The Holy Family
2) Absolute Criticism’s Second Campaign
a) Hinrichs No. 2. “Criticism“ and “Feuerbach“. Condemnation of Philosophy
As the result of its first campaign, Absolute Criticism can regard “ philosophy “ as having been dealt with and term it outright an ally of the “ Mass “.
“ Philosophy were predestined to fulfil the heart’s desires of the ‘ Mass' “. For “the Mass wants simple concepts, in order to have nothing to do with the thing itself, shibboleths, so as to have finished with everything from the start, phrases by which Criticism can be done away with “
And “philosophy“ fulfils this longing of the “Mass“! [24]
Dizzy after its victories, Absolute Criticism breaks out in Pythian frenzy against philosophy. Feuerbach’s Philosophie der Zukunft [ L. Feuerbach, Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft ] is the concealed cauldron [Engels here makes a pun on “Feuerbach“ (literally stream of fire) and ‘Feuerkesser’ (boiler)] whose fumes inspire the frenzy of Absolute Criticism’s victory-intoxicated head. It read Feuerbach’s work in March. The fruit of that reading, and at the same time the criterion of the earnestness with which it was undertaken, is Article No. 2 against Professor Hinrichs.
In this article Absolute Criticism, which has never freed itself from the cage of the Hegelian way of viewing things, storms at the iron bars and walls of its prison. The “simple concept“, the terminology, the whole mode of thought of philosophy, indeed, the whole of philosophy, is rejected with disgust. In its place we suddenly find the “ real wealth of human relations “, the “ immense content of history “, the “ significance of man “, etc. “ The mystery of the system “ is declared “ revealed “.
But who, then, revealed the mystery of the “system“? Feuerbach . Who annihilated the dialectics of concepts, the war of the gods that was known to the philosophers alone? Feuerbach . Who substituted for the old lumber and for “infinite self-consciousness“ if not, indeed, “ the significance of man “ — as though man had another significance than that of being man! — at any rate “ Man "? Feuerbach , and only Feuerbach . And he did more. Long ago he did away with the very categories with which “ Criticism “ now operates — the “real wealth of human relations, the immense content of history, the struggle of history, the fight of the Mass against the Spirit“, etc., etc.
Once man is recognised as the essence, the basis of all human activity and situations, only “ Criticism “ can invent new categories and transform man himself into a category and into the principle of a whole series of categories, as it is doing now. It is true that in so doing it takes the only road to salvation that has remained for frightened and persecuted theological inhumanity. History does nothing , it “possesses no immense wealth“, it “wages no battles“. It is man , real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; “history“ is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims. If Absolute Criticism, after Feuerbach’s brilliant expositions, still dares to reproduce all the old trash in a new form, at the same time abusing it as “ mass-type “ trash — which it has all the less right to do as it never stirred a finger to dissolve philosophy — that fact alone is sufficient to bring the “ mystery “ of Criticism to light and to assess the Critical naivety with which it says the following to Professor Hinrichs, whose “ exhaustion “ once did it such a great service:
“The damage is to those who have not gone through any development and therefore could not alter themselves even if they wished to, and at most to the new principle — but no! The new cannot be made into a phrase, separate turn of speech cannot be borrowed from it .“
Absolute Criticism prides itself that, in contrast to Professor Hinrichs, it has solved “ the mystery of the faculty sciences “. Has it then solved the “mystery“ of philosophy, jurisprudence, politics, medicine, political economy and so forth? Not at all! It has — be it noted! — shown in Die gute Sache der Freiheit that science as a source of livelihood and free science, freedom of teaching and faculty statutes, contradict each other.
If “Absolute Criticism“ were honest it would have admitted where its pretended illumination on the “Mystery of Philosophy“ Comes from. It is a good thing all the same that it does not put into Feuerbach’s mouth such nonsense as the misunderstood and distorted propositions that it borrowed from him, as it has done with other people. By the way, it is characteristic of “Absolute Criticism’s“ theological viewpoint that, whereas the German philistines are now beginning to understand Feuerbach and to adopt his conclusions, it is unable to grasp a single sentence of his correctly or to use it properly.
Criticism achieves a real advance over its feats of the first campaign when it “defines“ the struggle of “ the Mass “ against the “Spirit“ as “ the aim “ of all previous history, when it declares that “ the Mass “ is the “ pure nothing “ of “misery“; when it calls the Mass purely and simply “ Matter “ and contrasts “ the Spirit “ as truth to “Matter“. Is not Absolute Criticism therefore genuinely Christian-Germanic ? After the old antithesis between spiritualism and materialism has been fought out on all sides and overcome once for all by Feuerbach , “ Criticism “ again makes a basic dogma of it in its most loathsome form and gives the victory to the “ Christian-Germanic spirit “.
Finally, it must be considered as a development of Criticism’s mystery concealed in its first campaign when it now identifies the antithesis between Spirit and Mass with the antithesis between “ Criticism “ and the Mass. Later it will go on to identify itself with “ Criticism “ and therefore to represent itself as “ the Spirit “, the Absolute and Infinite, and the Mass, on the other hand, as finite, coarse, brutal, dead and inorganic — for that is what “ Criticism “ understands by matter.
How immense is the wealth of history that is exhausted in the relationship of humanity to Herr Bauer !
The Holy Family Chapter VI
3) Absolute Criticism’s Third Campaign
a) Absolute Criticism’s Self-Apology. Its “Political“ Past
Absolute Criticism begins its third campaign against the “ Mass “ with the question:
“ What is now the object of criticism ?“ [25]
In the same number of the Literatur-Zeitung we find the information:
“ Criticism wishes nothing but to know things .“
According to this, all things are the object of Criticism. It would be senseless to inquire about some particular, definite object peculiar to Criticism. The contradiction is easily resolved when one remembers that all things “merge“ into Critical things and all Critical things into the Mass, as the “Object “ of “ Absolute Criticism “.
First of all, Herr Bruno describes his infinite pity for the “ Mass. “ He makes “ the gap that separates him from the crowd “ an object of “ persevering study .“ He wants “ to find out the significance of that gap for the future “ (this is what above was called knowing “ all “ things) and at the same time “ to abolish it “. In truth he therefore already knows the significance of that gap. It consists in being abolished by him.
As each man’s self is nearest to him, “ Criticism “ first sets about abolishing its own mass nature , like the Christian ascetics who begin the campaign of the spirit against the flesh with the mortification of their own flesh. The “ flesh “ of Absolute Criticism is its really massive literary past , amounting to 20-30 volumes. Herr Bauer must therefore free the literary biography of “ Criticism “ — which coincides exactly with his own literary biography — from its mass-like appearance ; he must retrospectively improve and explain it and by this apologetic commentary “ place its earlier works in safety “.
He begins by explaining by a double cause the error of the Mass , which until the end of the Deutsche Jahrbücher [26] and the Rheinische Zeitung [27] regarded Herr Bauer as one of its supporters. Firstly the mistake was made of regarding the literary movement as not “ purely literary “. At the same time the opposite mistake was made, that of regarding the literary movement as “a merely“ or purely“ literary movement. There is no doubt that the “Mass“ was mistaken in any case, if only because it made two mutually incompatible errors at the same time .
Absolute Criticism takes this opportunity of exclaiming to those who ridiculed the “German nation“ as a “ blue stocking ":
“Name even a single historical epoch which was not authoritatively outlined beforehand by the ‘pen’ and had not to allow itself to be shattered by a stroke of the pen.“
In his Critical naivety Herr Bruno separates “ the pen “ from the subject who writes, and the subject who writes as “abstract writer “ from the living historical man who wrote. This allows him to go into ecstasy over the wonder-working power of the “ pen “. He might just as well have demanded to be told of a historical movement which was not outlined beforehand by “poultry“ or the “goose girl“.
Later we shall be told by the same Herr Bruno that so far not one historical epoch, not a single one, has become known. How could the “ pen “, which so far has been unable to outline “ any single “ historical epoch after the event, have been able to outline them all beforehand ?
Nevertheless, Herr Bruno proves the correctness of his view by deeds, by himself “ outlining beforehand “ his own “past“ with apologetic “strokes of the pen“.
Criticism , which was involved on all sides not only in the general limitation of the world and of the epoch, but in quite particular and personal limitations, and which nevertheless assures us that it has been “ absolute, perfect and pure “ Criticism in all its works for as long as man can think, has only accommodated itself to the prejudices and power of comprehension of the Mass, as God is wont to do in his revelations to man.
“It was bound to come,“ Absolute Criticism informs us, “to a breach of Theory with its seeming ally .“
But because Criticism , here called Theory for a change, comes to nothing , but everything, on the contrary, comes from it; because it develops not inside but outside the world, and has predestined everything in its divine immutable consciousness, the breach with its former ally was a “ new turn“ only in appearance , only for others, not in itself and not for Criticism itself.
“But this rum ‘ properly speaking’ was not even new. Theory had continually worked on criticism of itself ’ (we know how much effort has been expended on it to force it to criticise itself); “it had never flattered the Mass“ (but itself an the more); lit had always taken care not to get itself ensnared in the premises of its opponent.“
“The Christian theologian must tread cautiously .“ (Bruno Bauer, Das entdeckte Christenthum , p. 99.) How did it happen that “cautious“ Criticism nevertheless did get ensnared and did not already at that time express its “proper“ meaning clearly and audibly? Why did it not speak out bluntly? Why did it let the illusion of its brotherhood with the Mass persist?
“'Why hast thou done this to me?’ said Pharaoh to Abraham as he restored to him Sarah his wife. ‘Why didst thou say she was thy sister?'“ ( Das entdeckte Christenthum by Bruno Bauer, p. 100.)
“'Away with reason and language!’ says the theologian, ‘for otherwise Abraham would be a liar. It would be a mortal insult to Revelation!'“ ( loc. cit. )
“'Away with reason and language!’ says the Critic. For had Herr Bauer really and not just apparently been ensnared with the Mass, Absolute Criticism would not be absolute in its revelations, it would be mortally insulted.
“It is only ,“ Absolute Criticism continues, “that its“ (Absolute Criticism’s) efforts had not been noticed , and there was moreover a stage of Criticism when it was forced sincerely to consider its opponent’s premises and to take them seriously for an instant; a stage, in short, when it was not yet fully capable of taking away from the Mass the latter’s conviction that it had the same cause and the same interest as Criticism.“
The Holy Family Chapter VI 3)
b) The Jewish Question No. 3
“Absolute Criticism“ does not stop at proving by its autobiography its own singular almightiness which “ properly speaking, first creates the old, just as much as the new “. It does not stop at writing in person the apology of its past. It now sets third persons, the rest of the secular world, the Absolute “Task“, the “task which is much more important now “, the apologia for Bauer’s deeds and “works“.
The Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher published a criticism of Herr Bauer’s Die Judenfrage [29] [K. Marx, On the Jewish Question] . His basic error, the confusion of “ political “ with “ human emancipation“, was revealed. True, the old Jewish question was not first brought into its “ correct setting “; the “Jewish question“ was rather dealt with and solved in the setting which recent developments have given to old questions of the day, and as a result of which the latter have become “questions“ of the present instead of “questions“ of the past.
Absolute Criticism’s third campaign, it seems, is intended to reply to the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher . First of all, Absolute Criticism admits :
“In Die Judenfrage the same ‘ oversight’ was made — that of identifying the human with the political essence.“
Criticism remarks:
“it would be too late to reproach criticism for the stand which it still maintained partially two years ago.“ “ The question is rather to explain why criticism ... even had to engage in politics.“
“ Two years ago?“ We must reckon according to the absolute chronology, from the birth of the Critical Redeemer of the world, Bauer’s Literatur-Zeitung ! The Critical world redeemer was born anno 1843 . In the same year the second, enlarged edition of Die Judenfrage was published. The “Critical“ treatment of the ,Jewish question“ in Einundzwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz [30] appeared later in the same year, 1843 old style. After the end of the Deutsche Jahrbücher and the Rheinische Zeitung , in the same momentous year 1843 old style, or anno 1 of the Critical era, appeared Herr Bauer’s fantastic-political work Staat, Religion und Parthei , which exactly repeated his old errors on the “ political essence“. The apologist is forced to falsify chronology .
