ANTI-DUHRING,
Engels’ great work, was the product of an acute inner-party struggle.
During the 1870s,
Eugen Duhring, a lecturer at Berlin University, came out with a series of works
which launched an all-round attack on Marxism, from philosophy and political
economy to the theory of socialism.
Weaving his web like
a spider, Duhring made up this whole series of systems out of his "genius"
brain. He imagined that, without any kind of experience and starting from the
simplest "basic forms" or "basic elements" of things, he could logically deduce
a whole system of philosophy by applying several understood axioms of philosophy
and then, by sovereign decree, he imposed this constitution on nature and
humanity. Engels pointed out:
"This is only giving
a new twist to the old favourite ideological method, also known as the apriori
method, which consists in ascertaining the properties of an object by logical
deduction from the concept of the object, instead, of from the object itself. .
. . The object is then to conform to the concept, not the concept to the
object....... The philosophy of reality . . . proves... to be..... the deduction
of reality not from itself but from a concept."
Apriorism is an
idealist theory of knowledge. The materialist theory of reflection holds that
ideas are the reflection of objective reality, that all true knowledge
originates from experience. So there is no knowledge prior to experience. Yet
apriorism holds that the rational includes some "gifted concept,"
"self-understood reason," "born principles" or logical categories, that it does
not arise from experience but is innate in the mind, and that starting from
these principles or categories, one can get real knowledge through logical
deduction. Apriorists do not admit the dependence of conceptual knowledge upon
perceptual knowledge, but think that the former is independent; they oppose
proceeding from practical experience, but stand for proceeding from the
rational. They do not proceed from facts to concepts but vice versa.
In criticizing
apriorism, Engels incisively elaborated the principle of the materialist theory
of reflection. He said that principle was not the starting point of research,
but was its ultimate result, that it,was not for the ohjective world to adapt to
principle but a principle was correct only when it conformed to the objective
world. But Duhring turned things upside down. With convincing arguments, Engels
explained that all knowledge, including mathematics which seemed very abstract,
came from practical experiences.
Duhring’s "socialism"
was created by the apriori method. According to him, socialism was neither a
reflection of the objective law of social development at all nor a reflection of
the class interests of the proletariat, but was derived from the so-called
principle that was universal and just.
Historical Development Is Not Decided by Men of Genius
Utopian socialists
believed that society could be changed by the force of reason alone and that
reason was apriorist and eternal. They denied the fact that knowledge depends on
social practice and truth is a process of development. Proceeding from this,
they inevitably derived the idealist conception of history which considers
history as being created by genius.
Using the materialist
conception of history, Engels thoroughly refuted this idealist conception of
history. He pointed out that the final causes of all social and political
changes should be sought, not in man’s brain or better insight into "eternal
truth" or "universal justice," but in the economic base of society and class
struggle. The birth of capitalism was not because of mistakes in man’s
knowledge; it was historically inevitable because the capitalist system
corresponded to the development of the social productive forces under the then
historical conditions. Similarly, that the capitalist system must give way to
the socialist system is not because people come to know that it is contradictory
to the principles of justice and equality or merely because they want to abolish
classes, but because the capitalist relations of production retard the
development of the social productive forces and only the socialist relations of
production can liberate those forces. Therefore, the question is not one of
first imagining a perfect social system in the mind and then imposing it on
society. Only by objectively observing and knowing the laws governing the
development of society and relying on the struggle of the masses to transform
theory into a material force can society be changed.
Marxism has always
recognized the reaction of mental on material things and the role of heroes,
leaders and geniuses in history. But no matter how great the geniuses are, they
cannot change the laws of history and decide its course. History is not created
by a few men of genius but by the masses of the people. Only when the ideas of
heroes, leaders and men of genius represent the interests of the advanced class,
correspond to the needs of the objective reality and are grasped by the masses
can they become a great material force to transform the world.
