LOUIS ALTHUSSER REPLIES

TO JOHN LEWIS

The following text is a reply to an article by John Lewis which appeared in two parts in the January and February
issues o f Marxism Today. The author has agreed to the addition o f a small number o f notes by the translator,
Grahame Lock, designed to clarify certain points fo r British readers. The sub-titles are also by the translator.
The author has seen the translation and notes.

and “ accom panied” it. It has seen the occupation

Part I o f Czechoslovakia by the armies o f the W arsaw
I. NEVER FORGET THE CLASS STRUGGLE! Pact nations. It has seen the war in Ireland, & c.
I w ant to th ank M arxism Today for having The Cultural Revolution and May 1968 have had
published John Lewis’ article about the books I ideological and political repercussions in the whole
have written on M arxist philosophy: For M arx capitalist world.
and Reading Capital, which appeared in France in
W ith hindsight one can judge things better.
1965. He took care to treat me in a special way, W ith the passing o f the period between the writing
in the way a medical specialist treats a patient. The o f the pieces collected in my books and the present
rest of the family, as it were, stood silent and still time— twelve, ten, seven years—one can look back'
at the bedside, while Dr. Lewis leaned over to and see more clearly whether one was right or wrong.
examine “ the Althusser case” .1 He made his
diagnosis. A very grave one: the patient is suffering It is really an excellent opportunity.
from an attack o f severe “ dogm atism ” . The progno­ Just one small point in this connection. John
sis is equally grave: the patient has not long to last. Lewis, in his article, never for one m om ent talks
It is an honour for this attention to be paid to about this political history o f the W orkers’ M ove­
me. But it is also an opportunity for me to clear up ment. In For M arx—that is, in 1965—1 was already
certain m atters, twelve years after the event. For writing about Stalin, about the Twentieth Congress
my first article (reprinted in For M arx), which was o f the Soviet Com m unist Party, and about the
concerned with the question of the “ young M arx” , split in the International Com m unist Movement.
actually appeared in 1960, and I write in 1972. John Lewis, on the other hand, writes as if Stalin
had never existed, as if the Twentieth Congress and
Philosophy and Politics the split in the International Com munist Movement
A good deal o f water has flowed under the: bridge had never occurred, as if the Proletarian C ultural
of history since 1960. The W orkers’ M ovem ent has Revolution had never taken place, nor the occupa­
been touched by many im portant events. It has seen tion o f Czechoslovakia, nor the war in Ireland,
the Proletarian C ultural Revolution in China & c. John Lewis is a pure spirit, he prefers not to
(1966-69). It has seen the greatest- w orkers’ strike talk ab o u t such concrete things as politics.
in world history—ten million French workers on W hen he talks about philosophy, he talks about
strike for a m onth (M ay 1968), as well as the philosophy. Just that. Full stop.
im portant ideological revolt am ong French students It has to be said that this is precisely what the
and petty-bourgeois intellectuals which “ preceded” m ajority o f so-called philosophy teachers do in our
bourgeois society. The last thing they want to talk
1 The title of John Lewis’ article was The Althusser
Case. And in his conclusion, the author compares about is politics! They would rather talk about
Marxism to . . . medicine. philosophy. Full stop. T hat is just why Lenin,
23
 quoting Dietzgen, called them “ graduated flunkies” sophy is politics in a concentrated form. This is a
of the bourgeois state2. W hat a wretched sight they “ schematic” formula. N o m atter! It expresses its
make! For all the great philosophers in history, meaning quite well.
since the time of Plato, even the great bourgeois Everything that happens in philosophy has, in the
philosophers— not only the materialists but even last instance, not only political consequences in
idealists like Hegel—have talked about politics. philosophy, but also political consequences in
They m ore or less recognised that to do philosophy politics', in the political class struggle.
was to do politics in the field o f theory. And they We will show in a m om ent why that is so.
had the courage to do their politics openly, to talk O f course, since I cite Engels and Lenin in support
about politics. of my point, John Lewis will surely say, once again,
Heaven be thanked, John Lewis has changed all that 1 am talking like “ the last cham pion o f an
that. John Lewis is a Marxist and we are in 1972. orthodoxy in grave difficulties” . O.K.! I am the
He does not feel the need to talk about politics. defender of orthodoxy, of that “ orthodoxy” which
Let someone work that one out. is called the theory of M arx and Lenin, is this
But to M arxism Today I must express my thanks orthodoxy in “ grave difficulties” ? Yes, it is and has
for giving an im portant place to a discussion about been since it came to birth. And these grave diffi­
philosophy. It is quite correct to give it this im­ culties are the difficulties posed by the threat of
portant place. The point has been m ade not only bourgeois ideology. John Lewis says that 1 am
by Engels and of course by Lenin, but by Stalin “ crying in the wilderness” . Is that so? No, it is not!
himself! A nd, as we know, it has also been made For Com m unists, when they are Marxists, and
by Gram sci and by M ao: the working class, needs Marxists when they are Com m unists, never cry in
philosophy in the class struggle. They need not only the wilderness. Even when they are alone.
the M arxist ir/V«c£'of history (historical materialism ), Why is th at? We shall see.
but also M arxist philosophy (dialectical materialism). 1 therefore take my stand on this theoretical
W hy? basis of M arxism—a basis which is “ orthodox”
I should like to reply by using a form ula. I will precisely in so far as it is in conform ity with the
take the (personal) risk of putting it this way: the theory o f Marx and Lenin. And it is on this basis
reason is that philosophy is, in the last instance* that I want to take issue both with John Lewis and
class struggle in the field o f theory. 4 See note 3. Althusser’s formulae may be compared
All this is perfectly orthodox. Engels, whom with a number of propositions he put forward on the
Lenin quotes on this point in What is to he Done?, same question in 1969, in the article “ Lenin before
wrote in 1874 in a supplement to his Preface to Hegel’’ (Lenin and Philosophy, pp. 103-120):
The Peasant War that there are three forms o f the "I. Philosophy is not a science, and it has no object,
class struggle. The class struggle has not only an in the sense in which a science has an object.
economic form and a political form but also a “2. Philosophy is a practice of political intervention
carried out in a theoretical form.
theoretical form. O r if you prefer: the same class
“3. It intervenes essentially in two privileged domains,
struggle exists and m ust be fought out by the pro­ the political domain of the effects of the class struggle
letariat in the economic field, in the political field and the theoretical domain of the effects of scientific
and in the theoretical field. When it is fought out practice.
in the theoretical field, the class struggle is called "4. In its essence, it is itself produced in the theoretical
philosophy. domain by the conjunction of the effects of the class
struggle and the effects of scientific practice.
Now some people will say that all this is nothing "5. It therefore intervenes politically, in a theoretical
but words. But th at is not true. These words are form, in the two domains, that of political practice and
weapons in the class struggle in the field o f theory, that of scientific practice: these two domains of inter­
and since this is part of the class struggle as a whole, vention being its domains, insofar as it is itself produced
and since the highest level of the class struggle is the by the combination of effects from these two practices.
political class struggle, it follows that these words "6. All philosophy expresses a class position, a ‘partisan­
ship’ in the great debate which dominates the whole
which are used in philosophy are weapons in the
history of philosophy, the debate between idealism and
political struggle. materialism.
Lenin wrote that “ politics is economics in a “7. The Marxist-Leninist revolution in philosophy
concentrated form ” . We can now add th at philo­ consists of a rejection of the idealist conception of
philosophy (philosophy as an "interpretation of the world')
- See V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, which denies that philosophy expresses a class position,
in Collected Works, Moscow 1962, vol. 14, p. 340. although it always does so itself, and the adoption of the
(Translator’s note) proletarian class position in philosophy, which is
3 One must always add: in the last instance, so as not materialist, i.e. the inauguration of a new materialist
to be misunderstood. 1 will explain in another place why and revolutionary practice of philosophy which induces
it is necessary to be precise in this way, not simply to effects of class division in theory.
say that philosophy is class struggle in the field of theory, “All these Theses can be found in Materialism and
but to add that it is in the last instance that this is the Empirio-criticism (by Lenin). All 1 have done is to begin
case. to make them more explicit” . (Translator’s note)
24 A U S T R A L I A N L E F T R E V IE W - D E C E M B E R , 1 9 7 2
with my own past errors, on the basis o f the need Well, let us follow our guide to M arxist philosophy
to carry on the class struggle in the field of theory, and see how John Lewis sums up his own view of
as Engels and Lenin argued, and on the basis of the Marx. He does it in three formulae, which 1 will call
definition o f philosophy which 1 have proposed in three Theses,s
this article: philosophy is, in the last instance, class
struggle in the field o f theory.
How John Lewis sees Marx
1 will therefore leave aside all the rather im prudent
1. Thesis no. I. It is man who makes history.
rem arks, some o f them “ psychological” , which
John Lewis’ proof: no need o f proof, since it is
John Lewis thought it useful to make at the end of
obvious, it is quite evident, everyone knows it.
his article, about Althusser's “whole style o f life and
John Lewis’ example: revolution. Man makes
writing". John Lewis is for example very worried,
revolution.
very put out, quite upset—good “ hum anist” that he
2. Thesis no. 2. Man makes history by remaking
is—by the fact th at Althusser “argues exhaustively
existing history, by “ transcendence” , by the “ nega­
and with an extreme dogm atism ” , in a way which
tion o f the negation” o f existing history.
makes him think not so much o f the Scholastics,
John Lewis’ proof: since it is m an who makes
who were great philosophers o f the M iddle Ages,
history, it follows that in order to make history man
but of the schoolmen, com m entators o f com m enta­
must transform the history which he has already
tors, erudite splitters o f philosophical hairs, who
made (since it is m an who has made history). To
could not rise above the level o f quotation. Thank
transform what one has already made is to “ tra n ­
you! But really, this kind o f argum ent has no place
scend” it, to negate what exists. And since what
in a debate between Com m unists in the journal o f a
exists is the history which m an has already made, it
C om m unist Party. I will not follow John Lewis onto
is already negated history. To make history is
this ground.
therefore “ to negate the negation” , and so on
1 approach John Lewis as a com rade, as a m ilitant
w ithout end.
of a fraternal party: the Com munist Party of G reat
John Lewis’ example: revolution. To make
Britain. In the face of the history of the W orkers’
revolution, man “ transcends” (“ negates” ) existing
M ovement, in the face of the theoretical and
history, itself the “ negation” o f the history which
practical work o f Marx and of Lenin, all Com m unist
preceded it.
Parties are equal, in virtue o f proletarian inter­
3. Thesis no. 3. M an only knows what he him self
nationalism. And all their m ilitants are equal.
does.6
I will try to speak plainly and clearly, in a way that
John Lewis’ proof: no proof, probably because o f
can be understood by all such militants.
lack o f space. So let us work one out for him. He
So as not to m ake my reply too long, 1 will only
could have taken the case of science and said that
take up those theoretical questions which are m ost
the scientist “ only knows what he himself does”
im portant, politically speaking, for us today, in 1972.
because he is the one who has to work out his proof,
either by experiment or by dem onstration (m athe­
II. WHAT WORRIES JO H N LEWIS? matics).
To understand my reply, the reader must obviously John Lewis’ example: no example. So let us
know what John Lewis, in his “ radical” critique of provide one. John Lewis could have taken history
my “ philosophical writings” , essentially holds as an example: m an's knowledge of history comes
against me. from the fact that he is the one who m akes it. This
In a few words, we can sum this up as follows. is like the Thesis o f G iam battista Vico: verum
John Lewis holds: factum .7
1. th at I do not understand M arx’s philosophy,
2. that I do not understand the history o f the 5 In a Philosophy Course for Scientists (given in 1967
formation o f M arx’s thought. and to be published) I proposed the following definition:
In short, his reproach is that I do not understand “ Philosophy states propositions which are Theses". It
M arxist theory. therefore differs from the sciences: “a science states
T hat is his right. propositions which are Demonstrations".
I will consider these two points in succession. 6 See Part I of John Lewis’ article, p. 46. Lewis writes
that Marx “does not present us with any system. Had he
thought one necessary he would certainly have con­
III. structed one. What he has in mind is the development
First point: Althusser does not understand M arx's of consciousness, of understanding, of the possibilities,
philosophy. the problems, the opportunities and necessities in the
T o dem onstrate this point, John Lewis employs a actual social situation. This Marx calls praxis, because it
very simple m ethod. First he sets out M arx’s real is always concrete, always we are involved and acting,
philosophy, which is M arx as he understands him. and therefore thinking as we act, and acting as we think.”
Then, beside this, he puts A lthusser’s interpretation. (Translator’s note).
You ju st have to com pare them, it seems, to see the 7 Verum factum: “ that which is true is that which has
difference! been done” . Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) was an
25
A little Difficulty for John Lewis with his “ transcendence.” John Lewis uses the term
These then are the three Theses which sum up “ transcendence” (negation o f the negation) only for
John Lewis’ idea o f M arx’s philosophy: history. W hy? We have to work out the answer, for
Thesis no. I: It is man who makes history. John Lewis himself does not provide any explana­
Thesis no. 2: Man makes history by transcending tion.
history. In my opinion, John Lewis holds on to his
Thesis no. 3: M anonly knowswhat hehim self does. “ transcendence” for the following reason: because
This is all very simple. Everyone “ understands” the the raw m aterial o f history is already history. The
words involved: man, make, history, know. There is carpenter’s raw m aterial is wood. But the carpenter
only one word which is a bit com plicated, a “ philo­ who “ m akes” the table would never say that he was
sopher’s” w ord: “ transcendence” , or “ negation of the one who “ made” the wood, because he knows
the negation” . But if he wanted to, John Lewis could very well that it is nature which produces the wood.
say the sam e thing more simply. Instead o f saying: Before a tree can be cut up and sold off as planks, it
m an m akes history, in transcending it, by the first has to have grown somewhere in the forest,
“ negation o f the negation” , he could say th at man either in the same country or thousands o f miles
makes history by “ transform ing” it, &c. W ouldn’t away on the other side o f the equator.
th at be m ore sim ple? Now, for John Lewis it is m an who has made the
But a little difficulty still remains. W hen John history with which he makes history. In history man
Lewis says th at it is man who m akes history, produces everything: it is not only the result, the
everyone understands. Or rather, everyone thinks he product of his “ labour” , which is history: so is the
understands. But when it is a question o f going raw material that he transform s. Aristotle said that
further, when John Lewis honestly asks him self the man is a two-legged, reasoning, speaking, political
question: “ what is it that m an does when he makes animal. Franklin, quoted by M arx in Capital, said
history ?” , then you realize that a nasty problem that m an is a “ toolm aking anim al” . John Lewis is a
appears just when everything seemed simple, that philosopher o f quite another class from A ristotle or
there is a nasty obscurity just in the place where Marx. John Lewis says th at m an is not only a tool-
everything seemed clear. m aking anim al, but an anim al who makes history, in
W hat was obscure? The little word make, in the the strong sense, because he makes everything. He
Thesis “ it is m an who makes history” . W hat can this “ m akes” the raw m aterial. He makes the instru­
little word make possibly mean, when we are talking ments o f production (John Lewis says nothing about
about history? Because when you say: “ I m ade a these—and for good reason! Because otherwise he
m istake” o r “ I made a trip around the w orld” , would have to talk about the class struggle, and his
or when a carpenter says: “ I made a table” , &c., “ m an who makes history” would disappear in one
everyone knows what the term “ make” means. The flash, together with the whole system). And he m akes
sense o f the word changes according to the expres­ the final product: history.
sion, but in each case we can easily explain what it
means. A Little Human God
F or example, when a carpenter “ m akes” a table, D o you know o f any being under the sun endowed
that means he constructs it. But to make history? with such a pow er? Yes—there does exist such a
W hat can th at m ean? And the man who makes being in the tradition o f hum an culture: God. Only
history, do you know that individual, that “ species G od “ m akes” the raw m aterial with which he
of individual” , as Hegel used to say? “ m akes” the world. But there is a very im portant
So John Lewis sets to work. He does not try to difference. John Lewis’ G od is not outside o f h isto ry :
avoid the problem : he confronts it. And he explains he is inside. And it is just because John Lewis’ little
the thing. He tells us: to “ m ake” , in the case of human god—m an— is inside history (‘Vn situation",
history, that means to “ transcend” (negation of the as our good Jean-Paul Sartre used to say) that Lewis
negation), th at means to transform the raw material does not endow him with a power o f absolute
o f existing history by going beyond it. So far, so creation (when one creates everything, it is relatively
good. easy: there are no constraints!) but som ething even
But the carpenter who “ m akes” a table, he has a more stupefying—the power o f “ transcendence” ,
“ raw m aterial” in front of him too: the wood. And of being able indefinitely to supersede the history in
he transform s the wood into a table. But John Lewis which he lives, the power to transcend history by his
would never say th at the carpenter "transcends” the hum an liberty.8
wood in order to “ m ake” a table out o f it. A nd he is
right. F o r if he said that, the first carpenter who came 8 1 do not know John Lewis’ personal philosophical
along, and all the other carpenters and all the other history. But I am not sticking my neck out much in
working people in the world would send him packing betting that he has a weakness for Jean-Paul Sartre.
Italian philosopher of history, famous for his "new His Marxism in fact bears a remarkable resemblance to
science of humanity” . He claimed that we can know the a (pale) copy of Sartrian existentialism, in a slightly
social world precisely because it is we who have made it. Hegelianised version, which no doubt makes it more
He wrote the Scienza niiova. (Translator’s note) easily acceptable to Communist readers._____________
A U S T R A L I A N L E F T R E V IE W - D E C E M B E R , 1 9 7 2
26
 John Lewis’ man is a little lay god. Like every British Com munist Party. He can, if I may say so,
living being he is “ up to his neck" in reality, but rest assured: he is certainly not crying in the wilder­
endowed with the prodigious power o f being able ness! He is not the only person to take up this
at any mom ent to step outside o f that reality, of theme. He is in the com pany o f many Com munists."
being able to change its character. A little Sartrian Everyone knows that. But why should it be that
god, always "en situation" in history, endowed with since the nineteen-sixties it has been so easy to find
the amazing power o f “ transcending” every situa­ Com m unists eager to resurrect this worn-out
tion, o f resolving all the difficulties which history philosophy of petty-bourgeois liberty and yet still
presents, and o f going forward tow ards the golden claiming to be M arxists?
future of the hum an, socialist revolution: man is a We shall see.
free anim al.
Please excuse all this if you are not a philosopher. IV. WHAT DOES MARXISM SAY A BOLT
We philosophers are well acquainted with this kind HISTORY?
of argum ent. A nd we Com m unist philosophers know But first, 1 shall do like John Lewis. I shall com pare
that this old line in philosophy has always had its John Lewis’ “ M arxist” Theses with the Theses of
political consequences. M arxist-Leninist philosophy. And everyone will be
The first people who talked about “ transcendence” able to see the difference and judge.
in philosophy were the idealist-religious philosophers 1 will go over the points in John Lewis’ order. That
of Plato’s school: the Platonic and neo-Platonic way things will be clearer. I am m aking an enorm ous
philosophers. They had an urgent need o f the concession to John Lewis by taking hisorder, because
category o f “ transcendence” in order to be able to his order is idealist. But we will do him the favour.
construct their philosophical or religious theology, To understand w hat follows, note that in the case
and this theology was then the official philosophy of of each Thesis (1,2,3) I begin by repeating Lewis’
the slave state. N o need to say m ore. Later, in the Thesis and then state the M arxist-Leninist Thesis.
Middle Ages, the A ugustinian and Thom ist theo­
logians took up the same category again and used it 1. Thesis no. 1.
in systems whose function was to serve the interests John Lewis: It is man who makes history.
of the C hurch and feudal state (the ideological state Marxism-Leninism: It is the masses which make
apparatus o f the C hurch is the num ber one ideo­ history.
logical state apparatus o f the feudal state). N o need W hat are these masses which “ make history” ?
to say more. In a class society they are the exploited masses, that
M uch later, with the rise o f the bourgeoisie, the is, the exploited social classes, social strata and social
notion o f “ transcendence” received, in Hegelian categories, grouped around the exploited class
philosophy, a new function: the same category, but capable of uniting them in a movement against the
“ w rapped” in the veil o f the “ negation o f the dom inant class which holds state power.
negation” . This time it served the bourgeois state. The exploited class capable of doing this is not
It was quite simply the philosophical name for always the most exploited class, or the most wretched
bourgeois liberty. It was then revolutionary in social “ stratum ” .
relation to the philosophical systems o f feudal In Antiquity, for example, it was not the slaves
“ transcendence” . But it was one hundred per cent (except in a few periods—Spartacus) who “ m ade”
bourgeois, and th at is the way it stays. history in the strong, political sense of the term, but
Since th at time, Jean-Paul Sartre has taken up the the m ost exploited classes am ong the “ free” men (at
same idea once more, in his theory of man "en Rome, the urban or rural “ plebs” ).10
situation"', the petty-bourgeois version of bourgeois In the same way, under capitalism the “ lumpen-
liberty. A nd Sartre is not alone, for transcendence proletariat” , as M arx called it, groups together the
has flourished even since his early days, am ong for m ost wretched of men. But it is not a class, and
example large num bers o f theologians, both reac­ certainly not the class which is exploited in capitalist
tionary and avant-garde, and even am ong the “ red” pro d u ctio n : that is, the proletariat. It is around the
theologians o f G erm any and Holland, of Spain and proletariat th at you will find grouped the masses who
Latin America. The bourgeois no longer needs to
believe—and anyway has for thirty years no longer 9 Althusser is of course not only or even specially
been able to believe—that his liberty is all-embracing. referring to the British Communist Party. His argument
But the petty-bourgeois intellectual, yes! The more is that the struggle between the positions he outlines is
his liberty is crushed and denied by the development taking place or must take place wherever what he calls
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois Theses have penetrated
o f imperialism, the more he exalts its power (“ trans­
Marxism. (Translator’s note)
cendence” , “ negation o f the negation” ). The
“ conscious” petty-bourgeois exists in his perfect 10 It is not certain—here I shall have to bow to the
judgement of Marxist historians—that the slave class
form only when he protests. The petty-bourgeois
did not, in spite of everything, quietly but genuinely
ideologist is an animal o f protest! “ make history” . The transition from the small-property
John Lewis now, in 1972, takes up the old argu­ slave system to the.large-scale system at Rome had its
ments in his turn, in the theoretical journal of the historical effects.
27
 “ m ake history” , who are going to “ m ake history” — o f a quite different kind.
th at is, who are going to make the revolution which The question is no longer posed in term s of "m an”.
will break o u t in the “ weakest link” o f the world T hat m uch we know. But in the proposition that
im perialist chain. “ the class struggle is the motor of history” , the
Against Jo h n Lewis’ Thesis—it is m an who makes question o f “ m aking” history is also eliminated. It
history— M arxism-Leninism has always opposed the is no longer, th at is, a question of looking for a
Thesis: it is the masses which m ake history. U nder “ subject” o f history. It is no longer a question of
capitalism , the masses can be defined as the set of who m akes history.
exploited classes, strata and categories grouped M arxism-Leninism, then tells us something quite
around the exploited class in large-scale production, different: that it is the class struggle (new concept)
around the only class capable o f directing their which is the motor (new concept) of history, it is
action against the bourgeois state. C om pare the the class struggle which moves history, which
two Theses. advances it. This Thesis is o f very great im portance,
2. Thesis no. 2. because it puts the class struggle in the front rank.
John Lewis: M an makes history by “ transcending”
history. Absolute Primacy of the Class Struggle
M arxism-Leninism: The class struggle is the motor In the preceding Thesis: “ it is the masses which
o f history (Thesis o f the Communist M anifesto, 1847). make history” , the accent was put (1) on the ex­
Here things become extremely interesting. Because ploited classes grouped around the class capable
M arxism-Leninism blows up John Lewis’ whole o f uniting them , and (2) on their power to carry
philosophical system. How ? through a revolutionary transform ation o f history.
