by Andreas Peglau

 

Download the entire text as a PDF file.

 

 

PART 2:

Alternative ways of thinking –

a suggestion for discussion

 

It is impossible to reconstruct what would have happened if Marx and Engels had set a different course around 1844, if they had taken the psyche into account in an appropriate manner. But I would at least like to run through some of their assumptions and see what happens when I confront them with what I consider to be sufficiently reliable knowledge today.
As I said at the beginning, I assume that we are born with the potential to be social, lovable, capable of love and in need of love, sociable, inquisitive and creative beings. This is not wishful thinking on my part, but has now been scientifically proven many times over.[1]
Perhaps others will pick up my threads and spin them further, in their own way, individually and self-confidently, in the spirit of Max Stirner and Kant’s motto: „Have the courage to use your own understanding!“

 

Another answer to the „fundamental question of philosophy“[2]

In 1859, in the preface to his work A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx distanced himself from idealistic philosophy: „It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.“[3] Engels later evaluated this as an answer to the „fundamental question of philosophy“.[4] This answer, often reduced to „Being determines consciousness,“[5] became widely known.

In Marx’s view, „consciousness“ obviously meant all mental activity. It was left to Sigmund Freud, who first came to public attention with his psychoanalysis around 1900, to explicitly distinguish the unconscious from consciousness and to attribute its own laws to it. However, Marx and Engels also accepted that there is an unconscious realm in the life of the soul. Even before 1859, they used the term „unconscious“ several times.[6]

In this respect, Marx’s statement should be completed, at least from today’s perspective: „It is not the consciousness and unconsciousness of human beings that determines their being, but, conversely, their social being that determines their consciousness and unconsciousness.“

Freud then went on to elaborate that the unconscious consists not least of misperceptions and misinterpretations („neuroses“), which cause „irrational“ ways of thinking and acting. It was already common knowledge that people often behave irrationally. Nevertheless, Marx and Engels did not include this in their thinking; for them, everything appears „logical“ and rational.

If I summarise consciousness and the unconscious, including neuroses and irrationality, as the „psyche“, the sentence reads: „It is not the psyche of human beings that determines their being, but rather their social being that determines their psyche.“[7]  

However, this negates the interactions that Marx and Engels occasionally mentioned. If I include them, the sentence changes further: „People’s psyche is determined far more by their social being than social being is determined by the psyche.“

However, I cannot agree with this weighting. Instead, the following formulation corresponds to our limited knowledge: „The psyche of human beings is in constant interaction with social being.“ It is impossible to determine which of these has priority: how could this be established, how could the necessary „measurement“ be objectified? Whether human „consciousness“ or „social being“ existed first hundreds of thousands of years ago is even more difficult to determine: it is a chicken-and-egg question that is lost in the mists of prehistory.

Does the proposed reformulation have any practical value?

Yes. Anyone who believes that social being determines the mental processes in individual human beings must focus on changing society; the psyche would supposedly follow. This was how it was handled in „real socialism“ – with well-known (lack of) success: in 1990, the „consciousness“ of most GDR citizens was still well aligned with the capitalist FRG.

Those who assume that these components are mutually dependent come to different conclusions.

In his 1976 book To Have or To Be?, Erich Fromm wrote:

„I refer to the result of the interaction between individual psychological structure and socio-economic structure as social character. The socio-economic structure of a society shapes the social character of its members in such a way that they want to do what they are supposed to do. At the same time, social character influences the socio-economic structure of society […].“[8]

As early as 1934, Wilhelm Reich noted in Massenpsychologie des Faschismus:

„If one tries to change the [psychological] structure of people alone, society resists. If one tries to change society alone, people resist. This shows that neither can be changed on its own.“[9]

Such views are not only much closer to reality, they also offer more promising approaches for shaping and „revolutionising“ social conditions.

 

A different view of human development

 Economics does not „develop“ – it is developed: by people. People have motives for doing so. There is no objective compulsion for economic development. Where would it come from, what non-human power would exert it? If it existed, how could one explain that some hunter-gatherer societies have existed for thousands of years or still exist today?[10]

Since humans are usually born mentally healthy and therefore prosocial, they would – if they remained so healthy – create a society that suits them, i.e. one that is also healthy. This is incompatible with Marx and Engels‘ assumption that oppressive social orders had to arise and that capitalism was also a (natural) necessity: mentally healthy people would not establish a capitalist system at any point in time. Why would they harm themselves?
At some point in human development, conditions apparently arose that gave a few people the opportunity to gain power over many. But the fact that the few actually took advantage of this opportunity and the majority did not prevent it indicates that authoritarian disorders were already widespread.

