In his interpretation of Marx, “ social development was placed within the framework of natural development, the human spirit presented as a part of nature, even in its most complicated and supreme manifestations.” Kautsky, for instance, understood Marx’s work as a synthesis between Marxism and Darwinism and that both had in common the fact that they were theories of evolution. Not that Engels was positivist, the problem is that many Marxists of the Second International were greatly influenced by evolutionism. However, in the criticisms made of Engels’ work, both by authors of the Frankfurt School and in Lukács, there is also a clear rejection of positivism and its arbitrary generalization of the methods of the natural sciences applied to the humanities, as was social Darwinism, a bourgeois reactionary ideology that served to “naturalise” the capitalist rule and workers exploitation. In reality, his criticism is based on philosophical abstractions which, on many occasions, flirt with idealism. However, he does so without bringing it down to earth, without relating it to the natural material conditions, and without explaining the historical context of its appearance in Marx’s thought. Schmidt, for example, cites Marx’s concept of metabolic failure at various times. Both were aware of the natural sciences and technological changes of their time. Most of the criticisms of Engels are devoid of any reference to or knowledge of natural sciences, which has resulted in the total impossibility of understanding in depth the ecological connections contained in his thought and that of Marx. Engels was also accused of “positivist deviations” since he – like the positivists – sought to apply a method that was valid in both the social sciences and the natural sciences. One example is Alfred Schmidt’s book The Concept of Nature in Marx, a doctoral work led by Max Horkheimer, in whose first chapter Engels is accused of falling into dogmatic metaphysics and presenting an interpretation of nature disconnected from all human praxis. In the 20th century, this work was much criticized by authors such as Lukács and others influenced by the Frankfurt School. Even so, its passages and incomplete notes on how dialectical logic can contribute substantially to the understanding of natural processes, from a philosophical approach of science in the light of the revolutionary scientific discoveries he witnessed, are very interesting. It was the mature Engels who wrote Dialectics of Nature, an unfinished work that contains only notes and fragments for a never-ending book project. However, it was Engels himself who devoted most attention to the problems of science and the relationship between human beings and nature from the point of view of dialectical materialism, while Marx was absorbed in his research into political economy, unveiling the gears of capitalist exploitation.Īnd both were partners in a project for independent organisation of the workers’ movement, based on a revolutionary programme as that presented in the Communist Manifesto or, later, the programme for the International Workingmen’ Association (I International). Not only the natural sciences but also the humanities, which was evident in his notebook on Lewis Henry Morgan, which eventually became the raw material of the book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, written in 1884 by Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). It is undeniable that Marx was deeply curious about the development of the sciences of his time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |