Following the publication of our documentary research work that questions the historicity of JESUS, we have received critical and violent feedback. We will develop here the thesis of PLATEFORMEJAUNE, according to which the political and philosophical critique of religion is beneficial for the fight for emancipation , and is part of the two historical traditions of revolutionary socialism: the Marxism of Marx and Engels (to be distinguished from its later deformations by Leninist, Trotskyist and Stalinist currents) and anarchism .
We have published articles that restore the work of the most eminent experts, questioning the historicity of Jesus. We have not hidden that PLATEFORMEJAUNE exploits and will exploit all opportunities to weaken the enemy, without qualms and without fear of virulent criticism. Because PLATEFORMEJAUNE is not part of a regression towards mystical revolts, such as that of Thomas Münzer, but is part of the continuity of the theoretical advances of revolutionary socialism.
LINKS TO OUR POSTS CRITICAL OF CHRISTIANITY
JESUS A MYTH THAT NEVER EXISTED HISTORICALLY! RELIGION A MENTAL PLAGUE
Why Jesus never existed and why Caesar existed and why Saint Marx and Saint Bakunin also existed…
SUMMARY
Table of Contents
1. Critiques of religion by Marxist and anarchist thinkers
Critiques of religion by Marxist and anarchist thinkers emphasize that religion is a major obstacle to the awakening of class consciousness and the struggle for revolutionary social change. Marxist and anarchist thinkers view religion as a mechanism of social control that hinders awareness of economic and political realities, and prevents meaningful social change.
1.1. Marxist Critiques of Religion
Marxist thinkers view religion as a tool of oppression that contributes to alienation and the legitimization of exploitative structures.
1.2. The Critique of Religion by Marx and Engels
The critique of religion is a central theme in the work of Marx and Engels. They viewed religion as a form of alienation that prevented individuals from understanding their true role in society and from fighting oppression. In this article, we will examine Marx and Engels' writings on the critique of religion, particularly their views on the Protestant Reformation and German philosophy.
1.3. German Philosophy and the Reformation
Marx and Engels consider German philosophy to be deeply connected to the Protestant Reformation. In their work, they write: "German philosophy is the philosophy of the Reformation. The Reformation led to Protestant philosophy, and Protestant philosophy led to German philosophy" (Page 118). They believe that the Reformation had important consequences on German thought and that German philosophy inherited the religious thought of the Reformation.
2. Marx's critique of Luther
Marx harshly criticizes Martin Luther's thinking, considering that it contributed to the strengthening of religious oppression and alienation. According to Marx, Luther replaced individual freedom with submission to religious authority. In his analysis of Luther's thinking, Marx writes: "Critical religiosity is religiosity that criticizes itself" (Page 94). Marx believes that Luther was unable to break with medieval theology and that his thinking therefore contributed to the maintenance of religious oppression.
Furthermore, Marx considers Luther to have had a significant role in the formation of German philosophy, which presents itself as the quintessence of Christian philosophy. According to Marx , "German philosophy presents itself as the quintessence of Christian philosophy. Therefore, the critique of German philosophy is the critique of Christian philosophy" (Page 106). Marx therefore believes that the critique of German philosophy must also be a critique of the thought of Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
2.1. Thomas Müntzer's Religious Revolution
According to Marx, religion is a form of ideology that allows the ruling classes to maintain their power over the oppressed classes. In "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," Marx writes:
"Religion is the opium of the people. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular language, its spiritualist point of honor, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal motive for consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human being, because the human being has no true reality. The fight against religion is therefore, in its principle, the fight against this world of which religion is the spiritual aroma."
(Marx, 1844)
This thus underlines its role in legitimizing the existing social order and concealing relations of domination. Religion offers spiritual compensation for the material sufferings of the proletariat, thus diverting its attention from the class struggle.
However, some historical revolts, such as that of Thomas Müntzer, were able to take a religious form to express their emancipatory demands. Müntzer , a Lutheran pastor and radical theologian, called on German peasants to revolt against their lords and the ecclesiastical authorities in 1525 (Müntzer, 1524). His revolt, known as the "German Peasants' Revolt", had a messianic and eschatological character, the peasants being convinced that their uprising was the advent of the kingdom of God on earth.
However, as Marx points out, these revolts, although carrying emancipatory potential, remain limited by their religious form . Religion keeps the people in a state of subordination to existing powers and does not allow a radical questioning of the social order. Religious revolts like that of Müntzer can thus be reappropriated by the dominant classes to legitimize their power.
2.2. Thomas Müntzer's Revolt: A Premise of Class Struggle in 16th-Century Germany
In 1525, in 16th-century Germany, a peasant revolt broke out that would mark the history of the class struggle in Europe. Thomas Müntzer, a theologian and revolutionary, was one of the main leaders of this revolt. This insurrection was a precursor to the class struggle that would develop in the following centuries.
2.2.1. The Historical Context
Germany in the 16th century was a feudal society in crisis. The Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther in 1517, had challenged the authority of the Catholic Church and created a climate of protest and revolt. The peasants, crushed by taxes and forced labor, suffered from poverty and famine. The lords, for their part, enriched themselves by exploiting the peasants and accumulating land.
2.2.2. The Revolt of Thomas Müntzer
Thomas Müntzer, a former Catholic monk converted to Protestantism, became a charismatic leader of the peasant revolt. He preached a radical theology, which combined the ideas of the Reformation with those of social justice and equality. He denounced the exploitation of peasants by the lords and called for revolution.
According to Friedrich Engels, "The Müntzer revolt was the first great class struggle in modern history" (Friedrich Engels, The Peasants' War in Germany, Sociale Verlag, 1974, p. 143).
In April 1525, Müntzer and his followers, mainly peasants and craftsmen, rose up against the lords and authorities. The revolt quickly spread to several regions of Germany. The insurgents demanded the abolition of taxes, the redistribution of land and social equality.
2.2.3. The Repression and Death of Müntzer
The revolt was eventually crushed by the armies of the princes and lords. Thomas Müntzer was captured, tortured and executed in May 1525. The repression was fierce, and thousands of peasants were massacred.
According to Karl Marx, "The Müntzer revolt was an episode in the class struggle which, since the Middle Ages, has divided society into two camps: the exploiters and the exploited" (Karl Marx, Les Luttes de classes en France, Éditions sociales, 1967, p. 120).
2.2.4. The Legacy of the Revolt by Thomas Müntzer
Despite its failure, Thomas Müntzer's revolt was an important moment in the history of class struggle in Europe. It showed that peasants and artisans could rise up against their oppressors and demand their rights. Müntzer's revolt inspired generations of revolutionaries and socialists.
Sources:
Friedrich Engels, The Peasants' War in Germany, Social Editions, 1974.
Karl Marx, Class Struggles in France, Éditions sociales, 1967.
Thomas Müntzer, Theological and Political Writings, Éditions du Cerf, 1978.
Albert Mathiez, The German Revolution of 1525, Editions Payot, 1927.
Therefore, in order to achieve emancipation, it is necessary to develop a radical critique of religion and its legitimizing effects. It is necessary to criticize the religious form itself, in order to free the emancipatory forces of the proletariat and bring about a truly democratic and egalitarian society.
In conclusion, although revolts like that of Thomas Müntzer may have taken a religious form, this is no substitute for a radical critique of religion, which is necessary for the emancipation of humanity.
References:
Marx, K. (1844). Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Introduction, Paris, Éditions de la Sorbonne.
Müntzer, T. (1524). Ausgedrückte Entschuldigung und Bezeugung heiliger und biblischer Schrift, durch die Vorderen aller Bauern des ganzen Bundes in Deutschem Land.
(For further information: see the section on "The religious revolution of Thomas Müntzer" in the book by Étienne Anheim and Yves Marie Bercé, Les Révoltes, histoire et modernité, CNRS, 2018)
3. The Criticism of religion as a precondition for social criticism
Marx and Engels believe that criticism of religion is a prerequisite for social criticism. According to them, religion is a form of illusion that prevents individuals from understanding their true role in society and fighting against oppression. In their work, they write: "Criticism of religion is the prerequisite for true social criticism. Social criticism is criticism of society that has already found itself" (Page 154) . They therefore believe that criticism of religion is necessary for understanding society and fighting against oppression.
In summary, Marx and Engels' critique of religion is a critique of German philosophy and the Protestant Reformation, as well as the thought of Martin Luther. They believe that religion is a form of alienation that prevents individuals from understanding their true role in society and from fighting against oppression. Criticism of religion is therefore a prerequisite for social criticism and the transformation of society. Religion as illusion and superstition
Marx and Engels view religion as a form of illusion and superstition that prevents individuals from understanding their true role in society and fighting against oppression. In their work, they write : "The criticism of religion is the criticism of superstition, of faith, of belief. The criticism of religion is the criticism of illusion, of appearance, of phantasm " (Page 130). They believe that religion creates a false consciousness that prevents individuals from understanding the true causes of their alienation.
4. Religion as alienated self-consciousness
Marx and Engels also consider religion to be a form of alienated self-consciousness. According to them, religion is the self-consciousness of the man who has not yet found himself. In their work, they write: "Religion is the self-consciousness of the man who has not yet found himself. Religion is the self-consciousness of the man who has already lost himself again" (Page 142). They believe that religion creates a false identity that prevents individuals from understanding their true role in society.
5. Criticism of religion as a precondition of freedom
Marx and Engels believe that criticism of religion is a prerequisite for freedom. According to them, religion is a form of oppression that prevents individuals from living their lives autonomously. In their work, they write: "Criticism of religion is the prerequisite for freedom. Freedom is the criticism of religion" (Page 148). They believe that criticism of religion is necessary for individuals to live their lives autonomously and emancipatedly.
6. The scope of Marx and Engels' critique of religion
Marx and Engels' critique of religion has significant implications for understanding society and philosophy. It highlights the importance of the criteriology of religion for understanding the mechanisms of oppression and alienation. It also shows that religion can be an oppressive force that prevents individuals from living their lives in an autonomous and emancipated manner.
In summary, Marx and Engels' critique of religion is a critique of German philosophy and the Protestant Reformation, as well as the thought of Martin Luther. It highlights the importance of the critique of religion for understanding society and fighting oppression. The critique of religion is a prerequisite for social critique and the transformation of society. It is also a prerequisite for the freedom and autonomous life of individuals.
7. Anarchist Critiques of Religion
Anarchists, on the other hand, see religion not only as a tool of oppression, but as a system that inhibits individual freedom and perpetuates authoritarian structures.
7.1. Mikhail Bakunin
Quote : "The idea of God entails the abdication of human reason; it is the most decisive negation of human freedom." (Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State , 1882).
Analysis : Bakunin argues that religion is based on principles of authority and submission, contradicting the values of autonomy and reason that are central to anarchism. He approaches religion as a construct of the state, criticizing the role of religious institutions in the oppression of the masses.
7.2. Emma Goldman
Quote : "The Christian church is the deepest enemy of humanity." (Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays , 1910).
Analysis : Goldman points out that religious institutions have been traditional allies of power structures. According to her, religion preaches submission and resignation, which is opposed to the struggle for equality and freedom. She argues for a worldview where the individual can flourish without the constraints of religion.
7.3. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Quote : "What is proper to religion is to chain us." (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?, 1840).
Analysis : Proudhon approaches religion as a mystification that legitimizes inequalities and erects barriers to true freedom. For him, religion is both a product and a driver of structures of authority and exploitation.
7.4. Max Stirner
Quote : "The property of man is his individuality, and religion is the property of the state." (Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property , 1845).
Analysis : Stirner argues that religion is an instrument of social control that denies individual freedom and promotes submission to the state and society. He argues that religion is a means for rulers to keep the people in obedience and submission.
7.5. Errico Malatesta
Quote : "Religion is an instrument of domination, a weapon for oppressors and exploiters." (Errico Malatesta, Anarchy , 1891).
Analysis : Malatesta argues that religion is used to justify the oppression and exploitation of the masses. He maintains that religion is an obstacle to freedom and equality, and must be fought to establish a truly liberated society.
8. The Gospels and Submission to Religion
The Gospels contain passages that endorse submission to religion and authority.
Gospel of Mark (12, 17): "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Analysis : This passage reminds Christians of their duty of submission to temporal authority and religion. It legitimizes the existing social order and religious hierarchy.
Gospel of Luke (12, 4-5): "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of him who, after he has killed, has the power to cast into hell."
Analysis : This passage reminds Christians of their duty of submission to God and the Church, even in the face of persecution and oppression.
Gospel of Matthew (22, 21): "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Analysis : This passage reiterates the message of submission to temporal authority and religion.
9. Religion as an obstacle to class consciousness and social revolution
Critiques of religion by Marxist and anarchist thinkers emphasize that religion is a major obstacle to the awakening of class consciousness and the struggle for revolutionary social change. Religion helps to keep the masses ignorant of their true interests and to legitimize structures of exploitation.
9.1. Religion as the opium of the people
Religion is often seen as a form of illusory consolation for the oppressed. It allows the masses to bear the pain of their exploitation by promising them a reward in the afterlife, thus diverting their attention from earthly injustices. Religion is used by the bourgeoisie to justify capitalist exploitation and maintain the existing social order.
9.2. Religion as an instrument of social control
Religion is also seen as an instrument of social control that keeps the masses in obedience and submission. Religious institutions and religious leaders play a key role in legitimizing exploitative structures and repressing social movements. Religion is used to justify social and economic hierarchy, and to keep the masses in a situation of dependency and submission.
9.3. Religion as an obstacle to workers' solidarity
Religion is also seen as an obstacle to worker solidarity and class struggle. Religious institutions and religious leaders have often divided workers and pitted them against each other, making them believe that their interests are contradictory. Religion has also been used to justify the repression of social movements and to keep workers in a position of weakness and discouragement.
9.4. The fight against religion as a condition for social progress
Marxist and anarchist thinkers emphasize that the fight against religion is an essential condition for social progress and social revolution. Religion must be fought because it keeps the masses in ignorance and submission, and because it legitimizes structures of exploitation.
9.5. The need for criticism of religion
Criticism of religion is an essential step in the fight against oppression and exploitation. Marxist and anarchist thinkers emphasize that the criticism of religion must be conducted in a scientific and methodical manner, exposing the mechanisms of religion and denouncing its social and political consequences.
9.6. The need to fight against religious institutions
The struggle against religious institutions is an essential condition for social revolution. Marxist and anarchist thinkers emphasize that religious institutions must be fought because they keep the masses in obedience and submission, and because they legitimize structures of exploitation.
9.7. The need for the propagation of a new consciousness
The spread of a new consciousness is an essential condition for social progress and social revolution. Marxist and anarchist thinkers emphasize that the new consciousness must be based on reason, science and solidarity, and must reject religious illusions and superstitions.
In conclusion, critiques of religion by Marxist and anarchist thinkers emphasize that religion is a major obstacle to the awakening of class consciousness and the struggle for revolutionary social change. Religion helps to keep the masses ignorant of their true interests and to legitimize exploitative structures. The struggle against religion is an essential condition for social progress and social revolution.
DOCUMENTARY SOURCES
Page 7: " As long as a drop of blood beats in the heart of philosophy, this totally free heart which encompasses the world, it will cry out with Epicurus to its adversaries: Impious is not he who clears the way of the gods of the vulgar, but he who attributes to the gods the ideas of the vulgar. " (Taken from a letter from Epicurus to Menoeceus in the tenth book of Diogenes Laertius, according to GASSENDI: Remarks on the tenth book of Diogenes Laertius, p. 83).
Page 17: " Leaving aside the fact that all philosophies of the past without exception have been accused one after the other by theologians of apostatizing from the Christian religion, even that of the pious Malebranche and the inspired Jacob Böhme, that Leibniz was accused of being an unbeliever by the peasants of Brunswick and of being an atheist by the Englishman, Clarke and the other supporters of Newton; leaving aside the fact that, as the most eminent and consistent fraction of Protestant theologians affirm, there can be no concord between Christianity and reason, because "temporal" reason and "spiritual" reason contradict each other, which Tertulian expresses in the following classical manner: "verum est, quia absurdum est"; Apart from all this, how can one demonstrate the concordance of scientific research and religion, if not by forcing scientific research to merge with religion and allowing it to pursue its own course. Any other constraint cannot, in any case, be proof.
Page 19: " If, a priori, everything that contradicts your faith is error and must be treated as such, what distinguishes your claim from the claim of the Mohammedan, from the claim of any other religion? Must philosophy, by virtue of the saying "another country, other customs", admit for each country, other fundamental principles so as not to enter into conflict with the fundamental truths of dogma; must it believe in one country that 3 times 1 make 1, in another that women have no soul, in the third that beer is drunk in paradise? Is there not a universal human nature, as there is a universal nature of plants and stars? Philosophy asks itself what is true, not what is valid; it asks itself what is true for all men, not what is true for a few individuals; its metaphysical truths do not know the boundaries of political geography; His political truths know too well where the "boundaries" begin to confuse the illusory horizon of a particular conception of the world and the people with the true horizon of the human spirit. Of all the defenders of Christianity, Hermes is the weakest.
Page 22: " And how! The material feeling of well-being and happiness resists newspaper articles better than the blissful and ever-victorious confidence inspired by faith! Hermes does not sing: "God is our citadel, our refuge." The truly believing soul of the "great mass" would therefore be more exposed to the rust of doubt than the refined secular culture of the "few"!
Page 30: " Either the state of freedom according to reason cannot be deduced from Christianity and then you will yourself agree that this development is not included in the tendency of Christianity since Christianity cannot want a bad state and a state which is not a realization of freedom according to reason is a bad state. "
Page 36: " The profane existence of error is compromised, as soon as its oratio pro aris et foris celestial is refuted. The man who has found, in the phantasmagorical reality of the sky, where he sought a superman, only the reflection of himself, will no longer be inclined to find only the appearance of himself, only the non-man, there where he seeks and must necessarily seek his true reality. "
Page 36-37: " The basis of irreligious criticism is: it is man who makes religion, it is not religion that makes man. Certainly, religion is the self-consciousness of man who has not yet found himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is not an abstract being huddled somewhere outside the world. Man is the world of man, the State, society. This State, this society produce religion, the inverted consciousness of the world, because they are themselves a world upside down. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic sum, its logic in popular form, its spiritualist point of honor, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal consolidation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human being, because the human being does not possess a true reality. To fight against religion is therefore indirectly to fight against this world, of which religion is the spiritual aroma. "
Page 37: " Religious distress is, in part, the expression of real distress, and in part the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the soul of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of social conditions from which the spirit is excluded. It is the opium of the people. "
Page 37: " The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand that their real happiness formulates. To demand that they renounce illusions about their situation is to demand that they renounce a situation that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in germ of the criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo. "
Page 37: " Criticism has stripped the chains of the imaginary flowers that covered them, not so that man would wear them and throw away the hopeless, unimaginative chains, but so that he would throw away the chains and pick the living flowers. Criticism of religion destroys man's illusions so that he will think, act, and shape his reality like a man without illusions who has reached the age of reason, so that he will gravitate around himself, that is, around his real sun. Religion is only the illusory sun that gravitates around man as long as man does not gravitate around himself. "
Page 46: " Luther undoubtedly overcame servitude by devotion by substituting for it servitude by conviction. He broke faith in authority by restoring the authority of faith. "
Page 46: " He transformed the clergy into laymen by transforming the laity into clergy. He freed man from external religiosity, by making religiosity the conscience of man. He emancipated the body from its chains, by burdening the heart with them: "
Page 46: " But if Protestantism was not the real solution, it was the real way of posing the problem. It was no longer a question of the laity's fight against the clergy, external to him, but of the fight against his own intimate clergy, with his clerical nature. "
Page 76: "*... one can hardly claim without pedantry
Page 76: " that among the many small states of North Germany, it was precisely Brandenburg which was destined by economic necessity and not by other factors (above all by the circumstance that, thanks to the possession of Prussia, Brandenburg was drawn into Polish affairs and through them involved in international political relations which are also decisive in the formation of the power of the House of Austria) to become the great power in which the difference in economy, in language and also, since the Reformation, in religion between the North and the South was embodied. It will be difficult to explain economically, without making oneself ridiculous, the existence of each small German state of the past and present or even the origin of the consonantal mutation of High German which widened the geographical dividing line formed by the mountain ranges of the Sudetenland up to the Taunus, to the point of making it a real fault line crossing the whole of Germany. "
Page 76: " But, secondly, history is made in such a way that the final result always emerges from the conflicts of a great many individual wills, each of which in turn is made as it is by a host of particular conditions of existence; there are thus innumerable forces which counteract each other, an infinite group of parallelograms of forces, from which emerges a resultant - the historical event - which can itself be regarded, in its turn, as the product of a force acting as a whole, unconsciously and blindly. For what each individual wills is prevented by each other and what emerges from this is something which no one willed. Thus history up to the present day unfolds like a process of nature and is also subject, in substance, to the same laws of motion as it. But from the fact that the various wills - each of which wants what its physical constitution and external circumstances, economic in the last instance (or its own personal circumstances or general social circumstances) push it to - do not arrive at what they want, but merge into a general average, into a common resultant, one has no right to conclude that they are equal to zero. On the contrary, each contributes to the resultant and, as such, is included in it.
Page 76: " I would like, moreover, to ask you to study this theory from the original sources and not at second hand; it is really much easier. Marx rarely wrote anything in which it did not play its part. But, in particular, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is a very excellent example of its application. In Capital, reference is often made to it. Then, I would also like to refer you to my works: Mr. E. Dühring Upheavals Science and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, where I have given the most detailed exposition of historical materialism that exists to my knowledge. "
Page 77: " It is Marx and myself, in part, who must bear the responsibility for the fact that, sometimes, the young give more weight than is due to the economic side. Faced with our adversaries, we had to emphasize the essential principle denied by them, and then we did not always find the time, the place, or the opportunity to give more space to the other factors which participate in the reciprocal action. But as soon as it was a question of presenting a slice of history, that is to say of passing to the practical application, the thing changed and there was no possible mistake. But, unfortunately, it happens only too frequently that one believes to have perfectly understood a new theory and to be able to handle it without difficulty, as soon as one has appropriated its essential principles, and this is not always correct. I cannot absolve more than one of our recent "Marxists" of this reproach, and it must also be said that we have done singular things. "
Page 77: "*As regards point I, I found yesterday (I am writing this on September 22) the following passage, decisive, and which confirms the picture I have just made, in SCHOEMANN: Greek Antiquities, Berlin 1835, I, p. 52: "but it is known that marriages between half-brothers and half-sisters born of different mothers were not considered incest later in Greece."
Page 77: " I hope that the terrible entanglements which have come under my pen because I wanted to be brief will not make you back down too much and I remain your devoted F. ENGELS. "
Page 77: " The basis of the law of succession, assuming the equality of the stage of development of the family, is an economic basis. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to demonstrate that in England, for example, the absolute freedom of will, and in France its great limitation, have in all their particularities only economic causes. But, to a very important extent, both react on the economy by the fact that they influence the distribution of wealth. "
Page 77: "*As for the ideological regions which hover even higher in the air, religion, philosophy, etc., they are composed of a remnant - going back to prehistory and which the historical period has found before it and collected - of... what we would call today stupidity. At the base of these various false representations of nature, of the constitution of man himself, of spirits, of magical powers, etc., there is most often only a negative economic element; the weak economic development of the prehistoric period has as a complement, but also here and there as a condition and even as a cause, the false representations of nature. And although economic need has been the mainspring of progress in the knowledge of nature and has become more and more so, it would nevertheless be pedantic to want to seek economic causes for all this primitive stupidity. The history of science is the history of the gradual elimination of this stupidity, or of its replacement by a new stupidity, but one that is less and less absurd. The people who undertake it are in turn part of special spheres of the division of labor and they imagine that they are working on an independent terrain. And, to the extent that they constitute an independent group within the social division of labor, their products, including their errors, react on the whole of social development, even on economic development. But with all this they are no less themselves in turn under the dominant influence of economic development. It is in philosophy, for example, that this can be most easily proven for the bourgeois period. Hobbes was the first modern materialist (in the sense of the 18th century), but a supporter of absolutism at the time when absolute monarchy flourished throughout Europe and was engaged in struggle with the people in England. Locke was, in religion as in politics, the son of the class compromise of 1688. The English deists and their more consistent successors, the French materialists, were the authentic philosophers of the bourgeoisie; the French were even those of the bourgeois revolution. In German philosophy from Kant to Hegel we see the German philistine pass through, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. But, as a specific domain of the division of labor, the philosophy of each epoch presupposes a specific intellectual documentation which has been transmitted to it by those which preceded it and from which it starts. And this is why it happens that economically backward countries can nevertheless play first violin in philosophy: France in the 18th century in relation to England on whose philosophy the French relied, and later Germany in relation to both. But in France as in Germany, philosophy, like the general literary flowering of that period, was also the result of an economic upsurge. The final supremacy of economic development in these fields too is for me a certainty, but it occurs within conditions prescribed by the field concerned itself; in philosophy, for example, through the effect of economic influences (which most often do not act in their turn
Comments