A Critique of Humanism (and Raya Dunayevskaya's Marxist Humanism) (1966)

7/23/2019 A Critique of Humanism (and Raya Dunayevskaya's Marxist Humanism) (1966)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-critique-of-humanism-and-raya-dunayevskayas-marxist-humanism-1966 1/21

A Critique of "Humanism" (and Raya Dunayevskaya's "Marxist Humanism")

From 'The tudy of !ientifi! Communism' o#$% &an $

Written by Hiroyoshi Hayashi

Translated by Roy West

Contents

I. The Birth of Humanism

II. 18th Century French Humanism

III. [Humanism] and ar!

I". Criti#ue of Humanism

I. The Birth of Humanism

$e%en or ei&ht years a&o' in the (eriod (rior to the so)called *n(o stru&&le +the mo%ementa&ainst the ,a(an)-.$. $ecurity Treaty' the /e0 eft a((eared as sub2ecti%ists+shutaiseishu&isha' (olitically this 0as re(resented by a radical (osition' and the stru&&lecarried out a&ainst *n(o 0as de(endent on students. $ubse#uently the /e0 eftdissol%ed' broadly s(ea3in&' into t0o trends4 radical (olitical sects de(endent on students'and economist &rou(s tailin& the natural &ro0th of the 0or3ers mo%ement. The former ofthese t0o trends +Re%olutionary Communist ea&ue)5a3u3yodo defends humanism+nin&enshu&i. ,ust as they e!(lained ar!ism in a sub2ecti%e +shutaiseironte3i ande!istential manner' no0 they are attem(tin& to confuse ar!ism 0ith humanism' ande!(lain ar!ism in a humanistic fashion. This is e!actly 0hat 0e must no0 attem(t tocritici6e. We must elucidate the essence and limitations of humanism' re%eal ho0 it isultimately an ideolo&y of bour&eois society' and carry out a firm criticism of the /e0 eft7s

&lorification of humanism in the name of ar!ism' and the attem(t to re(lace ar!ism 0ith humanism.

The conce(t of humanism is somethin& 0hich arose in the consciousness of humanityalon& 0ith the Renaissance. The Renaissance itself 0as a (roduct of bour&eoisde%elo(ment. The cities around Florence 0ere the area in 0hich the Renaissanceflourished. ne reason the Renaissance de%elo(ed here this 0as the direct succession ofthe traditions of classic 9ree3 and Roman ci%ili6ation. *nother reason 0as that follo0in&the Crusades this area had be&un to trade 0ith countries to the east and commercialca(italism had de%elo(ed more ra(idly than other countries' therefore the modern

bour&eois class had already de%elo(ed and the feudal aristocratic class had beeno%er(o0ered.

http://www.mcg-j.org/english/e-theory/crideolog/raya.html#1










What concerned the bur&her class li%in& in the bour&eois)li3e Italian city states 0eresecular and 0orldy thin&s' not a di%ine after0orld. They ho(ed to re(lace the theolo&icaland scholastic education of the middle a&es 0ith a liberated education' and searched forthis 0ithin Roman culture. Here they disco%ered thin&s 0hich 0ere 0orldly and affirmedthe %alue of nature rather than that 0hich is 9od)centered and denies humanity. With this

s(irit as their base' modern (eo(le for the first time ac#uired a conscious a0areness ofhumanity and indi%iduality.

Renaissance humanism re(udiated transcendentalism 0hich 0as the basis of feudalisticthou&ht. The feudal system and its theolo&ical thou&ht had become a fetter to thede%elo(ment and creati%e (o0er of human bein&s. Humanism en%isa&ed a freeautonomous indi%idual)harmony bet0een e!terior and interior instead of conflict' an end tothe s(lit bet0een society and indi%idual as 0ell as the indi%idual7s internal s(lit' and the fullculti%ation of all as(ects of human ability rather than a one dimensionality. It stressed thenecessity of culti%atin& both humanistic learnin& and art' and didn7t hesitate to stru&&le for

human and social relations that 0ould be suitable to this humanity. Humanism (ursuedhumanity' the human ideal' and the form of 0hat the human bein& should be. The(rototy(e for this 0as found in the cultured (erson in ancient 9reece.

The influence of Renaissance humanism &re0 stron&er in :uro(e and throu&hout the 0hole 0orld as ca(italism &re0 increasin&ly stron&er and became dominant. Humanism(ro%ided the bur&her class 0ith a tremendous 0ea(on in their stru&&le a&ainst medie%alelements. +The analysis of the conce(t of humanism 0ill be left for a later section 0here 0e 0ill e%aluate the limits and si&nificance of renaissance humanism. $ince that time thes(irit of the Renaissance has become uni%ersali6ed in :uro(ean thou&ht and has come to

fruition. The Renaissance is si&nificant in that it re(udiated medie%al theolo&y andirrational mysticism' 0hile cham(ionin& secular rationality. ar!ism 0as formed in thiss(ace thorou&hly transformed by the modern s(irit. n the one hand' the &reatest 0ea3ness of this humanism 0as the abstract defense of humanity. This 0ea3ness(ertains to the essence of all humanism. The Renaissance re2ected the medie%al systemand its ideolo&y +theolo&y and scholasticism 0hich restrained and su((ressed humanity'and cham(ioned human nature. This human nature itself comes from the classic s(irit.Ho0e%er' human nature accordin& to the classical s(irit is %a&ue. In the classical a&e'human nature could be %ie0ed either as somethin& natural and unchan&in&' or somethin&culti%ated. The bour&eoisie fou&ht to introduce the idea of a natural man as one means ofstru&&le a&ainst the dar3ness of the middle a&es 0here 9od rei&ned abo%e man as atranscendental force rulin& human bein&s. This can be seen in Rousseau. The idea thathuman nature can only be achie%ed throu&h culti%ation turned into bour&eois aristocratic)li3e culti%ation' and can be found in its most thorou&h form in the rationalism of the Frenchenli&htenment. The limits of renaissance humanism are the limits of humanism in &eneral'and thus the limits of bour&eois ideolo&y in &eneral.

II. 18th Century French Humanism

The s(irit of the de%elo(ment of indi%idualism and liberation of human nature' 0hich

be&an in the Renaissance' reached a (eriod of full bloom in the 18th century. This 0as thea&e of the French :nli&htenment. The source of this mo%ement 0as the economic



(hiloso(hy and democratic (olitical theory re(resented by ,ohn oc3e' and others'comin& from :n&land' 0hich had more ra(idly achie%ed bour&eois de%elo(ment. Thisemer&ed as a com(letely re%olutionary thou&ht' and its im(act s(read to the thou&ht ofthe :uro(ean continent 0hich 0as still under the old system. The basis of this stance 0asto u(hold reason a&ainst e%ery ty(e of authority and su(erstition. In France' ine%itably'

this mo%ement o((osed the authority of the Church' and then de%elo(ed further into astru&&le a&ainst the rule of absolutism. In this mo%ement' there 0as a distrust of the nobleand (riestly classes' and a stru&&le a&ainst reli&ious su(erstition' as 0ell as a(hiloso(hical mo%ement of atheism and materialism. This 0as an attem(t' 0ith the ne0lyemer&ent bour&eois class and the ra(idly de%elo(in& natural science as the bac3bone' todestroy a %ariety of old reli&ious (re2udice and con%entions' thro0 the li&ht of the rationalintellect on the dar3ness of the old society7s irrational delusions' and liberate humanityfrom its unenli&htened state to build a bri&ht society. The slo&ans of this stru&&le 0ere;nature;' ;reason; and ;felicity;. In (lace of the felicity of hea%en' they sou&ht ha((inesson earth based on their confidence in humanity and the trium(h of science. Today' onlyar!ism has inherited and su(erseded the dee()rooted dream of the French materialists)that is' the dream of a ne0 century of ne0 human bein&s bound by interconnectedrelations in 0hich all illusions 0ould be tossed aside' and actions 0ould be 2ud&ed' andnature and society mana&ed' throu&h the e!ercise of reason based on dee( scientific3no0led&e and insi&ht.

ar! hi&hly esteemed French materialism' and reco&ni6ed its (rofound relation 0ith thesocialist and communist mo%ement. n Condillac4 ;he e!(ounded oc3e7s ideas and(ro%ed that not only the soul' but the senses too' not only the art of creatin& ideas' butalso the art of sensuous (erce(tion' are matters of e!(erience and habit. The 0holede%elo(ment of man therefore de(ends on education and e!ternal circumstances.; +TheHoly Family' ar!<:n&els Coll. Wor3s "ol. =.' (.1>?. n Hel%etius4 He ;concei%ed it[materialism] immediately in its a((lication to social life. The sensory #ualities and self)lo%e' en2oyment and correctly understood (ersonal interest are the basis of all morality.The natural e#uality of human intelli&ences' the unity of (ro&ress of reason and (ro&ressof industry' the natural &oodness of man' and the omni(otence of education' are the mainfeatures in his system.; +Ibid.'(.1@A *fter discussin& the thou&ht of Condillac andHe%etius in The Holy Family' ar! &a%e the follo0in& summary of French materialism4

;,ust as Cartesian materialism (asses into natural science (ro(er' the other trend ofFrench materialism leads directly to socialism and communism.

