---
Cal poly pomona
|
Joseph Dietzgen
|
And the History of Dialectical Materialism
|
Joshua
James Morris
|
12/9/2008
|
Words:
6,243
|
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………..………………2
The Life of Joseph Dietzgen…………………………………………….………...5
Historiography…………………………………………………………………………….8
Dietzgen and Diamat…………………………………………………………………15
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….…..21
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..….25
Introduction
Socialist philosophy has been typically
left for the book shelves of academic libraries; waiting for the day when
someone dares to reopen them and take a deep look into the world-view of
communal philosophy and morality. Many
however would be surprised to see how large of an impact socialist
philosophers, such as Joseph Dietzgen, had on not only the socialist worldwide
movement but also on general subjects such as history, philosophy, and
sociology. To examine socialist
philosophy, it is best to look directly towards the man whom Karl Marx himself
declared as the ‘philosopher’ of Communism.
Joseph Dietzgen’s life and work expanded over three continents, seven
nations, and fifty years of revolutionary struggle. His works were never neglected by Western
socialists, but his theories and adaptations were lost throughout the Soviet
Union until 1938, left obscured under Lenin’s philosophy. Stalin’s codification of dialectical
materialism (nicknamed ‘Diamat’) can been seen by some as an acknowledgement of
Dietzgen’s work, but can generally be regarded as a political tool, since a
massive wave of purges began shortly after it’s indoctrination. The main difference between thinkers inside
and outside of the Soviet Union was disagreement over the source of
‘dialectics’ and their fusion with 18th century ‘materialism.’
Dialectics is a theory borrowed
by Marx and other socialists from a German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel’s interpretation of history was that
events and actions carried with them acts and conditions of causality. Events never stand alone by themselves, and
can always be attributed to various causes and effects, and in turn events
generate their own causes and effects on their surrounding environment. This philosophy was created by Hegel as a
response to Immanuel Kant’s theory on the limits of pure reason. Karl Marx was noted historically for
mentioning ‘dialectical’ concepts long before Joseph Dietzgen ever thought to
apply them to socialist philosophy: “The history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of class struggles.”[1] Many socialists, such as V.I. Lenin, took
this along with other unpublished documents as evidence to explain that Marx
was well aware of dialectical theory prior to his meetings with Dietzgen. Others, such as Anton Pannekoek, have
suggested that while Marx understood the concept of dialectics, he never
understood how to apply it to socialism until he corresponded with Dietzgen.
According
to Pannekoek, Marx could not conceive of ‘socialist dialectics’ until Dietzgen
made the proper connection of dialectics and materialism.[2] Thus two alternative theories over the
origins of ‘true’ Marxism developed specifically over a disagreement of the
application of Joseph Dietzgen to socialist philosophy. Lenin’s theory, known as the Orthodox theory,
asserts that while Dietzgen was a noteworthy socialist, he was incapable of
understanding Marx’s original vision of dialectics because he could not read the
unpublished Marxist archives available only after Dietzgen’s death in
1888. Pannekoek’s theory, known as
‘Hegelian Marxism’, neglects the orthodox argument and instead asserts that not
only did Marx praise Dietzgen for his works, but also shows how Dietzgen’s
fusion of dialectics and materialism created the only ‘true’ philosophy of
Marxism; dialectical materialism.
This
essay will examine the life of Joseph Dietzgen, a few of his works as a
socialist philosopher, and try to answer the question of whether or not his
application of dialectical materialism was truly the foundation of Marxism that
Karl Marx himself wanted to advocate. As
the evidence will show, V.I. Lenin was more interested in adapting Marxist
theory to his own developments in Imperial Russia, than he was in understanding
all aspects of socialist theory and philosophy.
Orthodox Marxism will show how it is more ‘opportunistic’ than
‘rational’ in its approach to understanding history, dialectics, and philosophy
in general. Hegelian Marxists such as
Pannekoek did an excellent job at exposing the Soviet Union as an advocate not
of dialectical materialism, but instead ‘middle class materialism.’ Joseph Dietzgen, through his works as a
philosopher and Marxist, through the oral histories of his living descendants,
and through his inspiration of other Marxists aside from Lenin; Dietzgen was,
and still is, an indispensable resource for understanding the application and
philosophy of Marxism in the modern world.
Joseph Dietzgen
The Life of
Joseph Dietzgen
Joseph
Dietzgen was born in December of 1828 near the small town of Blankenburg,
Germany. He grew up primarily under the
instruction of his father, and never took any formal education. As the first of five siblings, Joseph was
chosen to be the inheritor of his uncle’s successful tanning business. He had been trained in the profession of
tannery by his father, and continued the legacy onto his own children.[3]
During his early life, Joseph
spent a lot of time reading socialist literature since it was a popular
ideology in Germany in the 1830s and 40s.
Entirely self educated in philosophy and politics, Joseph spent most of
his free hours reading texts by Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Thomas Jefferson,
and other ‘enlightened’ philosophers. It
wasn’t until 1848, at the age of 20, that Joseph met Karl Marx and his partner
Frederick Engels. During the famed
failed revolution of that year, Joseph had time to collaborate with other well
known socialists and was for the first time exposed to Marx’s text The
Communist Manifesto, which energized him toward the inevitability of
worldwide revolution. The failure of the
revolution led to a few changes in Joseph’s life, mainly caused by fear of
repression from the Prussian government.
