HANDOUT ON MARX AND MARXISM
What's here?
Marx, Engels, and "theoretical bubble blowing"
In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels are constantly attacking earlier German thinkers, philosophers, and historians. What exactly do they mean when they say that their predecessors have engaged in "theoretical bubble blowing" (260), "descended from heaven to earth" (247) or "moved in the realm of the 'pure spirit'" (259)?
In general, they mean that their predecessors--and in particular the followers of G. W. F. Hegel--tended to see ideas and beliefs as the driving forces in human history. New ideas, the Hegelians insisted, lead to new forms of government and new ways of life. For the Hegelians, then, history results from a kind of "trickle-down" process: great men think great thoughts and those thoughts eventually change our lives. You can see, I expect, how a history or a philosophy committed to understanding this "trickle-down" process might appear to descend from heaven (the Platonic realm of "pure ideas") to earth (the messy world of dirty laundry, voicemail, and pizza coupons).
In this tight space, I won't try to explain how Marx and Engels differ from their Hegelian predecessors--and in any case, I'd rather leave that up to you. Still, I just can't pass up the chance to quote a couple of Marx and Engels's snarky comments on their differences with the Hegelians. Snarky comment #1: "[Our] premises are [in] men, not in any fantastic isolation or abstract definition, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development" (248). Snarky comment #2: "[Our conception of history] does not explain practice from the idea, but explains the formation of ideas from material practice" (257-8).
1. In our excerpt from The German Ideology, Marx and Engels never really define the term "ideology." What do you suppose they have in mind when they use that term?
2. What would the study of history be like if historians followed Marx and Engels in thinking that they must observe the fundamental material facts of human existence? What would philosophy or literary criticism or art history or musicology be like if people working in those fields followed Marx and Engels in thinking that "consciousness is from the very beginning a social product" (252)?
3. How do Marx and Engels present themselves in this text? How do they characterize their philosophical and political enemies (in particular the Hegelians)? And how, by implication, do they characterize themselves? (HINT: In many ways, Marx and Engels suggest that the Hegelians are dupes, implying that the Hegelians must share in the follies and misconceptions of the people they study. How are the Hegelians being duped, and how do Marx and Engels avoid their sad fate?)
4. In the preface to A Contribution . . ., Marx presents his famous (and widely influential) conceptions of "foundation" or "base" and "superstructure." Where in this model would we find the things that English majors hold dear--plays, poems, stories? Are these things part of the base or part of the superstructure? What about things like religion or philosphy, anthropology and other social sciences, the natural sciences themselves? (NOTE: Marx's comments on science are pretty interesting. Why do you think he's so eager to present his work as "scientific"?)
5. Marx is often regarded as a revolutionary, and it's worth asking how he thinks about revolutions. Where and how, according to Marx, do revolutions begin? If revolutions begin in conflicts between and among social classes--and I'm not saying that they do--then how do those conflicts emerge?