The “ explanation “ why Herr Bauer “ even had to “ engage in politics is a matter of general interest only under certain conditions. If the infallibility, purity and absoluteness of Critical Criticism are assumed as basic dogma , then, of course, the facts contradicting that dogma turn into riddles which are just as difficult, profound and mysterious as the apparently ungodly deeds of God are for theologians.
If, on the other hand, “ the Critic “ is considered as a finite individual, if he is not separated from the limitations of his time, one does not have to answer the question why he had to develop even within the world, because the question itself does not exist.
If, however, Absolute Criticism insists on its demand, one can offer to provide a little scholastic treatise dealing with the following “ questions of the times ":
“Why had the Virgin Mary’s conception by the Holy Ghost to be proved by no other than Herr Bruno Bauer?“ “Why had Herr Bauer to prove that the angel that appeared to Abraham was a real emanation of God, an emanation which, nevertheless, lacked the consistency necessary to digest food? “ “ Why had Herr Bauer to provide an apologia for the Prussian royal house and to raise the Prussian state to the rank of absolute state?“ “Why had Herr Bauer, in his Kritik der Synoptiker , to substitute ‘ infinite self-consciousness ’ for man?“ “Why had Herr Bauer in his Das entdeckte Christenthum to repeat the Christian theory of creation in a Hegelian form?“ “Why had Herr Bauer to demand of himself and others an ‘ explanation’ of the miracle that he was bound to be mistaken?“
While waiting for proofs of these necessities, which are just as “Critical“ as they are “Absolute“, let us listen once more to “ Criticism’s “ apologetic evasions.
“The Jewish question ... had ... first to be brought into its correct setting, as a religious and theological and as a political question.“ “As to the treatment and solution of both these questions, Criticism is neither religious nor political .“
The point is that the Deutsch-Französische-Jahrbücher declares Bauer’s treatment of the “Jewish question“ to be really theological and fantastic -political.
First, “ Criticism “ replies to the “reproach“ of theological limitation.
“The Jewish question is a religious question. The Enlightenment claimed to solve it by describing the religious contradiction as insignificant or even by denying it. Criticism , on the contrary, had to present it in its purity.“
When we come to the political part of the Jewish question we shall see that in politics, too, Herr Bauer the theologian is not concerned with politics but with theology.
But when the Deutsch-Französische-Jahrbücher attacked his treatment of the Jewish question as “ purely religious “, it was concerned especially with his article in Einundzwanzig Bogen , the title of which was:
“ Die Fähigkeit der hewigen Juden und Christen, frei zu werden “. "The Ability of Present-Day Jews and Christians to obtain Freedom.“
This article has nothing to do with the old “Enlightenment“ . It contains Herr Bauer’s positive view on the ability of the present-day Jews to be emancipated, that is, on the possibility of their emancipation.
“Criticism“ says:
“The Jewish question is a religious question.“
The question is: What is a religious question? and, in particular, what is a religious question today?
The theologian will judge by appearances and see a religious question in a religious question. But “Criticism“ must remember the explanation it gave Professor Hinrichs that the political interests of the present time have social significance, that it is “ no longer a question“ of political interests .
The Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher with equal right said to Criticism: Religious questions of the day have at the present time a social significance. It is no longer a question of religious interests as such . Only the theologian can believe it is a question of religion as religion. Granted, the Jahrbücher committed the error of not stopping at the word “ social “. It characterised the real position of the Jews in civil society today. Once Jewry was stripped bare of the religious shell and its empirical, worldly, practical kernel was revealed, the practical, really social way in which this kernel is to be abolished could be indicated. Herr Bauer was content with a “religious question“ being a “religious question“.
It was by no means denied, as Herr Bauer makes out , that the Jewish question is also a religious question. On the contrary, it was shown that Herr Bauer grasps only the religious essence of Jewry, but not the secular , real basis of that religious essence. He combats religious consciousness as if it were something independent. Herr Bauer therefore explains the real Jews by the Jewish religion , instead of explaining the mystery of the Jewish religion by the real Jews . Herr Bauer therefore understands the Jew only insofar as he is an immediate object of theology or a theologian .
Consequently Herr Bauer has no inkling that real secular Jewry, and hence religious Jewry too , is being continually produced by the present-day civil life and finds its final development in the money system. He could not have any inkling of this because he did not know Jewry as a part of the real world but only as a part of his world, theology ; because he, a pious, godly man, considers not the active everyday Jew but the hypocritical Jew of the Sabbath to be the real Jew. For Herr Bauer, as a theologian of the Christian faith , the world-historic significance of Jewry had to cease the moment Christianity was born . Hence he had to repeat the old orthodox view that it has maintained itself in spite of history; and the old theological superstition that Jewry exists only as a confirmation of the divine curse, as a tangible proof of the Christian revelation had to recur with him in the Critical-theological form that it exists and has existed only as crude religious doubt about the supernatural origin of Christianity, i.e., as a tangible proof against Christian revelation.
On the other hand, it was proved that Jewry has maintained. itself and developed through history, in and with history, and that this development is to be perceived not by the eye of the theologian, but only by the eye of the man of the world, because it is to be found, not in religious theory , but only in commercial and industrial practice . It was explained why practical Jewry attains its full development only in the fully developed Christian world, why indeed it is the fully developed practice of the Christian world itself. The existence of the present-day Jew was not explained by his religion — as though this religion were something apart, independently existing — but the tenacious survival of the Jewish religion was explained by practical features of civil society which are fantastically reflected in that religion. The emancipation of the Jews into human beings, or the human emancipation of Jewry, was therefore not conceived, as by Herr Bauer, as the special task of the Jews, but as a general practical task of the present-day world, which is Jewish to the core. It was proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is actually the task of abolishing the Jewish character of civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of the present-day practice of life, the most extreme expression of which is the money system .
The Holy Family Chapter VI 3)
c) Critical Battle Against the French Revolution
The narrow-mindedness of the Mass forced the “Spirit“, Criticism , Herr Bauer, to consider the French Revolution not as the time of the revolutionary efforts of the French in the “ prosaic sense “ but “ only “ as the “ symbol and fantastic expression “ of the Critical figments of his own brain. Criticism does penance for its “ oversight “ by submitting the Revolution to a fresh examination . At the same time it punishes the seducer of its innocence — “the Mass“ — by communicating to it the results of this “fresh examination“.