As a result, he fled to the United States while Karl Marx fled to
England.[4]
While in the United States,
Joseph was exposed to many class perceptions that were hardly present in
post-Enlightenment Europe, specifically with regards to race and
ethnicity. He witnessed the lynchings of
blacks and slaves in the South, and the early beginnings of Civil War
sentiments. He wrote extensively in his
diaries about these experiences, and how much of a profound effect they had on
him and his understanding of class warfare.[5]
After returning to Germany in
the late 1850s, Joseph settled down and had his first son, Eugene Dietzgen, in
1862. Eugene played a vital role later
in his father’s life while he moved to the United States, and eventually helped
establish their permanent family here by the 1920s and 30s. Joseph moved to Tsarist Russia on a hired job
to assist the state’s tannery business with Eugene when he was two in 1864,
where they remained for four years.
During this time Joseph wrote his earliest manuscript, “The Nature of
Human Brainwork”, and was later published in 1869.[6]
By 1870, Karl Marx had
pronounced Joseph the “philosopher” of the socialist movement at the First
International. Marx also praised
Dietzgen extensively in the introductory section of his second edition of “Das
Kapital” (Capital). Since however most
of Joseph’s articles could not be published in Germany due to harsh scrutiny
against the socialist movement, he had begun to move his family to Switzerland
by the late 1870s. This was due to a specific
incident on the 8th of June 1878 where Joseph was arrested because of the
article lectured and later printed in Cologne: “The future of the social democracy.” Joseph spent 3 months in
prison before his trial was absolved and was released with his articles. Fearing repression from the Kaiser’s military
draft, he sent his son Eugene to the United States at the age of 19 in 1881.[7] Joseph most likely hoped to keep his articles
and documents safe in America, as well as establish a new long term home for
his family.
While Eugene Dietzgen was in
America, he worked in New York for a few months until moving to Chicago where
he ran and operated the Eugene Dietzgen Drafting Corporation, which still
exists today under different ownership.
This corporation created basic drafting materials such as protractors,
rulers, guiders, and sliders. During
this time, Eugene kept in contact with his father through letters which are
currently being documented and published at the University of California at
Santa Barbara. In 1884 Joseph eventually
immigrated to the United States, and moved to Chicago. He died at home smoking a cigar, while
elaborating on the eminent collapse of capitalist production. His body rests to this day at Waldheim
Cemetery near Forest Park, a few feet from the Haymarket Martyrs. Joseph’s son would continue to praise his
father and his work for the next few decades up until his death in 1929. Joseph’s oldest living descendant is Vera H.
Feldmann, who currently lives in Santa Barbara, California.[8]
Eugene Dietzgen Corporation Catalog Page, Dated 1938
Historiography
After reviewing the history of
dialectics and materialism it is clear that it originated out of the minds of
traditional followers of Hegelian economics, Marx and Engels, however was not
solidified as a theory until manifested by Dietzgen. Some historians, both Marxist like Anton
Pannekoek and non-Marxist such as Loyd Easton, approached Dietzgen’s philosophy
vaguely; as well it was completely avoided by others such as Z.A. Jordan, who
focuses on the application of philosophy by Lenin. What is clear, though, is a disagreement
between Marxist historians over where the origins of materialist thought lie in
early Marxist works. Where historians
such as Jordan have credited dialectical materialism to Lenin’s interpretation
of Marx’s early writings which were unavailable to Dietzgen, others like Easton
have pointed out how Lenin himself not only quoted but praised Dietzgen’s
earliest works while criticizing his later ones. This has led to considerable confusion over
the application and importance of Dietzgen’s work into the history of
Marxism. It has also led to two
prevailing theories over the direction of Marxism throughout the late 19th,
20th, and 21st centuries.
The Orthodox theory, as represented by Lenin and elaborated on by
Jordan, emphasizes the early writings of Marx prior to his later experience
with Dietzgen and dialectics; while Hegelian Marxists, such as Anton Pannekoek,
rely much more on the later writings of Marx and their infusion with the
philosophy of Dietzgen.
As early as 1907, Dietzgen’s
works were seen as a remarkable challenge to the older, more traditional 18th
century materialism. Fraklin H. Giddings
reviewed Dietzgen’s major work, “The Positive Outcome of Philosophy,” as an
“[exploitation] of ‘the materialistic interpretation’ of all things mundane,
including those phantasms of the mind which have danced their way down the ages
under the names of religion, metaphysics, and morality.”[9] Specifically he noted that Dietzgen was
trying to explain that his materialism was “not the bourgeois materialism of
the 19th century evolutionists.”[10] He nonetheless contends that Dietzgen’s
philosophy is subject to the law of economic materialism as he understood it
through Marx’s writings. This makes it
clear that even as early as 1907, Dietzgen’s philosophy was credited with being
influenced by Marx’s later writings. This also gives credit to the Hegelian
argument that Diamat was developed without the influence of Marx’s early
manuscripts.
