Gong Qin: "The Holy Family" and the Formation of the Materialist Conception of History

The primary critique in The Holy Family is directed at the Berlin "Free Ones" ^[1] represented by the Bauer brothers; the title "The Holy Family" itself adapts religious narratives to satirize the "Self-Consciousness" philosophy’s caricatured completion of Hegelian dialectics. During this process, however, Marx and Engels still expressed a great deal of respect for Feuerbach, naming their own theory "real humanism." To uphold and advance dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and to profoundly grasp the internal unity of the two during the formation of the materialist conception of history, we must further answer three core questions: What is real humanism? How do we grasp the relationship between anthropological materialism and historical materialism? And how do we understand the critique of "the mystical side of Hegelian dialectics"?

How to view "real humanism"

"Real humanism has no more dangerous enemy in Germany than spiritualism or speculative idealism." The opening of The Holy Family clearly identifies Marx and Engels' own position and the object of their critique. Thus, in understanding and situating The Holy Family, the most fundamental issue is how to interpret "real humanism." From Stirner’s critique of Feuerbach during this period, it can be observed that within the Young Hegelians of the time, Marx and Engels were primarily seen as members of the Feuerbachian camp. In the words of Arnold Ruge, the group of authors for the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher (German–French Annals), including Marx, Engels, and himself, collectively constituted a "humanist school." In other words, around the publication of The Holy Family, the Young Hegelians and the German intellectual world were more concerned with the "humanism" side of "real humanism." Engels pointed out in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy that regarding the science of real people and their historical development, "this work of developing Feuerbach's views beyond Feuerbach was begun by Marx in 1845 in The Holy Family." When Marx and Engels reviewed the formation of the materialist conception of history, they both emphasized the "real" side of "real humanism."

What is the "real" in "real humanism"? Regarding The Holy Family itself, it is most concentrated in Marx and Engels' analysis of the relationship between interests and ideas, and between the masses and spirit, as well as the important judgment that the birthplace of history lies in material production. Understanding real humanism’s advancement beyond Feuerbach can be more clearly elucidated by looking at the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. In the 1844 Manuscripts, Marx generally employed Feuerbach’s anthropological critical method and, combined with the study of political economy, proposed the theory of "alienated labor," discussing its four dimensions. Through in-depth analysis of private property relations and the clarification of the concept of communism, Marx realized with increasing clarity that alienated labor is an abstraction occurring in reality, as well as the real dimension of social relations behind objectified labor. During this process, marked by the assertion that "within the characterization of alienation" lies "the positive moments of the Hegelian dialectic," Marx began to realize that a non-historical abstraction existed within the view of the human species-essence (Gattungswesen). While composing The Holy Family in the latter half of 1844, Marx still labeled his and Engels' position as "real humanism," but here he had already begun to pay more attention to real people and the process of their historical development.

Focusing on theoretical innovation in "materialism"

An important theoretical contribution of The Holy Family is its discussion of the origins of "materialism" and its connection to humanism, socialism, and communism. To seek truth from facts, although the term "materialism" appeared in various places in Marx and Engels' early literature, the central discussions on the problem of materialism are mainly found in The Holy Family and the Theses on Feuerbach. These two documents mark a brand-new stage in Marx's understanding of materialism, which in turn contains two moments: the sublation (Aufheben) of Feuerbach and old materialism, and the elucidation of the new materialism—or, reflecting on anthropological materialism to move toward historical materialism.

Prior to the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher, Marx primarily used "materialism" in a pejorative sense, or in a sense that emphasized only utility while ignoring reason. For example, in his political articles during the Rheinische Zeitung (Rhineland News) period, Marx mentioned "crude materialism," and in the manuscript of Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, he critiqued both "spiritualism" and "materialism" in the sense of their mutual opposition. It was actually Engels who gave a positive evaluation of English empiricism and French materialism. After Marx went to Paris in 1843, he began to pay attention to and reflect on the materialism popular in French intellectual circles, attempting to link it with the Feuerbachian humanism formed during the German critique of religion. In this sense, Engels' assessment is apt: "The practical necessity of the struggle against existing religion pushed many of the most determined Young Hegelians back to British and French materialism." During this period, "humanism" constituted an important motivation prompting Marx and Engels to pay attention to "British and French materialism." This "real humanism" itself was closely related to the critique of bourgeois private property and the exploration of socialism and communism. Therefore, in The Holy Family, the elucidation of "materialism" is linked both to the critique of speculative idealism and to their understanding of communism. It is thus easy to understand why the core concern of the Theses on Feuerbach in elucidating the new materialism is the development of real people. As Marx said: "The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity."

Critique of the mystical side of Hegelian dialectics

In the afterword to the second edition of the first volume of Capital, Marx mentioned: "At the time when the Hegelian dialectic was still the fashion, I criticized the mystical side of the Hegelian dialectic." Judging from Marx’s early works published at the time, this critique was mainly concentrated in The Holy Family, particularly the section on "The Mystery of Speculative Construction." Put simply, "the substantialization of ideas and the subjectivization of substance" constituted Marx's critique of the secret of Hegel's structure here. This grasp of the basic characteristics of the Hegelian method was not only precise but also powerful in critiquing the "Self-Consciousness" philosophy as the caricatured completion of Hegelian dialectics. However, combining Marx's discourse on "real humanism" and his subsequent elucidation of "new materialism," we can see that Marx's critique of the mystical side of Hegelian dialectics underwent a process of arduous exploration. It contains rich, concrete content and constitutes an important theoretical starting point for formulating the materialist conception of history, critiquing the bourgeois mode of production, and realizing the transformation of socialism from utopia to science.

Although at the age of 19 Marx once accepted the Hegelian philosophy of "seeking reason in reality," in the manuscript of Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, he had already clearly intended to critique the mysticism in Hegel's view of the state. In Marx's view, Hegel’s doctrine of the state was nothing more than a "mysticism of private property." Therefore, in The Holy Family, he hoped to use "sober philosophy" to counter "drunken speculation." However, besides emphasizing starting from sensuous, real existing things, this philosophy also paid special attention to revealing the real basis behind such speculation—or rather, the mechanism of the "abstraction's power enslaving man" that appears in the movement of real social history. Therefore, when critiquing Hegel’s dialectics and entire philosophy in the 1844 Manuscripts, Marx not only emphasized that Feuerbach had truly overcome the old philosophy (in the sense of discarding Strauss and Bruno Bauer) but also recognized the positive significance of Hegelian dialectics in the sense of the "anatomy of civil society" or the analysis of material life relations. This connected the various moments of real movement in a speculative manner. Consequently, a true critique of Hegelian dialectics must move toward the science of real people and their historical development, thoroughly elucidating the secret within the bourgeois mode of production where "men are turned into hats" and "hats into ideas." In this sense, although for a long time after The Holy Family Marx mentioned Hegel and his dialectic in a negative light, the "exploration of the rational form of the dialectic" was precisely embedded within these empirical explorations that moved away from Hegel yet continuously analyzed the dialectical moments of the movement of material production. In Capital, Marx naturally opposed the mystical side of Hegel's speculative structure, but he uncovered the secrets of the capitalist mode of production in a historical, materialist, and dialectical way.

In summary, The Holy Family constitutes a key link in the formation of the materialist conception of history, and "real humanism" constitutes a key link in "moving toward the science of real people and their historical development." Although Marx and Engels were more or less influenced by Feuerbach in the second half of 1844, the key step of "developing Feuerbach's views beyond Feuerbach" had already been taken. This involved constructing a dialectical, historical, and practical materialism during the critique of political economy and the exploration of socialist and communist practice. Today, re-reading The Holy Family allows us to more deeply appreciate how Marx and Engels persisted in starting from reality, grasping social structures and historical trends, insisting on the exchange of different perspectives, and having the courage to discover science and reveal truth through theoretical struggle and self-criticism. We must persist in methodological self-awareness and continuously advance theoretical innovation on the basis of new, great practices.