“The French Revolution was an experiment which still belonged entirely to the eighteenth century.“
The chronological truth that an experiment of the eighteenth century like the French Revolution is still entirely an experiment of the eighteenth century, and not, for example, an experiment of the nineteenth, seems “still entirely“ to be one of those truths which “are self-evident from the start“. But in the terminology of criticism, which is very prejudiced against “crystal-clear“ truths, a truth like that is called an “ examination “ and therefore naturally has its place in a “fresh examination of the Revolution“.
“The ideas to which the French Revolution gave rise did not, however, lead beyond the order of things that it wanted to abolish by force.“
Ideas can never lead beyond an old world order but only beyond the ideas of the old world order. Ideas cannot carry out anything at all. In order to carry out ideas men are needed who can exert practical force. In its literal sense the Critical sentence is therefore another truth that is self-evident, and therefore another “ examination “.
Undeterred by this examination, the French Revolution gave rise to ideas which led beyond the ideas of the entire old world order. The revolutionary movement which began in 1789 in the Cercle Social, [31] which in the middle of its course had as its chief representatives Leclerc and Roux , and which finally with Babeuf’s conspiracy was temporarily defeated, gave rise to the communist idea which Babeuf’s friend Buonarroti re-introduced in France after the Revolution of 1830. This idea, consistently developed, is the idea of the new world order .
“After the Revolution had therefore“ (!) “abolished the feudal barriers in the fife of the people, it was compelled to satisfy and even to inflame the pure egoism of the nation and, on the other hand, to curb it by its necessary complement, the recognition of a supreme being, by this higher confirmation of the general state System, which has to hold together the individual self-seeking atoms.“
The egoism of the nation is the natural egoism of the general state system, as opposed to the egoism of the feudal classes. The supreme being is the higher confirmation of the general state system, and hence also of the nation. Nevertheless, the supreme being is supposed to curb the egoism of the nation, that is, of the general state system! A really Critical task, to curb egoism by means of its confirmation and even of its religious confirmation, i.e., by recognising that it is of a superhuman nature and therefore free of human restraint! The creators of the supreme being were not aware of this, their Critical intention.
Monsieur Buchez , who bases national fanaticism on religious fanaticism, understands his hero Robespierre better.
Nationalism [ Nationalität ] led to the downfall of Rome and Greece. Criticism therefore says nothing specific about the French Revolution when it maintains that nationalism caused its downfall, and it says just as little about the nation when it defines its egoism as pure . This pure egoism appears rather to be a very dark, spontaneous egoism, combined with flesh and blood, when compared, for example, with the pure egoism of Fichte’s “ ego “. But if, in contrast to the egoism of the feudal classes, its purity is only relative, no “fresh examination of the revolution“ was needed to see that the egoism which has a nation as its content is more general or purer than that which has as its content a particular social class or a particular corporation.
Criticism’s explanations about the general state system are no less instructive. They are confined to saying that the general state system must hold together the individual self-seeking atoms.
The Holy Family Chapter VI 3)
d) Critical Battle Against French Materialism
“ Spinozism dominated the eighteenth century both in its later French variety, which made matter into substance, and in deism, which conferred on matter a more spiritual name.... Spinoza’s French school and the supporters of deism were but two sects disputing over the true meaning of his system .... The simple fate of this Enlightenment was its decline in romanticism after being obliged to surrender to the reaction which began after the French movement.“
That is what Criticism says.
To the Critical history of French materialism we shall oppose a brief outline of its ordinary, mass-type history. We shall acknowledge with due respect the abyss between history as it really happened and history as it takes place according to the decree of “ Absolute Criticism “, the creator equally of the old and of the new. And finally, obeying the prescriptions of Criticism , we shall make the “Why?“, “Whence?“ and “Whither?“ of Critical history the “object of a persevering study“.
“Speaking exactly and in the prosaic sense “, the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, and in particular French materialism , was not only a struggle against the existing political institutions and the existing religion and theology; it was just as much an open, clearly expressed struggle against the metaphysics of the seventeenth century , and against all metaphysics , in particular that of Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza and Leibniz . Philosophy was counterposed to metaphysics , just as Feuerbach , in his first resolute attack on Hegel , counterposed sober philosophy to wild speculation . Seventeenth century metaphysics , driven from the field by the French Enlightenment , notably, by French materialism of the eighteenth century, experienced a victorious and substantial restoration in German philosophy , particularly in the speculative German philosophy of the nineteenth century. After Hegel linked it in a masterly fashion with all subsequent metaphysics and with German idealism and founded a metaphysical universal kingdom, the attack on theology again corresponded, as in the eighteenth century, to an attack on speculative metaphysics and metaphysics in general . It will be defeated for ever by materialism , which has now been perfected by the work of speculation itself and coincides with humanism . But just as Feuerbach is the representative of materialism coinciding with humanism in the theoretical domain, French and English socialism and communism represent materialism coinciding with humanism in the practical domain.
“Speaking exactly and in the prosaic sense “, there are two trends in French materialism ; one traces its origin to Descartes, the other to Locke. The latter is mainly a French development and leads directly to socialism . The former, mechanical materialism, merges with French natural science proper. The two trends intersect in the course of development. We have no need here to go more deeply into the French materialism that derives directly from Descartes, any more than into the French school of Newton and the development of French natural science in general.
We shall therefore merely say the following:
Descartes in his physics endowed matter with self-creative power and conceived mechanical motion as the manifestation of its life. He completely separated his physics from his metaphysics . Within his physics, matter is the sole substance , the sole basis of being and of knowledge.
Mechanical French materialism adopted Descartes’ physics in opposition to his metaphysics. His followers were by profession anti-metaphysicians , i.e., physicists .
This school begins with the physician Le Roy, reaches its zenith with the physician Cabanis , and the physician La Mettrie is its centre. Descartes was still living when Le Roy, like La Mettrie in the eighteenth century, transposed the Cartesian structure of the animal to the human soul and declared that the soul is a modus of the body and ideas are mechanical motions . Le Roy even thought Descartes had kept his real opinion secret. Descartes protested. At the end of the eighteenth century Cabanis perfected Cartesian materialism in his treatise: Rapport du physique et du moral de 1'homme .
Cartesian materialism still exists today in France. It has achieved great successes in mechanical natural science which, “speaking exactly and in the prosaic sense “, will be least of all reproached with romanticism .