One of the champions of the
Hegelian Marxist theory, Anton Pannekoek, was a well known socialist circles in
the early 20th century and a hard-line critic of Leninist policy
throughout Soviet Russia. His major 1938
essay, Lenin as a Philosopher
highlighted his criticisms of Lenin as a man who rejected the legitimate ideas
of late Marxist theorists such as Ernst Mach, and Dietzgen. In doing so, Pannekoek suggested that Lenin
was advocating “middle class materialism.”[11] He showed how Lenin’s understanding of Diamat
was narrow and had been revised to fit his understanding of the development of
capitalism in third world imperialist nations, such as Russia. Pannekoek focuses this critique on Lenin’s
staunch rejection of Mach and Dietzgen as being “polemic against the essence of
super-naturalistic religion,”[12]
and thus ‘Leninism’ does not embrace social science, whereas Diamat “lays bare
the specific evolutionary laws of human society, and shows the interconnection
between ideas and society.”[13] A later reviewer of Pannekoek’s work asserted
that he was not trying to spread the ideals of Mach and Dietzgen, but rather
was trying to show how Pannekoek was “a more thorough Marxist than Lenin.”[14] Pannekoek’s overall conclusion is that “what
took place in Russia was a ‘middle class revolution’ which resulted in the
development of ‘state capitalism’”[15],
and maintained that Dietzgen’s theory is in contrast to the Leninist policies
of the Soviet Union.
Pannekoek also wrote an essay on
the importance of Dietzgen’s philosophical ideas to not only Marxism, but to
all of philosophy in general. Pannekoek
traced back the roots of Dietzgen’s thought to examine how they influenced him
both directly and indirectly.
Specifically Pannekoek pointed out how Kantian philosophy, or the
negation of concepts beyond experience, and Hegelian philosophy, or the
emphasis on dialectics, were mixed together to form Dietzgen’s overall world
view. Pannekoek concluded in a 1906
essay that Hegelian philosophy was inevitably superseded by Dietzgen’s Diamat
because it “declares that absolute truth is realized only in the infinite
progress of society and of scientific understanding.”[16] Pannekoek asserted that Dietzgen’s fusion of
materialism with dialectics had produced, in philosophy, a whole new method for
future analysis. He saw this new
perspective as a “new system of philosophy….raised to the position of a natural
science, the same as Marx did with history.”[17] Pannekoek wanted to emphasize the “scientific
assurance”[18]
of class emancipation through the use of Dietzgen’s philosophy, and therefore
attempted to separate Dietzgen’s Diamat from what he considered to be
‘bourgeois philosophy.’ ‘Bourgeois
philosophy’, Pannekoek maintained, kept the idea of “misery and imperfectness
of present society”[19]
as a natural and inevitable ideal which attempted to negate any interpretation
of utopianism, or perfection among societal development. Pannekoek thus showed how Dietzgen was still
important to Marxists of his day, even if in contrast to the ideals of Leninism
and the Soviet Union.
Loyd Easton in his 1958 essay on
“Empiricism and Ethics in Dietzgen” attempted to show how important Dietzgen’s
early works were in influencing Lenin in his days as a revolutionary prior to
1917. Specifically Lenin was most
impressed by Dietzgen’s first piece, “The Nature of Human Brainwork.”
Easton pointed out that this work made Lenin feel that “where Dietzgen
was not confused as an empiricist, he was a materialist and strict Marxist like
himself.”[20] In Lenin’s largest work on materialist
philosophy, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”, Lenin explained his early
opinion of Dietzgen as the major influence behind empirical rationalizations of
materialism. Easton pointed out that
Lenin also neglected Dietzgen’s later writings on the ‘scientific’ or
‘inductive’ ethics he applied to Marxism in Dietzgen’s text, “Scientific
Socialism.”[21] Easton stated that the neglecting of this
theory has been rarely touched on by historians, and overlooked by many
socialist philosophers.[22] It is this neglect specifically which leads
to the two major arguments over Marxist history; Lenin’s disregard of Dietzgen
represents the ‘orthodox’ viewpoint that only Marx’s early writings can explain
the nature of dialectical materialism.
Though the origins of the term ‘orthodox’ are obscure, it is most likely
emphasizing the use of strictly Marxist materials without the use of later
socialists such as Dietzgen.
Easton finished his essay by
explaining the morality and meaning behind Dietzgen’s two longest works, “The
Nature of Human Brainwork” and “The Positive Outcome of Philosophy.” Both works, as Easton shows, reflect
Dietzgen’s perspective of materialism as a pure denial of 18th
century materialism, and a restructuring of it to fit a more encompassing
worldview; one that embraces all forms of matter, physical and non-physical.
Another look at Lenin’s
materialism comes from an article in the Slavic
Review by author Z.A. Jordan.[23] The most interesting aspect about Jordan’s
assessment of Lenin and materialism, was that he never mentioned Dietzgen at
all. Like Easton, Jordan cited
“Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” to explain how Lenin became accustomed to
dialectics; however he never made a clear connection from Lenin’s writings to Dietzgen’s
thought, as Easton had done. Because of
Lenin and Plekhanov’s rigid alteration of Marxist theory and neglection of his
later works to fit their own revolutionary activity, Jordan suggested they were
both revisionists.[24] Jordan explained that their revisionism came
from a rejection of Engel’s theory of “absolute materialism” or the idea that
“only matter exists”, which appeared to be no different from Dietzgen’s
assessment in “Scientific Socialism.”
Jordan pointed out that this revisionism
intensified the conflict between
dialectics and formal logic, laid stress upon the fact that the universe brims
over with strife, conflict and contradiction, and thus offered obvious
advantages to a social and political movement based on the doctrine of class
antagonisms and class struggle.[25]
Jordan’s
assessment can be considered the popular view from where Lenin got his major
interpretation of both dialectics and materialism. Few works, such as Tony Burn’s essay, have
been written on Dietzgen as a philosopher, and even less is written of him as a
Marxist. Though Jordan’s essay came from
1966, during the heart of the Cold War, it could be said that this viewpoint is
a major cause for confusion over the importance and application of Joseph
Dietzgen and his works to Marxist philosophy.
The connection of Dietzgen’s
works to this ongoing argument among Marxists is best explained by Tony Burns
in his 2002 article on Dietzgen and the History of Marxism, from Science & Society’s journal. He points out that since Marx’s early
writings remained unpublished throughout most of the mid to late 19th
century; many Orthodox Marxists like Lenin and Plekhanov chose to emphasize
their importance over that of the newer thinkers like Dietzgen.[26] Hegelian Marxists however, saw Dietzgen as an
integrated part of the Marxist movement, specifically because his writings
manifested Diamat by interpreting Hegelian dialectics and Kantian philosophy,
and without the use of Marx’s unpublished works which Lenin rests with so much
importance. While Marx’s works remained
unpublished, socialists such as Dietzgen used their own intuition and materialist
understanding to interpret the philosophy of Marxist economics.[27] It could be seen as slightly opportunistic,
since Lenin and Plekhanov consider themselves more important than Dietzgen
because they had obtained Marx’s early writings, as well it gives credit to the
notion that Lenin wanted to associate himself more directly to Marx than to any
‘secondary’ Marxist, such as Dietzgen.
Burns explained the key to
understanding Dietzgen as an integral look into the philosophy of 18th
century ‘materialism’. Like Marx,
Dietzgen rejected the traditional ‘materialist’ argument as defined by French
philosophers and instead focuses on a less “narrow conception of matter.”[28] Dietzgen maintained that while materialism
exists, it is not bound to the ‘physicalism’ as defined by pre-19th
century philosophy. Burns pointed out
that Dietzgen cited “gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, and sound”[29]
all as entities that are not physical, but none-the-less exist as matter. Another key that Burns examined, but admitted
he is unable to elaborate on in such a short essay, was the “internal disputes
within Marxism at this time…between Pannekoek and Lenin over the interpretation
and significance of Dietzgen’s thought.”[30] Hopefully a more integrated look at both
Lenin and Pannekoek’s perspective on some of Dietzgen’s works can provide
answers to these internal conflicts within Marxism.
The history of both Joseph
Dietzgen and Diamat is a confusing path which connects economic theory with
materialist philosophy with Hegelian dialectics. What is clear from both histories however is
that the direction of Marxism throughout the late 19th and early 20th
centuries fell within the two main theories; the orthodox theory, where Diamat
was developed by Lenin’s later interpretation of Marx’s early manuscripts, and
the Hegelian “Western” theory, where Diamat was developed by Dietzgen himself,
through the combined influence of Marx, Engels, Kant, and Hegel.
Anton Pannekoek
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Dietzgen
and Diamat
While
hired in Russia to oversee the development of the state tannery with his son Eugene,
Dietzgen wrote his first major theoretical work, “The Nature of Human
Brain-Work.” In it, the modifications of 18th century materialism to
Dietzgen’s Diamat become apparent as Dietzgen explains how the mind and matter
function in contrast and harmony. As his
first work, it gave off to readers a new perspective on not only materialism,
but the nature of the mind itself. As
Tony Burns mentioned, Dietzgen’s largest criticism of 18th century
materialism was “its attitude toward psychology and the human mind”[31],
particularly in the aims of debunking the idea of ‘God’. Joseph’s son Eugene later described this
work as a “monist-naturalist theory of understanding.”[32]
“The
Nature of Human Brain-Work” brought forward to the Marxist argument many new
implications of social antagonisms, the development of classes, and a new
interpretation of the human mind.
Dietzgen saw the old materialists as ‘anti-theological’,
‘anti-spiritual’, and ultimately anti-anything that was not, or could not, be
attributed to matter. To Dietzgen, this
also included the human mind; not the physical matter of the brain, but the
actual cognition of ideas through brain work.
Thus the 18th century materialism was unsatisfactory for
explaining the nature of existence because it could easily negate realities
that were not necessarily tied to matter; such as gravity, light, electricity, but
more importantly the human mind. It is
interesting to note here that most of Dietzgen’s claims have been proven
through the developments of science.