There is no need for any &reat (enetration to see from the teachin& of materialism on theori&inal &oodness and e#ual intellectual endo0ment of men' the omni(otence ofe!(erience' habit and education' and the influence of en%ironment on man' the &reatsi&nificance of industry' the 2ustification of en2oyment' etc.' ho0 necessarily materialism isconnected 0ith communism and socialism. If man dra0s all his 3no0led&e' sensation'etc.' from the 0orld of the senses and the e!(erience &ained in it' then 0hat has to bedone is to arran&e the em(irical 0orld in such a 0ay that man e!(eriences and becomesaccustomed to 0hat is truly human in it and that he becomes a0are of himself as man. Ifcorrectly understood interest is the (rinci(le of all morality' man7s (ri%ate interest must bemade to coincide 0ith the interest of humanity. If man is unfree in the materialistic sense'



i.e.' is free not throu&h the ne&ati%e (o0er to a%oid this or that' but throu&h the (ositi%e(o0er to assert his true indi%iduality' crime must not be (unished in the indi%idual' but theanti)social sources of crime must be destroyed' and each man must be &i%en social sco(efor the %ital manifestation of his bein&. If man is sha(ed by en%ironment' his en%ironmentmust be made human. If man is social by nature' he 0ill de%elo( his true nature only in

society' and the (o0er of his nature must be measured not by the (o0er of the se(arateindi%idual but by the (o0er of society. +Ibid.' ((. 1@A)@1

:i&hteenth century French enli&htenment' and conse#uently the French Re%olution'loudly (roclaimed the rema3in& of society in accordance to human reason' because they&ras(ed the essence of man as reason. Ho0e%er' the French Re%olution e!(osed thelimits of this thou&ht. The French Re%olution 0hich 0as to usher an ideal society based onhuman reason' &a%e birth to bour&eois society &o%erned by the rational of money. Thedefect in the ideolo&y of the French :nli&htenment is clear' and this (recisely re(resentsthe defect of humanism. The :nli&htenment 0as tin&ed 0ith natural)scientific materialism.

Their &oal 0as to s(read 3no0led&e and dee(en rationalism' and their means 0ere notthe re%olutioni6in& of society' but education. They 0ere lac3in& social science and thematerialist conce(tion of history)in other 0ords' their materialism sto((ed at the sta&e ofnatural)scientific materialism' and lac3ed a materialistic understandin& of man and humansociety. To borro0 an e!(ression from ar! it ;disli3ed human bein&s;. The attem(t tothorou&hly a((ly human nature 0as limited to the field of natural science' 0hile the field ofsocial science fell into idealism and an abstract rationalism. :ducation thus too3(recedence o%er re%olutioni6in& society' and the &oal became merely the diffusion of3no0led&e and rationalistic 0ays of thin3in&. Therefore' it is natural that in res(onse to the:nli&htenment becomin& idealistic and undialectical' ar! 0ould ha%e to stress (ra!is' inother 0ords' (roduction and industry +refer to ar!7s criticism of Feuerbach. The French:nli&htenment is clearly one ty(e of humanism' and in the follo0in& (art 0e 0ill e!aminethis humanism and the similar humanism of Feuerbach' and ar!7s critical assimilation ofthem. ar!ism is definitely not thou&ht for the sa3e of dis(ersin& 3no0led&e. ar!ism'more than any other thou&ht' consistently and firmly has sou&ht the reali6ation ands(read of scientific and rational 0ays of thin3in&. Ho0e%er' for ar!ism this achie%ementis de(endent u(on social re%olution. ar!ism (laces the (riority' not on the business ofeducation' but on the re%olutionary chan&e of this bour&eois society in 0hich (eo(le arecut off from thorou&hly rational scientific thin3in&. The (eriod of the re%olutionarymo%ement 0ill at the same time be the (eriod of the %ictory of scientific thou&ht. ar!ismstands on the brilliant le&acy of the :nli&htenment' and fi&hts a&ainst all delusions' but 0eshould ne%er for&et that ar!ism is definitely not the same thin& as the :nli&htenment.

ar!ism7s insistence on (ra!is 0as &reatly o((osed to the tradition and linea&e of theFrench :nli&htenment 0hich (osited reason as the %ery first (rinci(le of human nature.Certainly' instead of s(irit and ideas' ar!ism &a%e first consideration to self)mo%ementand de%elo(in& matter' and therefore &a%e (recedence to (ractice o%er theory. Ho0e%er'this certainly does not mean that ar!ism is (urely acti%ism or %ul&ar (ractical thou&ht or(hiloso(hy. ar!ism re&ards (ractice rather than theory as the (rimary consideration' butat the same time firmly insists that this (ractice should be &uided by science and reason'in other 0ords by (ur(oseful consciousness. This is (recisely 0hat sets ar!ism a(art



from all bour&eois or fascistic ideas of (ractice' such as4 reli&ious (hiloso(hy' 7%alue7(hiloso(hy +neo)5antism and so3a&a33ai' (hiloso(hy of action and life' e!istentialism'(ra&matism' and so on. Those (hiloso(hers 0ho say that theory lac3in& (ractice is em(ty'and (ractice 0ithout theory is blind are correct +/e0 eftists4 (ay attention to this.ar!ism is the ma(' the com(ass and the rudder to &uide the re%olutionary (ractice of the

0or3in& class. It is not throu&h theories of sub2ecti%ity' humanism' or reli&ious (assion)basically sub2ecti%ist theories)but throu&h scientific (ur(oseful consciousness that this(ractice 0ill be su((orted for the first time' and become a truly stron&' indomitable anddurable thin&.

The /e0 eftists' radicals' and trade unionists 0ho understand ar!ism as a (urely(ractical (hiloso(hy are fundamentally 0ron&. The (hiloso(her 5an7ichi 5uroda has made&reat efforts to re(lace ar!ism 0ith a (hiloso(hy of (ra!is. Ho0e%er' the distancebet0een ar!ism and (ra!ical (hiloso(hy)the term itself is com(letely 0ithout content)isfar and a0ay &reater than the distance se(aratin& (ra!ical (hiloso(hy' fascist (hiloso(hy

and reli&ious (hiloso(hy. In fact' (ra!ical (hiloso(hy +i.e. the theory of sub2ecti%ity orhumanism essentially stands on the same foundation as bour&eois or fascistic(hiloso(hy. They don7t understand the #uestion of (ractice in the same 0ay as the ar!istmeanin&. They em(hasi6e that ar!ism (laces (ractice as the first (rinci(le. Ho0e%er'they don7t e%en see that ar!ism also demands that this (ractice be based on scienceand 3no0led&e. They don7t belie%e that it is a condition of decisi%e im(ortance for thesuccess and %ictory of the re%olutionary (ractice of the 0or3in& class that this (ractice bebac3ed u( and founded on ar!ism)the only com(rehensi%e social science. In What Is ToBe oneD enin 0rites' ;Without re%olutionary theory there can be no re%olutionarymo%ement. This idea cannot be insisted u(on too stron&ly at a time 0hen the fashionable(reachin& of o((ortunism &o hand in hand 0ith an infatuation for the narro0est forms of(ractical acti%ity.; enin insists that e%en the sli&htest belittlement of ar!ist theory meansto dra0 close to bour&eois thou&ht' because there is no middle course.

Returnin& to our ori&inal sub2ect' the 18th century French :nli&htenment &re0 as astru&&le a&ainst the unenli&htened state of the (eo(le caused by the feudalistic state(o0er and the reli&ious s(irit connected to it. This re(resented the rational' critical andre%olutionary s(irit 0hich stru&&led a&ainst the sa%a&e rule of absolutism and theaccom(anyin& rule of irrational thou&ht in &eneral. Ho0e%er' in re&ards to human historyand society' the reason of the French Re%olution sto((ed at a form that 0as com(letelyabstract and lac3in& in content. The French Re%olution held u( the slo&ans freedom ande#uality' but as bour&eois society de%elo(s' e#uality becomes merely e#uality as acommodity o0ner' and is soon transformed into the ;e#uality; of ca(ital and laborEfreedom becomes the freedom of (rofitable acti%ity' and before lon& is transformed intothe freedom of ca(ital7s des(otism. In this sense' the French Re%olution' 0hich 0assu((osed to ha%e mar3ed the be&innin& of the %ictory and rule of reason' 0as amiscarria&e. *s a conse#uence' a 3ind of reaction occurred in 0hich (essimism andnihilism arose a&ainst the idea of natural reason and the human nature founded u(on it.With $cho(enauer' 5ier3e&aard' and /iet6che' and e%en lo0er in the a&e of mono(olyca(italism 0ith Ber&son' :!istentialism' (hiloso(hy of 7%alue7 as 0ell as Freud' the 0orldand human bein&s 0ere &ras(ed as irrational thin&s. They insisted that man 0as definitely



not a rational animal' and e!(ressed a distrust in human nature. This reaction came froma disa((ointment in the French :nli&htenment7s %ie0 of human bein&s as rationalanimals. It is not necessary to say 0hat an enormous influence (hiloso(hers such as$cho(enhauer had on the irrational' reactionary and semi)fascistic (hiloso(hy of the a&eof mono(oly ca(ital.

