Why Did Engels Write Anti-Dühring?
Thomas Riggins
http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-did-engels-write-anti-duhring.html
In the 1870s the German professor Eugen Dühring joined the German
Social Democratic Party. He made a lot of friends and began
interpreting socialism along lines that were new and different and
which he thought were more in accord with modern science. Engels'
German comrades asked him for clarification on some of these new views
as Dühring was starting to collect a following. Engels, however, was
busy doing other things. But after three years of requests he decided
to write the book ANTI-DÜHRING: HERR EUGEN DÜHRING'S REVOLUTION IN
SCIENCE. This book became one of the most important of the so-called
Marxist "classics" and is a basic foundational document for the
understanding of DIAMAT (Dialectical Materialism).
In this article I will make some comments on the prefaces to the work
(there are three for the three German editions made in Engels
lifetime) before going on to review the First Part of the work, that
devoted to philosophy, to try and situate it in our time at the
beginning of the 21st century.
Engels' tells us that Anti-Dühring is an extension of the world view
first developed by Marx in his book THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY, then
extended by the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and DAS KAPITAL. To make sure that
this solo flight would properly represent their joint philosophy,
Engels read aloud the whole manuscript to Marx and the latter even
wrote a chapter for the book (chapter ten of part two). I note this
because many people today try to divorce the thought of Marx from that
of Engels and maintain that Anti-Dühring is a deviation from Marx's
philosophical views which were more sophisticated than those of
Engels.
In order to write the book, Engels first took eight years to review
the math and natural sciences of his day. The reason he did this was
to convince himself that the laws of the materialist dialectic of
motion which he and Marx had detected at work in history and in the
evolution of human consciousness, were equally at work in Nature.
These laws were first developed by the German philosopher G.W.F. HEGEL
but, Engels says, in a "mystic form." Once stripped of this form, Marx
and Engels were able to apply the dialectical method to both the
natural and historical sciences.
Engels was aware that the charge might be made that the dialectic was
being forced upon Nature from the outside and that the "facts" were
being forced into the straight jacket of the theory. This serious
charge is still made today by the bourgeois opponents of Marxism.
Engels however says that he did all he could to avoid this: "to me
there could be no question of building the laws of dialectic into
nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it."
Engels lived in a time of rapid scientific advance towards the end of
the 19th century. Only a few years before he wrote the second preface
to his book, he says, the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION ENERGY was
propounded ("the great basic law of motion") but it was put forth NOT
qualitatively but only quantitatively as the "indestructibility and
uncreatabilty of
motion."
But now (1885-- the time of the second preface) Engels sees a more
dialectical approach as scientists are beginning to discuss THE
TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY which when fully understood will remove "the
last vestige of an extra mundane creator." A mere ten years after
Engel's death (1895) Einstein published his famous equation E=mc2.
Engels says we still see rigid barriers in Nature-- the wave vs
particle theory of light had not yet bloomed into quantum physics--
but had he lived I don't think Engels would have been thrown off by
such seeming contradictions. Contradiction is the essence of
dialectics. He writes that: "The recognition that these antagonisms
and distinctions, though to be found in nature, are only of relative
validity, and that on the other hand their imagined rigidity and
absolute validity have been introduced into nature only by our
reflective minds-- this recognition is the kernel of the dialectical
conception of nature."
So, the purpose of the book is to reaffirm the scientific nature of
Diamat, to exclude the erroneous accretions of Herr Dühring, and to
demonstrate that modern science, including Diamat, is the result of a
long tradition of philosophical development whose two poles (as we
shall see) include Aristotle and Hegel.
Engels thinks that science must "assimilate the results of the
development of philosophy during the past two and half thousand years"
to avoid basing itself on some bogus world view [as the Nazi movement
later did] and to also get rid of its metaphysical (i.e., mechanistic
and non-dialectical) baggage) which is "its inheritance from English
empiricism."
In the next article I will look at the two part introduction to Anti-Dühring.
[Anti-Düring I]
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