How these disorders originally came about remains a mystery. It is worth considering the idea that they were the result of catastrophic natural events that caused prolonged hardship, hunger, powerless helplessness, despair, pent-up anger, and blockages of both empathy and the capacity for love. A hierarchical order may have formed in the struggle for scarce resources.[11] Once the associated authoritarian-destructive psychological and then social structures were in place, they could be imposed on later generations through education and on other peoples through wars.[12] For those who now stood at the top of these hierarchies, the preservation and expansion of power and possessions apparently became the decisive driving force. But these are also neurotic motives that do not explain themselves.

If this had indeed been the case, it would be an example of how being can shape the human psyche. In this case, however, being would not be social or economic, but ecological. And it would first have changed individuals, who then gradually created a new type of social constellation – which in turn had an effect on the individuals.

It has been proven that hierarchical constellations did not arise everywhere, certainly not at the same time, nor were they maintained everywhere. In their book Anfänge (english original: The Dawn of EverythingT: A New History of Humanity),[13] David Graeber and David Wengrow provide a detailed account of different social systems over the last millennia. What they document in terms of findings from anthropology, archaeology and historical science cannot be reconciled with Marx and Engels‘ assumption of humanity’s economic progress. It certainly does not fit into the sequence of stages canonised under Stalin: primitive society – slave society – feudalism – capitalism – socialism.[14]

The philosopher Eike Gebhardt summarises the approach taken by The Dawn of Everything as follows: The authors wanted to

„break down the entire narrative of social evolution: they consider the supposedly universal shift around 9,000 BC from primitive hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural civilisations, with the corresponding sudden primacy of private property and the administration and social hierarchy that became necessary as a result, to be anything but natural, let alone inevitable.[15] […]

Graeber and Wengrow do not offer an alternative logic of development; on the contrary, they argue that such a uniform logic of stages or even progress has never existed anywhere. People have always and everywhere experimented with all kinds of subsistence forms, and what is more, they have consciously compared and weighed up their advantages and disadvantages, often practising several forms – cattle breeding, hunting, cultivation, trade – at the same time, sometimes abandoning one or the other for centuries and later taking it up again.“[16]

David Wengrow and David Graeber, who died in 2020, were committed to anarchist thinking. This is probably one of the reasons why they tried to explain this diversity by saying that people simply do not want to commit themselves, but always like to try out different models, as if out of a playful instinct.[17]

I consider this to be absurd. It would mean that members of a society could get together and decide, for example: „We’ve lived well long enough now, let’s try fascism next year – we haven’t had that yet.“ Graeber and Wengrow also suffer from the lack of a developed view of human nature. They can neither explain the emergence of oppressive, hostile social structures nor their at least temporary and regional overcoming.

 

Another idea of revolution

Our innate prosocial potential urges us to develop. This means that we suffer when it cannot develop. We not only feel what we need, what is good for us, but also what causes us pain or fear, what harms us. Oppression always harms.

It is therefore only necessary to „turn“ adults into revolutionaries if their healthy inner standards were spoiled during childhood. Conversely, helping children to remain in touch with these standards preserves the crucial prerequisite for them to later consciously suffer under an alienating system such as capitalism[18] and to commit themselves to a more humane order.

Reich called the innate ability to feel appropriately and act accordingly acting appropriately as the „biological core“.[19] Since this core can be buried by education and „socialisation“ but never destroyed, it can be uncovered again throughout our lives, and the younger we are, the easier it is. For this reason, Alexander Neill, Scottish educator and close friend of Reich, was able to say about children: „Freedom cures most ills.“[20] Adults need more time and help to achieve this – which they can obtain in particular through therapy that uncovers problems and incorporates life history, consciousness, the unconscious, feelings and the body. Recognising, working through, alleviating or healing one’s own neuroses is revolutionary and makes us revolutionary again: more capable of constructive upheavals, both privately and socially. And it creates better conditions for accompanying children into life in a loving, non-authoritarian way.

But actively striving for good and equal partnerships and fulfilling sexuality, denouncing life-threatening, war-glorifying norms in schools, workplaces, the media, churches, politics and government, both privately and publicly, and seeking out like-minded people with whom to resist these norms – all these are ways of promoting humane conditions.