ar!ism sublimated the French :nli&htenment. Ho0e%er' their %ie0 that the human bein&is a rational animal is e!(ressed inside ar!ism in a hi&her form. The French Re%olutionclarified that the construction of an ideal society is a not a (roblem that is sol%ed throu&hthe demands of human reason. This human reason 0as understood in (recisely ahumanistic 0ay in re&ards to social (roblems. $ince the French Re%olution it has beenbrou&ht to consciousness that the a((ro(riate society for human bein&s cannot beantici(ated only throu&h a deduction from humanistic science. Rather' this a((ro(riatesociety must be disco%ered 0ithin the necessary de%elo(ment of the actual socio)economic system. ne (erson from this (eriod 0as the (ositi%ist Comte' 0ho thou&ht the

essence of society and history)li3e mathematics' (hysics' etc.)0as somethin& 0hichre#uired demonstration throu&h mental science' and attem(ted to construct this science+sociolo&y 0hich 0as to hold the hi&hest ran3 of all sciences. n the other hand' thestudy of history de%elo(ed' as did economics as the bour&eoisie7s self)co&nition of theiro0n society. 9oin& beyond human sub2ecti%ity +or 0hat could also be called the reason ofthe :nli&htened' the a0areness emer&ed of history and society as an ob2ecti%ee!istence. *fter the French Re%olution' nihilistic (hiloso(hy 0as &ri((ed by a disbelief inman as a rational animal' and 0andered in a useless and reactionary direction' 0hilear!ism ad%anced throu&h the critical assimilation of the de%elo(in& historical and socialsciences. For ar!ism' society and history should not merely be demonstrated throu&hthe e!ercise of reason' but rather must be understood materialistically as the reci(rocalrelationshi( bet0een (roducti%e (o0er and (roduction relations. ar!ism elucidated thatcommunist society is not merely somethin& based on human reason' but is somethin& 0hich is formed and 0hich must be created 0ithin this ine%itable (rocess of history.ar!ism does not e!(lain history and society from the stand(oint of a human essence'but rather e!(lains it ob2ecti%ely as the de%elo(ment and reci(rocal relationshi( bet0eenhumans and nature and humans themsel%es.

In the ne!t section 0e 0ill loo3 at ho0 ar!ist thou&ht 0as formed' and ho0 ar!ismcritically sublated humanism.

III. [Humanism] and ar!

unaye%s3aya inter(rets ar!ism as bein& first and foremost humanism. Her basis forthis rests on t0o or three 0or3s 0ritten by ar! in the (eriod before he had o%ercomeHe&elian (hiloso(hy and arri%ed at the materialist conce(tion of history +The Holy Family':conomic hiloso(hical anuscri(ts' etc.. $he declares that the most serious (roblem 0hich ;anti)im(erialist anti)$talinist; re%olutionary ar!ism is faced 0ith today is(hiloso(hy. Therefore' 0e are &oin& to find out more about the nature of her (hiloso(hy.$he holds u( He&el7s *bsolutes' in other 0ords human freedom' as 0ell as the stru&&le

for s(irit and the total human bein&' as the fundamental ideas of her humanism.



In the (rocess of his intellectual de%elo(ment from 9erman idealistic liberalism tocommunism and materialism' ar! certainly did for a (eriod of time ad%ocate a ;realhumanismGnaturalism; under the influence of Feuerbach. Ho0e%er' ar! em(hasis onhumanism 0as intended to establish a critical stand(oint from 0hich he could o((ose thene&lect of real human bein&s by 9erman Idealism' on the one hand' and the ;disli3e of

human bein&s; into 0hich (re%ious materialism had fallen' on the other hand. This sort ofidealism and materialism &ras(ed human bein&s as an abstract thin&' and 0ere both %erymuch 18th century)li3e a((roaches. ar!' usin& Feuerbach as a tem(orary le%er' be&anto o%ercome these 18th century limitations. :%en thou&h the e!(ressions of ar!7shumanismGnaturalism sound %ery Feuerbach)li3e' this is the direct brid&e to thematerialist conce(tion of history. This is clear to any one 0ho reads the :conomichiloso(hical anuscri(ts. :%en durin& the time of ar!7s humanism' already thisdefinitely did not mean the abstract humanism of 9erman Idealism' the Feuerbach)li3eanthro(olo&ical materialism' or a biolo&ical humanism. Rather' this meant a concrete andreal human bein& as a social and uni#ue e!istence. Thus' the establishment of thematerialist conce(tion of history is at the same time necessarily the criticism of 9ermanIdealism +ob%iously' Feuerbach' as 0ell as True $ocialism.

/e!t' 0e 0ill loo3 at ho0 ar! critici6ed 9erman idealistic liberalism and biolo&icalhumanism' and ho0 he o%ercame these ty(es of humanism to establish the foundation ofar!ism.

unaye%s3aya is %ery fond of' and &lorifies' He&el7s *bsolutes. $he chooses to (raise thisconce(t based on her inter(retation of the (resent time as a transformational (eriod from;absolute des(otism to absolute freedom;. $he locates the meanin& of He&el in his

reco&nition of the *bsolute' for e!am(le absolute freedom.

Ho0e%er' for ar! and :n&els the (roblem 0as e!actly the o((osite. In He&el7s method'e%erythin& 0as understood as a constant (rocess of creation and e!tinction' and alimitless risin& (rocess from lo0er to hi&her forms. :%en thou&h He&el em(loyed thismethod in an idealistic 0ay' it became (ossible to (aint a systematic and total (icture ofhuman history. He&el7s system 0as this 3ind of re%olutionary thin&' but on the other hand'his system 0as also conser%ati%e. First of all' for e!am(le' the system of totality becamethe (rocess 0hereby his so)called ;absolute s(irit; is e!ternali6ed and becomes nature'and then in s(irit' in other 0ords' in thou&ht and history' it once a&ain returns to itself. The

absolute s(irit became the meta(hysical thin& 0hich he had denied. He&el7s systembecame absoluti6ed and (roclaimed that history had ended. His (hiloso(hy 0hich hadrefused all do&mas and fi!ed notion' 0as itself turned into a do&ma. $econdly' He&elem(hasi6ed dialectics' but this 0as abo%e all the self)mo%ement of the $(irit' and the self)de%elo(ment of cate&ories. ar! and :n&els 2ud&ed these to be the defects andconser%ati%e side of He&el. Ho0e%er' unaye%s3aya' in shar( contrast' seems to thin3that the meta(hysical' idealistic and absolutist side of He&el should not be re2ected' but&lorified.

ar! also carried out a stru&&le a&ainst 9erman idealistic liberalism 0ith his criticism of

Bauer. Bauer too3 u( the #uestion of ,e0ish emanci(ation as a (urely reli&ious (roblem'and ar&ued that the 9erman Christian feudalistic state could not liberate the ,e0s in the



essential sense' and that the ,e0s also essentially could not be freed. For this liberation'it 0as first necessary that this reli&ious o((osition be abandoned. In other 0ords' in orderfor the ,e0s to be liberated as human bein&s' they must first be freed from reli&ion. While(osin& the (roblem of (olitical liberation +read4 bour&eois liberation from feudalisticrelations' Bauer' on the other hand' raises the #uestion of the ,e0s ultimate liberation'

their human emanci(ation +read4 communist liberation from bour&eois society. In this 0ay' he confounds and confuses bour&eois liberation and communist liberation' and thusoffers an incorrect solution. ar!' by contrast' studied the difference bet0een (oliticalliberation and human liberation' and e!amined %arious cate&ories such as the ,e0ish(roblem' state' reli&ion' (ri%ate (ro(erty' human ri&hts' and freedom. ar! 0rites';Therefore 0e do not say to the ,e0s as Bauer does4 ou cannot be emanci(ated(olitically 0ithout emanci(atin& yoursel%es radically from ,udaism. n the contrary' 0e tellthem4 Because you can be emanci(ated (olitically 0ithout renouncin& ,udaismcom(letely and incontro%ertibly' (olitical emanci(ation itself is not human emanci(ation. Ifyou ,e0s 0ant to be emanci(ated (olitically 0ithout emanci(atin& yoursel%es humanly'the half)hearted a((roach and contradiction is not in you alone' it is inherent in the natureand cate&ory of (olitical emanci(ation.; +n the ,e0ish uestionE ar! :n&els CollectedWor3s "ol. @' (. 1JA

In res(onse to Bauer 0ho ar&ues that the ,e0s can recei%e the ri&hts as the citi6ens' butnot the ri&hts of man' ar! sho0s that the ri&hts of the citi6en and the ri&hts of man arethe same' and that liberty ;is the ri&ht to do e%erythin& that harms no one else.; +ibid. (.1J> and ;The ri&ht of man to (ri%ate (ro(erty is' therefore' the ri&ht to en2oy one7s(ro(erty and to dis(ose of it at one7s discretion +a son &re' 0ithout re&ard to other men'inde(endently of society' the ri&ht of self)interest. This indi%idual liberty and its a((licationform the basis of ci%il society.; +ibid. (. 1J@

We 0ill 2ust sim(ly mention the fact that ar! 0as able to &ras( the essence of humanri&hts' (ri%ate (ro(erty' ci%il society' reli&ion and the state throu&h the analysis of somedeclarations of the ri&hts of man' before turnin& our attention to the #uestion of ho0 ar!understood the (roblem of freedom 0hich unaye%s3aya raises. -nli3e Bauer 0ho&enerally brandishes ;edifyin& 0ords; such as ;freedom;' ;reco&nition of free humanity;and ;s(ecial (ri%ile&e;' ar! sho0s that the emer&ence of a social consciousness ofliberty is inse(arably lin3ed to the birth of bour&eois society.

