History Makes Nothing; People Do
Is history driven by enlightened Spirit and critical self-consciousness, with the unthinking masses trailing behind, or does nothing happen except through real people pursuing material interests? The quarrel decides whether ideas or life come first.
Marx and Engels bury Bruno Bauer's Critical Criticism under three hundred pages of ridicule and argument. Against the Bauers' doctrine that history is the work of Spirit while the uncomprehending Mass merely lags, they insist history in itself does nothing and possesses nothing — only living people, driven by material need, ever act. Written while Marx still leaned on Feuerbach, it catches him mid-stride from idealism toward the materialism he would state fully within the year, and opened the partnership that lasted until his death.
- critique
- materialism
- ideology
- idealism
- speculative philosophy
- abstraction
- methodology
- subjectivity
- agency
- intellectual history
- social critique
- emancipation
- religion
Enter a dialogue
- A person is told history's forces move on their own — progress, the market, the age itself — does your book call that an excuse?
- Someone waits for enlightened opinion to fix society while getting on with their own affairs — where does your attack on Critical Criticism place them?
- If history in itself does nothing and only real people act, how do you explain outcomes no one intended and everyone opposed?
- Dropping 'History' and 'Spirit' as actors leaves no grand author behind events — what comfort does a person lose by accepting that only people act?
- What separates your 'material interests move people' from the Bauers' 'critical ideas move history' — both name a hidden mover, so why is yours not another abstraction?