But the triumph of the European working-class does not depend upon England alone.It can only be secured by the cooperation of,at least,England,France,and Germany.In both the latter countries,the working-class movement is well ahead of England.In Germany,it is even within measurable distance of success.The progress it has there made during the last 25years is unparalleled.It advances with ever-increasing velocity.If the German middle-class have shown themselves lamentably deficient in political capacity,discipline,courage,energy,and perseverance,the German working-class have given ample proof of all these qualities.Four hundred years ago,Germany was the starting-point of the first upheaval of the European middle-class;as things are now,is it outside the limits of possibility that Germany will be the scene,too,of the first great victory of the European proletariat?
FREDERICK ENGELS
London April 20,1892
Notes2"Brother Jonathan"?A sort of Anglo-Christian "Uncle Sam".
[2]And even in business matters,the conceit of national Chauvinism is but a sorry adviser.Up to quite recently,the average English manufacturer considered it derogatory for an Englishman to speak any language but his own,and felt rather proud than otherwise of the fact that "poor devils"of foreigners settled in England and took off his hands the trouble of disposing of his products abroad.He never noticed that these foreigners,mostly Germans,thus got command of a very large part of British foreign trade,imports and exports,and that the direct foreign trade of Englishmen became limited,almost entirely,to the colonies,China,the United States,and South America.Nor did he notice that these Germans traded with other Germans abroad,who gradually organized a complete network of commercial colonies all over the world.But,when Germany,about 40years ago [c.1850],seriously began manufacturing for export,this network served her admirably in her transformation,in so short a time,from a corn-exporting into a first-rate manufacturing country.Then,about 10years ago,the British manufacturer got frightened,and asked his ambassadors and consuls how it was that he could no longer keep his customers together.The unanimous answer was:
(1)You don't learn customer's language but expect him to speak your own;(2)You don't even try to suit your customer's wants,habits,and tastes,but expect him to conform to your English ones.
Socialism:Utopian and Scientific (Introduction -Materialism)Fredrick Engels Socialism:Utopian and Scientific 1892English Edition Introduction [General Introduction and the History of Materialism]
The present little book is,originally,part of a larger whole.About 1875,Dr.E.Duhring,privatdocent [university lecturer who formerly received fees from his students rather than a wage]at Berlin University,suddenly and rather clamorously announced his conversion to Socialism,and presented the German public not only with an elaborate Socialist theory,but also with a complete practical plan for the reorganization of society.As a matter of course,he fell foul of his predecessors;above all,he honored Marx by pouring out upon him the full vials of his wrath.
This took place about the same time when the two sections of the Socialist party in Germany ?Eisenachers and Lasselleans ?had just effected their fusip;[at the Gotha Unification Congress],and thus obtained not only an immense increase of strength,but,was what more,the faculty of employing the whole of this strength against the common enemy.The Socialist party in Germany was fast becoming a power.But,to make it a power,the first condition was that the newly-conquered unity should not be imperilled.And Dr.Duhring openly proceeded to form around himself a sect,the nucleus of a future separate party.It,thus,became necessary to take up the gauntlet thrown down to us,and to fight out the struggle,whether we liked it or not.
This,however,though it might not be an over-difficult,was evidently a long-winded business.As is well-known,we Germans are of a terribly ponderous Grundlichkeit,radical profundity or profound radicality,whatever you may like to call it.Whenever anyone of us expounds what he considers a new doctrine,he has first to elaborate it into an all-comprising system.
He has to prove that both the first principles of logic and the fundamental laws of the universe had existed from all eternity for no other purpose than to ultimately lead to this newly-discovered,crowning theory.And Dr.Duhring,in this respect,was quite up to the national mark.Nothing less than a complete "System of Philosophy",mental,moral,natural,and historical;a complete "System of Political Economy and Socialism";and,finally,a "Critical History of Political Economy"?three big volumes in octavo,heavy extrinsically and intrinsically,three army-corps of arguments mobilized against all previous philosophers and economists in general,and against Marx in particular ?in fact,an attempt at a complete "revolution in science"?these were what I should have to tackle.I had to treat of all and every possible subject,from concepts of time and space to Bimetallism;from the eternity of matter and motion,to the perishable nature of moral ideas;from Darwin's natural selection to the education of youth in a future society.Anyhow,the systematic comprehensiveness of my opponent gave me the opportunity of developing,in opposition to him,and in a more connected form than had previously been done,the views held by Marx and myself on this great variety of subjects.And that was the principal reason which made me undertake this otherwise ungrateful task.
