The somewhat lengthy quotation from Marx’s “Capital” together with one taken from “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,”
which were given in the previous article, show how utterly false is the
view that Marx took no account of ideas as a factor in social change.
Whilst we have no desire to multiply examples, we think it necessary to
give one more quotation upon this point.
In the form of an appendix to Engels’
work on Feuerbach, there are several extracts taken from the writings of
Marx concerning the materialistic philosophy of Feuerbach and others.
In one of these extracts Marx says:—
“The materialistic doctrine that men are the products of conditions and education—different men, therefore, the products of other conditions and changed education—forgets that circumstances may be altered by men and that the educator has himself to be educated.”
So we could continue to pile up the
evidence from the writings of both Marx and Engels to prove how they
realised and asserted the importance of man’s ideas as an active
participant in historical development.
Any theory of history which excluded
man’s ideas from the part they play in social development would scarcely
deserve serious consideration. For, in grappling with the forces of
nature to sustain himself “man makes his own history” inasmuch as the,
will to live spurs him on to devise ways and means of subduing his
natural surroundings to meet his needs and desires.
As we have already indicated, the way
in which man moulds his environment in harmony with his requirements is
by the making and using of tools, and this fact alone implies that man
applies his intelligence to his surroundings.
The historical development of human
society is not to be understood as though it were an automatic process
in which human action plays no part, for historical development can only
take place through human actions, and only from this point of view is
our theory of history to be understood.
Our view of historical development,
instead of implying fatalism, implies a scientific determinism which
sees the principle of causation, as it applies throughout nature,
applying to human thought and conduct — which in turn is by no means
passive in historical happenings.
Not only avowed opponents have
interpreted the materialist conception of history as though it regarded
men like so many “marionettes, whose threads are held and moved no
longer by Providence but by’ economic categories,” but also many who
have styled themselves “Marxists” have done likewise. The writer has
heard it said by certain “Marxists” who, under the impression that they
are interpreting the materialist conception aright, that economic
development alone would suffice to effect the change in the form of
society from the Capitalist to the Socialist form. That whether we
desired it or not Socialism would emerge through economic development
quite independently of our action.
Like the celebrated gentleman who
exchanged the errors of the Church of Rome for those of the Church of
England, such people are, instead of worshipping God, worshipping
“economic development” without understanding its meaning.
Obviously, whether we view history from
the point of view of economic development alone, or from the standpoint
of the actual change in .the form of society, we must logically view it
as a process wherein the human mind has, in a certain sense, a positive
influence. And here a word about mind. “Man,” says Dietzgen, “does not
think originally because he wants to, but because he must,” but though
Dietzgen is here speaking of ideas that are formed instinctively,
involuntarily, nevertheless it is equally true of ideas that are formed
consciously. For, in order to live, man must apply his mind in various
directions as the problems of his surroundings confront him.
When we speak of mind we have not the
same idea in view as that of the theologians and mystics of all shades
of thought, who would have us believe that mind is “a thing in itself ”
which can exist apart from the body. Mind apart from body nobody ever
saw or is ever likely to see. “Mind” is a term used to denote the
working process of the brain—the sum-total of ideas as they are
generated and combined in the brain—through the medium of our sense
organs—the organs of touch, taste, hearing, smell and sight. Mind,
therefore, is not a thing in the sense that it can be grasped by the
hand or be seen by the aid of a microscope, but is, as indicated above,
an expression or manifestation of generalised ideas which arise from the
impressions made upon the brain by “ the realities of the outer
world.”
The materialist view of mind is a
determinist view, which sees, in line with the findings of modern
psychology, “that all mental phenomena are causally dependent upon
physical phenomena.” Ideas do not descend upon us from heaven, or arise
in our heads independently of material causes, but are the result of
past and present material conditions. Thus it will be gathered that the
“mind” is a reflector, and since the things reflected are those of man’s
environment, the nature or character of .the environment determines our
ideas.
As the environment undergoes change,
through the development of tools, fresh conditions are created which
form the material for fresh ideas, and with the increasing complexity of
the environment newer wants and desires emerge as a consequence. Thus
it is that man is more or less compelled to turn his mind in the
direction of inventing and improving the tools of production. It is then
the changes in the environment wrought by the changes in the methods
employed to procure the means of living which form the driving force
behind the changes in ideas. The truth of the dependence of the changes
in ideas upon external forces may be seen in the fact of the tendency of
ideas to remain stationary as in the case of a slowly developing
environment, and in the case of tradition. The view has been put in
another way as follows: –
Progress must not be looked upon as something immanent in man. What is immanent in man is rather a tremendous mental laziness which confronts all novelty with hostility. In order to conquer this inherent laziness, something from without must enter into him which shall draw him forcibly out of his customary existence, and this something is nothing supernatural but quite palpable—it is nothing else but a forced or voluntary change of environment.”—(Muller-Lyer, History of Social Development.)
And a very superficial examination of
society will show that changing economic forces so change the
environment that they are the greatest factor in changing ideas.
So far we have emphasised the fact of
human action along economic lines for the reason that economic needs are
primary. Obviously, we must first satisfy these before we are able to
turn our thought in other directions, the claims of the “lofty
idealists” notwithstanding. And this applies not only to our individual
existence, but also to the existence of human society as a whole. But
though this is so, no Marxist would assert that the entire activities of
mankind are to be explained on purely economic grounds.
“Nobody,” says Kautsky, “would declare
the sexual passion to be an economic motive,” even though “the
alteration in the annual number of marriages is called forth by changes
in the economic situation.” All that Marx and Engels claimed for
historical materialism was that the economic development is the dominant
factor of historical development. “More than this,” says Engels,
neither Marx nor I ever asserted.”
Engels has pointed out that Marx and he
were partly responsible for some of their supporters laying more stress
on the economic side than it deserved. But he explains that it was
essential for Marx and himself to emphasise the economic factor in order
to meet the attacks of their opponents who had disputed their view of
history, and further, that they did not have the time, place or
opportunity to let the other factors get their full recognition. The
evidence for this explanation by Engels is to be found in the
introduction to his work on “Feuerbach. The roots of the Socialist Philosophy.”
So far we have omitted, for the purpose
of simplification, one very important fact which our view of history
reveals quite clearly from the facts of history itself, namely, that
with the exception of that early stage of human society when a crude
form of communism prevailed, the history of society is largely made up
of a series of class struggles, based upon conflicting economic
interests. Thus the upward, march of mankind from savagery to
civilisation has not alone been composed of a struggle between man and
external nature, but has also been composed of struggles between man and
man carried on along lines of class interests. This aspect of the
subject will be dealt with in the continuation of this sketch.
Robert Reynolds
(To be continued.)
No comments:
Post a Comment