;iberty' therefore' is the ri&ht to do e%erythin& that harms no one else. The limits 0ithin 0hich anyone can act 0ithout harmin& someone else are defined by la0' 2ust as theboundary bet0een t0o fields is determined by a boundary (ost. It is a #uestion of theliberty of man as an isolated monad' 0ithdra0n into himself.; +Ibid. (. 1J>

ar! further 0rites4

;Reco&nition of free humanityD 7Free humanity7' reco&nition of 0hich the ,e0s did notmerely thin3 they 0anted' but really did 0ant' is the same 7free humanity7 0hich foundclassic reco&nition in the so)called uni%ersal ri&hts of man. Herr Bauer himself e!(licitly

treated the ,e0s7 efforts for reco&nition of their free humanity as their efforts to obtain theuni%ersal ri&hts of man.



In the eutsch)Fran6osische ,ahrbucher it 0as demonstrated to Herr Bauer that this 7freehumanity7 and the 7reco&nition7 of it are nothin& but the reco&nition of the e&oistic ci%ilindi%idual and of the unrestrained mo%ement of the s(iritual and material elements 0hichare the content of his life situation' the content of (resent)day ci%il lifeE that the ri&hts ofman do not' therefore' free man from (ro(erty' but (rocure for him freedom of (ro(ertyE

that they do not free him from the filth of &ain' but rather &i%e him freedom of &ainfuloccu(ation.

It 0as sho0n that the reco&nition of the ri&hts of man by the modern state has no othermeanin& that the reco&nition of sla%ery by the state of anti#uity had. In other 0ords' 2ustas the ancient state had sla%ery as its natural basis' the modern state has as its naturalbasis ci%il society and the man of ci%il society' i.e.' the inde(endent man lin3ed 0ith othermen only by the ties of (ri%ate interest and unconscious natural necessity' the sla%e oflabour for &ain and of his o0n as 0ell as other men7s selfish need. The modern state hasreco&ni6ed this its natural basis as such in the uni%ersal ri&hts of man.; +The Holy Family'

ar! :n&els Collected Wor3s "ol. =. (. 11@

This is the 0ay ar! analy6ed the conce(t of freedom in modern ci%il society. He sho0sthat this conce(t is historical' inse(arably related to the &eneration of ci%il society' and isthe direct intellectual e!(ression of selfishness and &reed for (ersonal (rofit. Freedom' 0hich humanists abstract and &lorify' is a reflection of the inde(endent indi%idualbour&eois acti%ity 0ithin bour&eois society. ar!ism 0ithout denyin& freedom in &eneral'insists that this 0ord emer&ed from fi!ed historical and societal conditions' and is areflection of these conditions. This 0ord should not be absoluti6ed in the manner ofunaye%s3aya' nor should it be considered the fundamental (rinci(le &uidin& the stru&&le

for socialism. To abstract and &lorify thou&ht that reflects life in bour&eois society' andthen declare that it should be the &uidin& idea of the socialist mo%ement is nothin& but idletal3' nonsense' and reactionary confusion' and is no different than the Communist arty7sidea of a ;ne0; democratic re%olution.

ar! (resented the classic criticism of so)called ;liberals; +i.e. 9erman iberalism since5ant in The 9erman Ideolo&y.

ar! 0rites4 ;The conditions in 9ermany at the end of the (ast century are (erfectlyreflected in 5ant7s criti#ue of (ractical reason. Whereas the French bour&eoisie lea(ed to

(o0er throu&h a historically un(recedented re%olution and then con#uered the :uro(eancontinent' and the already (olitically emanci(ated :n&lish bour&eoisie re%olutioni6edindustry' and subordinated India (olitically and the 0hole 0orld commercially' the(o0erless 9erman bur&hers 0ere only left 0ith 7&ood intentions7.; +translated from,a(anese In the miserable' bac30ard conditions of 9ermany' the bour&eois slo&ans ofthe French bour&eoisie 0ere turned into an a (riori abstract demand of ;(ractical reason;.;French liberalism based on real class interests can be found in 9ermany in a s(ecialform in the (hiloso(hy of 5ant. He and the 9erman citi6ens he re(resented' did notreali6e that the theoretical ideas of the bour&eoisie 0ere based on intentions limited anddetermined by the material relations of interest and (roduction. Thus' 5ant se(arated

e%ery theoretical e!(ression from the relations of interest it e!(ressed' and turned the%arious determinations of the material moti%es of the French bour&eoisie into the (ure self



e!(ression of ;free 0ill;' 0ill as itself or for itself' and human 0ill. In this 0ay' this 0ill 0asturned into a (ure ideolo&ical conce(tual definition or moralistic re#uest. For this reason'the 9erman (etty bour&eoisie hesitated in the face of the fearful (olitics and shameless(rofit ma3in& that a((eared in relation to the ener&etic (ractice of bour&eois liberalism.

ar! unco%ers the mysteries of 9erman liberalism and ;rationalistic; (hiloso(hy in thefollo0in& 0ay4

;Throu&h the ,uly Re%olution the (olitical forms corres(ondin& to the de%elo(edbour&eoisie (ushed a&ainst 9erman from the outside. Ho0e%er' since 9ermany7seconomic relations had not yet reached the de%elo(mental sta&e to corres(ond to these(olitical forms' the bur&hers inherited these forms as abstract ideas' an sich or fur sich(rinci(les' (ious 0ords and 0ishes' or 5ant7s so)called 0ill and human self definition.Thus their manner 0as much more ethical and disinterested than other countries.; ;:%eryty(e of liberal cliche 0as nothin& but an idealistic e!(ression of the real interests of the

bour&eoisie.; +translated from the ,a(anese

This is the manner in 0hich ar! elucidated the mysteries of 9erman liberal and idealist(hiloso(hy. Whereas unaye%s3aya de(ends on 9erman idealist liberals' and cham(ionstheir abstract freedom' for ar! this 0as only the conce(tuali6ation and mystification ofFrench bour&eois reality and bour&eois liberalism. unaye%s3aya ma3es use of the namear!ism' but her fundamental stand(oint does not ad%ance one ste( beyond 9ermanidealist liberalism.

In all of her 0or3s' unaye%s3aya calls for socialism and the sublation of ca(italism in the

name of absolute freedom and ;humanism;. Ho0e%er' on this (oint as 0ell' there is ashar( contrast bet0een ar!ism and unaye%s3aya. ar!ism calls u(on the 0or3in&class to fi&ht for socialism +communism' not for ;absolute freedom; or ;humanism;.ar!ism calls for a stru&&le for socialism because it is necessary' inesca(able' andbecause human liberation demands that the bour&eois limitations be o%ercome. $ocialismis the lo&ical outcome of the ob2ecti%e (osition of the 0or3in& class and the conditionscreated by ca(italism. ar!ism is based on historical and societal necessity +historico)scientific consciousness' not u(on some sort of abstract morality or a s(irit of absolutefreedom. ar!ism (oses the #uestion of the ultimate liberation of man3ind. Theconsciousness of human liberation 0as raised by the stru&&le of the (o0er of ci%il society

a&ainst feudalistic (o0er. Ho0e%er' ci%il society sto((ed 0ith the (olitical liberation ofhuman3ind. It didn7t brin& about the social liberation of human3ind. ar!ism em(loys the 0ords ;human liberation; in the sense of the social liberation of human3ind 0hich can onlybe achie%ed 0ith the re%olutionary chan&e of the actual socio)historical conditions' anddoes not de(end u(on any sort of morality. ar!ism is not based on an a0areness ofmorality' uni%ersal reason' or 0hat unaye%3saya calls absolute freedom. The search forsocialism throu&h reason' 2ustice or ;humanism; is the (osition of uto(ian socialism' notar!ism. These a(ostles of meta(hysics start out from a theory of ;human nature; aseternal and unchan&in&E a com(leted social system 0ould ha%e to be one 0hichcorres(onds to this unchan&in& ;human nature;. This is 0hy ar! and :n&els called them

uto(ian socialists. In a later (eriod' uhrin& lectured about socialism in the name of 2ustice and reason. The socialism of the /eo)5antians' 0ho 0ere dee(ly connected 0ith



the traitors of the $econd International' 0as an ethical socialism' and is identical to that of(resent day democratic socialists. The humanism of $o3a&a3u3ai +a reli&ious)(olitical&rou( in ,a(an is e!tremely close to that of unaye%s3aya. There is also a close internalrelationshi( bet0een unaye%s3aya and the morality of anarchism. When these (seudo)socialists +in truth sim(ly humanists see social contradictions and the o((ression of

0or3ers' they are outra&ed that this &oes a&ainst 2ustice' morality' and ;humanism;' and 0ith these conce(ts they see3 socialism. They ha%en7t &i%en the sli&htest thou&ht to thefact that the ideolo&y they 0a%e about is nothin& but an abstract' sublimated form of anideolo&y 0hich reflects the acti%ity of bour&eois society. They call this liberalism'humanism or indi%idualism. It is e%ident that unaye%s3aya7s stand(oint is essentially thesame as all of this (seudo)socialist rabble. This essence is identical to that of 9ermanidealism' and meta(hysical liberalism.