The metaphysics of the seventeenth century, represented in France by Descartes, had materialism as its antagonist from its very birth. The latter’s opposition to Descartes was personified by Gassendi , the restorer of Epicurean materialism. French and English materialism was always closely related to Democritus and Epicurus . Cartesian metaphysics had another opponent in the English materialist Hobbes . Gassendi and Hobbes triumphed over their opponent long after their death at the very time when metaphysics was already officially dominant in all French schools.
Voltaire pointed out that the indifference of the French of the eighteenth century to the disputes between the Jesuits and the Jansenists [32] was due less to philosophy than to Law’s financial speculations. So the downfall of seventeenth-century metaphysics can be explained by the materialistic theory of the eighteenth century only in so far as this theoretical movement itself is explained by the practical nature of French life at that time. This life was turned to the immediate present, to worldly enjoyment and worldly interests, to the earthly world. Its anti-theological, anti-metaphysical, materialistic practice demanded corresponding anti-theological, anti-metaphysical, materialistic theories. Metaphysics had in practice lost all credit. Here we have only to indicate briefly the theoretical course of events.
In the seventeenth century metaphysics (cf. Descartes, Leibniz, and others) still contained a positive , secular element. It made discoveries in mathematics, physics and other exact sciences which seemed to come within its scope. This semblance was done away with as early as the beginning of the eighteenth century. The positive sciences broke away from metaphysics and marked out their independent fields. The whole wealth of metaphysics now consisted only of beings of thought and heavenly things, at the very time when real beings and earthly things began to be the centre of all interest. Metaphysics had become insipid. In the very year in which Malebranche and Arnauld, the last great French metaphysicians of the seventeenth century, died, Helvétius and Condillac were born.
The man who deprived seventeenth-century metaphysics and metaphysics in general of all credit in the domain of theory was Pierre Bayle . His weapon was scepticism , which he forged out of metaphysics’ own magic formulas. He himself proceeded at first from Cartesian metaphysics. Just as Feuerbach by combating speculative theology was driven further to combat speculative philosophy , precisely because he recognised in speculation the last drop of theology, because he had to force theology to retreat from pseudo-science to crude , repulsive faith , so Bayle too was driven by religious doubt to doubt about the metaphysics which was the prop of that faith. He therefore critically investigated metaphysics in its entire historical development. He became its historian in order to write the history of its death. He refuted chiefly Spinoza and Leibniz .
Pierre Bayle not only prepared the reception of materialism and of the philosophy of common sense in France by shattering metaphysics with his scepticism. He heralded the atheistic society which was soon to come into existence by proving that a society consisting only of atheists is possible, that an atheist can be a man worthy of respect, and that it is not by atheism but by superstition and idolatry that man debases himself.
To quote a French writer, Pierre Bayle was “the last metaphysician in the sense of the seventeenth century and the first philosopher in the sense of the eighteenth century “.
Besides the negative refutation of seventeenth-century theology and metaphysics, a positive, anti-metaphysical system was required. A book was needed which would systematise and theoretically substantiate the life practice of that time. Locke’s treatise An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding came from across the Channel as if in answer to a call. It was welcomed enthusiastically like a long-awaited guest.
The question arises: Is Locke perhaps a disciple of Spinoza ? “Profane“ history can answer:
Materialism is the natural-born son of Great Britain . Already the British schoolman, Duns Scotus , asked, “ whether it was impossible for matter to think ?“
The Holy Family Chapter VI 3)
e) Final Defeat of Socialism
“The French set up a series of systems of how the mass should be organised , but they had to resort to fantasy because they considered the mass, as it is, to be usable material.“
Actually, the French and the English have proved, and proved in great detail, that the present social system organises the “mass as it is “ and is therefore its organisation . Criticism , following the example of the Allgemeine Zeitung [35] , disposes of all socialist and communist systems by means of the fundamental word “ fantasy “. Having thus shattered foreign socialism and communism, Criticism transfers its war-like operations to Germany.
“When the German Enlighteners suddenly found themselves disappointed in their hopes of 1842 and, in their embarrassment, did not know what to do, news of the recent French systems came in the nick of time. They were henceforth able to speak of raising the lower classes of the people and at that price they were able to dispense with the question whether they did not themselves belong to the mass, which is to be found not only in the lowest strata.“
Criticism has obviously so exhausted its entire provision of well meaning motives in the apologia for Bauer’s literary past that it can find no other explanation for the German socialist movement than the “embarrassment“ of the Enlighteners in 1842. “Fortunately they received news of the recent French systems.“ Why not of the English ? For the decisive Critical reason that Herr Bauer received no news of the recent English systems through Stein’s book: Der Communismus und Socialismus des heutigen Frankreichs . This is also the decisive reason why only French systems ever exist for Criticism in all its talk about socialist systems.
The Holy Family Chapter VI 3)
f) The Speculative Cycle of Absolute Criticism and the Philosophy of Self-Consciousness
Criticism , having supposedly attained perfection and purity in one domain, therefore committed only one oversight “only“ one “inconsistency“, that of not being “pure“ and “perfect“ in all domains. The “one“ Critical domain is none other than that of theology. The pure area of this domain extends from the Kritik der Synoptiker by Bruno Bauer to Das entdeckte Christenthum by Bruno Bauer, as the farthest frontier post.
“Modern Criticism,“ we are told, “had finally dealt with Spinozism; it was therefore inconsistent of it naively to presuppose Substance in one domain, even if only in individual, falsely expounded points.“
Criticism’s earlier admission that it had been involved in political prejudice was immediately followed by the extenuating circumstance that this involvement had been “ basically so slight !“ Now “the admission of inconsistency is tempered by the parenthesis that it committed only in individual, falsely expounded points . It was not Herr Bauer who was to blame, but the false points which ran away with Criticism like recalcitrant mounts.
A few quotations will show that by overcoming Spinozism Criticism ended up in Hegelian idealism , that from “ Substance “ it arrived at another metaphysical monster, the “Subject “, “Substance as a process “, “infinite self-consciousness “, and that the final result of “perfect“ and “pure“ Criticism is the restoration of the Christian theory of creation in a speculative, Hegelian form.
Let us first open the Kritik der Synoptiker .