Originally believed to be intangible matter, things such as gravity,
magnetism, and electricity have been found to actually be forms of matter
particles, or are actions that can be attributed to matter. Electricity is a transmission of electrons;
gravity is a displacement of ‘space’, and so on. In order to describe his contempt for old
materialism and distinguish it from his own, Dietzgen asserted that 18th
century materialism was a “speculative philosophy [which] seeks to arrive at
scientific truth without experience”[33],
since it could not ascertain the certain limits of matter based on the
limitations of science at the time. It
is here that Dietzgen tried to apply a scientific or empirical assessment of
materialism within the context of the 19th century. Dietzgen believed that only through
observation, direct study, and critical evaluation of the facts, could one
arrive at the final conclusion of materialism.
This
work is critical to understanding the importance of Dietzgen because it is the
earliest instances of a Marxist writing on materialist philosophy. Until it’s publication in 1869, Marx had
never assessed history in terms of materialism.
Though Marx had his disagreements with Dietzgen’s style of writing and
the repetitiousness of his words, Marx nevertheless concluded that it
“contain[ed] many ideas which were excellent and especially admirable for
having come from the independent thought of a workingman.”[34] The response by Marx to this work in
particular though, lends considerable credit to the Hegelian Marxist argument
that Marx could not completely conceive of socialist materialism without the
influence of Dietzgen. Specifically, the
association of history with materialism was made with “The Nature of Human
Brain-Work,” and its contribution toward Marxist theory could not have been
greater in 1869.
Dietzgen’s
other major theoretical work was “Scientific Socialism”, published in
1873. Here Dietzgen made his primary
assertions which eventually developed into the theory of Diamat. Dietzgen’s main thesis for his essay was that
“on the material organization of society is scientific socialism based.”[35] He traced the development of this ‘scientific
socialism’ by using materialism to explain the slow rise of capitalist economies. Dietzgen saw a certain amount of
inevitability in the developments of capitalist economies due specifically to
Hegelian dialectics:
We see for instance that the communistic mode
of work is being more and more organized by the bourgeoisie itself. Only the distribution still proceeds on the
old lines and the product is withheld from the people. The small production is disappearing while
production on a large scale takes its place.[36]
Dietzgen was trying to blend the development
of industry in Germany and Russia along the lines of the development of class
antagonisms. In his view, capitalism
developed antagonisms which in turn developed classes which in turn will, or
should, develop class consciousness, and finally will result in a clash of interests
between the minority ruling classes and the vast majority of united
proletarians. Dietzgen approached this
philosophy as if it were a concrete science, one that could be explained
dialectically through history:
As the clumsy musket of our forefathers
represents a necessary stage to the Prussian needle gun of the present time, so
the metaphysical speculations of Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte and Hegel are the
inevitable paths leading up to the scientific proposition, that the idea, the
conception, the logic, or the thinking are not the premise, but the result of
material phenomena.[37]
Dietzgen
wanted his readers, and fellow Marxists, to be assured that he was not touting
some political rhetoric, or a means for deceiving people through class
interests. He instead wanted socialism
to be viewed as something higher than a political policy, something more
natural and concrete. Dietzgen stated
that “modern socialism is as yet more of a scientific doctrine than of a
political party creed, though we are rapidly approaching this stage,”[38] to
try and emphasize that Marxists should be mindful of the direction of socialist
policy. This brings up the question of
whether or not Dietzgen saw economics, philosophy, and history as all
encompassing of one subject. It seems clear
that Dietzgen, if not convinced of a collective unity among the disciplines, at
least believed they carry with them acts and conditions of causality just like
any other ‘event’ or ‘material concept’ and thus are interwoven into society
through association. Though other
Marxists such as Engels believed politics and economics to be inherently tied
together, it is not clear if Dietzgen shared this perspective.
The
perspective put forth in “Scientific Socialism” is what Lenin and Plekhanov
neglected when they explained the origins of dialectics in Marxism. As Lloyd Easton had pointed out, it was the
rejection of this work that developed considerable confusion over the direction
of Marxism in the late 19th century and it generated the two
prevailing Marxist theories. As Anton
Pannekoek stated in his essay on Lenin’s philosophy, Lenin was firmly against
any notion of a ‘social science’ as a means for explaining dialectics. Lenin saw it not as a positive development,
but instead similar to a “super-naturalistic religion.”[39] This rejection by Lenin was direct denial of
Marxist sentiments in the early 1870s, specifically those that emphasized
Dietzgen’s importance to Marxism as the ‘philosopher’ of the movement around
the time of the First International. Whether
or not Lenin believed this to be truly justified, it is difficult to estimate;
what is clear is that by rejecting the ‘social science’ of dialectics, Lenin
was able to more closely associate himself with the presumed dialectics of
Marx’s unpublished archives available after 1888.
It
is difficult to define Marx’s opinion on “Scientific Socialism” since he never
mentioned it after its publication. This
difficulty is probably what gives credit to both the Orthodox and Hegelian
arguments. For the Orthodox argument, it
lends credit to the idea that Marx disregarded the work, and his unpublished
works are thus more pertinent to understanding socialism. For the Hegelian argument, it lends credit to
the notion that there is no reason to deny Marx’s continued praise for Dietzgen
because he never condemned his work as ‘un Marxist.’ The one thing that is not mentioned by
Pannekoek, Burns, or Lenin on this issue, however, is how one year prior to the
publication of “Scientific Socialism” in 1872, Marx had introduced Dietzgen as
the ‘philosopher’ of socialism at the First International. Clearly this shows
that up until the publication of “Scientific Socialism,” Marx considered
Dietzgen an invaluable asset to the socialist movement. Since Marx did not condemn Dietzgen
publically or privately after the publication of “Scientific Socialism”, in
conjunction with Marx’s later praise for Dietzgen in his 2nd edition
of the first volume of “Capital,” it could be concluded that his interpretation
of Dietzgen had not changed simply because of the 1873 publication.
This
begs one to ask, why then did Lenin insist that Dietzgen was wrong in his
scientific assessment of society and history?
A look back into Z.A. Jordan’s assessment of Lenin and Plekhanov as well
as the insight of Pannekoek provides some answers. Jordan considered Lenin a ‘revisionist’
because he “introduced some specific philosophical changes into the original
doctrine of [Diamat].”[40] Though Jordan credits Engels with the theory
of ‘absolute materialism’ rather than Dietzgen with ‘Diamat’, they are for all
intents and purposes the same philosophy.
It is possible that Jordan was simply unaware of Dietzgen and his
importance by 1966, which would lead to him citing Engels instead. Jordan noted that Lenin and Plekhanov both
eliminated “absolute materialism, that is, the proposition of ‘matter’, and
made genetic materialism the cornerstone of the whole structure.”[41] Jordan’s largest assertion against Lenin and
Plekhanov however comes from their emphasis on the ‘law of
interpenetration.’
The
‘Law of Interpretation’ was a new way of understanding Marxist literature, a
method for understanding socialism within the context of your own cognitive
experience. Both Lenin and Plekhanov
relied on this concept heavily to help them understand Marx’s high industrial
socialism within the context of unindustrialized Tsarist Russia.[42] By denying a scientific look at dialectics
and materialism, Lenin instead “laid stress upon the fact that the universe
brims over with strife, conflict and contradiction,”[43] which
gave an obvious edge to a movement developing in an area overwhelmed by strife,
conflict and contradiction such as Tsarist Russia. Lenin concluded that this perspective
“offered [an] obvious advantage to a social and political movement based on the
doctrine of class antagonisms.”[44] This look at Lenin’s view on materialism
almost highlights the opportunistic qualities of Leninist policy. Rather than focus on science and inductive
logic, Lenin believed that emphasizing the utter chaos of society would better
aid the development of revolutionary action.
Whether deceptive or if Lenin truly believed this to be the case, no one
can be sure. But it does justify the
need to neglect and displace the works of Dietzgen. Dietzgen’s contributions to socialist
philosophy and Marx’s praise of him lends considerable credit to the idea that
socialism was in fact ‘scientific’, and thus it was Lenin’s job to describe how
Marx’s early works denied this viewpoint.
Pannekoek
saw Lenin’s strategy as “appeal[ing] to the old forms of physical
theory, diffused into popular opinion, so as to oppose them against the modern
critique of their own foundations,”[45]
as opposed to incorporating the newer theories of mid-18th century
materialists such as Dietzgen. It was
this critique which led Pannekoek to denounce Lenin as an advocate of
‘middle-class materialism’. Pannekoek believed
the problem with Lenin’s materialism was that it
drew the most
radical conclusions from these scientific discoveries. Everything spiritual is
merely the product of material processes; ideas are the secretion of the brain,
just as bile is the secretion of the liver.[46]
Pannekoek thus saw Lenin’s perspective on
materialism as dry and lacking substance.
The scientific essence that was clearly missing was the dialectical
logic of Dietzgen. Without a dialectical
approach to materialism it was just a “bourgeois class movement” which
“represented an imperfect and illusionary emancipation, in contrast to the
complete and real emancipation by way of the proletarian class struggle.”[47] Pannekoek clearly thought that Dietzgen was
indispensible to the ideas and philosophy of materialism from a Marxist standpoint. His final words on ‘middle-class materialism’
almost suggest that by denying Dietzgen, Lenin has denied Marxism. Within this heavy conviction the split
between Hegelian and Orthodox Marxists become crystal clear.
These two works, “The Nature of
Human Brain-Work” and “Scientific Socialism” are the first step at looking
deeper into the philosophy of the 20th century’s most feared
ideology, Marxism. A further examination
should be prompted, hopefully one that will encompass not only all of Dietzgen’s
works, but as well all of Lenin’s works, Marx’s notes and letters to Dietzgen,
Dietzgen’s letters to his son, and lastly the works of Hegelian socialists such
as Anton Pannekoek. Hopefully in the
future access and availability of these materials will make an analysis easier
and more understandable for the average historian.
Conclusion
There
is obviously still so much that can be said about Dietzgen and the implication
of his works to the history of Marxism.