+> /e!t' let7s loo3 at ar!7s criticism of Feuerbach. Feuerbach is one model ofhumanism. He attac3ed reli&ion and s(eculation' and held u( man. He ar&ued that

reli&ion e!ternali6ed the essence of man' and he e!(lained reli&ion from the essence ofman' re%ersin& the (re%ious relationshi( bet0een reli&ion and man. He (ro(osed ahuman centered (hiloso(hy in 0hich man is the fundamental (rinci(le. He raised the#uestion of human relations' but didn7t &o beyond sim(ly stressin& human uni%ersality)fore!am(le' relations are formed throu&h lo%e. He didn7t (ose the #uestion in terms of socialrelationshi(s. In the end' his humanism 0as a humanistic materialism in 0hich man 0asdissol%ed into nature. What he called the human bein& 0as the same abstract thin& as it 0as for 18th century materialists.

Ho0 did ar! critici6e FeuerbachD His criticism of Feuerbach in The 9erman Ideolo&y is

the same as it 0as durin& the establishment of the materialist %ie0 of history. In eutsch)Fran6osische ,ahrbucher' The Holy Family' as 0ell as The :conomic hiloso(hicalanuscri(ts he &a%e ;burnin& (raise; for Feuerbach. The criticism of He&el and idealismthorou&hly carried out by Feuerbach e!tin&uished ;the di%ine stru&&les of the dialectics ofconce(ts only 3no0n by (hiloso(hers.; +translated from the ,a(anese

ar! thou&ht that it 0as necessary to critically o%ercome Feuerbach because he sa0 that 0ith the dissolution of the He&elian $chool' a sentimental humanistic socialism based onFeuerbach7s (hiloso(hy +true socialism 0as s(readin& li3e an e(idemic throu&hout9ermany. True $ocialism occu(ied itself 0ith ;idle s(eculation concernin& reali6ation of

the human essence; +Communist anifesto and based on ;humanism; critici6ed Frenchsocialism and communism.

The fact that ar!7s ;real humanism)naturalism; is different than the humanism ofFeuerbach should be clear if one reads throu&h the :conomic hiloso(hical anuscri(ts.In this 0or3' human bein&s are considered' not only in a humanistic 0ay' but as a socialentity' and he already carried out a shar( critical analysis of ;national economics;+classical school of economics. *ccordin& to this critical analysis' human bein&s are;alienated; by bour&eois relations of (roduction. Communism as naturalism andhumanism' is the sublimation of this ;human self)estran&ement; and the ;&enuine

resolution of the conflict bet0een man and nature and bet0een man and man)the trueresolution of the strife bet0een e!istence and essence' bet0een ob2ecti%ication and self)



confirmation' bet0een freedom and necessity' bet0een the indi%idual and the s(ecies.;+ar! :n&els Collected Wor3s "ol. @. The criticism of Feuerbach 0as necessary forar!' and ar!ism cannot be re&arded as sim(ly Feuerbach7s humanism and naturalism.

/e%ertheless' the thou&ht e!(ressed in the :conomic hiloso(hical anuscri(ts' and

other (laces' is still essentially Feuerbach)li3e. ar!7s o0n (osition 0as a humancentered one' and the (roblem of human liberation 0as handled in an abstract manner'rather than historically. The #uestion of (roletariat re%olution 0as also considered as thereali6ation of humanism. He abstractly said that the actual (ossibility of liberation in9ermany de(ends on the (roclamation of an as the hi&hest e!istence. This is (reciselya humanistic %ie0. He sa0 communism as sim(ly the road or means of com(letin&humanism. He (laced the (rinci(le of humanism abo%e communism. He still didn7t refer tohimself as a communist or a (ractical materialist' but rather as natural humanist. It is clearthat he started from humanism' but on the other hand' e%en before The 9erman Ideolo&yhe distin&uished bet0een ;(olitical emanci(ation; +bour&eois emanci(ation and human

emanci(ation. From this stand(oint he critici6ed bour&eois democracy' liberalism and thelimits of bour&eois re%olution' e!(osed the bour&eois essence of classical economics' andstressed that bour&eois society 0as an in%erted society and reli&ion 0as a reflection ofthis to(sy)tur%y society. ar! started from humanism and used it to idealistically o((osebour&eois society' e%en thou&h humanism is an idea from bour&eois society. This isbecause before ar!ism there 0as not total system of thou&ht 0ith 0hich to o((osebour&eois society.

*s ar! and :n&els (ointed out' Feuerbach does not 3no0 any ;human relations; outsideof lo%e and friendshi(. oreo%er' he abstractly &lorifies these t0o thin&s. ar!' by

contrast' considers the social relations of human bein&s. ar! thou&ht that social relations 0ere more im(ortant than the natural relation of lo%e bet0een blood relations and family.rior to The 9erman Ideolo&y' ar! dealt 0ith human social relations in a humanisticmanner' rather than from the stand(oint of a materialistic %ie0 of history. For this reason'many liberals and e!istentialists deal 0ith the 0or3s from this sta&e of ar!ism' anddeclare their o0n (osition to be identical. Ho0e%er' dealin& 0ith human social relationshumanistically in%ol%es a contradiction4 social relations themsel%es are historical. Thus' 0ith the end of the humanistic criticism of human social relations' comes the a((earanceof real ar!ism in 0hich human social relations are critici6ed historically. $ocialism andCommunism no lon&er loo3 to moralism and human nature or humanism as tools' butrather are (ro%en to be historical ine%itable. The conce(t of society first a((eared 0ith thebe&innin& modern ci%il society. In *ncient 9reece there 0as the 0ord (olis' but this hadthe meanin& of city state' and 0as not the same conce(t as modern society. In the middlea&es there 0as no such conce(t. The conce(t ;society; a((eared as a conce(t 0hichcouldn7t be se(arated from bour&eois society. Ho0e%er' ci%il society couldn7t ca(ture theessence or foundation of human society. i3e Rousseau' the formation of society 0asloo3ed for in a contract. The conce(t ;society; emer&ed alon& 0ith bour&eois society. Thisis because in this society 0ith the brea3 u( and sublation of the dis(ersed and narro0self)sufficient (roduction of the middle a&es' each (erson came to occu(y a s(ace 0ithinthe social di%ision of labor in commodity (roduction and labor 0hich had de%elo(ed. *sar! 0rote to Feuerbach' ;In these 0ritin&s you ha%e (ro%ided)I don7t 3no0 0hether



intentionally)a (hiloso(hical basis for socialism and the Communists ha%e immediatelyunderstood them in this 0ay. The unity of man 0ith man' 0hich is based on the realdifferences bet0een men' the conce(t of the human s(ecies brou&ht do0n from thehea%en of abstraction to the real earth' 0hat is this but the conce(t of society;+ar!<:n&els Collected Wor3s "ol. @

Ho0e%er' Feuerbach didn7t understand humanism in the same sense that ar! did. ar!&ras(ed the real human bein& from the be&innin& as a social human bein& or e!istence'and en%isa&ed a reco%ery or return to a man7s true humanity. ar! had yet to &ras( the(roblem historically. an is essentially a social essence' but becomes indi%idualistic andselfish under bour&eois society. Thus' at this sta&e in his thou&ht' ar! (ursued there%olutionary (ra!is to o%erturn this bour&eois society in the name of humanism. Theconce(t of society itself is the (roduct of modern bour&eois society. If 0e thin3 about ho0the 0ide social relations bet0een (eo(le first emer&ed 0ith bour&eois commodity(roduction' ar!7s criticism is humanistic' one)sided' and un)historical. *t the same time'

ar! 0as re%olutionary and critical in the sense that he didn7t &ras( bour&eois society asthe true society' and sa0 that in the end this 0ould fall into indi%idualism' e&oism' andliberalism. -nli3e Feuerbach' ar!7s humanism 0as (art of the mo%e to0ards thematerialist conce(tion of history and scientific communism. Herein lies the differencebet0een ar!7s humanism and that of Feuerbach. Today only 0ithin socialism and there%olutionary mo%ement of the (roletariat has the modern consciousness of an as asocial e!istence been sublated. *t its core' this mo%ement is o((osed to bour&eoisindi%idualism and liberalism. For ar!' moreo%er' human bein&s as a social e!istence oras a life s(ecies are de(endent u(on labor and (roducti%e acti%ityE and (roduction cannotbe understood as the acti%ity of the indi%idual &ras(ed inde(endently' but rather as bein&essentially a social (rocess 0ith labor 0ith the de%elo(ment of labor formin& the base ofhuman (ro&ress. ar! 0as indeed standin& at the threshold of the materialist conce(tionof history.

The fundamental trait of Feuerbach7s humanism 0as its biolo&ical or naturalistic %ie0 ofhuman bein&s. In the same manner as the French materialists' he %ie0ed human bein&sas the (roduct of circumstances and education' and human thou&ht as the reflection ofnature. *ccordin& to ar!7s criticism' he &ras(ed human bein&s only ;in the form of theob2ect or contem(lation;. ar! critici6ed this %ie04 ;The materialistic doctrine concernin&the chan&in& of circumstances and education for&ets that circumstances are chan&ed bymen and that the educator must be educated.; *&ainst Feuerbach 0ho resol%es theessence of reli&ion into the essence of an' ar! ar&ues that ;the essence of man is noabstraction inherent in each se(arate indi%idual. In its reality it is the ensemble +a&&re&ateof social relations.; ;Feuerbach therefore does not see that the 7reli&ious tem(erament;itself is a social (roduct and that the abstract indi%idual 0hom he analyses belon&s to a(articular form of society. In res(onse to Feuerbach7s contem(lati%e a((roach' ar!(osits ;sensuous human acti%ity' (ra!is; and states that ;all social life is essentially(ractical;. Finally' ar! declares that ;the hi&hest (oint to 0hich contem(lati%ematerialism can attain' i.e. that materialism 0hich does not com(rehend our sensuousnature as (ractical acti%ity' is the contem(lation of se(arate indi%iduals and of ci%ilsociety;E and that this old 18th century Feuerbach style materialistic stand(oint is ci%il



society' 0hile the ne0 materialism +the stand(oint of ar!ism is ;human society or socialhumanity;. Whereas Feuerebach7s contem(lati%e stand(oint ;only inter(reted the 0orld; inthe mind ar! stressed that ;the (oint is to chan&e it;. +*ll of the #uotes abo%e are ta3enfrom ar!7s ;Theses on Feuerbach;' International ublishers.

ar! stressed in The 9erman Ideolo&y that human bein&s are not solely the (roduct ofnature' but also e!ert their (ractice on nature +(roducti%e acti%ity and de(end on thisde%elo(ment. Human bein&s chan&e nature by 0or3in& on it' and re%olutioni6e theconditions of their o0n e!istence thereby also re%olutioni6in& themsel%es. In his ;Theseon Feuerbach; ar! says that man is the ;ensemble of social relations;' but this contentunfolds 0ithin the materialistic desi&n of history. ar! also sho0s that human bein&s arechan&ed and (ro&ress throu&h human sensuous acti%ity' i.e. trade and industry.

In the 9erman Ideolo&y ar! essentially summari6ed his criticism of Feuerbach. He(resented his conclusion in the follo0in& manner4

;Certainly Feuerbach has a &reat ad%anta&e o%er the 7(ure7 materialists in that he reali6esho0 man too is an 7ob2ect of the senses.7 But a(art from the fact that he only concei%eshim as a 7sensuous ob2ect7' not as 7sensuous acti%ity7' because he still remains in therealm of theory and concei%es of men not in their &i%en social connection' not under theire!istin& conditions of life' 0hich ha%e made them 0hat they are' he ne%er arri%es at thereally e!istin& acti%e men' but sto(s at the abstraction 7man7' and &ets no further thanreco&ni6in& 7the true' indi%idual' cor(oreal man7 emotionally' i.e. he 3no0s no other7human relationshi(s7 7of man to man7 than lo%e and friendshi(' and e%en then ideali6ed.He &i%es no criticism of the (resent conditions of life. Thus he ne%er mana&es to concei%e

the sensuous 0orld as the total li%in& sensuous acti%ity of the indi%iduals com(osin& itEand therefore 0hen' for e!am(le' he sees instead of healthy men a cro0d of scrofulous'o%er)0or3ed and consum(ti%e star%elin&s' he is com(elled to ta3e refu&e in the 7hi&her(erce(tion7 and in the ideal 7com(ensation in the s(ecies7' and thus to rela(se intoidealism at the %ery (oint 0here the communist materialist sees the necessity' and at thesame time the condition' of a transformation both of industry and of the social structure.

*s far as Feuerbach is a materialist he does not deal 0ith history' and as far as heconsiders history he is not a materialist. With him materialism and history di%er&ecom(letely' a fact 0hich e!(lains itself from 0hat has been said.; +International

ublishers' ((. @K)8

*&ainst Feuerbach7s humanism and naturalism 0hich sou&ht to understand man from thestand(oint of a human essence' ar! considered the real' li%in& human bein& 0ithinhistory and society' 0ho ma3es history and society 0hile also bein& limited and u( to no0ruled by them. He (ro(osed a ne0 %ie0 of human bein&s as chan&in& and (ro&ressin& 0ith the de%elo(ment of history. ar! stressed that human bein&s are ruled by theen%ironment' but at the same time the sensuous 0orld 0hich surrounds us is not anidentical thin& (osited directly from the eternal (ast' but rather is the (roduct of industryand social conditions. * ne0 0orld %ie0 does not emer&e from the ;human bein&;. $ocial

and historical chan&es are the moti%e force of a ne0 0orld %ie0. an is not sim(ly abiolo&ical human bein&)bour&eois society assumes this sort of inde(endent human' that is



the abstract indi%idual bein& se%ered from all social ties. The human bein& for ar! is thehuman bein& 0ithin history and society 0hich ma3es history and societyE the real humanbein& as the social (roduct of (ro&ress and de%elo(ment formed on the social basismar3ed by certain class di%isions. Instead of the indi%idualistic selfish human bein&+bour&eois human bein&' ar! offers the social ty(e of human bein&. *ccordin& to ar!

this %ie0 of humanity is based on real materialism. For ar! there can be no such thin&as an abstract ;human nature; or ;human entity;' and he stresses that this ;human nature;itself is the (roduct of history and society and is alterable.

For a criticism of the %ie0s of Raya unaye%s3aya one should loo3 at ar!7s criticism oftrue socialism in The 9erman Ideolo&y. The (etty bour&eois true socialists used (hrasesli3e ;unconditional freedom;' ;free human acti%ity;' ;absolutely (ure acti%ity;' ;humanessence;' ;(ure' true human bein&;' and then claimed that these em(ty (etty bour&eois 0ords 0ere in fact socialism.

I". Criti#ue of Humanism

$een historically' humanism a((eared as a slo&an in the bour&eois re%olt and stru&&lea&ainst the feudalistic (roduction relations. When at first it sou&ht to re(lace feudalistichuman relations 0ith bour&eois ones it did not i&nore social relations but demanded asociety of ;liberty' e#uality and fraternity;. The re%olutionary thou&ht of the bour&eoisie 0as humanism. This 0as the 0atch0ord in the stru&&le a&ainst the ;inhuman; feudalisticsociety and the rulin& ecclesiastical thou&ht. *t that time humanism had re%olutionarycontent as a cry for human emanci(ation from feudalism and absolutism.

It 0as only in modern bour&eois society after the brea3do0n of the middle a&es that the;human bein&; itself became a (roblem. For the first time' the ;citi6ens; of bour&eoissociety 0ere called human bein&s. In medie%al feudal society there 0as no #uestion ofhuman bein&s themsel%esE they 0ere usually bound to some absolute su(ra)human thin&.The #uestion of the human bein& coincided 0ith bour&eois society' and humanism 0asborn. The emanci(ation from reli&ion and the ecclesiastical state connected to it couldn7thel( bein& more or less secular' 0orldy' and human. Ho0e%er' for socialists this is 2ust thebe&innin& of the (roblem. This is the be&innin& of a re%olutionary criticism of the ;humanbein&; (roclaimed by bour&eois society. This ;human bein&; is the indi%idual cut off fromsociety 0ho is only social by means of his o0n selfish (rofit)ma3in& acti%ity' and 0hose

selfishness and indi%idualism is co%ered by the name humanity' freedom' e#uality' etc.Humanism essentially is nothin& but a defense of the abstract and meanin&less ;humannature; of this bour&eois human bein&

Humanism as a bour&eois ideolo&y be&ins to become increasin&ly reactionary 0ith the&enerali6ation of bour&eois society' and its idealistic essence becomes more and moree%ident' and it a((ears in contem(lati%e' corru(ted or illo&ical forms of thou&ht such asindi%idualism' (ersonalism' e!istentialism' neo)5antian moralism' or (ra&matism. These(hiloso(hies are se(arated from history and society and do nothin& more than in%ol%ethemsel%es sub2ecti%ely and illo&ically 0ith the ;human bein&; and amuse themsel%es by

strin&in& to&ether all sorts of flo0ery 0ords about ;human nature;. Humanism hasbecome a corru(ted and reactionary ideolo&y. odern ;humanism; is not the re%olutionary



ideolo&y it 0as 0hen the bour&eoisie 0as see3in& the inde(endence and emanci(ation ofthe indi%idual. In the society of mono(oly ca(ital it has been transformed into theconser%ati%e and cautious indi%idualism and (ersonalism of those 0ho see3 to (rotectthemsel%es and (ay attention to their o0n little life)e%en the (roletariat has been (artiallyinfected by this trend.

Indi%idualism' selfishness and humanism form an inse(arably close relation. Indi%idualismre&ards the indi%idual' before society' as the first (rinci(le. $ociety is understood asnothin& more than the #uantitati%e total of indi%iduals. In the end the indi%idual is theob2ecti%e' and society is seen as only a means for indi%iduals. *t best' the (osition ofhumanism on the harmony bet0een the indi%idual and society ne%er &oes beyond a&eneral and abstract em(hasis on the im(ortance of the indi%idual. In other 0ords' in aform that contains no social criticism.

