The Moscow monument honors Friedrich Engels – also as great Marxists.
Foto: Adobe Stock/Yulenochekk
In July of this year, her book “Between Marx and Marxism” was published, in which they shed light on Friedrich Engels’ role in the thinking and development of Marxism. What are you about?
The main purpose of my work is to take Engels seriously as an independent thinker and to appreciate in his peculiarity. This does not rule out, but also demands that his theoretical weaknesses and misinterpretations disclose. The focus is on the philosophical work of the late angel (1873–1895), in particular his interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic and its assessment of the role, which Feuerbach played in the dissolution of the classic German philosophy and in the formation of the materialistic history.
Marx and Engels are often mentioned in the same breath, but they advocate angels’ independence. Why?
Antonio Gramsci had emphasized it in the 1930s and I still think it is necessary to distinguish Engels from Marx. And not because Engels’ loyalty should be questioned, but to take into account the simple fact that Engels is not Marx. Instead of merging the two in a kind of “holy doubt”, in my opinion it is more important to reconstruct and emphasize the peculiar differences and specific specialist skills between Marx and Engels.
Interview
Private
Giovanni Sgro ‘ is active as an associated professor of history of philosophy at the University of E-Campus on Noverrates (Como/Italy). He wrote numerous publications on Hegel, Marx, Engels and Max Weber. He also translated works by Marx and Engels into Italian and is the publisher of numerous anthologies on the subject. His book »between Marx and Marxism. Friedrich Engels and the outcome of classic German philosophy «(152 pages, Br., € 22) appeared in the Berliner Dietz Verlag.
What distinguishes Engels’ philosophy towards Marxschen?
In Engels’ view, the relationship between materialistic and idealistic dialectic is a relationship between polar contrast and mirror image. Nevertheless, the basic structures of the dialectical movement laws remained valid and unchanged for both, which Hegel described in a correct manner, even if he had covered them with a mystical shell. Engels represents the traffic of the Hegelian idealistic dialectics as a simple reversal of the direction: The three laws of materialistic dialectics (changing quantity in quality and vice versa, penetration of the opposites and negation of the negation) be the same laws that Hegel has formulated. According to Engels, its only mistake was to impose such laws “from above” as thought laws instead of deriving them “from below” from nature and history.
Could you add an example to clarify the difference between Engels ‘and Marx’ positions?
I would like to explain that based on the concept of freedom. At Hegel, the category of interaction enables the transition from the realm of the blind necessity to the realm of conscious freedom. In the same way, freedom for angels consists in knowledge and awareness of the need for the unstoppable natural laws, which in the transition from the other to the sphere of human rule and thus become a for-use from the annual. In contrast to Engels (and Hegel), Marx does not simply consume the realm of freedom in the awareness of the need for natural and historical laws and in their application with full expertise. But the realm of freedom begins (and only begins) with the shortening of the working day, i.e. with the liberation from slavery of wage labor.
So how do you go in Your investigation? Can you outline the structure?
Yes gladly. I first analyze the function of the interaction category in the dialectical system of nature, which angels developed in the unfinished “dialectic of nature” and in so-called anti-dragons. From there I reconstruct the broad and diverse range of topics from Engels’ works from 1883 to 1895 and in the third chapter came to his cultural -political pamphlet via Feuerbach from 1886. Then I reconstruct the strategy that Marx and Engels used in 1867 to 1895 to make their materialistic appearance against the ever more frequent misunderstandings And to defend misinterpretation of their critics. In the final fifth chapter, I evaluate the results achieved in philosophy and address the differences between Engels and Marx. This is also about the role that Engels played in the founding of Marxism, that is, in the process of converting the original Marx critical theory into the Marxist worldview.
What proportion, what responsibility in her eyes does Engels have for this formation of Marxism as a worldview? Who were other important actors?
In my opinion, Engels played an important role in the establishment of Marxism as a worldview. Above all, his intensive work on the popularization of Marxism, which he performed as an example in “anti-draging”, will play a crucial role in the global spread of Marxism-he can be considered a worldview as the founder of Marxism. Other important actors in this process included Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932), Karl Kautsky (1854–1938), Georgi Plechanow (1856–1918) and Rudolf Hilferding (1877–1941).
Nd.Diewoche – Our weekly newsletter
With our weekly newsletter . We’re Doing Look at the most important topics of the week and read them Highlights our Saturday edition on Friday. Get the free subscription here.
What do you think of the analysis that there is an “angelism”?
Yes, I also think that the conversion process of the original critical Marxian theory in the Marxist worldview – be it aware or, much more likely, unconscious; Be it wanted or, much more likely, unintentionally-was prepared and initiated by Engels even in his programmatically popular works such as “anti-Dühring” and the “Feuerbach”. Dialectical materialism has been mainly constructed from Engels’ later writings and therefore I think I can also say that a large part of the “Marxism” of the 20th century was at best nothing more than more or less conscious “angelsism”.
What are the differences to the Italian edition of the book? What new findings have been around since then?
Working on the German version of my book gave me the opportunity to check all quotes, insert new parts of the text, to integrate longer footnotes into the main text and to revise the overall text. The new literature about Hegel, Feuerbach, Engels and Marx could only be selectively and selectively used in the footnotes. An intensive reception and a detailed discussion of the abundance of publications from the past eight years require an appropriate processing time and a due space. You could therefore not take place in this book.
Which questions would still have to be examined in these connections?
First of all, it seems necessary to me to record the numerous studies of the past decade on these topics and to discuss them critically. On this basis, which was mainly secured by the new volumes of the “Marx-Engels-Vasive Edition”, the demarcation between Marx ‘and Engels’ thinking should be traced even more precisely. Which concepts clearly come from Marx, which are Engels’ own contributions? It is also of interest as other Marxists, such as Kautsky, Luxembourg, Lenin and later theorists, have taken over or changed Engels’ accents. And finally, the topicality of Engels’ thinking could be assessed. What is Engels’ philosophy for today’s socialist and ecological debates?