Reader in Marxist philosophy : from the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin

Last updated Nov 23, 2022

• Source book
• Creed communism

https://archive.org/details/readerinmarxistp00sels

• by Selsam, Howard, 1903-; Martel, Harry
• Publication date: 1963
• Topics: Socialism
• Publisher: New York : International Publishers

This volume is a systematic presentation of the principal philosophical statements of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The materials were selected to give the student and the general reader a clear understanding of the Marxist world-outlook as a whole, and at the same time the Marxist approach to such special branches of philosophy as logic, theory of knowledge, theory of history, and ethics. Most of the selections, we believe, are relatively selfexplanatory, but the reader must remember that, as in all scientific and philosophical innovations, there is a distinctive terminology which must be understood. Such terms as “materialism,” “idealism,” “ideology,” “metaphysics,” “alienation,” or even “philosophy” itself, are used differently in Marxist thought than they are conventionally.

• Marxism differs from previous forms of materialism in three ways
  1. It has no commitments as to what matter is. Matter is simply the name for what exists objectively, with the one proviso that mind, thought, consciousness are its products.
  2. Unlike virtually all previous materialism; it is not reductive. It does not deny qualities.
  3. We have in this materialism a world of infinitely complex interaction.¹ Things interact in such ways that an organism which is a product of its environment may also react upon and change its environment, and man can be a product of history and in turn make history and change himself in the process.²

• The great question of spirit or nature has been posed in different forms throughout history.
  • In early times, ignorant men came to think there is a distinct soul which inhabits the body, caused by dream apparitions. The great question was the distinction between soul and outside world.
  • After the Middle Ages, the question became: did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally. [this question was actually already being discussed during the Middle Ages].
  • This split philosophers into those who asserted spirit came before nature, and others who held the reverse.
• There’s another dimension to this question, that is the question of identity of thinking and being: are we able to produce a correct reflection of the real world in our thoughts?
  • Many philosophers said yes, including Hegel, because what we see exists in an ideal abstract form.
  • Others question the possibility of any cognition, like Hume and Kant.
    • They were refuted idealistically by Kant
    • and materialistically by Feuerbach
• Not only reason played a role. The powerful progress of natural science and industry too (smh). Plus idealism had to concede a lot to materialism.
• Feuerbach went from Hegelian idealism to materialism, but stopped short of fully accepting it.
  • He made the mistake of confusing materialism as a world outlook with materialism as was expressed by naturalists and physicians. Believing God created the universe, but the universe was purely material. A Marxist should not do this!
  • The materialists of the 18th century saw man as a machine. This is a limitation of classical French materialism.
  • The second limitation was its inability to comprehend the universe as a process. Instead, the processes of the universe were seen as circular, thus never going anywhere.
• #todo/develop

• Agnosticism is just shamefaced materialism.
  • Because the agnostic’s conception of nature is entirely materialistic.
  • “Nowadays, in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for either a creator or a ruler;” and Deism is invalid because it is a contradiction in terms?
  • Even if the agnostic says there might be a creator, he will admit the possibility of spiritualism in abstracto, he will have none of it in conreto.
  • It’s funny how when it comes to the history in the book, nobody will call it historical agnosticism.
• Therefore, historical materialism is the best term to use for this conception of history, even if it offends a large part of the population.

• Some would-be Marxists published books against dialectical materialism (but they called it “Marxism”). However their arguments are Bad. ~ Lenin

• Many people try to refute materialism, appealing to unthinkable and unknowable “outside of experience” things.
  • Machians preach dualism against materialism.
  • Berkeley says things have no absolute existence, that is, existence outside human knowledge. “the object and the sensation are the same thing.”
  • #todo/develop

• Idealism and materialism are the only two philosophies that count (Lenin, Stalin)

• The role of religion in class struggle.
  • in the origins of Christianity
    • Mass revolts that marked the breakdown of the Roman world.
  • in the rise of Islam
    • Internal struggles between Bedouins and townspeople
    • Liberation of the Arabian peninsula from the Abyssinians
    • The desire to reestablish long dormant trade routes
    • Awakening of Arabian national consciousness
• Lenin believed religious freedom must be maintained.
  • Workers and peasants who are religious and socialists must not be estranged because of their beliefs.
  • Religious beliefs can, in certain circumstances, become powerful revolutionary forces.

• “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”

• Religion always has a secular basis.
• Feuerbach deconstructs the religious world into only its basis.
• After this, he stops prematurely by not addressing the self-contradiction of this secular basis.
  • That the basis is self-contradictory is evident from the foundation raising itself to mythical levels. (how?)
• The secular foundation’s self-contradiction must be
  1. understood
  2. removed
  3. revolutionized in practice
• Feuerbach does not see that religion is a social product.
  • Because he analyzes individuals in isolation instead of as a combination of social relations.

• Didn’t understand shit

• All religion is just the fantasy of humans. Reflections of the natural world in their mind.
• Religion started with natural forces.
  • They controlled daily life and seemed inexplicable,
    • so they were reflected in supernatural forces.
• Then it was social forces.
  • They controlled daily life and seemed inexplicable like the natural forces.
    • So the previously personified forces of nature got social attributes.
• Then, the attributes of all gods were transferred to one almighty God.
  • This is the origin of Judaism.
• Religion easily continues to exist in this form as man’s dominant worldview (relation) of their surroundings.
• In contemporary society, the extraneous force dominating people are our own economic conditions.
  • Like previously, this seems inexplicable and unalterable.
    • So it is also raised to mythical levels. “just have to live with it.”
    • This makes no sense
• A social act is needed to free people from this bondage.
  • Society needs to take possession of the means of production.
  • Society needs to use them on a planned basis.
• Then, the last external force vanishes.
  • There will be nothing left to reflect in religion.
    • So religion will vanish.

• Huh

• Don’t know who that is. Don’t care.

• It’s about Christian religious authority so I won’t take notes here.

• This is about how God has been given decreasing space in the natural sciences.

• Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the Encyclopedists of the 18th century or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopedists arid Feuerbach by applying the materialist philosophy to the field of history, to the field of the social sciences. We must combat religion - that is the rudiment of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which stops at rudiments. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses materialistically.

• Combating religion is the rudiment of all materialism.
• The bourgeouis progressivist, radical and bourgeois materialist say that the dissemination of atheist views is their main task.
  • The Marxist says this explains the roots of religion idealistically instead of materially.
• Religion can only be fought by fighting capitalism itself.
  • Because the deepest root of religion is fear of the blind force of capital -social oppression- of the working masses.

• Religion is a spiritual oppression.
  • Because it teaches humility and patience to he who toils and suffers.
  • To exploiters it offers charity as a cheap justification.
• A class-conscious worker
  • rejects religious superstitions with contempt.
  • leaves heaven to priests and bourgeois hypocrites.
  • fights for a better life on earth.
• Religion should be a private affair. What does this mean?
  • Religion should have no connection with state power and vice versa.
    • No reference to beliefs on official documents.
    • No subsidies or funds to churches and religious societies.
  • Religion is not a private affair in relation to the party.
    • Class-conscious fighters should not be indifferent to unenlightenment, ignorance, and obscurantism in the form of religious beliefs.
    • Printed and oral propaganda should be used to combat religion.
  • Lenin’s socialist party did not enforce that members have to be atheist