Dietzgen published 11 essays, articles, and letters throughout his
lifetime; all of which have had a profound effect on the philosophies of Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Pannekoek, and various other socialists from the 19th
and 20th centuries. From the
two major works cited in this examination though, it is clear that there is
much more to the story about Dietzgen’s life than just a tale of an old German
tanner who had ties with Marx and other revolutionaries from 1848.
As historian Lloyd Easton mentioned in his
1958 essay, the neglect of Dietzgen’s importance and ideas by Lenin has been
rarely discussed in academia. Tony Burns
in 2002 was one of the few to touch on the issue, showing how this neglection
was made only by Orthodox Leninists, and not Hegelian Marxists outside the USSR
such as Anton Pannekoek. Pannekoek’s own
charges against Lenin seem justified when one considers that Lenin used Marx’s
early writings to insist that Dietzgen’s later publications were wrong. On this premise alone, a much larger and more
in depth look at all of Dietzgen’s works and their implications and ties to
Marxism would be greatly beneficial to future studies on Diamat.
Dietzgen’s
two works, “The Nature of Human Brain-Work” and “Scientific Socialism”, put
forth a strong argument for a scientific approach to socialism, by
incorporating dialectics and materialism into one theory. As stated by Easton and reiterated by Burns,
the main distinction between Orthodox and Hegelian Marxists lies with the
interpretation and importance of these works to Marxism in general. Lenin’s rejection of the social scientific
viewpoint and neglect of Dietzgen’s importance over that of Marx’s manuscripts
seems to only benefit his own aims in generating socialist sentiments in an
area not characterized by heavy industrial class antagonisms. Instead, Lenin emphasized class antagonisms
as spreading from a more chaotic, conflicting arrangement of ideals and needs. Lenin’s portrayal of class antagonisms fit
the nature of Tsarist Russia and the distinction between needs and desires present
throughout World War One. This makes the
Orthodox argument seem opportunistic in its approach to Marxist theory and
application. Something many do not
consider when reviewing Lenin’s perspective is how Soviet Russia developed out
of a relatively unindustrialized Monarchy.
Karl Marx and Engels had always emphasized that revolution would come
from an industrialized nation, like Germany, as a product of rising class
interests. A more thorough examination
of Lenin and Dietzgen’s works could unravel some clues about why Lenin found it
so necessary to distinguish himself from Dietzgen and scientific socialism.
As
for Dietzgen and his application to Marxism, the Hegelian argument seems to
hold more credibility than the Orthodox argument because there is nothing
opportunistic about Dietzgen’s theory or the Hegelians in general. Where the Orthodox argument falls apart when
incorporated with Dietzgen and his more humanistic approach to Marxism, the
Hegelian argument is not in any way obstructed or disproven by Orthodox theory. While Lenin insisted that Dietzgen could not
have truly understood Marxism without Marx’s unpublished archives, it is
impossible to say with certainty that Marx himself disliked or disapproved of
Dietzgen’s methods and philosophy.
Marx’s praise for Dietzgen at the First International, his positive
comments about “The Nature of Human Brain-Work”, and his comments on Dietzgen
and dialectics in the last edition of “Capital” shows that even by 1888 Marx
considered Dietzgen important to his ideology.
Joseph
Dietzgen should be seen as one of the most important figures in Marxist
history. The reasons behind this, as
elaborated on above, clearly stem from the disagreements over his importance to
the Marxist movement in the early 20th century. As influential as Karl Marx himself, Joseph
Dietzgen had a profound effect on policy and philosophy both inside and outside
the Soviet Union. Dialectical materialism
(Diamat) continued to be the philosophic doctrine of Marxism-Leninism up until its
collapse in 1991. Within the Soviet
Union however, it was taught within the context of how Lenin understood it,
while outside the USSR the thoughts and implications made by Joseph Dietzgen
were praised and cited by various other socialists such as Anton
Pannekoek. Joseph’s son, Eugene, should
also be considered one of the more important figures for Marxist history
because without him most of his father’s work would have never made it to
publication, nor would it have gained such massive distribution in the United
States. Hopefully in the future, time
and access will allow a deeper look into the meaning of Dietzgen’s works, their
interrelationship with Karl Marx’s works, and finally the true distinctions
between Dietzgen’s Diamat and Lenin’s materialism.
Bibliography
American National Biography. Dietzgen, Peter
Joseph. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Burns, Tony.
"Joseph Dietzgen and the History of Marxism." Science and
Society, 2002: 202-204.
Dietzgen, Joseph. Scientific
Socialism. Marxists.org, 1873.
—. The Nature of
Human Brain Work. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1906.
Easton, Loyd D.
"Empiricism and Ethics in Dietzgen." Journal of the History of
Ideas, 1958: 77.
Feldmann, Vera
Dietzgen, interview by Joshua J. Morris. Joseph Dietzgen Research (May
2, 2008).
Feldmann, Vera
Dietzgen, interview by Joshua J. Morris. Joseph Dietzgen Research
(April 16, 2008).
Giddings, Franklin H.
"Review of The Positive Outcome of Philosophy." International
Journal of Ethics, 1907: 263.
Goetzmann, William H.
