Material on Marx fir students of philosophy

1. Karl Marx’ XI Thesis on Feurebach

2. Karl Marx 1845:
XI Thesis on Feurebach
Source:
Written by Marx in Brussels in the spring of 1845, under the title “1) ad Feuerbach”;
Marx’s original text was first published in 1924, in German and in Russian translation, by the Institute
of Marxism-Leninism in Marx-Engels Archives, Book I, Moscow. The English translation was first
published in the Lawrence and Wishart edition of The German Ideology in 1938. The most widely
known version of the “Theses” is that based on Engels’ edited version, published as an appendix to
his Ludwig Feuerbach in 1888.
Translated by Cyril Smith 2002, based on work done jointly with Don Cuckson.
Marx/Engels Archive:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm

3. I
The main defect of all hitherto-existing materialism — that of
Feuerbach included — is that the Object [der Gegenstand],
actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the
object [Objekts], or of contemplation [Anschauung], but not as
human sensuous activity, practice [Praxis], not subjectively.
Hence it happened that the active side, in opposition to
materialism, was developed by idealism — but only abstractly,
since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity
as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects [Objekte],
differentiated from thought-objects, but he does not conceive
human activity itself as objective [gegenständliche] activity. In
The Essence of Christianity, he therefore regards the
theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while
practice is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of
appearance [Erscheinungsform]. Hence he does not grasp the
significance of ‘revolutionary’, of ‘practical-critical’, activity.

4. Huttunen’s explanation
In this thesis Marx express his dissatisfaction for
Ludwig Feuerbach who was his idol. Feuerbach
looks sensual world only as object of natural
science and does not see how perception is
conditioned by social praxis – so perception is
a social construction. Also Feuerbach focuses
his attention to theoretical attitude because that
is essentially human. Feuerbach does not
understand Aristotelian poesis and praxis that
human productive and practical-critical action.

5. II
The question whether objective truth
can be attributed to human thinking is
not a question of theory but is a
practical question. Man must prove the
truth, i.e., the reality and power, the
this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his
thinking, in practice. The dispute over
the reality or non-reality of thinking
which is isolated from practice is a
purely scholastic question.

6. Huttunen’s explanation
Marx verdict for correspondence theory of truth
(which was introduced by Thomas Aquinas and
Isaak Israel; veritas est adequatio intellectus et
rei) is very negative. It is only a scholastic
speculation (although Aquinas never supported
it). Marx didn’t care is there rational reasons for
realistic theory of truth and knowledge. What
really maters is praxis. Marx supported
pragmatic notion of truth. World view as a
whole is true if it can bring about a just and
working society.

7. III
The materialist doctrine that men are products of
circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore,
changed men are products of changed
circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets
that it is men who change circumstances and that
the educator must himself be educated. Hence this
doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts,
one of which is superior to society. The
coincidence of the changing of circumstances and
of human activity or self-change
[Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and
rationally understood only as revolutionary
practice.

8. Huttunen’s explanation
This is the basic principle of the humanism of young
Marx. It could be understood in the light of Anthony
Giddens’ theory structuration (which is actually very
wise interpretation of Marx). Social structures
facilitates subject but on the other hand those
structures can be changed by either reflective or
unreflective action of subject. In suitable
circumstances subject can practice his or hers Kantian
autonomy or Aristotelian phronesis (practical wisdom)
and reflectively change social structures in critical
(revolutionary) praxis. Human is not just a bearer of
the structures like anti-humanistic Louis Althusser
read “mature” (scientific) Marx.

9. IV
Feuerbach starts off from the fact of religious self-
estrangement [Selbstentfremdung], of the duplication of
the world into a religious, imaginary world, and a secular
[weltliche] one. His work consists in resolving the religious
world into its secular basis. He overlooks the fact that after
completing this work, the chief thing still remains to be
done. For the fact that the secular basis lifts off from itself
and establishes itself in the clouds as an independent
realm can only be explained by the inner strife and intrinsic
contradictoriness of this secular basis. The latter must
itself be understood in its contradiction and then, by the
removal of the contradiction, revolutionised. Thus, for
instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the
secret of the holy family, the former must itself be
annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically.