“Strauss remains true to the view that Substance is the Absolute. Tradition in this form of universality, which has not yet attained the real and rational certitude of universality, that certitude which can be attained only in self-consciousness, in the o~ and infinity of self-consciousness, is nothing but Substance which has emerged from its logical simplicity and has assumed a definite form of existence as the power of the community .“ ( Kritik der Synoptiker , Vol. I, Preface, pp. vi [-vii]).
Let us leave to their fate “ the universality which attains certitude“, the “oneness and infinity“ (the Hegelian Notion ). — Instead of saying that the view put forward in Strauss’ theory on the “power of the community“ and “tradition“ has its abstract expression, its logical and metaphysical hieroglyphic , in the Spinozist conception of Substance , Herr Bauer makes “ Substance emerge from its logical simplicity and assume a definite form of existence in the power of the community“. He applies the Hegelian miracle apparatus by which the “ metaphysical categories “ — abstractions extracted out of reality — emerge from logic , where they are dissolved in the “ simplicity “ of thought, and assume “a definite form“ of physical or human existence; he makes them become incarnate. Help, Hinrichs !
“Mysterious,“ Criticism continues its argument against Strauss, “mysterious is this view because whenever it wishes to explain and make visible the process to which the gospel history owes its origin, it can only bring out the semblance of a press [... ] The sentence: ‘The gospel history has its source and origin in tradition’, posits the same thing twice — ‘tradition’ and the ‘gospel history'; admittedly it does posit a relation between them, but it does not tell us to what internal process of Substance the development and exposition owe their origin."'
According to Hegel, Substance must be conceived as an internal process. He characterises development from the viewpoint of Substance as follows:
“But if we look more closely at this expansion , we find that it has not come about by one and the same principle taking shape in diverse ways; it is only the shapeless repetition of one and the same thing ... keeping up a tedious semblance of diversity“ ( Phänomenologie , Preface, p. 12).
Help, Hinrichs!
“Criticism,“ Herr Bauer continues, “according to this, must turn against itself and look for the solution of the mysterious substantiality ... in what the development of Substance itself leads to, in the universality and certitude of the idea and its real existence, in infinite self-consciousness. “
Hegel’s criticism of the substantiality view continues:
“The compact solidity of Substance is to be opened up and Substance raised to self-consciousness “ (loc. cit., p. 7).
Bauer’s self-consciousness, too, is Substance raised to self-consciousness or self-consciousness as Substance ; self-consciousness is transformed from an attribute of man into a self-existing subject. This is the metaphysical-theological caricature of man in his severance from nature. The being of this self-consciousness is therefore not man , but the idea of which self-consciousness is the real existence . It is the idea become man , and therefore it is infinite . All human qualities are thus transformed in a mysterious way into qualities of imaginary “ infinite self-consciousness “. Hence, Herr Bauer says expressly that everything has its origin and its explanation in this “infinite selfconsciousness“, i.e., finds in it the basis of its existence . Help, Hinrichs !
Herr Bauer continues:
“The power of the substantiality relation lies in its impulse, which leads us to the concept, the idea and self-consciousness.“
Hegel . says:
The Holy Family
Chapter VII Critical Criticism’s Correspondence
1) The Critical Mass
Where can one feel better Than in the bosom of one’s family? [38]
In its Absolute existence as Herr Bruno , Critical Criticism has declared the mass of mankind, the whole of mankind that is not Critical Criticism, to be its opposite , its essential object; essential, because the Mass exists ad majorem gloriam dei [For the greater glory of God] , the glory of Criticism , of the Spirit; its object, because it is only the matter on which Critical Criticism operates. Critical Criticism has proclaimed its relationship to the Mass as the world-historic relationship of the present time.
No world-historic opposition is formed, however, by the statement that one is in opposition to the whole world. One can imagine that one is a stumbling-block for the world because one is clumsy enough to stumble everywhere. But for a world-historic opposition it is not enough for me to declare the world my opposite; the world for its part must declare me to be its essential opposite, and must treat and recognise me as such. Critical Criticism ensures itself this recognition by its correspondence , which is called upon to bear witness before the world to Criticism’s function of redeemer and equally to the general irritation of the world at the Critical gospel. Critical Criticism is its own object as the object of the world. The correspondence is intended to show it as such, as the world interest of the present time.
Critical Criticism is in its own eyes the Absolute Subject . The Absolute Subject requires a cult. A real cult requires other believing individuals. The Holy Family of Charlottenburg therefore receives from its correspondents the cult due to it. The correspondents tell it what it is and what its adversary, the Mass, is not .
However, Criticism falls into an inconsistency by thus having its opinion of itself represented as the opinion of the world and by its concept being converted into reality . Within Criticism itself a sort of Mass is forming, a Critical Mass whose simple function is untiringly to echo the stock phrases of Criticism. For consistency’s sake this inconsistency may be forgiven. Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home.
The path of Critical Criticism’s correspondent, a member of the Critical Mass, is not a rosy one. It is a difficult, thorny path, a Critical path. Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without . The correspondent can therefore be a subject only in appearance , can only seem to behave independently towards Critical Criticism, can only seemingly want to communicate something new and of his own to it. In reality he is Critical Criticism’s own product , its perception of its own voice made for an instant objective and self-existing.
That is why the correspondents do not fail to assert incessantly that Critical Criticism itself knows, realises, understands, grasps , and experiences what at the same moment is being communicated to it for appearance’s sake . Thus Zerrleder , for instance, uses the expressions: “Do you grasp it? You know. You know for the second and third time. You’ have probably heard enough to be able to see for yourself.“
So too the Breslau correspondent Fleischammer says: “But the fact,“ etc., “will be as little of a puzzle to you as to me.“ Or the Zurich correspondent Hirzel : “You will probably find out for yourself.“ The Critical correspondent has such anxious respect for the absolute understanding of Critical Criticism that he attributes understanding to it even where there is absolutely nothing to understand. For example, Fleischhammer says:
You will perfectly [!] understand [!] me when I tell you that one can hardly go out without meeting young Catholic priests in their long black cowls and cloaks.“
Indeed, in their fear the correspondents hear Critical Criticism — saying , answering , exclaiming , deriding !
The Holy Family, Chapter VII
2) The “Un-Critical Mass“ and “Critical Criticism“
a) The “Obdurate Mass“ and the “Unsatisfied Mass“
The hardness of heart, the obduracy and blind unbelief of “the Mass“ has one rather determined representative. This representative speaks of the exclusively “Hegelian philosophical education of the Berlin Couleur“ [39]
“The only true progress that we can make,“ he says, “lies in the acknowledgment of reality. But we learn from you that our knowledge was not knowledge of reality but of something unreal.“
He calls “natural science“ the basis of philosophy.
“A good naturalist stands in the same relation to the philosopher as. the philosopher to the theologian.“
Further he comments as follows on the “Berlin Couleur“.
“I do not think it would be exaggerating to try to explain the state of these people by saying that, although they have gone through a process of spiritual mouking, they have not yet altogether got rid of their old skin in order to be able to absorb the elements of renovation and rejuvenation.“ “We must yet assimilate this“ (natural-scientific and industrial) “knowledge“. “The knowledge of the world and of man, which we need most of all, cannot be acquired only by acuity of thought; all the senses must collaborate and all the aptitudes of man must be applied as indispensable instruments; otherwise contemplation and knowledge will always remain defective — and will lead to moral death .“
This correspondent, however, sweetens the pill that he hands out to Critical Criticism. He “makes Bauer’s words find their correct application“, he has “followed Bauer’s thoughts “, he agrees that “ Bauer has spoken the truth“ and in the end he seems to polemise, not against Criticism itself, but against a “Berlin Couleur“ which is distinct from it.
Critical Criticism, feeling itself hit and, moreover, being as sensitive as an old maid in all matters of faith , is not taken in by these distinctions and this semi-homage.
“You are mistaken ,“ it answers, “if you have taken the party you described at the beginning of your letter for your opponent . Rather admit “ (and now comes the crushing sentence of excommunication) “that you are an opponent of Criticism itself! “
The miserable wretch! The man of the Mass! An opponent of Criticism itself ! But as far as the content of that mass-type polemic is concerned, Critical Criticism declares its respect for its critical attitude to natural science and industry “.
“ All respect for natural science! All respect for James Watt and“ (a really noble turn!) “no respect at all for the millions that he made for his relatives.“
All respect for the respect of Critical Criticism! In the same letter in which Critical Criticism reproaches the above-mentioned Berlin Couleur with too easily disposing of thorough and solid works without studying them and having finished with a work when they have merely remarked that it is epoch-making, etc. — in that same letter Criticism itself disposes of the whole of natural science and industry by merely declaring its respect for them. The clause which it appends to its’ declaration of respect for natural science reminds one of the first fulminations of the deceased knight Krug against natural philosophy.
“Nature is not the only reality because we eat and drink it in its individual products .“
Critical Criticism knows this much about the individual products of nature that “we eat and drink them“. All respect for the natural science of Critical Criticism!
Criticism is consistent in countering the embarrassingly importunate demand to study “nature“ and “industry“ with the following indisputably witty rhetorical exclamation:
“Or“ (!) “do you think that the knowledge of historical reality is already complete ? Or“ (!) “do you know of any single period in history which is already actually known?“
Or does Critical Criticism believe that it has reached even the beginning of a knowledge of historical reality so long as it excludes from the historical movement the theoretical and practical relation of man to nature, i.e., natural science and industry? Or does it think that it actually knows any period without knowing, for example, the industry of that period, the immediate mode of Production of life itself? Of course, spiritualistic, theological Critical Criticism only knows (at least it imagines it knows) the main political, literary and theological acts of history. Just as it separates thinking from the senses, the soul from the body and itself from the world, it separates history from natural science and industry and sees the origin of history not in vulgar material production on the earth but in vaporous clouds in the heavens.
The representative of the “obdurate“ and “hard-hearted“ Mass with his trenchant reproofs and counsels is disposed of as a mass-type materialist . Another correspondent, not so malicious or mass-like, who places his hopes in Critical Criticism but finds them unsatisfied ‘ fares no better. The representative of the “ unsatisfied “ Mass writes:
“I must, however, admit that the first number of your paper was by no means satisfying . We expected something else.“
The Critical patriarch answers in person:
“I knew beforehand that it would not satisfy expectations, because I could rather easily imagine those expectations. One is so exhausted that one wishes to have everything at once . Everything? No! If possible everything and nothing at the same time. An everything that costs no trouble, an everything that one can absorb without going through any development, an everything that is contained in a single word.“
The Holy Family, Chapter VII
3) The Un-Critically Critical Mass Or “Criticism“ and The “Berlin Couleur“
Critical Criticism has not succeeded in depicting itself as the essential opposite, and hence at the same time as the essential object, of the mass of humanity. Apart from the representatives of the obdurate Mass which reproaches Critical Criticism for its objectlessness and gives it to understand in the most courteous possible way that it has not yet gone through the process of its spiritual “ moult “ and must first of all acquire solid knowledge, there is the soft-hearted correspondent. He is no opposite at all, but then the actual reason for his approach to Critical Criticism is a purely personal one. As we can see a little further on in his letter, he really only wants to reconcile his devotion to Herr Arnold Ruge with his devotion to Herr Bruno Bauer . This attempt at reconciliation does credit to his kind heart, but it in no way constitutes an interest of a mass nature . Finally, the last correspondent to appear was no longer a real member of the Mass, he was only a catechumen of Critical Criticism.
In general, the Mass is an indefinite object, and therefore can neither carry out a definite action nor enter into a definite relationship. The Mass, as the object of Critical Criticism, has nothing in common with the real masses who, for their part, form among themselves oppositions of a pronounced mass nature. Critical Criticism’s mass is “made“ by Criticism itself, as would be the case if a naturalist, instead of speaking of definite classes, contrasted the Class to himself.
Hence, in order to have an opposite of a really mass nature, Critical Criticism needs, besides this abstract Mass which is the figment of its own brain, a definite Mass that can be empirically demonstrated and not just conjured up. This Mass must see in Critical Criticism both its essence and the annihilation of its essence. It must wish to be Critical Criticism, non-Mass, without being able to. This Critically un-Critical Mass is the above-mentioned “ Berlin Couleur “. The mass of humanity which is seriously concerned with Critical Criticism is confined to a Berlin Couleur.
