Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:26:47 +0900
Subject: AUT: On ideology&socialism
From: miychi <miyachi9-AT-gctv.ne.jp>


Young Marx defined his work as "show the world why it is strugging" He
denied any dogmatism or philosophy and "reform of consciousness consist
entirely in making the world aware."
So his later work tried to show the world why it is struggling and reform of
consciousness in making the world aware. His theoretical work was not to
establish new social system planning ,rather to struggle with various
mystical consciousness emerged from forms ofcapitalist production. So his
emphasis is not only economical analysis, rather strugging with mysterious
consciousness which justify current system and oppress people's
consciousness. "Capital" is not "Bible of communist" ,rather book of reply
against many ideologue which justify status quo, including Adam Smith,
Ricardo, Prohdon,Sismondy,Tookes, Fllarton etc,
Below is letter from Marx to Ruge 1843


"I am very pleased to find you so resolute and to see your thoughts turning
away from the past and towards a new enterprise. In Paris, then, the ancient
bastion of philosophy -- absit omen! [may this be no ill omen!] -- and the
modern capital of the modern world. Whatever is necessary adapts itself.
Although I do not underestimate the obstacles, therefore, I have no doubt
that they can be overcome.

Our enterprise may or may not come about, but in any event I shall be in
Paris by the end of the month as the very air here turns one into a serf and
I can see no opening for free activity in Germany.

In Germany everything is suppressed by force, a veritable anarchy of the
spirit, a reign of stupidity itself has come upon us and Zurich obeys orders
from Berlin. It is becoming clearer every day that independent, thinking
people must seek out a new centre. I am convinced that our plan would
satisfy a real need and real needs must be satisfied in reality. I shall
have no doubts once we begin in earnest.

In fact, the internal obstacles seem almost greater than external
difficulties. For even though the question "where from?" presents no
problems, the question "where to?" is a rich source of confusion. Not only
has universal anarchy broken out among the reformers, but also every
individual must admit to himself that he has no precise idea about what
ought to happen. However, this very defect turns to the advantage of the new
movement, for it means that we do not anticipate the world with our dogmas
but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of the
old. Hitherto philosophers have left the keys to all riddles in their desks,
and the stupid, uninitiated world had only to wait around for the roasted
pigeons of absolute science to fly into its open mouth. Philosophy has now
become secularized and the most striking proof of this can be seen in the
way that philosophical consciousness has joined battle not only outwardly,
but inwardly too. If we have no business with the construction of the future
or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the
task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing
order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor
from conflict with the powers that be.

I am therefore not in favor of our hoisting a dogmatic banner. Quite the
reverse. We must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their ideas. In
particular, communism is a dogmatic abstraction and by communism I do not
refer to some imagined, possible communism, but to communism as it actually
exists in the teachings of Cabet, Dezamy, and Weitling, etc. This communism
is itself only a particular manifestation of the humanistic principle and is
infected by its opposite, private property. The abolition of private
property is therefore by no means identical with communism and communism has
seen other socialist theories, such as those of Fourier and Proudhon, rising
up in opposition to it, not fortuitously but necessarily, because it is only
a particular, one-sided realization of the principle of socialism.

And by the same token, the whole principle of socialism is concerned only
with one side, namely the reality of the true existence of man. We have also
to concern ourselves with the other side, i.e., with man's theoretical
existence, and make his religion and science, etc., into the object of our
criticism. Furthermore, we wish to influence our contemporaries above all.
The problem is how best to achieve this. In this context there are two
incontestable facts. Both religion and politics are matters of the very
first importance in contemporary Germany. Our task must be to latch onto
these as they are and not to oppose them with any ready-made system such as
the Voyage en Icarie. [A recently released book by Etienne Cabet, describing
a communist utopia.]

Reason has always existed, but not always in a rational form. Hence the
critic can take his cue from every existing form of theoretical and
practical consciousness and from this ideal and final goal implicit in the
actual forms of existing reality he can deduce a true reality. Now as far as
real life is concerned, it is precisely the political state which contains
the postulates of reason in all its modern forms, even where it has not been
the conscious repository of socialist requirements. But it does not stop
there. It consistently assumed that reason has been realized and just as
consistently it becomes embroiled at every point in a conflict between its
ideal vocation and its actually existing premises.

This internecine conflict within the political state enables us to infer the
social truth. Just as religion is the table of contents of the theoretical
struggles of mankind, so the political state enumerates its practical
struggles. Thus the particular form and nature of the political state
contains all social struggles, needs and truths within itself. It is
therefore anything but beneath its dignity to make even the most specialized
political problem -- such as the distinction between the representative
system and the estates system -- into an object of its criticism. For this
problem only expresses at the political level the distinction between the
rule of man and the rule of private property. hence the critic not only can
but must concern himself with these political questions (which the crude
socialists find entirely beneath their dignity). By demonstrating the
superiority of the representative system over the Estates system, he will
interest a great party in practice. By raising the representative system
from its political form to a general one, and by demonstrating the true
significance underlying, it he will force this party to transcend itself --
for its victory is also its defeat.

Nothing prevents us, therefore, from lining our criticism with a criticism
of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real
struggles and identifying ourselves with them. This does not mean that we
shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here
is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for
the world new principles from the existing principles of the world. We shall
not say: Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you
with true campaign-slogans. Instead, we shall simply show the world why it
is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether
it wishes or not. 

The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of
its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in
explaining its own actions to it. Like Feuerbach's critique of religion, our
whole aim can only be to translate religious and political problems into
their self-conscious human form.

Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by
analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in
religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has
long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious
for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is
not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the
thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not
being any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its
old work. 

We are therefore in a position to sum up the credo of our journal in a
single word: the self-clarification (critical philosophy) of the struggles
and wishes of the age. This is a task for the world and for us. It can
succeed only as the product of untied efforts. What is needed above all is a
confession, and nothing more than that. To obtain forgiveness for its sins,
mankind needs only to declare them for what they are.

Letters Archive | Deutsche-Franzosische Jahrbucher
1843 Letters Archive | Marx Engels Internet Archive"

MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric department
Komaki municipal hospital
miyachi9-AT-gctve.ne.jp



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---