If adults worked on their disorders and protected children from developing them in the first place, significant positive changes would likely become apparent in the next generation at the latest: healthier people build a healthier society. The necessary economic „upheaval“ must be accompanied by a psychosocial revolution.[21] In contrast to economic upheaval, everyone can start tonight: with themselves.

Although the capitalist social system sets limits, much is possible within these limits – and the limits can be shifted. The development of the Federal Republic of Germany has also proven this. In the West German state of the 1970s and 1980s, democratic traits were not yet so massively suppressed as they are today, and life-affirming elements were more pronounced, as evidenced not only by an effective peace movement but also by the popularity of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, non-violent birth and non-authoritarian education.[22] I believe that Capitalism in the Federal Republic of Germany at that time was more humane than „real socialism“ under Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. This underlines once again that the abolition of capitalist production relations is not yet the solution.

Marx and Engels explained in 1845: „Communism is not for us a state to be achieved, an ideal to which reality must conform. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the present state of things.“[23] Since the „present state of things“ was and is not purely economic, but always had and has various aspects, it can and must be „abolished“ in various ways. Not least through meaningful changes in the psychosocial sphere.

If such changes succeed, the chances of a peaceful transition to a humane order increase. „The greater the mass base of the revolutionary movement, the less violence is necessary, and the more the masses‘ fear of revolution disappears,“ Reich wrote in 1934.[24] When not only the majority of the oppressed population – beyond workers – realise that urgent changes are needed, but even leaders and members of the power apparatus slowly dawn on the fact that things cannot go on like this, the hope for bloodless „upheavals“ increases.

Objectively speaking, it is not only the oppressed who live in inhumane conditions, but also the oppressors: exploiting people, dumbing them down, being responsible for mass misery, rapid environmental destruction and wars, for hundreds of thousands of deaths, is anything but desirable; it amounts to a completely wasted life, regardless of whether the perpetrators realise it or not. Who would want to trade places with them?

But they can only accomplish their deeds because they are sufficiently supported by their subjects – even if only by paying taxes that are used, for example, to finance arms exports. The state structures and the authoritarian elements instilled in us make us, consciously or unconsciously, accomplices of those in power, jointly responsible.[25]
It is therefore in all our interests to create humane conditions.

 

A different conception of the goal

Marx and Engels developed an indispensable analysis of capitalist economics and related factors, some of which is still valid today. They provide a wealth of information about what needs to be overcome and abolished – but little about what should replace it.[26]
In May 1893, Engels was asked by a journalist from the newspaper Le Figaro: „And what is your, the German socialists‘, ultimate goal?“ Engels looked at him for a few moments, then replied:

„But we have no final goal. We […] have no intention of dictating definitive laws to humanity. Preconceived opinions regarding the organisation of future society in detail? You will find no trace of that among us. We will be satisfied once we have placed the means of production in the hands of society as a whole […].“[27]

But was „society as a whole“ ready to deal appropriately with what Engels considered to be the decisive means of power and organisation? Not at all – and the social catastrophes of the 20th century did not have to prove this.

Engels himself, beginning with his work The Condition of the Working Class in England, had shown how inhumanely large sections of the population lived. Did he seriously believe that this suffering, which usually lasted a lifetime, all the oppression and stultification, would not have a lasting effect on people? Should those who had been deformed for decades by their „material existence“, whose consciousness had internalised „the ideas of the ruling classes“, be enlightened by the possession of the means of production, shed their authoritarian character structures, and suddenly be able to act independently and self-confidently?

He probably believed so. Similar to how, after 1945, leading officials in the „real socialism“ of the GDR believed that expropriating the capitalists, „denazification“ and „anti-fascist democratic reorganisation“ would make the „masses“ sufficiently revolutionary. But the patriarchal-authoritarian, life-denying norms and values that had been created over generations, deeply rooted in psychological structures and exacerbated by fascism, thwarted their superficially naive calculations.

The newly emerging positions of power were predominantly held by more or less dogmatic officials and bureaucrats who, in Stalin’s Soviet Union, were also inhumane and hostile to life. And the respective populations, fearful of authority as they had been brought up to be, were for the most part happy to continue being ruled.

The same thing happened in the GDR in 1990. The „leading role of the party“ was replaced by the leading role of corporate bosses instead of a better form of socialism. A backward roll into capitalism, but thank God: subordination was saved!

Of course, there were no concepts for a better socialism in the comprehensive sense. These could only have been developed on the basis of an appropriate critique of Marx and would have had to give due recognition to psychosocial factors.