My reply was first published in a series of articles in the Leipzig Vorwarts,the chief organ of the Socialist party [1],and later on as a book:"Herr Eugen Duhrings Umwalzung der Wissenchaft"(Mr.E.Duhring's "Revolution in Science"),a second edition of which appeared in Zurich,1886.
At the request of my friend,Paul Lafargue,now representative of Lille in the French Chamber of Deputies,I arranged three chapters of this book as a pamphlet,which he translated and published in 1880,under the title:
"Socialisme utopiqueet Socialisme scientifique".From this French text,a Polish and a Spanish edition were prepared.In 1883,out German friends brought out the pamphlet in the original language.Italian,Russian,Danish,Dutch,and Roumanian translations,based upon the German text,have since been published.Thus,the present English edition,this little book circulates in 10languages.I am not aware that any other Socialist work,not even our Communist Manifesto of 1848,or Marx's Capital ,has been so often translated.In Germany,it has had four editions of about 20,000copies in all.
The Appendix,"The Mark",was written with the intention of spreading among the German Socialist party some elementary knowledge of the history and development of landed property in Germany.This seemed all the more necessary at a time when the assimilation by that party of the working-people of the towns was in a fair way of completion,and when the agricultural laborers and peasant had to be taken in hand.This appendix has been included in the translation,as the original forms of tenure of land common to all Teutonic tribes,and the history of their decay,are even less known in England and in Germany.I have left the text as it stands in the original,without alluding to the hypothesis recently started by Maxim Kovalevsky,according to which the partition of the arable and meadow lands among the members of the Mark was preceded by their being cultivated for joint-account by a large patriarchal family community,embracing several generations (as exemplified by the still existing South Slavonian Zadruga),and that the partition,later on,took place when the community had increased,so as to become too unwieldy for joint-account management.Kovalevsky is probably quite right,but the matter is still sub judice [under consideration].
The economic terms used in this work,as afar as they are new,agree with those used in the English edition of Marx's Capital.We call "production of commodities"that economic phase where articles are produced not only for the use of the producers,but also for the purpose of exchange;that is,as commodities ,not as use values.This phase extends from the first beginnings of production for exchange down to our present time;it attains its full development under capitalist production only,that is,under conditions where the capitalist,the owner of the means of production,employs,for wages,laborers,people deprived of all means of production except their own labor-power,and pockets the excess of the selling price of the products over his outlay.We divide the history of industrial production since the Middle Ages into three periods:
handicraft,small master craftsman with a few journeymen and apprentices,where each laborer produces a complete article;manufacture,where greater numbers of workmen,grouped in one large establishment,produce the complete article on the principle of division of labor,each workman performing only one partial operation,so that the product is complete only after having passed successively through the hands of all;modern industry,where the product is produced by machinery driven by power,and where the work of the laborer is limited to superintending and correcting the performance of the mechanical agent.
I am perfectly aware that the contents of this work will meet with objection from a considerable portion of the British public.But,if we Continentals had taken the slightest notice of the prejudices of British "respectability",we should be even worse off than we are.This book defends what we call "historical materialism",and the word materialism grates upon the ears of the immense majority of British readers."Agnosticism"might be tolerated,but materialism is utterly inadmissible.
And,yet,the original home of all modern materialism,from the 17th century onwards,is England.
"Materialism is the natural-born son of Great Britain.
Already the British schoolman,Duns Scotus,asked,'whether it was impossible for the matter to think?'
"In order to effect this miracle,he took refuge in God's omnipotence ?i.e.,he made theology preach materialism.Moreover,he was a nominalist.Nominalism,the first form of materialism,is chiefly found among the English schoolmen.
"The real progenitor of English materialism is Bacon.
To him,natural philosophy is the only true philosophy,and physics based upon the experience of the senses is the chiefest part of natural philosophy.