Indi%idualism is a historical ideolo&y that corres(onds to bour&eois society and 0as &i%en

birth to by ca(italist commodity (roduction. *s a result of the de%elo(ment of the(roducti%e (o0er 0ithin the feudalistic means of (roduction)the feudalistic society basedon the (aternalistic' des(otic' subsistence (easant system)labor a((eared in the form of acommodity' and alon& 0ith the a((earance of free labor 0hich more or less remo%ed thefeudal restraints there a((eared the (o0er of the indi%idual to (ursue his (rofit)ma3in&acti%ity. *lon& 0ith this the ideolo&y a((eared of the freedom and di&nity and characterand education of the indi%idual. Clearly this is a reflection of ca(italist (roduction in 0hichthe indi%idual labors for the indi%idual' and labor is for indi%idual ac#uisition throu&he!chan&e %alue +currency. The consciousness indi%idualism' liberalism and humanismemer&ed in countries in 0hich the demand for bour&eois (o0er conflicted 0ith the former

(o0er. The essence of bour&eois commodity (roduction is that it is only indirect ormediated social (roduction. It is not social (roduction irectly or consciously' but rathera((ears to be (roduction for the indi%idual. Rousseau7s idea that the formation of societyis based on a contract of indi%iduals and established on indi%iduality is one ideolo&icalreflection of the bour&eois stru&&le a&ainst feudalistic (o0er.

Indi%idualism or humanism is the social and historical consciousness of the &ro0th ofbour&eois (o0er in the stru&&le a&ainst feudalistic society)i.e. a&ainst one self sufficiente!(loitati%e class society 0hose rule centered on the 0ill and thou&ht of the feudal lords.The ideolo&y of feudalism 0as 9od' or country and 3in& under absolutism. -nder this

system of reli&ion and morality' the li%in&' concrete human bein& +the indi%idual accordin&to bour&eois ideolo&y had to be ne&lected or sacrificed' and the social consciousnessthat this 0as un2ust did not emer&e. With the be&innin& of the de%elo(ment of commodity(roduction and the rise in (roducti%e (o0er' it be&an to be felt that the feudal society 0asan inhuman' des(otic society 0hich 0as restrictin& the rise of bour&eois (o0er. The socialconsciousness be&an to s(read that in this feudal society indi%idual acti%ity 0asre(ressed' indi%iduality 0as missin&' and freedom 0as stolen. This consciousnessemer&ed throu&hout the 0orld in e%ery country in 0hich the de%elo(ment of commodity(roduction and free labor in o((osition to medie%al feudal society commenced. The risin&bour&eoisie attem(ted to e!(ress their consciousness this in thou&ht. This 0as theformation of liberalism.



The human bein& 0ho 0as emanci(ated from medie%al feudal society 0as a ca(italistichuman bein&. These human bein&s 0ere unable to o%ercome ca(italistic (roduction eitherin reality or in their consciousness. They 0ere restricted by these limits' and 0ere able tofree themsel%es only from feudalistic society. :%en thou&h ca(italism freed human bein&sfrom feudalistic restraints' they 0ere immediately bound to the o((ression and

e!(loitation of ca(ital. The free human bein& became synonymous 0ith the human bein&under the des(otism of ca(ital. /ot only ha%e the bour&eois slo&ans of the free indi%idual'and the (ersonality and character of the indi%idual become hollo0 and abstract today'these meanin&less flo0ery 0ords are used to su((ort bour&eois society.

Indi%idualism in bour&eois society has absolutely no consciousness of the base ofob2ecti%e and social mutual relations)in bour&eois society' on the 0hole in a 0ide ran&e oflabor this a((ears as the social di%ision of labor. In order for this consciousness to a((earit is necessary to reco&ni6e that each (erson7s labor is #ualitati%ely identical and e#ual asabstract human labor. Ho0e%er' in bour&eois society this cannot be held +because of

class fantasies. *fter the 0ar +es(ecially since the colla(se of the ,C in the 0a3e of theFebruary 1st stri3e bour&eois indi%idualism too3 dee( root in ,a(anese society' andbecame the %ul&ar and reactionary thou&ht of the (etty bour&eoisie 0ho search forbur&her safety and ha((iness and only (ursue their o0n lifestyle (lans. This ideolo&y hasalso had a lar&e influence on the 0or3in& class. iberal labor critics ha%e critici6ed these 0or3ers as ;the model of noo3 ha((iness;. The 0or3ers mo%ement itself is bein& adorned 0ith an indi%idualistic and selfish ideolo&y.

et7s no0 consider selfishness. Humanists be&in 0ith the notion of unchan&in& humannature' and then ar&ue in the follo0in& manner. That is' they say that as lon& as the

nature of man is selfishness' the construction of socialism and communism is not(ossible' or the mo%ement itself is in fact based on selfishness. Illo&ical and reactionarythin3ers li3e /iet6che and $ho(enhauer' as 0ell as Freud' ar&ued in the same thin&. In(ost0ar ,a(an it 0as Ha2ime Tanabe 0ho ar&ued this 0ay. In res(onse to the u(s0ell ofthe 0or3ers mo%ement after the First World War' *be de(icted the stru&&les bet0een 0or3ers and mana&ement as ;an offensi%e and defensi%e stru&&le bet0een thoseabsorbed in their o0n 0ealth' and those 0ho are en%ious of this 0ealth and insist thatthey ha%e a ri&ht to it;' and he critici6ed this for bein& ;corru(t;. In order to o((osecommunism they try to ar&ue that human nature is essentially selfish and thus there is no(oint in resha(in& society. $elfishness is a human instinct' and 0ith this instinct humanbein&s 0ill ne%er be able to build communism. *s lon& as human bein&s remain humanbein&s all of the inhuman' dar3 human relations based on this selfishness 0ill remain.They tried to douse the mo%ement for communism 0ith (essimism. Humanists shouldreflect on the fact this 3ind of humanism also e!ists.

Is human selfishness really an unchan&in& eternal human #ualityD)But this is not a(roblem at all. $elfishness most certainly is not an unchan&in& eternal human #uality' butmerely one #uality of human bein&s in one sta&e of the historical de%elo(ment of humansociety. ,ust li3e other animals' human bein&s ha%e an instinct to li%e and for self)(reser%ation. Ho0e%er' this instinct doesn7t ta3e the form of social coo(eration +communallabor' but rather selfishness' that is the sacrificin& of other (eo(le and the search for abetter life for oneself alone. *lready this cannot be e!(lained solely throu&h human



instinct because throu&h the social communal labor of e%eryone the human instinct for lifeand self)(reser%ation could be fully satisfied. /ot only is the attem(t to e!(lain humaninstinct from selfishness unsuccessful' it is directly connected to fascist (hiloso(hy.

$elfishness is inse(arable from bour&eois society' and is in fact a (roduct of this society.

The root causes of this selfishness are (roduction carried out by disconnected indi%iduals 0hose &oal is e!chan&e %alue' (roduction by anarchic' free indi%iduals' labor 0hich mustbe %erified for the first time as social labor as the result of (ri%ate labor' and abo%e all thee!(loitation of the labor of others' that is the character of (roduction 0ith (rofit as a &oal.

It is lau&hable that some (eo(le 0ould insist that selfishness and indi%idualism are t0ose(arate thin&s. Conce(tually this distinction can (robably be made someho0' but in factno distinction can be made. Indi%idualism must actually a((ear as selfishness. $ocialismcan only be constructed throu&h the sublation of indi%idualism' and its intensification doesnot si&nify socialism. There are those 0ho defend indi%idualism or &lorify it' but 0e

communists e!(ose the e&oistic essence of indi%idualism and carry out a firm stru&&lea&ainst it.

It is certainly no mere coincidence that the ,a(anese left 0in& 0hich 0as so enthusiasticabout sub2ecti%ist (hiloso(hy 2ust a fe0 years a&o' has no0 acce(ted humanist(hiloso(hy. urin& the sub2ecti%ity debate of 1?=K)8' the sub2ecti%ity theorists chased aftersomethin& called ;sub2ecti%ity; 0hich could not be (rescribed biolo&ically' socially orhistorically. It could be said that 0hat human bein&s do not 3no0 is infinite' but 0hat theycalled sub2ecti%ity 0as not 0hat is still un3no0n' but that 0hich has been un3no0n fromthe be&innin&' that is mysterious thin&s 0hich ha%e al0ays been im(ossible for humans to

understand or define such as reli&ious consciousness' s(irit' or an a (riori ;sense of%alue;. This is reli&ion in a different form.

/eedless to say' the sub2ecti%ity debate 0as connected to the neo)5antian school7s ideaof a (riori ;%alue;. They searched for sub2ecti%ity in a fi!ed a (riori %alue consciousness oran ideal. They didn7t &ras( %alue consciousness or the ideal materialistically. In other 0ords' the (roletariat7s idealGcommunistic ideal is somethin& that is born out of actualhistory and socio)economic relations' but accordin& to the sub2ecti%ity theorists this idealis born from (eo(le7s absolute and transcendental sense of %alue.

i3e the /e0 eft' asao aruyama foolishly says that not his o0n illo&ical thou&ht' butrather the ;tendency to0ards ob2ecti%ism is dan&erous;. He ar&ues that (etty bour&eoisintellectuals are dra0n to theories of sub2ecti%ity and humanism not because they are(etty bour&eois' but because ar!ism is lac3in& somethin&' or ar!ists ha%e not clearlyarticulated the sense of %alue at the basis of ar!ism' or because Idealist (hiloso(hy' notar!ism' has thorou&hly in%esti&ated the #uestion of ideals and (ra!is. The (ettybour&eois humanists' basin& the construction of socialism +0hether they are seriouslythin3in& about this is another #uestion on an ideal and an a((eal to human nature' canonly offer this nonsensical' off the mar3 criticism of ar!ism. Idealists and sub2ecti%istscritici6e ar!ism7s fundamental defect as bein& the sli( into ob2ecti%ism)materialism)

scientism. But they don7t consider that ;%alue; or ideals are not an a (riori thin& for humanbein&s' but are rather an idealistic form born from the contradictions of human society'



from human critical consciousness in res(onse to its ine#uality and class (re2udice +this istrue from the case of Christianity to uto(ian socialism. ar!ism' ho0e%er' denies theoriesof human emanci(ation arisin& from societal contradictions in an ideali6ed or fantasticform +0hich today ha%e already become sentimental' im(otent chatter. Their ar&umentsare com(letely misdirected. The sub2ecti%ists' as 0e ha%e seen' 0ere humanists' and

indeed this 0as ine%itable. What they did 0as to abstract from the bour&eoisie7s ima&e ofman' and ma3e it into a uni%ersal ima&e of man. For the re%olutionary mo%ement of the 0or3in& class humanism is essentially reactionary and im(otent. What unaye%s3ayacalls the s(irit of absolute human freedom is also nothin& but an abstract ideali6ation of abour&eois ideal. The connection bet0een sub2ecti%ity theorists and the humanisticunaye%s3aya is easy to see because unaye%s3aya raises the abstraction of humanessence and (roclaims that it is absolute freedom.

Ho0 the sub2ecti%ity debate a fe0 years a&o affected intellectuals and students interest inar!ism is a sub2ect that merits in%esti&ation. /o0 it can be seen that the /e0 eft

mo%ement 0hich clima!ed in 1?JA +and subse#uently became inert did not stren&thenar!ism' but instead ad%anced its dissolution' dee(ened the ideolo&ical %oid caused by$talinism' and led to a stren&thenin& of bour&eois ideolo&y. *lthou&h sub2ecti%ity theorists+as 0ell as 5o6o -no7s economics claimed to reinforce and de%elo( ar!ism and correctits one)sidedness' in fact their ideas are used to DDDDDDIntellectuals and students madetheir 0ay to bour&eois ideolo&y by 0ay of the theory of sub2ecti%ity. Their sub2ecti%itytheory is indistin&uishable from the Communist (arty7s (hiloso(hy of (ra!is or Fascistbeha%iorism.

/o0 they ha%e be&un to sin& the (raises of humanism Humanism has become one of the

slo&ans they flourish in the name of ;anti)im(erialism<anti)$talinism;. It a((ears thatar!ism is an insufficient 0ord for the scientific theory of the social emanci(ation of the(roletariat. unaye%s3aya claims that ar!ism is abo%e all humanism' but ob2ecti%elys(ea3in& this is used to cool the (assion of the masses for ar!ism. To cool do0n ordi%ert the &ro0in& interest of the masses in ar!ism is (recisely the ob2ecti%e role of thetheories of humanism and sub2ecti%ity of the /e0 eft and intellectuals. If ar!ism ishumanism' that is the cham(ionin& of an abstract human bein&' then 0hat is the use ofseriously studyin& it. This 3ind of humanism can be found any0here from bour&eoisconstitutions to uni%ersity (hiloso(hy. If ar!ism is merely one 3ind of humanism there isnothin& (articularly uni#ue about ar!ism. In fact' e!istentialism and (ra&matism' theclassic ideolo&ical re(resentation of mono(oly ca(italism' are today (a0nin& their o0nthou&ht off as humanism. $o&a3u3ai +reli&ious &rou( claim that u( to no0 socialism hasnot had a true understandin& of humanity' and that the ideal society of the 3in&dom of9od is true humanistic socialism.

In their intended stru&&le a&ainst im(erialism and $talinism' the /e0 eft loo3ed first tothe theory of sub2ecti%ity' and then to humanism for hel(. We 0ill e!(ose their fantasy ofstru&&lin& a&ainst mono(oly ca(italism 0ith humanism and sub2ecti%ity theory. Re&ardlessof their sub2ecti%e intentions' introducin& humanism' and inter(retin& ar!ismsub2ecti%ely' humanistically' or e!istentially are in fact ste(s to0ards the t0istin& ofar!ism' and u(rootin& its true influence amon& the (eo(le 0hich in the end o(ens the(ath to the dominance of (urely bour&eois or fascist thou&ht. This is the ob2ecti%e function



carried out by the /e0 eft7s humanism' and for this reason it is a %ery dan&erous andreactionary thin&. The thou&ht of 0or3in& class emanci(ation today is called ar!ism.Humanism' that is the &lorification of an abstract man' in a sense is the e!act o((ositestand(oint. In the fi&ht a&ainst ca(italism humanism is thorou&hly im(otent. This isbecause this is essentially the ideolo&ical e!(ression of the %ery ca(italist society that

they ho(e to stru&&le a&ainst. With 2ust a shallo0 understandin& of 0or3in& class (olitics'the /e0 eft cam( com(romises ar!ism 0ith humanism and frantically attem(ts toinscribe this on the banner of the 0or3ers mo%ement. The (olitical e!(ression ofhumanism at best is a (olitics for (etty bour&eois freedom and democracy' and this 0asalready reali6ed in ,a(an some t0enty years a&o +i.e. throu&h the end of the 0ar.Humanism or ;ar!ist; humanism do not de%elo( the re%olutionary stru&&les of the 0or3in& class' but rather slac3en and dissol%e them. $cientific communism +ar!ism andhumanism are essentially different thin&s. *s the thou&ht of the (roletariat' the former iso((osed to all humanism as bour&eois or (etty bour&eois thou&ht. ar!ism doesn7tcritici6e humanism7s denunciation of ca(italism for o((ressin& human bein&s' but it doescritici6e it for its idealistic criti#ue of ca(italism in the name of the human bein& +as 0ell asfor bein& a com(letely insufficient and shallo0 ca(italist criti#ue. To sol%e thecontradictions of ca(italism humanism a((eals to humanity' or (ro(oses sub2ecti%emeans such as education. ar!ism' con%ersely' is based on reality' on the ine%itablemo%ement of history and economy' as 0ell as the una%oidable de%elo(ment of the classstru&&le. n this essential le%el of chan&in& reality humanism is (o0erless. In the end thisine%itably falls into mere chatterin& and amusement. Humanism today re(resents one (artof the illo&ical (hiloso(hy (eculiar to mono(oly ca(italism. The attem(t to com(romisear!ism 0ith this is e!tremely reactionary and un(ardonable.

The dull fantasy of attachin& the 0ords ;socialism; or ;ar!ism; to bour&eois ideolo&y and(assin& it off as the ideolo&y of the (roletariat is &ainin& &round. For instance' the ideathat humanism becomes socialistic by attachin& socialism to humanism' and callin& itsocialistic humanism. ar! and enin se%erely critici6ed this line of thou&ht' but it hasbeen a((lied and &enerali6ed by the $econd International and the $talinist cam(. Thisresembles the ,a(anese $talinists 0ho attach the ad2ecti%e ;ne0; to democracy and thin3that modern democracy thus loses its bour&eois content. In fact' ho0e%er' this a((roachessentially si&nifies co0ardly concession' mean submission' and hy(ocritical (assi%ity inthe face of humanism and democracy 0hich are the class ideolo&y of the suddenlyemer&ent bour&eoisie' and are more or less the basic ideolo&y of bour&eois society. Thisis the dream that if the fo! 0ears the lion7s fur it becomes a lion. But e%en in a lion7sclothin& a fo! is a fo!.

The ar!ist humanism +unaye%s3ya)ism of the /e0 eft is essentially the timid ;softmood; of the $econd International and $talinism' and is in the same rut. This si&nifiesnothin& more than a hy(ocritical and timid concession to the bour&eois ideolo&ies ofhumanism and liberalism. unaye%s3aya either doesn7t notice or i&nores the fact thathumanism and ar!ism are essentially different class ideolo&ies. Instead of clarifyin& the(rinci(les of ar!ism' she follo0s and flatters bour&eois ideolo&y and attem(ts toconfound (roletariat ideolo&y 0ith bour&eois ideolo&y. oreo%er' she (resents thee!traordinarily stu(id ar&ument that this re(resents the reconstruction of ar!ism. This



a((roach is a common one for re%isionists of ar!ism. Today 0here%er one turns (eo(leare introducin& bour&eois ideolo&y throu&h a %ariety of methods and then blatherin& abouttheir ;creati%e; de%elo(ment of ar!ism.

The /e0 eft7s current enthusiastic (raise of unaye%s3aya7s ideas' that is humanism in

the &uise of ar!ism' re%eals their (etty bour&eois and anti)(roletarian essence. /omatter ho0 much they tal3 about ar!ism' the 0or3in& class or the re%olutionarymo%ement' their essence is unmista3ably clear. et7s s0ee( a0ay /e0 eft o((ortunismand confusion We must fi&ht a&ainst any concession to bour&eois ideolo&y no matterho0 small' and dri%e this out of our mo%ement.

A Critique of Humanism (and Raya Dunayevskaya's Marxist Humanism) (1966)

Documents

Transcript of A Critique of Humanism (and Raya Dunayevskaya's Marxist Humanism) (1966)