But in „real socialism,“ it had almost completely disappeared from public consciousness that – even for the young Marx – the necessary economic changes were only a means to an end, namely the end of building an order in which people were no longer humiliated, enslaved, isolated and despised, but could develop their individual abilities and healthy needs. This means increasingly became the focus, ultimately almost an end in itself.

Marx and Engels had noted in The German Ideology: „Life […] consists above all of eating and drinking, housing, clothing and a few other things.“[28] Given the context, it is highly unlikely that they meant something psychological by „a few other things“. In 1989, the GDR had sufficient supplies of the items they listed and, unlike in the FRG, at prices that everyone could afford. However, as soon became apparent, the fact that economic plans were mostly fulfilled did not result in the majority of the population feeling that their needs were being met. The end of private appropriation of surplus value did not create a social order that the majority felt was indispensable.

Nevertheless, even today, many who call themselves Marxists do not use the well-being of the population or their justified satisfaction with their lives as the decisive criterion for assessing a state, but rather the extent to which the means of production are in the hands of capitalists („capital“).
If one follows this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it is clear that today’s China cannot be considered socialist – even though life expectancy, living standards, gender equality, legal certainty, healthcare, environmental conditions and personal satisfaction have improved dramatically in recent decades, and approval ratings for the state and government have reached levels that today’s „Western“ leaders can only dream of.[29]

Conversely, one would then have to say that even during the worst period of Stalinist mass murder in the Soviet Union, socialism prevailed. I consider this to be a perverse idea. In any case, socialist and humane would be completely different concepts in this context.
An obsession with economics also hinders or prevents us from finding our bearings in the current global political confrontation. Those who focus solely on production relations must tell themselves (or can conveniently tell themselves): „Capitalist states are active on all sides, there is no actor that is better or worse, I will remain a neutral ‚left-wing‘ observer, maintaining a sovereign ‚equidistance‘.“ Those who detach themselves from this will find criteria for positioning themselves here.

So if the core issue is not production relations, but rather enabling people to live good, fulfilling, meaningful and, ideally, often happy lives, economics can only be an auxiliary science on the path to achieving this. And a „view of the course of world history“ that sees the cause of „all important historical events […] in the economic development of society“[30] can only be one contribution among others that is worthy of consideration but also open to criticism because of its one-sidedness.

Approaching a humane order is possible and necessary in various ways. Economic upheavals are an essential part of this. However, this goal cannot be achieved through purely economic changes. It certainly cannot be defined in economic terms.
For this definition, we need answers to questions that are primarily psychological in nature: What is a „good“ life, what makes a person happy, what do we need to be truly satisfied, what exactly is „humane“?

Only to the extent that we develop a realistic, comprehensive, holistic view of humanity – one that takes into account psychosocial contexts as well as biological conditions and ecological dependencies – can we truly assess what a social order that suits us should look like.

The clearer we have such a goal in mind, the easier it will be for us to start running again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

German version of part 10.

Download the entire text as a PDF file.

Sources of the entire text (mostly in German).

Something more to read: We are not born warriors. On the psychosocial prerequisites for peacefulness and “warlike“ behavior

 

 

Notes

[1] See, for example, Hüther 2003; Solms/Turnbull 2004, pp. 138ff., 148; Tomasello 2010; Klein 2011; Bauer 2011; Bregman 2020.

[2] Further developed from Peglau 2024a.

[3] Marx 1971a, p. 9.

[4] „The fundamental question of all philosophy, especially modern philosophy, is the relationship between thinking and being“ (Engels 1975a, p. 274). Here, too, the conceptual ambiguity is striking: „thinking“ – Engels writes „feeling“ shortly afterwards – and „consciousness“ are equated.

[5] Otto Finger (1977), for example, used this as the title for a chapter in his book On Historical Materialism and Contemporary Tendencies to Distort It.

[6] Among other places, in 1844 in The Holy Family: „Hegel’s conception of history presupposes an abstract or absolute spirit that develops in such a way that humanity is merely a mass that carries it unconsciously or consciously“ (Marx/Engels 1972a, p. 89). In 1857, in the draft of an introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx (1971b, p. 639) wrote about a „still unconsciously hypocritical form“.

[7] In 1845, Marx and Engels (2017, p. 135) had noted: „Consciousness can never be anything other than conscious being.“ Taken as a yardstick, Marx’s statement is tautological: „Being determines being.“ However, when the individual psyche, subject to its own laws, is contrasted with the „being“ of society, the two sides are so different that it is worth distinguishing between them.