The “Berlin Couleur“, the “ essential object “ of Critical Criticism, of which it is always thinking and which, Critical Criticism imagines, is always thinking of Critical Criticism, consists, as far as we know, of a few ci-devant [former] Young Hegelians in whom Critical Criticism claims to inspire partly a horror vacui [horror of emptiness] and partly a feeling of futility . We are not investigating the actual state of affairs, we rely on what Criticism says.
The Correspondence is mainly intended to expound at length to the public this world-historic relation of Criticism to the “Berlin Couleur“, to reveal its profound significance, to show why Criticism must necessarily be cruel towards this “Mass“, and finally to make it appear that the whole world is in fearful agitation over this opposition, expressing itself now in favour of, and then against the actions of Criticism . For example, Absolute Criticism writes to a correspondent who sides with the “Berlin Couleur":
“I have already heard things like that so often that I have made up my mind not to take any more notice of them.“
The world has no idea how often it has dealt with Critical things like that.
Let us now hear what a member of the Critical Mass reports on the Berlin Couleur:
“'If anyone recognises the Bauers'“ (the Holy Family must always be recognised pêle-mêle ) “began his answer [The reference is to the answer given by an adherent to the Berlin Couleur to one of the authors of the anonymous report “Aus der Provinz“ published in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. Heft VI, May 1844] — I am the one. But the Literatur-zeitung ! Let us be quite fairl’ It was interesting for me to hear what one of those radicals, those clever men of anno 42, thought of you....“
The correspondent goes on to repckrt that the unfortunate man had all sorts of reproaches to make to the Literatur-Zeitung .
Herr Edgar’s short story, Die drei Biedermdnner he found lacking in polish and exaggerated. He could not understand that censorship is not so much a fight of man against man, an external fight, as an internal one. They do not take the trouble to bethink themselves and to replace the phrase the censor okects to by a cleverly expressed and thoroughly developed Critical thought . He found Herr Edgar’s essay on Béraud lacking in thoroughness. The Critical reporter thinks it was thorough. True he admitted himself: “I have not read Béraud’s book.“ But he believes that Herr Edgar has succeeded , etc., and belief, we know, is bhss. “In general,“ the Critical believer continues, “he“ (the one from the Berlin Couleur) “is not at all satisfied with Herr Edgar’s works.“ He also finds that “ Proudhon is not dealt with thoroughly enough“. And here the reporter gives Herr Edgar a testimonial:
“ It is true “ (1?) “ that Iam acquainted with Proudhon . I know that Edgar’s presentation took the characteristic points from him and set them out clearly.“
The only reason why Herr Edgar’s excellent criticism of Proudhon is not liked, the reporter says, can only be that Herr Edgar does not fulminate against property. And just imagine it, the opponent finds Herr Edgar’s essay on the “ Union ouvrière "’ unimportant . To console Herr Edgar the reporter says:
“Of course, it does not give anything independent , and these people have really gone back to Gruppe’s point of view, which, to be sure, they have always maintained . Criticism must give, give and give! “
As though Criticism had not given quite new linguistic, historical, philosophical, economic, and juridical discoveriesl And it is so modest as to let itself be told that it has not given anything independent ! Even our Critical correspondent gave mechanics something that it had not hitherto known when he made people go back to the same point of view which they had always maintained . It is clumsy to recall Gruppe’s point of view. In his pamphlet, which is otherwise miserable and not worth mentioning, Gruppe asked Herr Bruno what criticism he could give on speculative logic. Herr Bruno referred him to future generations and —
“a fool is waiting for an answer“. [42]
The Holy Family
Chapter VIII
The Earthly Course and Transfiguration Of “Critical Criticism“, Or “Critical Criticism“ As Rudolph, Prince of Geroldstein
[In this chapter Marx continues his criticism of Szeliga’s article “Eugène Sue: Die Geheimnisse von Paris "]
Rudolph , Prince of Geroldstein, does penance in his earthly course for a double crime: his personal crime and that of Critical Criticism . In a furious dialogue he drew his sword against his father; Critical Criticism, also in a furious dialogue, let itself be carried away by sinful feelings against the Mass. Critical Criticism did not reveal a single mystery. Rudolph does penance for that and reveals all mysteries.
Rudolph, Herr Szeliga informs us, is the first servant of the state of humanity (the Humanitätsstaat of the Swabian Egidius . See Konstitutionelle Jahrbücher by Dr. Karl Weil, 1844, Bd. 266).
For the world not to be destroyed, Herr Szeliga asserts, it is necessary that
“Men of ruthless criticism appear.... Rudolph is such a man.... Rudolph grasps the thought of pure criticism . And that thought is more fruitful for him and mankind than all the experiences of the latter in its history , than all the knowledge that Rudolph, guided even by the most reliable teacher, was able to derive from that history.... The impartial judgment by which Rudolph perpetuates his earthly course is, in fact , nothing but
the revelation of the mysteries of society. " He is: “ the revealed mystery of all mysteries. “
Rudolph has far more external means at his disposal than the other men of Critical Criticism. But the latter consoles itself:
“Unattainable for those less favoured by destiny are Rudolph’s results “ (!), “not unattainable is the splendid goal
That is why Criticism leaves the realisation of its own thoughts to Rudolph, who is so favoured by destiny. It sings to him:
Hahnemann , go on ahead. You've waders on, you won’t get wet! [44]
Let us accompany Rudolph in his Critical earthly course, which “is more fruitful for mankind than all the experiences of the latter in its history, than all the knowledge “ etc., and which twice saves the world from destruction .
1) Critical Transformation of a Butcher into a Dog, Or Chourineur
Chourineur [French thieves’ slang for a murderous ruffian] was a butcher by trade. Owing to a concourse of circumstances, this mighty son of nature becomes a murderer. Rudolph comes across him accidentally just when he is molesting Fleur de Marie. Rudolph gives the dexterous brawler a few impressive, masterly punches on the head, and thus wins his respect. Later, in the tavern frequented by criminals, Chourineur’s kind-hearted disposition is revealed. “You still have heart and honour,“ Rudolph says to him. By these words he instils in Chourineur respect for himself. Chourineur is reformed or, as Herr Szeliga says, is transformed into a “ moral being “. Rudolph takes him under his protection. Let us follow the course of Chourineur’s education under the guidance of Rudolph.
The Holy Family Chapter VIII