The letter by Engels to Schmidt is presumably on the internet.This is
one of a number of late letters by Engels often quoted about the determining
nature of the economic base, but well worth reading for the subtlety of the
way the argument is worked through.
I would be interested if anyone
could give a direct quote from this to argue that it is
nonsense.
Chris Burford
London
======================
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/engels/90_08_05-ab.htm
I saw a review of Paul Barth's book [ Die Geschichtsphilosophie Hegels
und der Hegelianer bis auf Marx und Hartmann ] by that bird of ill omen,
Moritz Wirth, in the Vienna Deutsche Worte , and this book
itself, as well. I will have a look at it, but I must say that if "little
Moritz" is right when he quotes Barth as stating that the sole example of the
dependence of philosophy, etc., on the material conditions of existence which
he can find in all Marx's works is that Descartes declares animals to the
machines, then I am sorry for the man who can write such a thing. And if this
man has not yet discovered that while the material mode of existence is the
primum agens [primary agent, prime cause] this does not preclude the
ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn, though with a
secondary effect, he cannot possibly have understood the subject he is writing
about. However, as I said, all this is secondhand and little Moritz is a
dangerous friend. The materialist conception of history has a lot of them
nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history.
Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late
[18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
There has also been a discussion in the Volks-Tribune about the
distribution of products in future society, whether this will take place
according to the amount of work done or otherwise. The question has been
approached very "materialistically" in opposition to certain idealistic
phraseology about justice. But strangely enough it has not struck anyone that,
after all, the method of distribution essentially depends on how much
there is to distribute, and that this must surely change with the
progress of production and social organization, so that the method of
distribution may also change. But everyone who took part in the discussion,
"socialist society" appeared not as something undergoing continuous change and
progress but as a stable affair fixed once for all, which must, therefore,
have a method of distribution fixed once for all. All one can reasonably do,
however, is 1) to try and discover the method of distribution to be used
at the beginning , and 2) to try and find the general tendency
of the further development. But about this I do not find a single word in
the whole debate.
In general, the word "materialistic" serves many of the younger writers in
Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without
further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the
question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to
study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All
history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different
formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made
to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic,
religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been
done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this
field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work
seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too
many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical
materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in
order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge — for economic
history is still and its swaddling clothes! — constructed into a neat system
as quickly as possible, and they then deem themselves something very
tremendous. And after that a Barth can come along and attack the thing itself,
which in his circle has indeed been degraded to a mere phrase.
However, all this will right itself. We're strong enough in Germany now to
stand a lot. One of the greatest services which the Anti-Socialist Law did us
was to free us from the obtuseness of the German intellectual who had got
tinged with socialism. We are now strong enough to digest the German
intellectual too, who is giving himself great airs again. You, who have really
done something, must have noticed yourself how few of the young literary men
who fasten themselves on to the party give themselves in the trouble to study
economics, the history of economics, the history of trade, of industry, of
agriculture, of the formations of society. How many know anything of Maurer
except his name! The self-sufficiency of the journalist must serve for
everything here and the result looks like it. It often seems as if these
gentlemen think anything is good enough for the workers. If these gentlemen
only knew that Marx thought his best things were still not good enough for the
workers, how he regarded it as a crime to offer the workers anything but the
very best!
[ ....]
====================
Needless to say, there's plenty in this to disagree with......although he
does a great job at the end......
Ian