[8] Fromm 1989d, p. 364.

[9] Reich 2020, p. 195. Without believing that Marx (1969, p. 6) means the same thing here, I would like to point out the similar-sounding sentence from the Feuerbach Theses: „The coincidence of changing circumstances and human activity or self-change can only be understood as revolutionary practice and rationally understood.“

[10] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4ger_und_Sammler; cf. Scott 2019; Ryan/ Jetha 2016, pp. 177–244; Graeber/ Wengrow 2022, pp. 473–476. Marx (2021, p. 379) also reflected on the „secret of immutability“ of „self-sufficient communities,“ arriving at conclusions that changed over the years (Kuckenburg 2023, p. 41).

[11] Marx (1960b, p. 129) may have had similar connections in mind when he assumed that the despotism of the „Asian mode of production“ was largely due to water scarcity (cf. Kuckenburg 2023, pp. 21–58).

[12] Braumann/ Peglau 1991 (cf. https://historiablogweb.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/die-saharasia-these-oder-der-untergang-des-paradies/).

[13] Graeber/Wengrow 2022.

[14] Kuckenburg 2022, p. 27; Geiss 1974. Marx and Engels never described it in such strict chronological terms. In 1859, Marx (1971a, p. 9) wrote about „Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production“. He later replaced the term „Asian“, which he used very imprecisely, „with the term ‚archaic formation'“ (Wimmer 2019, p. 14, footnote 14) or with „natural communism“ (Weissgerber, quoted in Kuckenburg 2023, p. 57). Stalin then prohibited any study of the „Asian“ mode of production, which bore striking similarities to the system he had established (Kuckenburg 2023, p. 123f.).

[15] Scott (2019), whom Graeber and Wengrow also refer to, argues similarly here.

[16] Gebhardt 2022. For the beginnings, see also: Ongaro 2022; https://geschichtedergegenwart.ch/praehistorie-als-geschichte-der-gegenwart-ein-gespraech-ueber-anfaenge-von-david-graeber-und-david-wengrow-2/; https://www.perlentaucher.de/buch/david-graeber-david-wengrow/anfaenge.html.

[17] Graeber/ Wengrow 2022, p. 161f. (German version) and in many other places in the book.

[18] There is also no agreement on what „capitalism“ is (Sandkühler 2021, pp. 1192–1212). I use „capitalism“ as a synonym for a system in which the means of production, businesses and industries are so heavily privately owned, and wealth and political power are so concentrated in the hands of individual entrepreneurs, that society is largely dominated by them – a situation that bourgeois pseudo-democracy does nothing to change (cf. Mausfeld 2018).

[19] Cf. Peglau 2017b, pp. 48, 63, 108f.

[20] Neill 1992, p. 55. See: https://andreas-peglau-psychoanalyse.de/alexander-neills-summerhill-projekt-hoerbuch-kostenlos-herunterladen-und-anhoeren/

[21] For details, see Peglau 2017b, pp. 53–120. My thoughts on this are based on the concept of a „therapeutic culture“ introduced by psychotherapist Hans-Joachim Maaz in 1989 during the period of transition in the GDR (Peglau/Maaz 1990).

[22] The fact that there was a competitor in the form of the GDR, against which one wanted to present oneself as superior in these matters, also played an important role.

[23] Marx/Engels 2017, p. 37.

[24] Reich 1934, p. 56. See also Peglau 2024c.

[25] For details, see Peglau 2017b, pp. 87–115.

[26] This is demonstrated, certainly unwittingly, by Peter Hudis (2022), among others. He searched for Marx and Engels‘ thoughts on the „post-capitalist society,“ but can only refer to a few, partly speculative, detailed economic statements. The fantasies that Marx and Engels shared in The German Ideology are also half-baked. While in class society „everyone has a specific, exclusive sphere of activity“ from which they cannot escape – they are hunters, fishermen, shepherds or critical critics – must remain so if he does not want to lose the means of life,“ in „communist society […] he can train in any branch he likes,“ decide „to do this today, that tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon. In the evening, he can raise cattle and criticise after dinner, as I feel like doing, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic“ (Marx/Engels 2017, pp. 34, 37). Brodbeck (2018, p. 5) has rightly pointed out that more complicated tasks than fishing can hardly be adequately accomplished in this way.

[27] Engels 1977c, p. 542.

[28] Marx/Engels 2017, p. 26.

[29] See Elsner 2020, 2024; Peglau 2021.

[30] Engels 1972, p. 298.