10. Huttunen’s explanation
For Feuerbach the greatest social problem is religious
self-estrangement. If we enlighten people out of
religion then world will be saved. According to Marx
religious self-estrangement is caused by social
contradictions and if we remove these contradictions
by revolutionary action religion will vanish. Personally I
don’t believe that religious thinking and representation
is caused only by social conflicts and repression.
There was religion in so called original communism.
Phrase “holy family” refers academic disputes of
liberal exegetic (interpretation of Bible) which Marx
was well acquaintance with.

11. V
Feuerbach, not satisfied with
abstract thinking, wants sensuous
contemplation [Anschauung]; but
he does not conceive
sensuousness as practical, human-
sensuous activity.

12. Huttunen’s explanation
Here we have thesis 1 condensed. Feuerbach’s
mechanistic and materialistic theory of
knowledge does not understand the social and
construvistic nature of the knowledge. This
Marx critique we can apply against scientific
realism supported by Vladimir Uljanovits Lenin
and Karl Popper. Marx never supported
correspondence theory of truth but possible he
did support materialistic version Hegelian
realism - abstract concepts like capital, product,
price etc. have real life in society.

13. VI
• Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into
the essence of man [menschliche Wesen = ‘human
nature’]. But the essence of man is no abstraction
inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is
the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach,
who does not enter upon a criticism of this real
essence is hence obliged:
• 1. To abstract from the historical process and to
define the religious sentiment regarded by itself,
and to presuppose an abstract — isolated - human
individual.
• 2. The essence therefore can by him only be
regarded as ‘species’, as an inner ‘dumb’
generality which unites many individuals only in a
natural way.

14. Huttunen’s explanation
Marx continues the critique of Feuerbach
anthropological and un-social concept of
human. For Marx human is totality of social
relations but human is not such berar of social
structures. Marx kind of mediates between
essentialism of anthropology and anti-
essentialism of structuralism (functionalism,
system theory). Marx believe in weak essence
of human (humans has strive for freedom and
he capable of renew social structures) and
didn’t believe in any universal humanity.

15. VII
Feuerbach consequently does not
see that the ‘religious sentiment’ is
itself a social product, and that the
abstract individual that he analyses
belongs in reality to a particular
social form.

16. Huttunen’s explanation
Feuerbach considers religion as self-
estrangement of abstract individual. Marx
considers religion totally social
phenomena where religious
consciousness is socially produced. And
this social production of religion can be
stopped, because we can change social
structures by revolutionary action.

17. VIII
All social life is essentially
practical. All mysteries which lead
theory to mysticism find their
rational solution in human practice
and in the comprehension of this
practice.

18. Huttunen’s explanation
This is Marx’s program for critical adult
education. When we educate people they
become Kantian autonomic subjects who
recognize their social nature and
understand that society is not any mystical
entity. Society can be changed by praxis
which is based on (scientific) knowledge of
social reality. We can find rational solution
for all social problems by changing social
structures into “user-friendly” ones.

19. IX
The highest point reached by
contemplative [anschauende]
materialism, that is, materialism
which does not comprehend
sensuousness as practical activity,
is the contemplation of single
individuals and of civil society
[bürgerlichen Gesellschaft].

20. Huttunen’s explanation
We can modernize this thesis by changing
phrase ”contemplative [anschauende]
materialism” with “analytical philosophy of
action”. Analytical philosophy of action
mainly follows the principles of
methodological individualism. According to
such view society is reduced to actions and
choices of individual like did Adam Smith
who reduced society to “civil society”
where egoistic individuals practice
economical transactions.

21. X
The standpoint of the old
materialism is civil society; the
standpoint of the new is human
society or social humanity.

22. Huttunen’s explanation
Here Marx refers Hegel’s notion on civil society
and (ethical) state. Civil society means sphere of
economical transactions done by egoistic
individual. In this sphere another person is a rival.
Sphere of state is ethical sphere where people are
united and their feel solidarity (“us”; we as a
member of a nation). Marx wants to remove this
egoistic sphere of civil society and think future
society as “human society” which correspond
Hegel notion of ethical state. In future human
society all those social structure which makes
human fight and compete with each other are
removed. It is a land of milk and honey (in spiritual
sense) or mundane paradise: COMMUNISM.

23. XI
Philosophers have hitherto only
interpreted the world in various
ways; the point is to change it.
Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur
verschieden interpretiert, es kömmt
drauf an, sie zu verändern.