[A-List] And the whole socialist principle in its turn is only one aspect that concerns the reality of the true human being.

[c b]

Whose Ruge ?

Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher
Marx to Ruge
Kreuznach, September 1843

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm

I am glad that you have made up your mind and, ceasing to look back at
the past, are turning your thoughts ahead to a new enterprise.[22] And
so – to Paris, to the old university of philosophy – absit omen! [May
it not be an ill omen] – and the new capital of the new world! What is
necessary comes to pass. I have no doubt, therefore, that it will be
possible to overcome all obstacles, the gravity of which I do not fail
to recognise.

But whether the enterprise comes into being or not, in any case I
shall be in Paris by the end of this month,[23] since the atmosphere
here makes one a serf, and in Germany I see no scope at all for free
activity.

In Germany, everything is forcibly suppressed; a real anarchy of the
mind, the reign of stupidity itself, prevails there, and Zurich obeys
orders from Berlin. It therefore becomes increasingly obvious that a
new rallying point must be sought for truly thinking and independent
minds. I am convinced that our plan would answer a real need, and
after all it must be possible for real needs to be fulfilled in
reality. Hence I have no doubt about the enterprise, if it is
undertaken seriously.

The internal difficulties seem to be almost greater than the external
obstacles. For although no doubt exists on the question of “Whence,”
all the greater confusion prevails on the question of “Whither.” Not
only has a state of general anarchy set in among the reformers, but
everyone will have to admit to himself that he has no exact idea what
the future ought to be. On the other hand, it is precisely the
advantage of the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the
world, but only want to find the new world through criticism of the
old one. Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles
lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had only
to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute knowledge to fly
into it. Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking
proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been
drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also
internally. But, if constructing the future and settling everything
for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we
have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of
all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the
results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid
of conflict with the powers that be.

Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the
contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their
propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a
dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking
of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing
communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is
itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an
expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private
system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by
no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that
communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of
Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself
only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle.

And the whole socialist principle in its turn is only one aspect that
concerns the reality of the true human being. But we have to pay just
as much attention to the other aspect, to the theoretical existence of
man, and therefore to make religion, science, etc., the object of our
criticism. In addition, we want to influence our contemporaries,
particularly our German contemporaries. The question arises: how are
we to set about it? There are two kinds of facts which are undeniable.
In the first place religion, and next to it, politics, are the
subjects which form the main interest of Germany today. We must take
these, in whatever form they exist, as our point of departure, and not
confront them with some ready-made system such as, for example, the
Voyage en Icarie. [Etienne Cabet, Voyage en Icarie. Roman
philosophique et social.]

Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. The
critic can therefore start out from any form of theoretical and
practical consciousness and from the forms peculiar to existing
reality develop the true reality as its obligation and its final goal.
As far as real life is concerned, it is precisely the political state
– in all its modern forms – which, even where it is not yet
consciously imbued with socialist demands, contains the demands of
reason. And the political state does not stop there. Everywhere it
assumes that reason has been realised. But precisely because of that
it everywhere becomes involved in the contradiction between its ideal
function and its real prerequisites.

>From this conflict of the political state with itself, therefore, it
is possible everywhere to develop the social truth. Just as religion
is a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind, so the
political state is a register of the practical struggles of mankind.
Thus, the political state expresses, within the limits of its form sub
specie rei publicae, [as a particular kind of state] all social
struggles, needs and truths. Therefore, to take as the object of
criticism a most specialised political question – such as the
difference between a system based on social estate and one based on
representation – is in no way below the hauteur des principes. [Level
of principles] For this question only expresses in a political way the
difference between rule by man and rule by private property. Therefore
the critic not only can, but must deal with these political questions
(which according to the extreme Socialists are altogether unworthy of
attention). In analysing the superiority of the representative system
over the social-estate system, the critic in a practical way wins the
interest of a large party. By raising the representative system from
its political form to the universal form and by bringing out the true
significance underlying this system, the critic at the same time
compels this party to go beyond its own confines, for its victory is
at the same time its defeat.

Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics,
participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting
point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them.
In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a
new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new
principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not
say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give
you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is
really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to
acquire, even if it does not want to.

The reform of consciousness consists only in making the world aware of
its own consciousness, in awakening it out of its dream about itself,
in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions. Our whole object
can only be – as is also the case in Feuerbach’s criticism of religion
– to give religious and philosophical questions the form corresponding
to man who has become conscious of himself.

Hence, our motto must be: reform of consciousness not through dogmas,
but by analysing the mystical consciousness that is unintelligible to
itself, whether it manifests itself in a religious or a political
form. It will then become evident that the world has long dreamed of
possessing something of which it has only to be conscious in order to
possess it in reality. It will become evident that it is not a
question of drawing a great mental dividing line between past and
future, but of realising the thoughts of the past. Lastly, it will
become evident that mankind is not beginning a new work, but is
consciously carrying into effect its old work.

In short, therefore, we can formulate the trend of our journal as
being: self-clarification (critical philosophy) to be gained by the
present time of its struggles and desires. This is a work for the
world and for us. It can be only the work of united forces. It is a
matter of a confession, and nothing more. In order to secure remission
of its sins, mankind has only to declare them for what they actually
are.