John Lewis has said: it is m an who m akes history. It was therefore the masses which were put in the
To which M arxism-Leninism replied: it is the masses. front rank.
But if we went no further, we would give the In the Thesis taken from the Communist M ani­
impression th at M arxism-Leninism gives a different festo, w hat is put in the front rank is no longer the
reply to the same question. That question being: exploited classes, &c., but the class struggle. This
who makes history ? This question therefore supposes Thesis is decisive for M arxism-Leninism. It draws
that history is the result of the action of a subject, a radical dem arcation line between revolutionaries
of what th at subject does. F or John Lewis, the and reformists.
subject is man. F or M arxism-Leninism, the subject F or the reform ists (even if they call themselves
would be the masses. Marxists) it is not the class struggle which is in the
Yes and no. When we started to sketch out a front rank: it is the classes. Let us take a simple
definition of the masses, when we argued about this example, and suppose th at we are dealing with just
idea o f the masses, we saw that the whole thing was two classes. F or the reform ists these classes exist
rather com plicated. The masses are actually several before the class struggle, a bit like two football
social classes, social strata and social categories teams exist, separately, before the match. Each
grouped together in a way which is both complex class exists in its own cam p, lives according to its
and changing (the positions of the different classes particular conditions of existence. One class may be
and strata, and of course the fractions o f classes exploiting another, but for reformism that is not
within the classes, change in the course o f the the same thing as class struggle. One day the two
revolutionary process itself). And we are dealing classes come up against one another and come into
with huge num bers: in France and Britain, for conflict. They begin a hand-to-hand battle, the
example, with millions of people, in C hina with battle becomes acute, and finally the exploited class
hundreds o f millions! Can anyone still claim that defeats its enemy. T hat is revolution. However you
we are talking about a "subject"! C om pared with turn the thing around, you will always find the same
John Lewis’ “ subject” , as simple and neat as you idea here: the classes exist before the class struggle,
can imagine, the masses, considered as a “ subject” , independently o f the class struggle. The class struggle
pose nasty problem s of identity and identification. exists only afterwards.
A subject is a being about which we can say: Revolutionaries, on the other hand, consider th at
“ th at’s it!” How do we do that when the masses it is impossible to separate the classes from class
are supposed to be the “ subject” ? struggle. The class struggle and the existence of
It is precisely the Thesis o f the Communist classes are one and the sam e thing. In order for
M anifesto— “ the class struggle is the m otor of there to be classes in a “ society” , the society has
history” —th at brings this problem into the open, to be divided into classes: this division is the ex­
which shows us how to pose it properly an d there­ ploitation o f one class by another. It is therefore
fore how to solve it. the class struggle, for exploitation is already class
It is the masses which “ m ake” history, but “ it is struggle. You m ust therefore begin with the class
the class struggle which is the m otor o f history” . struggle if you w ant to understand class division
T o John Lewis’ question: “ how does m an m ake and the classes. The class struggle must be put in the
history?” , M arxism-Leninism replies by replacing front rank.
his idealist philosophical categories with categories But th at m eans th at our Thesis 1 (it is the masses
28 A U S T R A L I A N L E F T R E V IE W - D E C E M B E R , 1 9 7 2
which make history) m ust be explained in term s of of “ m an” . They are determ ined by the class struggle,
Thesis 2 (the class struggle is the motor o f history). by the state o f the W orkers’ M ovement, by the
That means that the revolutionary power o f the ideology of this m ovement (petty-bourgeois or
masses comes from the class struggle. And that proletarian), by its forms o f organisation and its
means th at it is not enough, if you want to under­ relation to the scientific theory of the class struggle,
stand w hat is happening in the world, just to look M arxist theory. All Com m unists know that.
at the exploited classes. Y ou also have to look at 3. Thesis No. 3
the exploiting classes. Better, you have to go beyond John Lewis: Man only knows what he him self does.
the football m atch idea, the idea o f two antagonistic Marxism-Leninism: One can only know what exists.
groups of classes, to examine the basis of the A big difference! For John Lewis man only
existence not only o f classes but also o f the antagon­ knows what he himself “ does” . F or dialectical
ism between classes: that is, the class struggle. m aterialism, the philosophy o f M arxism-Leninism,
Absolute prim acy o f the class struggle (M arx, one can only know what exists. That is the basic
Lenin). Never forget the class struggle (M ao). m aterialist Thesis: the primacy of being over thought.
Now the class struggle does not go on in the air, T hat is where we have to begin in philosophy.
or on som ething like a football pitch. It is rooted in
the m ode o f production and exploitation in a given Materialism and Science
class society. Y ou therefore have to consider the This Thesis is at one and the same time a Thesis
material basis o f the class struggle, that is, the about existence, about m ateriality and about
m aterial existence o f the class struggle. It is the unity
objectivity. It means not only that one can only
o f the relations o f production and the productive know what exists, but also that what exists is
forces o f a given m ode of production, in a concrete both "m aterial" — that is, distinct from the "m ental"
historical social form ation, which is at the same time character of the thought by which it is know n—
the “ basis” (M arx) of the class struggle and its and objective—that is, exists independently of the
m aterial existence. It is this profound truth which subjectivity which knows it.
M arxism-Leninism expresses in the well-known T hat o f course does not mean that Marxist
Thesis o f class struggle in the infrastructure, in philosophy denies the activity o f thought, that it
the economy, in class exploitation, and in the Thesis denies practical scientific work, the work o f experi­
that all the form s o f the class struggle are rooted in ment in the natural sciences or the work of historical
economic class struggle. experiment represented by political work (for M arx­
W hen that is clear, the question of the “ subject" ists, the proletarian class struggle). On the contrary!
of history disappears. History is an immense Marx and Lenin even said that certain idealist
natural-human system in movement, and the m otor philosophers (Hegel, for example) had understood
o f history is class struggle. History is a process, and the principle of this activity better than certain
a process without a subject.'1 m aterialist philosophers. That is how we "get into”
The question about how “man makes history" the dialectical Theses of M arxist-Leninist philosophy.
disappears altogether. M arxist theory leaves it to But—and here it differs fundam entally from John
bourgeois ideology. Lewis— Marxism-Leninism has always subordinated
And with it disappears the “ necessity” of the the dialectical Theses to the materialist Theses. It is
concept o f “ transcendence” and its subject, man. thanks to scientific work th at we can know w hat
T hat does not mean that “ m en” , the individuals, exists. But we only ever have knowledge of what
disappear. F o r social classes are m ade up of hum an exists. Knowing som ething is not the same as
individuals. But these classes are certainly not just “ m aking” or “ doing” it.
all those individuals “ added together” . They have As far as nature is concerned, there is no problem.
material conditions o f existence. N or does it mean W ho would argue that it was m an who “ m ade” the
that the question of political action disappears: nature which he comes to know! Only idealists, or
rather only that crazy species of idealists who
for the class struggle, in the last instance, is practical,
which means that it is a struggle of the organised attribute G od’s omnipotence to man. Even idealists
masses for the conquest and retention of state are not normally so stupid.
power. N o r does it mean that the question of the But what about history? We know that the
revolutionary p arty disappears, because w ithout Thesis: “ it is man who makes history” has, literally,
such a party the conquest o f state power by the no meaning. But a trace o f it remains in the idea
exploited masses under the leadership of the pro­ that history is easier to understand than nature
letariat is impossible. because it is “ hum an” . T hat is the idea o f G iam ­
But it does m ean that the “ role o f the individual battista Vico.
in history” , the existence, nature, objectives and Well, Marxism-Leninism is categorical on this
practice o f the revolutionary party are not deter­ point. History is as difficult to understand as nature.
mined by “ transcendence” , that is, by the free will Or, rather, it is even m ore difficult to understand.
W hy? Because “ m en” always think they understand
11 This idea 1 put forward in a brief study called “On it, because each ruling and exploiting class offers
the Relation of Marx to Hegel” (February 1968). them “ its” explanation o f history—in the form o f
29
its own dom inant ideology, which serves its class m athem aticians) of its truth. Because all scientific
interests and keeps “ m en” under its heel. knowledge really is the result o f a process w ithout
Look at the M iddle Ages. The C hurch offered any subject o r goal. This is undoubtedly a Thesis
all its flock—that is to say, prim arily the exploited which is difficult to understand. But it gives a very
masses—a very simple and clear explanation of im portant insight, not only into scientific w ork
history. H istory is made by G od, and obeys the but also into the political struggle.
laws or follows the ends o f Providence. Yes, it has both scientific and political con­
Look at the eighteenth century in France. The sequences.
situation is different: the bourgeoisie is not yet in You will remem ber the definition o f philosophy
power, it is critical and revolutionary. And it offers which I proposed: philosophy is, in the last instance,
to everyone (w ithout distinction o f class, not only class struggle in the field o f theory.
to the bourgeoisie itself and its allies but also to the If philosophy is class struggle in the field of
people it exploits) an “ enlightened” explanation of theory, it is political. A nd it has political effects.
history: history is moved by Reason, and it obeys But if it is class struggle in the field o f theory, it
the laws or follows the ends of Truth, R eason and has theoretical effects, both in the sciences and in
Liberty. certain ideologies. It also o f course has effects in
If history is difficult to understand scientifically, all the other fields o f hum an activity, from the
it is because between real history and men there “ struggle for production” (M ao) to art, etc.
always come a class-ideological explanation of But I cannot deal with everything here. I will just
history, a class philosophy o f history in which the say that, as class struggle in the field o f theory,
masses spontaneously believe. W hy? Because this philosophy has two m ain effects: in politics and
ideology is pumped into them by the ruling or in the sciences, in political practice and
ascending class, and serves class exploitation. In in scientific practice. All C om m unists know that,
the eighteenth century the bourgeoisie is already an or ought to know it, because M arxism-Leninism
exploiting class. has never ceased to repeat it and to argue for it.
To succeed in piercing this ideological and
idealist “ sm okescreen” of the ruling classes, the Part II
special circumstances of the first half of the nine­
teenth century were required: the class struggles
following the French Revolution, the first proletarian PH ILOSO PH Y AND REVISIONISM
class struggles, plus English political economy,
plus French socialism. The result o f these circum- I
staces was M arx’s discovery. He was the first to Let us prove the point about the scientific and
open up the “continent” o f history to scientific political effects o f philosophical Theses by com ­
knowledge. paring John Lewis’ Theses with the Theses o f
But in history, as in nature, m an only knows Marxism-Leninism. T hat way we shall be able to
w hat exists. There is no autom atic relation between see how philosophy “ functions” .
what he knows and what he “ does” . The fact that, John Lewis' Thesis: It is man who makes history.
in order to get to know what really does exist, an Theses o f Marxism-I.eninism: It is the masses
enorm ous am ount of scientific work and gigantic which make history. The class struggle is the motor
practical struggles were necessary, does not disprove o f history.
the point. One can only know what exists. Let us look at the effects o f these Theses.
But we m ust go further. You will notice that I
said th at the M arxist-Leninist Thesis is not M an Effects in the Field of Science
can only know “ w hat exists” , but: “ one can only W hen someone now, in 1972, defends the Thesis
know w hat exists” . Here too the term “ m an” has that it is m an who makes history, what effect does
disappeared. We should say in this respect that that have as far as the science o f history is concerned ?
scientific history, like all history, is a “process Can one make use o f it to produce some scientific
without a subject” , and that scientific knowledge, knowledge?
even when it is the work o f a particular individual In fact, it is o f no use at all from this point o f view.
scientist, is actually the result o f a complex process John Lewis does not show how one could get
which has no real subject or goal. T hat is how it is anything out o f it which might be o f use in teaching
with M arxist science. It was M arx who “ discovered” us about the way the class struggle works. You
it, but as the result of a complex process, com bining might say that he lacked the space to do so in a
G erm an philosophy, English political economy single article. So let us turn to his “ M aster” , Jean-
and French socialism, the whole thing based on the Paul Sartre, to the philosopher o f “ hum an liberty” ,
struggles between the bourgeoisie and working o f m an-projecting-him self-into-the-future (transcen­
class. All Com m unists know that. dence), o f m an “ en situation", “ transcending his
Scientists, in general, do not know it. But if they
are prepared to, C om m unists can help to persuade 1 See John Lewis, The Althusser Case, in Marxism
scientists (including natural scientists, including Today, January and February 1972. (Translator’s note)
30 A U S T R A L I A N L E F T R E V IE W - D E C E M B E R , 1 9 7 2
place in the w orld” by his liberty. This fam ous use G aston Bachelard’s term ).3 We are forced to say
philosopher has written two enorm ous books— that their Thesis produces effects which are extremely
Being and Nothingness (1939), and later a book which harm ful to scientific knowledge, retrogressive effects,
deals with history and M arxism, Critique o f Dia­ because instead o f helping us, in 1972, to understand
lectical Reason (1960). M ore than two thousand the great scientific treasure th at we possess in the
pages. Did Jean-Paul Sartre m anage to use the knowledge given us by M arx, they go back to zero.
Thesis th at “ it is m an who makes history” to They take us back to the good old days o f Hegel
produce some scientific historical knowledge? D id and Feuerbach, to the time before M arx’s discovery,
this Thesis enable him to produce scientific know ­ before his “epistemological break” .4 They mix
ledge which would help us act in history? N o. N ot everything up, and thus they disarm revolutionary
a single bit o f scientific knowledge came out o f it. philosophers, theoreticians and militants. They
But som eone will say: here’s an example that disarm them because in effect they deprive them o f
proves the opposite o f your Thesis about philospohy! an irreplacable w eapon: the objective knowledge o f
F or this “ hum anist” philosophy has no effect at all the conditions, mechanisms and forms o f the class
on scientific knowledge. Sorry! I claim that the struggle.
Thesis defended by John Lewis and Jean-Paul
Sartre really do have an effect: they prevent the The Function of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy
development o f existing scientific knowledge. They If you now look at the M arxist-Leninist Theses—
are an obstacle to knowledge. Instead o f helping it “ it is the masses which m ake history” , “ the class
to progress, they hold it back. M ore precisely, they struggle is the m otor o f history”—the contrast is
take knowledge back to the state it was in before striking. These Theses are on the side o f a scientific
the scientific discoveries and developments made by understanding o f history. They do no t ignore
M arx and Lenin. They take things back to the pre- M arx’s scientific discovery. O n the contrary. These
scientific state. philosophical Theses are also proven propositions
It is not the first time that this has happened in o f the science o f history, o f historical m aterialism .6
the history o f hum anity. For example, half a century These Theses, then, take account o f the existence
after Galileo—th at is, half a century after physics o f the science o f history. But at the same time they
had been founded as a science—there were still help the working out o f new explanations, o f new
philosdphers who defended Aristotelian “ physics” ! scientific discoveries. F o r example, they force us to
They attacked G alileo’s discoveries and wanted to define the masses which are “ m aking” history: in
take knowledge o f the natural world back to its class terms. Then again, they force us to define
pre-scientific Aristotelian state. There are no longer the form of union between the classes which m ake
any A ristotelian “ physicists” , but the same thing is up the masses. As far as we are concerned, they put
happening in other fields. For example: there are the working class in the forefront. They force us to
anti-Freudian “ psychologists” . And there are anti- define the proletariat as the class whose conditions
Marxist philosophers o f history, who carry on as if o f exploitation render it capable o f directing the
Marx had never existed, o r had never founded a struggle o f all the oppressed and exploited classes,
science. They m ay be personally honest. They may the struggle to take the state power held by the
even, like Sartre, w ant to “ help” M arxism and imperialist bourgeoisie, These Theses allow us to
psychoanalysis! But it is not their intentions that understand that the “ class struggle” is the “ m otor o f
count. W hat count are the real effects in science o f history” , they force us “ never to forget the class
their philosophy. The fact is that although he has struggle” .
Marx and Freud before him, Sartre is a pre-M arxist 3 Gaston Bachelard: French philosopher, now dead,
and pre-Freudian ideologist. Instead o f helping to who introduced the idea of the epistemological obstacle—
build on the scientific discoveries o f M arx and an obstacle to the development of science. [Translator’s
Freud, he mixes things up and paralyses research. note]
T hat is how philosophy “ w orks” in the sciences. 4 Epistemological break: a point of no return in
Either it helps them to produce new scientific theoretical history. When we examine the history of a
knowledge, or it tries to wipe out these advances and science, we find that it does not grow in a gradual way
drag hum anity back to a time when the science did out of pre-scientific ideas, but breaks with these ideas
not yet exist. Philosophy therefore works in the and replaces them with a new system. Althusser holds
sciences in a progressive or retrogressive way. that the ideas expressed by Marx in his early works were
You can see w hat is at stake. It is not enough to still of a pre-scientific character. He therefore had to
break with these ideas, and replace them—though not of
say th at w hat John Lewis o r Sartre says does not course all at once, for such a break involves a struggle—
help us to produce any scientific knowledge o f with scientific ideas. Thus he founded the science of
history. It is n o t even enough to say that what they history (historical materialism), in very much the same
say represents an “ epistemological obstacle” 2 (to way, to take an example, as Galileo founded the science
of physics. [Translator’s note]
2 Epistemology: literally, talk (logos) about science 6 Scientific propositions can therefore “function” as
(episteme). Normally used to designate philosophical philosophical Theses. This is a point which deserves to
investigation of scientific practice. [Translator’s note] be considered more closely.
31
 The theoretical consequences o f these propositions as a class, by means o f their class organisations (the
are known to every Communist. They require us, for trade unions, the party).
example, to break with the bourgeois conception of On the one hand, then, we have Theses which
political economy (Capital is subtitled: A Critique directly help the working class to understand its
o f Political Economy), o f the state, o f ideologies, role, its conditions of existence, o f exploitation and
o f “culture” , etc., etc. These Theses help to stim ulate o f struggle, which help them to create organisations
scientific research in the field o f the science o f which will lead the struggle o f all exploited people
history. to seize state power from the bourgeoisie.
On the one hand, then, we have philosophical No need to say more.
Theses which have retrogressive effects, in relation N one o f this is affected by the fact that these
to theoretical work, on the science o f history. On bourgeois or petty-bourgeois Theses are defended,
the other han d we have philosophical Theses which in 1972, by a m ilitant o f a Com munist Party. Read
have progressive effects, in relation to theoretical chapter 3 o f the Communist Manifesto. You will see
work, in the existing fields o f the M arxist science of that in 1847 Marx distinguished three kinds of
history, and revolutionary effects in the fields which socialism: reactionary (feudal, petty-bourgeois,
this science has not yet really touched (for example, humanist1) socialism, conservative or bourgeois
in anthropology, in the history o f the sciences, in socialism, and critical-utopian socialism and com ­
art, in philosophy, etc., etc.). munism. You have the choice! Read the great
T hat is w hat is at stake, for science, in the class polemical writings of Engels and of Lenin about the
struggle in the field o f theory. influence of bourgeois ideology in the w orkers’
parties (reformism, revisionism). You have the
Political effects choice!
I think that, as far as political effects are con­ W hat we want to know now is how, after so many
cerned, things are rather clear. solemn warnings and so many testing experiences,
How could one carry on the class struggle on the it is possible for a Com m unist—John Lewis—to
basis o f the philosophical Thesis: “ it is m an who present his “ Theses” as Marxist.
makes history” ? It might be said that this Thesis We shall see.
serves everyone, without distinction, w hether he be a
capitalist, a petty-bourgeois or a worker, because II
these are all “men". But that is no t true. It serves But first, I will deal with John Lewis’ second
those whose interest it is to talk about “ m an” and reproach: that Althusser does not understand the
not about the masses, about “ m an” and not about history o f the formation o f M arx's thought. I will
classes and the class struggle. Above all, it serves the deal with it briefly, so as not to hold up the reader.
bourgeois class. It also serves the petty-bourgeoisie.
In his Critique o f the Gotha Programme, M arx Does Something Really Happen in 1845?
w rote: “ The bourgeois have very good grounds for Here I m ust make my “ self criticism” , and give
falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to way to John Lewis on one precise point.
hum an labour” .6 W hy? Because by m aking “ m en” In my first essays, I suggested that after the
think th at “ labour is the source o f all wealth and all “ epistemological break o f 1845 (after the discovery
culture” , the bourgeoisie can keep quiet about the by which M arx founded the science o f history) the
power o f nature, about the decisive im portance of philosophical categories o f alienation and o f the
the natural, material conditions o f hum an labour. negation o f the negation disappear. John Lewis
And why does the bourgeoisie want to keep quiet replies that this is not true. And he is right. You
about the natural-m aterial conditions o f labour? certainly do find these concepts (directly or indirectly)
Because it controls them. The bourgeoisie knows in the German Ideology, in the Grundrisse (two texts
w hat it is doing. which M arx never published) and also, though m uch
more rarely, in Capital (the negation o f the negation,
If the workers are told that “ it is men who make
for example, appears only once).
history” , th at helps to disarm them. It tends to make
On the other hand John Lewis would have a hard
them think th at they are all-powerful as men,
jo b finding these concepts in the Communist M ani­
whereas in fact they are disarmed as workers in the
festo, in the Poverty o f Philosophy, in Wage Labour
face o f the power which is really in com m and:
and Capital, in his Contribution to the Critique o f
that o f the bourgeoisie, which controls the material
Political Economy, in the Critique o f the Gotha
and political conditions determ ining history. The
Programme or in the Notes on Wagner's Textbook.
hum anist line turns them away from the class
A nd this is to cite only theoretical texts. As far as the
struggle, prevents them from m aking use o f the
only power they possess: that o f their organisation 7 Marx called it German or “True” Socialism. He
writes that these German literati “wrote their philo­
6 Marx was therefore criticising the socialist John sophical nonsense beneath the French original. For
Lewises of his time, inscribed in the Unity Programme of instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic
the German Social-Democratic Party and Lassalle’s functions of money, they wrote ‘Alienation of Humanity’
Party: “Labour is the source o f all wealth and all culture . . .” [Translator’s note]
32 A U S T R A L I A N L E F T R E V IE W - D E C E M B E R , 1 9 7 2
political texts are concerned—and this o f course is and—since John Lewis insists on talking about
equally true o f the political texts of Lenin, Gramsci them —you will at the same time see the gradual
or M ao—well, he can always try! disappearance of these two philosophical categories
But in any case, formally speaking John Lewis is inherited from the past and still subsisting as
right. A nd so, even if his argument in fact depends rem nants, known as alienation and the negation o f
on leaving aside all the texts which could bother the negation. Now in fact, the more we advance in
him, I must nevertheless reply. time, the more these categories disappear. Capital
Here, briefly, is my reply. speaks only once o f the negation of the negation
I. If you look at the whole of M arx's work, there (in 2,500 pages!). It is true that M arx several times
is no doubt that there does exist a "b reak ” in 1845. uses the term “ alienation” . But all that disappears in
Marx says so himself. But no-one should be believed M arx’s later texts and in Lenin.8 Completely. We
simply on his word, not even Marx. You have to can therefore say: what is im portant is the tendency.
judge on the evidence. Nevertheless, the whole of And M arx’s scientific work does tend to get rid o f
M arx’s work shows him to be right on this point. these philosophical categories.
In 1845 Marx began to “ lay dow n" the foundations
of a science which did not exist before he came A Self Criti ism
along: the science of history. And in order to do that III. But this is not enough. And here is my self
he set out a num ber of new concepts which cannot criticism.
be found anywhere in his hum anist works of youth: I was not attentive enough to the fa ct which John
mode o f production, productive forces, relations o f Lewis points out, that is, to the fact of the continuing
production, infrastructure-super structure, ideologies, presence o f the said philosophical categories after
etc. N o-one in the world can deny that. the "epistemological break” . And that was because
If John Lewis still doubts the reality o f this I identified the "epistemological break” with M arx’s
“ break” , or rather of this irruption of a new science philosophical revolution. M ore precisely, I never
in a still “ ideological” or pre-scientific universe, he separated M arx’s philosophical revolution and the
should com pare two judgem ents m ade by M arx “ epistemological break” . I talked about philosophy
on Feuerbach and Proudhon. as if it were science, and wrote that in 1845 Marx
Feuerbach is described in the 1844 Manuscripts as made a double break, scientific and philosophical.
a philosopher who has made extraordinary dis­ T hat was a mistake. It is an example of the
coveries, who has discovered both the basis and the deviation of theoreticism which I denounced in the
principle o f the critique o f political economy. But a brief self criticism contained in the Preface to the
year later, in the Theses on Feuerbach, and in the Italian edition o f Reading Capital (1966). This
German Ideology, he is the object o f an all-out Preface was reproduced in the English edition. The
attack. A fter that he simply disappears. mistake consists in thinking that philosophy is a
Proudhon is described in the Holy Family (end science and that, like every science, it has 1. an
of 1844) as the “ scientific theoretician o f the French object, 2. a beginning (the “ epistemological break”
proletariat” . But in 1847, in the Poverty o f Philo­ takes place at the m om ent when it looms up in the
sophy, he gets a hiding from which he will never pre-scientific, ideological cultural universe), and 3.
recover. After th at he simply disappears. a history (com parable to the history o f a science).
If, as John Lewis says, nothing really happened in This theoreticist error found its clearest and purest
1845, and if everything th at I have said about the expression in my form ula: philosophy is "Theory o f
“ epistemological break” is “ a complete m yth” , theoretical practice” .
then I’ll be hung for it. Since that time I have begun to “ put things right” .
II. So som ething irreversible really does start in In a philosophy course for scientists, dating from
1845: the “epistemological break” is a point o f no 1967, and again in Lenin and Philosophy (February
return. Something begins which will have no end. 1968), I put forward other propositions:
A “continuous break” , I wrote, the beginning o f a 1. Philosophy is not a science.
long period o f work, as in every other science, And 2. Philosophy has no object, in the sense in which
although the way ahead is open, it is difficult and a science has an object.
sometimes even dram atic, m arked by events— 3. Philosophy has no history, in the sense in
theoretical events—which concern the scientific which a science has a history.
knowledge o f a particular object: the conditions, the 4. Philosophy is politics in the field o f theory.
workings and the forms o f the class struggle. In W hat are the consequences ?
simpler terms, the science o f history. 1. It is impossible to reduce philosophy to
We can say, then, that this science does not science, and it is impossible to reduce M arx’s
emerge, ready-m ade, from M arx’s head. It merely
has its beginning in 1845, and has not yet got rid of 8 One really must be short of arguments to have to use,
as a proof of Lenin’s “ humanist philosophy”, a few
all its past—o f all the ideological and philosophical
lines from The German Ideology (1844) which Lenin
prehistory out o f which it emerges. copied into his notebooks! John Lewis is obviously not
We can add: look at M arx’s texts, look at the worried about gaining the reputation of “schoolman”
birth and developm ent o f his scientific concepts, himself.
33
philosophical revolution to the “ epistemological o f Political Economy (which he published in 1859).
break” . But there are many references to alienation in the
2. M arx’s philosophical revolution preceded Grundrisse (preparatory notes made by Marx in the
M arx’s “epistemological break” . It made the break years 1857-58, and which he did not publish). We
possible. know, because o f a letter sent to Engels that Marx
Y ou can o f course argue quite seriously that there had, "by chance” , re-read Hegel's Logic in 1858 and
is a sense in which philosophy, as Hegel said, and as had been fascinated by it. In Capital (1867) alienation
I repeated in Lenin and Philosophy, always ‘“lags comes up again, but much more rarely, and the
behind” science or the sciences. But from another negation o f the negation appears just once. And
point o f view, which is essential here, you have to so on.
say the opposite, and argue that in the history o f However that might be, and in spite o f all the
M arx’s thought the philosophical revolution neces­ work which still remains to be done, one fact is
sarily “ preceded” the scientific breakthrough. clear. The M arxist science o f history did not progress
In the case o f other sciences, we lack evidence and in a simple straight line, under its own power, from
proof. But in the case o f Marx, what happens is that the m om ent o f the “ epistemological break” o n ­
although the philosophical revolution and the wards. If it is true that M arx had to go over to
epistemological break take place at the same point proletarian class positions in his theoretical work
in time, it is the philosophical revolution which in order to be able to found the science o f history,
“ determ ines” the scientific “ break” . he did not m ake that transition all at once, once and
Concretely, that means the following. The young fo r all, with no going back. The philosophical battle
Marx, born o f a good bourgeois family in the continued within M arx himself, in his work, around
Rhineland, entered public life as editor o f a liberal the principles o f the new science. The science only
newspaper o f the same land. That was in 1841. gained its ground little by little, in theoretical
A young and brilliant intellectual, he was, within struggle, in theoretical class struggle, and in close
three o r four years, to undergo an astonishing relation to the class struggle going on in the world
evolution in politics. He was to pass from radical outside theory, This struggle lasted all of M arx’s life.
bourgeois liberalism (1841-42) to petty bourgeois It has continued after him, in the labour movement.
com m unism (1843-44), then to proletarian com ­ And it continues in our own time.
m unism (1844-45). These are incontestable facts. It is therefore possible to understand the partial
But parallel to this political evolution you can disappearance and reappearance o f certain categories
observe an evolution in philosophy. In philosophy, in M arx's w ork as indicative o f attem pts, advances
over the same period, the young M arx was to pass and failures in the long dual struggle to take up
from a position of subjective neo-Hegelianism (of a class positions in theoretical work and to found the
K ant-Fichte type) to theoretical hum anism (Feuer­ science o f history.
bach), before rejecting this to pass over to a philo­
sophy which would no longer merely “ interpret” Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Philosophy
the world, but “ change it” . W hen I said that it was the “ epistemological
If you now com pare M arx’s political evolution break” which was prim ary, and when I failed to
with his philosophical evolution, you will see: distinguish it from the “ philosophical break” , I
1. that his philosophical evolution is based on his therefore made two mistakes. In the case o f M arx
political evolution; and it is the philosophical revolution which is primary.
2. that his scientific discovery (the “ break” ) is A nd if we are allowed to keep the term “ break” to
based on his political evolution. designate the beginning o f the science o f history, the
That means, in practice, that it is because the point o f no return, we cannot use the same term for
young M arx went over to a revolutionary proletarian philosophy, because in philosophy, as fo r long
class position in his theoretical work that he was periods in the class struggle, there is no point o f no
able to lay down the foundations o f the scientific return. We must therefore talk about “ revolution in
theory o f history as history o f the class struggle. philosophy” . This expression is more correct,
IV. On the basis of these points it should be because we all know that a revolution is always
possible to account for the interm ittent survival of exposed to attacks, to reverses and to counter­
categories like those of alienation and o f the negation revolution.
o f the negation. Note that I talk about interm ittent N othing then is ever definitively settled in philo­
survival. F or alongside their tendency to disappear sophy: there are always “ com e-backs” , and the
in M arx’s work, considered as a whole, there is a oldest philosophies are always ready to m ount an
strange phenom enon which must be accounted for: offensive disguised in m odern trappings. W hy?
their total disappearance in certain works, then Because philosophy is, in the last instance, class
their subsequent reappearance. For example, the struggle in the field o f theory. Because the revo­
two categories in question are totally absent from lutionary classes are always opposed by the old
the Communist Manifesto as well as from the conservative and reactionary ruling classes, who
Poverty o f Philosophy (published by M arx in 1847). will never give up their am bition for revenge, even
They are absent from his Contribution to the Critique when they no longer hold state power. According
34 A U S T R A L I A N L E F T R E V IE W - D E C E M B E R , 1 9 7 2
to the state o f affairs, they will defend their power or ism covered their political reformism and political
mount an assault against the new power, under the revisionism.
guise of such and such a philosophy: the one that John Lewis would do well to re-read the first
serves them best, even if its is the oldest in the world. pages o f What is to he Done? In this text a petty-
Tt just has to be done up a bit and given a modern bourgeois intellectual named Lenin is defending
coat o f paint. Philosophical Theses have no age. M arx’s “ orthodoxy” , itself “ in grave difficulties” ,
That is the sense in which I took up M arx’s com m ent with “ extreme dogm atism ” . Yes, Lenin declared
in the German Ideology that "philosophy has no himself proud to be attacked as a “ dogm atist” by
history” . the international coalition o f “ critical” revisionists,
In practice bourgeois ideology, when it is able to with the “ English Fabians” and “ French Minis­
put on enough pressure, can penetrate Marxism terialists” at their head! Yes, Lenin declared himself
itself. The class struggle in the field o f theory is not proud to defend this old problem -ridden “ ortho­
just a phrase: it is a reality, a terrible reality. W ithout doxy” , the orthodoxy o f M arx's teaching. Yes, he
understanding that, it is impossible to understand thought it was “ in grave difficulties” . The cause:
either the dram atic history o f the form ation of reform ism and revisionism!
M arx’s thought or the “ grave difficulties” which Some Communists, today, are thinking and doing
even today, in '972, weigh on the “ orthodoxy” the same. There certainly are not too m any o f them,
defended by a certain num ber of Communists. and they are rather alone. T hat is how things are.
The dram atic history of M arx and o f his thought Why ? We shall see.
can be reduced, if we follow John Lewis, to a
peaceful and problem-free university career! A Ill
certain M arx appears on the literary and philo­ Let us see why.
sophical scene. Quite naturally, he begins to talk We have to answer two questions.
about politics in the Communist Manifesto, then 1. Why are there Com m unists like John Lewis
about economics in Capital. He founds and directs (and there are quite a lot o f them) who, in 1972, can
the First International, opposes the insurrection in openly argue in Com m unist journals for a philosophy
Paris, then in the space of two m onths, takes a firm which they call M arxist, but which is in fact simply
stand on the side o f the Paris Commune. He wages a variant o f bourgeois idealism ?
a battle to the death against the anarchists and 2. W hy are the Com m unist philosophers who
followers o f Proudhon, etc., etc. All th at w ithout defend M arx’s philosophy so few in num ber, and
the hint o f a problem , o f a dram a, apart from all the why are they so isolated in their own parties ?
assaults o f the struggle, with no regard to the To answer these two questions, which are really
difficulties, the questions, all the torm ents o f the one and the same, we must—all apologies to John
search for “ tru th ” in that struggle itself. Like a good Lewis— briefly enter the field of political history.
bourgeois intellectual, as well installed in his thought I have made the basic points in For M arx. But
as he is in the com fort of his existence, M arx (in John Lewis does not seem to have read the political
this view) always thought the same thing, w ithout a pages o f For M arx. John Lewis is a pure spirit.
revolution or “ break” in his thinking. Here I will
merely say that only som eone who has no experience Stalin and the Twentieth Congress
or is blind to all experience of the class struggle in I said in For M arx that my period o f philosophical
the field o f theory—or even simply o f the way silence ended with the Tw entieth Congress of the
scientific research is done—could argue such Soviet Party in 1956.
nonsense, and thus insult the life and sufferings not T hat is true. Before the Twentieth Congress it was
only o f M arx him self but o f all Com m unists (and not possible for a Com m unist philosopher, at least
also o f those scientists who succeed in finding in France, to publish serious philosophical texts—
something out). N ow, not only did M arx “ find that is to say, texts which would be both deep and
som ething o u t” (and at w hat risk, and o f what capable o f being put to use ideologically and
im portance!), but he was also a leader of the politically. That is the good side o f the Twentieth
labour movem ent for thirty-five years. He always Congress. From that time on it was possible to
“ did his thinking” in the struggle, that is the only publish such texts. The French Party, to take only
way in which he did it. one case, explicitly recognised (at the Argenteuil
The whole history o f the labour movement is Central Com mittee meeting in 1966) the right o f
m arked by endless crises, dram as and struggles. party members to carry out and publish their
There is no need for me to go over them here. But philosophical research.
as far as philosophy is concerned, we ought at least But the “ criticism o f Stalin’s errors” was for­
to m ention the great struggles o f Engels and Lenin m ulated at the Twentieth Congress in terms such
against the intervention o f bourgeois philosophy that there inevitably followed what we must call an
in M arxism and in the workers’ parties: the struggle unleashing of bourgeois ideological and philosophical
against the intervention of the idealism of Duhring themes within the Com munist Parties themselves.
and o f Bernstein, both o f them declared neo- This was the case above all am ong Com munist
K antians and hum anists, whose theoretical revision­ intellectuals, but it also touched certain leaders and
35
even certain leaderships. perfectly norm al.
W hy?
Because the “criticism of Stalin’s errors” (some Two Things Which are not the Same
o f which—and rather a lot!—turned out to be Having said that, we must add that it is im portant
crimes) was made in a non-M arxist way. not to mix things up which, politically speaking,
The Twentieth Congress criticised and denounced ought not to be confused, things which are quite
the “ cult o f personality” (the cult in general, different from one another. The hum anist reactions
personality in general. . . . ) and summed up Stalin’s of western Com munist theoreticians, and even of
“errors” in the concept o f “ violation o f Socialist some from eastern Europe, are one thing, ft would
legality” . The Twentieth Congress therefore limited however be an extremely serious political mistake,
itself to denouncing certain facts about what went for example, to claim to judge and condem n—on
on in the legal superstructure, w ithout relating them account o f an adjective (“ hum an” )—som ething like
—as every M arxist analysis must do—firstly, to the “socialism with a human face", a slogan under which
rest of the Soviet superstructure (above all the state the Czech masses let everyone know (even if the
and party), and secondly, to the infrastructure, form was sometimes confused) about their class and
namely the relations o f production, class relations national grievances and aspirations. It would be an
and the class struggle in the USSR. extremely serious political m istake to confuse this
Instead o f relating the “ violations o f socialist national mass movement, this im portant historical
legality” to 1. the state, plus the party, and 2. the fact, with the hum anist pedantry o f our western,
class struggle, the Twentieth Congress instead sometimes Com m unist philosophers (or o f such
related them to . . . the “cult o f personality” . That and such a philosopher o f eastern Europe). There
is, it related them to a concept which, as I pointed were intellectuals in the Czech national mass
out in For M arx, cannot be “ found” in M arxist movement, but it was no t a “ movement o f intel­
theory. I now venture to say that it can perfectly lectuals” . W hat the Czech people wanted was
well be “ found” elsewhere: in bourgeois philosophy socialism, and not hum anism . They wanted a
and psycho-sociological ideology. socialism whose face (not the body: the body does
If you take Communist philosophers and other not occur in the formula) would not be disfigured by
C om m unist “ intellectuals” and set them officially on practices unw orthy both o f themselves (the Czech
a bourgeois ideological and philosophical line, in people: a people of a high political culture) and of
order to “ criticise” a regime under which they (and socialism. A socialism with a hum an face. The
others) have suffered deeply, you m ust not be adjective is in the right place. The national mass
surprised when the same Com munist philosophers movement of the Czech people, even if it is no longer
and intellectuals go straight forward on the road of to be heard o f (and the struggle is nevertheless still
bourgeois philosophy. It has been opened up right going on) merits the respect and support o f all
in front o f them! You must not be surprised when Communists. Exactly as the “ hum anist” philosophies
they m ake up their own little bourgeois Marxist o f western intellectuals (at ease in their academ ic
philosophy o f the Rights o f M an, exalting M an and chairs or elsewhere), the philosophies o f “ M arxist
his Rights, the first o f which is liberty, whose hum anism ” , whether they are called “ true” or
reverse side is alienation. It is quite natural that they “ scientific” , merit the criticism of all Communists.
will lean on M arx’s early works—that is what those It is for all the reasons outlined above, then, that
works are there for—and then on hum anism in all there are cases like John Lewis in the western
its forms! Shall it be G araudy’s socialist humanism, Com munist Parties—and that there are rather a lot
John Lewis’ humanism, the “ true” or “ real” of them.
hum anism o f others, or even (why not?) “ scientific” And it is for the same reasons—directly political
hum anism itself? Between these different varieties reasons— that I w ant to repeat my thanks to M arxism
of the philosophy o f human liberty, each philosopher Today, journal o f the Com m unist Party of G reat
can of course freely take his choice! All that is Britain, for accepting to publish my reply.

36 A U S T R A L I A N L E F T R E V IE W D E C E M B E R , 1972