Anaxagoras and his homoiomeriae,Democritus and his atoms,he often quotes as his authorities.According to him,the senses are infallible and the source of all knowledge.All science is based on experience,and consists in subjecting the data furnished by the senses to a rational method of investigation.Induction,analysis,comparison,observation,experiment,are the principal forms of such a rational method.Among the qualities inherent in matter,motion is the first and foremost,not only in the form of mechanical and mathematical motion,but chiefly in the form of an impulse,a vital spirit,a tension ?or a 'qual',to use a term of Jakob Bohme';[2]?of matter.
"In Bacon,its first creator,materialism still occludes within itself the germs of a many-sided development.On the one hand,matter,surrounded by a sensuous,poetic glamor,seems to attract man's whole entity by winning smiles.On the other,the aphoristically formulated doctrine pullulates with inconsistencies imported from theology.
"In its further evolution,materialism becomes one-sided.
Hobbes is the man who systematizes Baconian materialism.Knowledge based upon the senses loses its poetic blossom,it passes into the abstract experience of the mathematician;geometry is proclaimed as the queen of sciences.
Materialism takes to misanthropy.If it is to overcome its opponent,misanthropic,flashless spiritualism,and that on the latter's own ground,materialism has to chastise its own flesh and turn ascetic.Thus,from a sensual,it passes into an intellectual,entity;but thus,too,it evolves all the consistency,regardless of consequences,characteristic of the intellect.
"Hobbes,as Bacon's continuator,argues thus:if all human knowledge is furnished by the senses,then our concepts and ideas are but the phantoms,divested of their sensual forms,of the real world.Philosophy can but give names to these phantoms.One name may be applied to more than one of them.There may even be names of names.It would imply a contradiction if,on the one hand,we maintained that all ideas had their origin in the world of sensation,and,on the other,that a word was more than a word;that,besides the beings known to us by our senses,beings which are one and all individuals,there existed also beings of a general,not individual,nature.An unbodily substance is the same absurdity as an unbodily body.
Body,being,substance,are but different terms for the same reality.It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks.This matter is the substratum of all changes going on in the world.The word infinite is meaningless,unless it states that our mind is capable of performing an endless process of addition.Only material things being perceptible to us,we cannot know anything about the existence of God.My own existence alone is certain.Every human passion is a mechanical movement,which has a beginning and an end.The objects of impulse are what we call good.Man is subject to the same laws as nature.Power and ******* are identical.
"Hobbes had systematized Bacon,without,however,furnishing a proof for Bacon's fundamental principle,the origin of all human knowledge from the world of sensation.It was Locke who,in his Essay on the Human Understanding ,supplied this proof.
"Hobbes had shattered the theistic prejudices of Baconian materialism;Collins,Dodwell,Coward,Hartley,Priestley,similarly shattered the last theological bars that still hemmed in Locke's sensationalism.
At all events,for practical materialists,Deism is but an easy-going way of getting rid of religion."Karl Marx The Holy Family p.201-204Thus Karl Marx wrote about the British origin of modern materialism.
If Englishmen nowadays do not exactly relish the compliment the paid their ancestors,more's the pity.It is none the less undeniable that Bacon,Hobbes,and Locke are the fathers of that brilliant school of French materialism which made the 18th century,in spite of all battles on land and sea won over Frenchmen by Germans and Englishmen,a pre-eminently French century,even before that crowning French Revolution,the results of which we outsides,in England as well as Germany,are still trying to acclimatize.
There is no denying it.About the middle of this century,what struck every cultivated foreigner who set up his residence in England,was what he was then bound to consider the religious bigotry and stupidity of the English respectable middle-class.We,at that time,were all materialists,or,at least,very advanced free-thinkers,and to us it appeared inconceivable that almost all educated people in England should believe in all sorts of impossible miracles,and that even geologists like Buckland and Mantell should contort the facts of their science so as not to clash too much with the myths of the book of Genesis;while,in order to find people who dared to use their own intellectual faculties with regard to religious matters,you had to go amongst the uneducated,the "great unwashed",as they were then called,the working people,especially the Owenite Socialists.
But England has been "civilized"since then.The exhibition of 1851sounded the knell of English insular exclusiveness.England became gradually internationalized,in diet,in manners,in ideas;so much so that I begin to wish that some English manners and customs had made as much headway on the Continent as other Continental habits have made here.Anyhow,the introduction and spread of salad-oil (before 1851known only to the aristocracy)has been accompanied by a fatal spread of Continental scepticism in matters religious,and it has come to this,that agnosticism,though not yet considered "the thing"quite as much as the Church of England,is yet very nearly on a par,as far as respectability goes,with Baptism,and decidedly ranks above the Salvation Army.And I cannot help believing that under those circumstances it will be consoling to many who sincerely regret and condemn this progress of infidelity to learn that these "new-fangled notions"are not of foreign origin,are not "made in Germany",like so many other articles of daily use,but are undoubtedly Old English,and that their British originators 200years ago went a good deal further than their descendants now dare to venture.
What,indeed,is agnosticism but,to use an expressive Lancashire term,"shamefaced"materialism?The agnostic's conception of Nature is materialistic throughout.The entire natural world is governed by law,and absolutely excludes the intervention of action from without.But,he adds,we have no means either of ascertaining or of disproving the existence of some Supreme Being beyond the known universe.Now,this might hold good at the time when Laplace,to Napoleon's question,why,in the great astronomer's Treatise on Celestial Mechanics ,the Creator was not even mentioned,proudly replied""I had no need of this hypothesis."But,nowadays,in our evolutionary conception of the universe,there is absolutely no room for either a Creator or a Ruler;and to talk of a Supreme Being shut out from the whole existing world,implies a contradiction in terms,and,as it seems to me,a gratuitous insult to the feelings of religious people.
Again,our agnostic admits that all our knowledge is based upon the information imparted to us by our senses.But,he adds,how do we know that our senses give us correct representations of the objects we perceive through them?And he proceeds to inform us that,whenever we speak of objects,or their qualities,of which he cannot know anything for certain,but merely the impressions which they have produced on his senses.Now,this line of reasoning seems undoubtedly hard to beat by mere argumentation.But before there was argumentation,there was action.Im Anfang war die That.[from Goethe's Faust :"In the beginning was the deed."]And human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it.The proof of the pudding is in the eating.From the moment we turn to our own use these objects,according to the qualities we perceive in them,we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception.If these perceptions have been wrong,then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong,and our attempt must fail.But,if we succeed in accomplishing our aim,if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it,and does answer the purpose we intended it for,then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities,so far ,agree with reality outside ourselves.And,whenever we find ourselves face-to-face with a failure,then we generally are not long in ****** out the cause that made us fail;we find that the perception upon which we acted was either incomplete and superficial,or combined with the results of other perceptions in a way not warranted by them ?what we call defective reasoning.
So long as we take care to train our senses properly,and to keep our action within the limits prescribed by perceptions properly made and properly used,so long as we shall find that the result of our action proves the conformity of our perceptions with the objective nature of the things perceived.
Not in one single instance,so far,have we been led to the conclusion that our sense-perception,scientifically controlled,induce in our minds ideas respecting the outer world that are,by their very nature,at variance with reality,or that there is an inherent incompatibility between the outer world and our sense-perceptions of it.
But then come the Neo-Kantian agnostics and say:We may correctly perceive the qualities of a thing,but we cannot by any sensible or mental process grasp the thing-in-itself.This "thing-in-itself"is beyond our ken.To this Hegel,long since,has replied:If you know all the qualities of a thing,you know the thing itself;nothing remains but the fact that the said thing exists without us;and,when your senses have taught you that fact,you have grasped the last remnant of the thing-in-itself,Kant's celebrated unknowable Ding an sich.To which it may be added that in Kant's time our knowledge of natural objects was indeed so fragmentary that he might well suspect,behind the little we knew about each of them,a mysterious "thing-in-itself".But one after another these ungraspable things have been grasped,analyzed,and,what is more,reproduced by the giant progress of science;and what we can produce we certainly cannot consider as unknowable.To the chemistry of the first half of this century,organic substances were such mysterious object;now we learn to build them up one after another from their chemical elements without the aid of organic processes.Modern chemists declare that as soon as the chemical constitution of no-matter-what body is known,it can be built up from its elements.We are still far from knowing the constitution of the highest organic substances,the albuminous bodies;but there is no reason why we should not,if only after centuries,arrive at the knowledge and,armed with it,produce artificial albumen.But,if we arrive at that,we shall at the same time have produced organic life,for life,from its lowest to its highest forms,is but the normal mode of existence of albuminous bodies.
As soon,however,as our agnostic has made these formal mental reservations,he talks and acts as the rank materialist he at bottom is.He may say that,as far as we know,matter and motion,or as it is now called,energy,can neither be created nor destroyed,but that we have no proof of their not having been created at some time or other.But if you try to use this admission against him in any particular case,he will quickly put you out of court.If he admits the possibility of spiritualism in abstracto ,he will have none of it in concreto.As far as we know and can know,he will tell you there is no creator and no Ruler of the universe;as far as we are concerned,matter and energy can neither be created nor annihilated;for us,mind is a mode of energy,a function of the brain;all we know is that the material world is governed by immutable laws,and so forth.
Thus,as far as he is a scientific man,as far as he knows anything,he is a materialist;outside his science,in spheres about which he knows nothing,he translates his ignorance into Greek and calls it agnosticism.
At all events,one thing seems clear:even if I was an agnostic,it is evident that I could not describe the conception of history sketched out in this little book as "historical agnosticism".Religious people would laugh at me,agnostics would indignantly ask,was I ****** fun of them?
And,thus,I hope even British respectability will not be overshocked if I use,in English as well as in so many other languages,the term "historical materialism",to designate that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society,in the changes in the modes of production and exchange,in the consequent division of society into distinct classes,and in the struggles of these classes against one another.
This indulgence will,perhaps,be accorded to me all the sooner if I show that historical materialism may be of advantage even to British respectability.
I have mentioned the fact that,about 40or 50years ago,any cultivated foreigner settling in England was struck by what he was then bound to consider the religious bigotry and stupidity of the English respectable middle-class.
I am now going to prove that the respectable English middle-class of that time was not quite as stupid as it looked to the intelligent foreigner.
Its religious leanings can be explained.
Notes 1Vorwarts existed in Leipzig from 1876-78,after the Gotha Unification Congress.
[2]"Qual"is a philosophical play upon words.Qual literally means torture,a pain which drives to action of some kind;at the same time,the mystic Bohme puts into the German word something of the meaning of the Latin qualitas ;his "qual"was the activating principle arising from,and promoting in its turn,the spontaneous development of the thing,relation,or person subject to it,in contradistinction to a pain inflicted from without.[Note by Engels to the English Edition]
Socialism:Utopian and Scientific (Chpt.1)Fredrick Engels Socialism:Utopian and Scientific I[The Development of Utopian Socialism]
Modern Socialism is,in its essence,the direct product of the recognition,on the one hand,of the class antagonisms existing in the society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors,between capitalists and wage-workers;on the other hand,of the anarchy existing in production.But,in its theoretical form,modern Socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the 18th century.Like every new theory,modern Socialism had,at first,to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand,however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts.
The great men,who in France prepared men's minds for the coming revolution,were themselves extreme revolutionists.They recognized no external authority of any kind whatever.Religion,natural science,society,political institutions ?everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism:everything must justify its existence before the judgment-seat of reason or give up existence.Reason became the sole measure of everything.It was the time when,as Hegel says,the world stood upon its hea ;[1];first in the sense that the human head,and the principles arrived at by its thought,claimed to be the basis of all human action and association;but by and by,also,in the wider sense that the reality which was in contradiction to these principles had,in fact,to be turned upside down.Every form of society and government then existing,every old traditional notion,was flung into the lumber-room as irrational;the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led solely by prejudices;everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt.Now,for the first time,appeared the light of day,the kingdom of reason;henceforth superstition,injustice,privilege,oppression,were to be superseded by eternal truth,eternal Right,equality based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man.
We know today that this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie;that this eternal Right found its realization in bourgeois justice;that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law;that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man;and that the government of reason,the Contrat Social of Rousseau,came into being,and only could come into being,as a democratic bourgeois republic.The great thinkers of the 18th century could,no more than their predecessors,go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch.
But,side by side with the antagonisms of the feudal nobility and the burghers,who claimed to represent all the rest of society,was the general antagonism of exploiters and exploited,of rich idlers and poor workers.
It was this very circumstance that made it possible for the representatives of the bourgeoisie to put themselves forward as representing not one special class,but the whole of suffering humanity.Still further.From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis:capitalists cannot exist without wage-workers,and,in the same proportion as the mediaeval burgher of the guild developed into the modern bourgeois,the guild journeyman and the day-laborer,outside the guilds,developed into the proletarian.