A genius is no more
than somewhat wiser and more talented than the others. But where do wisdom and
talent come from? Talent belongs to the category of knowledge and is not
something endowed by nature. Although man’s wisdom and ability are related to
the degree of perfection of his brain, the evolution of his brain has been the
result of man’s longtime labour and the development of language. As the human
brain itself is a product of labour, how can man’s wisdom and ability be
separated from social practice? Moreover, physiological differences between
people cannot explain at all that talent is naturally endowed because they only
constitute the natural material foundation for the development of talent and
provide the possibility for this development. The real forming of talent is
acquired through tempering and study. All such assertions as born "talent,"
"all-embracing talent" of leaders are nothing but out-and-out lies! Wisdom and
ability can be derived only from social practice and from the masses. Chairman
Mao has contributed greatly to the development of this question. He pointed out:
The brain of any hero and outstanding man can only play the role of a processing
plant and its raw material or semi-finished products come from the masses. The
lowly who personally take part in practice are most intelligent and truth is in
the hands of the masses. Only when the leaders first become students of the
masses can they become the latter’s teachers. According to this view, geniuses
are not isolated individuals, but are the representatives of the classes. They
come from the masses, and are most adept at concentrating their wisdom. If there
were no masses, there would be no genius. The masses are the real heroes and the
genius or heroes and leaders is the concentrated expression of the wisdom of the
masses, the classes and the party.
Scientific Socialism Emerges and Develops on the Basis of Revolutionary Practice
Why couldn’t people
like Saint-Simon found scientific socialism? Was it because they lacked genius?
No. Engels regarded Saint-Simon as a man of genius, but no genius can go beyond
the limit set by his time. It was because of the historical conditions that
people like Saint-Simon fell into utopian socialism. At that time capitalism was
in its period of ascendancy and the struggle of the proletariat against the
bourgeoisie had not developed yet, so it was impossible to foresee the
proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Why could Marx and
Engels found scientific socialism? Was it merely or mainly because of their
genius? The answer is no. As to Marx’s genius, Engels only mentioned it on a few
occasions and never specially stressed it. On the contrary, Engels stressed in
many places in Anti-Duhring and his other works the historical and practical
conditions which gave rise to Marxism. In the era of Marx and Engels natural
science made tremendous advances and the three great discoveries of cells,
transformation of energy and the evolution of living things provided strong
scientific proof of dialectics. On the other hand, in the words of Engels,
"certain historical facts had occurred which led to a decisive change in the
conception of history," i.e., the first workers’ uprising in Lyons, France,
in 1831 and the Chartist movement – the first nationwide workers’ movement in
England which reached its climax between 1838 and 1842. These facts showed that
with the development of big industry and of the bourgeoisie’s newly seized
political rule, the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
was raised to the principal contradiction in the most developed European
countries. Marx and Engels were able to found their theories precisely because
they personally took part in revolutionary practice at that time, read many
books, studied large quantities of material in natural science and social
history, studied the economic structure of capitalism and its inner
contradictions and summed up the historical experience of the international
workers’ movement. As Engels put it: "Socialism was no longer an accidental
discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the
struggle between two historically developed classes – the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie."
Man’s practice is a
process of continuous development and will never be ended; so is man’s
knowledge. People’s knowledge at any given stage of development is relative
truth which contains factors of absolute truth but is not absolute truth. What
is absolute truth? Chairman Mao has given a precise definition: "The sum
total of innumerable relative truths" constitutes absolute truth.
"Innumerable" means countless and knowledge cannot be completed. Therefore,
no individual can exhaust absolute truth and enjoy absolute scientific
authority. Putting on airs as an absolute authority who "knows everything,"
Duhring advertised his goods as the "final and ultimate truth" and bragged that
his thinking was able to exclude any tendency to a "subjectively limited
conception of the world." Engels scathingly refuted this fallacy, pointing out:
Everyone’s knowledge is limited by subjective and objective conditions and
therefore cannot be of unconditional and paramount significance. The so-called
"infallible" genius and superman who exhausts absolute truth simply does not
exist. However, through the efforts of generation after generation, mankind is
continuously approaching absolute truth.
Making Mao Tsetung
Thought absolute and solidified in itself is counter to Mao Tsetung Thought.
Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought has in no way exhausted truth but
ceaselessly opens up roads to the knowledge of truth in the course of practice.
(Abridged)
|