The American Hegelians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973.
Jordan, Z. A.
"The Dialectical Materialism of Lenin." Slavic Review, 1966:
259.
Marx, Karl, and
Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Munich, 1848.
Pannekoek, Anton.
"Lenin as a Philosopher." Marxists.org. 1938.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm (accessed
October 2008).
Pannekoek, Anton.
"The Position and Significance of Joseph Dietzgen's Philosophical
Works." In The Positive Outcome of Philosophy, by Joseph
Dietzgen, 7. Chicago: Charles H. Kurr, 1906.
Sommerville, John.
"Review of Lenin as a Philosopher, by Anton Pannekoek." International
Phenomenological Society, 1949: 144.
[1]
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. “The
Communist Manifesto”
[2]
Pannekoek, Anton. “Lenin as a
Philosopher.” New York (153 West 21 Street), New Essays, 1938 p. 80; http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm
[3]
Feldmann, Vera. Interview by Joshua J. Morris. Digital
recording. Santa Barbara, California. 16 April 2008.
[4]
Ibid
[5] Feldmann,
Vera. Interview by Joshua J. Morris. Digital recording. Santa
Barbara, California. 16 April 2008.
[6] Ibid
[7]
Feldmann, Vera. Interview by Joshua J. Morris. Digital
recording. Santa Barbara, California. 2 May 2008.
[8]
Feldmann, Vera. Interview by Joshua J. Morris. Digital
recording. Santa Barbara, California. 16 April 2008.
[9]
Giddings, Franklin H. “Review of The Positive Outcome of Philosophy,” International
Journal of Ethics, 1907: 17(2): p.263
[10] Giddings,
Franklin H. “Review of The Positive Outcome of Philosophy,” International
Journal of Ethics, 1907: 17(2): p.263
[11]
Pannekoek, Anton. “Lenin as a
Philosopher.” New York (153 West 21 Street), New Essays, 1938 p. 80; http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm
[12]
Ibid
[13]
Ibid, p.18
[14]
Sommerville, John. “Review of Lenin as a Philosopher, by Anton
Pannekoek.” International
Phenomenological Society, Sept 1949: 10(1): p.144
[15]
Sommerville, John. “Review of Lenin as a Philosopher, by Anton
Pannekoek.” International
Phenomenological Society, Sept 1949: 10(1): p.144
[16]
Pannekoek, Anton. “The Position and Significance of Joseph Dietzgen’s
Philosophical Works” in the introduction to The
Positive Outcome of Philosophy. Chicago, Charles H. Kurr: 1906, p. 7
[17]
Ibid
[18]
Ibid
[19]
Ibid
[20]
Easton, Loyd D. “Empiricism and Ethics in Dietzgen.” Journal of the History of Ideas, 1958: 19(1): p.77
[21]
Ibid
[22]
Ibid
[23]
Jordan, Z. A. “The Dialectical Materialism of Lenin.” Slavic Review, 1966 25(2): p.259
[24] Jordan,
Z. A. “The Dialectical Materialism of Lenin.” Slavic Review, 1966 25(2): p.260
[25]
Ibid
[26]
Burns, Tony. “Joseph Dietzgen and the History of Marxism.” Science and Society, 2002: 66(2): p.202
[27] Burns,
Tony. “Joseph Dietzgen and the History of Marxism.” Science and Society, 2002: 66(2): p.202
[28]
Ibid, p.204
[29]
Ibid
[30]
Ibid, p. 219
[31]
Burns, Tony. “Joseph Dietzgen and the History of Marxism.” Science and Society, 2002: 66(2): p.202
[32]
Dietzgen, Eugene. “Philosophical Essays” in The
Positive Outcome of Philosophy. Chicago, Charles H. Kurr: 1906, p. 9
[33]
Dietzgen, Joseph. The Nature of Human
Brainwork. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co, 1906. p.54
[34]
Marx, Karl. Letters to Dr. Kugelmann
(New York, 1934), 80, 85; Dona Torr, Ed and Trans.
[35]
Dietzgen, Joseph. “Scientific Socialism.” First Published in Volksataat, 1873.
Source: Marxists.org. Scanned by Andy Blunden. http://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/works/1870s/scientific-socialism.htm
[36] Dietzgen,
Joseph. “Scientific Socialism.” First Published in Volksataat, 1873. Source:
Marxists.org. Scanned by Andy Blunden. http://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/works/1870s/scientific-socialism.htm
[37]
Ibid
[38]
Ibid
[39]
Pannekoek, Anton. “Lenin as a
Philosopher.” New York (153 West 21 Street), New Essays, 1938 p. 80; http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm
[40]
Jordan, Z. A. “The Dialectical Materialism of Lenin.” Slavic Review, 1966 25(2): p.259
[41]
Ibid
[42]
Ibid
[43]
Jordan, Z. A. “The Dialectical Materialism of Lenin.” Slavic Review, 1966 25(2): p.260
[44]
Ibid
[45]
Pannekoek, Anton. “Lenin as a
Philosopher.” New York (153 West 21 Street), New Essays, 1938 p. 80; http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm
[46]
Ibid
[47]
Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment