Karl Marx was influenced by the work of Ludwig Feuarbach. This stems from Feuerbach’s (1841) book entited the ‘Essence of Christianity’. Feuerbach states that theistic relgion mistakes a thought in the head – for a concrete object in the physical world – despite no material evidence existing for such an association. This theory was further developed by Marx and Engels to explain the ‘inverted’ (‘religiously’ based) thinking of the Bourgeoisie as a class. In-short, the Bourgeoisie perceive the world the ‘wrong way around’. Indeed, Marx solves this religiously induced conundrum by ‘inverting’ Hegel’s ‘Historical Idealistism’ – turning the theory involving ‘thesis’, ‘anthesis’ and ‘synthesis’ the right way around – and in so doing generatung the ‘Historical Materialist’ interpretation of reality. Of course, both Marx and Engels felt that Feuerbach did not develop his theory to its logical conclusions – and so the ideology of ‘Scientific Socialism’ (see ‘The German Ideology’, ‘On the Jewish Question’ and ‘Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’ and ‘The Holy Family: A Critique of Critical Criticism’, etc) seeks to rectify this problem.
What is interesting about the above ‘Bourgeois’ attack upon the redoubt of religion is that despite is pristine sophistication (one of the best I have seen) – the authors ‘omit’ what Marx and Engels contributed to this subject when they completely (and correctly) interpreted the philosophical underpinnings of theistic religion – as it manifests within contemporary society. Marx and Engels (via Hegel and Feuerbach) exposed the conceptual and perceptual errors that Early Humanity made when attempting to interpret the ‘seen’ and ‘unseen’ world around them in a time before the intellectual development of ‘science’ premised upon the correct use of ‘logic’ and ‘reason’. Why is this? Marx not only exposed religion – but he brought a decisive end to the Bourgeois philosophic tradition (by turning Hegel the ‘right way round’). Idealistic pontification is potentially endless in its inverted manifestation! A tree can a) ‘exist’ b) ‘not exist’, c) ‘exist’ and ‘not exist’ simultaneously and d) neither ‘exist’ or ‘not exist’! All this speculation within the Western tradition avoids the point of ‘measuring’ and ‘recording’ material phenomena so that it can be ‘understood’ and ‘processed’ for the scientific benefit of humanity. Marx states that regardless of how many (religious) fairy-tales the inverted mind can produce regarding the ‘tree’ – this object made of wood remains a ‘tree’ – existing and growing in the material world!
Historical materialism is the ‘science’ of the existence of the tree. How did it first form? How did it develop? Where did it develop? Why did it develop? What is the evolutionary history of the tree? How does it grow? How long does it live? What illnesses does it attract? How can a tree be helped? How can a tree be repaired? If a tree is felled – how can its wood be used to benefit humanity? All these things fall into the material realm of the living tree – and have nothing to do with the religious imaginations associated with a ‘dead’ tree when it is acting as a tribal ‘totem’. Praying to the ‘dead’ tree will not bring the ‘dead’ tree back to life and will produce ‘zero’ effects in the environment – even if the act of ‘praying’ stimulates a sense of profound satisfaction in the mind of those who ‘believe’ in the religiosity of the tree. Although the tribe will invariably state that their totem is ‘ageless’ and that it has ‘always’ been ‘here’ – the scientific assessment of the wood will tell a very different story.
This is the scientifically-derived ‘history’ of the tree. Its age is ascertained by counting the growth-rings – whilst the ‘weather’ it has experienced through the years is embedded in the texture and composition of the wood that comprises the rings. the ‘colour’, ‘shape’ and ‘direct’ of growth will provide more data describing the history of the tree. Its oxygen, chemical and nutitional content can e used to narrow down the place of its growth and the age it was when it was felled. The marks on the trunk can tell modern researchers what type of tools the worshipping tribe possessed and what their level of education and understanding was. What pictures were included? Is there any evidence of a written language? Of course, when ‘faith’ replaces the ‘logic’ of cause and effect – then ‘science’ does not matter as the tree is whatever each perceiving individual thinks it to be. An intuitive (collective) grasp does not constitute a material consensus. Of course, the work of Marx and that of the Bourgeois intellectuals featured above does intersect. Marx, however, must be ‘ignored’ because his method (if pursued to its logical conclusion) – not only exposes the inverted nature of religion – but also the inverted nature of the entirety of Bourgeois society (including those intellectuals who expose religion – but do not expose the predatory capitalism it creates and they rely on) because such an admittance would effectively end Bourgeois existence and see it subsumed within a Socialist Revolution!
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 