit, which was declared the substance of the historical process. The discovery of the true substance of history gave Marx and Engels reason to call their teaching real humanism and declare speculative idealism their enemy, since the latter puts "self-consciousness", "spirit" in the place of the real individual person. The problem of social substance is not specifically explored in the works of Marx and Engels. Nevertheless, their position on this issue is expressed quite clearly: man is a natural (bodily) being with a material essence. This point of view of the founders of Marxism is of fundamental importance for understanding their views on the essence of material production and the historical process. Some researchers, considering social production, actually deny its material nature. This means deobjectivization, dematerialization not only of social production, but also of the historical process. Such views are based on idealistic and dualistic interpretations of the essence of man. The work is written in a good style, there is an appeal to both similar author's and opposite points of view to justify their own interpretation, the article is based on a fairly significant bibliography and may be interesting to that part of the journal's audience who is interested in different sides of the Marxist concept.