Engels’ Correspondence on Historical Materialism in His Later Years

A series of letters on historical materialism written by Engels in the last five years of his life. They include the letters To Conrad Schmidt (August 5, 1890), To Joseph Bloch (September 21-22, 1890), To Conrad Schmidt (October 27, 1890), To Franz Mehring (July 14, 1893), To W. Borgius (January 25, 1894), among others.

At the end of the 19th century, especially after Marx’s death, opportunism and revisionism prevailed, and all kinds of misunderstandings of Marxism and denigration of the materialist conception of history were unceasing. Bourgeois scholars, with Paul Barth at their forefront, used vulgar sociology to explain the development of social history, and maliciously distorted the Marxist materialist conception of history into “economic determinism” and “mechanism”, on the other hand, the Jungen represented by Ernst, a German Social Democrat, had a one-sided understanding of Marxist historical materialism, explained the decisive role of economic foundation on superstructure from a metaphysical point of view, completely denied the decisive role of the superstructure, and vulgarized and simply reduced historical materialism to “economic materialism” and “social fatalism”. Such erroneous views had seriously affected people’s correct understanding of Marxism and harmed the healthy development of the workers’ movement. In order to refute these erroneous viewpoints and understandings, and also to further help people like Bloch and Borgius, who were determined to study Marxism, to raise their theoretical level, Engels wrote these letters.

Engels’ Correspondence on Historical Materialism in His Later Years mainly interpreted a series of important theoretical issues on historical materialism. The main contents and viewpoints include following: First, it clarified the interaction between economic foundation and superstructure. First of all, it expounded that that economic relations are the decisive basis for the development of social history. Engels pointed out: “According to the materialistic conception of history, the production and reproduction of real life constitutes in the last instance the determining factor of history”, “the economic movement being by far the strongest, most elemental and most decisive”. Then, it pointed out the relative independence and reaction of the superstructure upon the economic foundation. The so-called “reaction” is relative to the “decisive role” of the economy. Engels pointed out: “While the material mode of existence is the primum agens [primary agent, prime cause] this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn, though with a secondary effect.” Next, it clarified the interaction based on economic necessity. The decisive role of the economic foundation and the reaction of the superstructure constitute the interaction in the historical movement, “the whole vast process proceeds in the form of interaction.” Second, it systematically put forth the thought of the resultant in social development. Engels pointed out that man is the subject and creator of the history of society, that “we make our history ourselves”, but “the final result [in the history of society] always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus, there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant—the historical event.” Moreover, “every such individual will contributes to produce this resultant and is therefore included in it.” Third, it expounded the dialectical relationship between the necessity and chance of historical development. In Engels’ view, economic necessity is the determinant factor in the development of history, but necessity in turn manifests itself through various factors of the superstructure (including the will of man). Engels illustrated the dialectical relationship between chance and necessity with the example of the emergence of outstanding figures and classical theories. He pointed out that: such and such a man and precisely that man arises at that particular time in that given country is of course pure accident. But cut him out and there will be a demand for a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found. if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man has always been found as soon as he became necessary. “While Marx discovered the materialist conception of history, Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, and all the English historians up to 1850 are the proof that it was being striven for.” It can be seen that at all stages of the development of human history, the emergence of any outstanding person is the product of needs of society and of the times. “There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents, the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary.” Fourth, it elaborated that the materialist conception of history is a guide for conducting scientific research. First of all, Engels pointed out that historical materialism cannot not be used as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, sticking on this label and then consider the question resolved. In his letter to Paul Ernst, Engels solemnly pointed out: “the materialist method will be converted into its direct opposite if instead of being used as a guiding thread in historical research it is made to serve as a ready-cut pattern on which to tailor historical facts.” He added: “But his (Marx’s) way of viewing things is not a doctrine, but a method. It does not provide ready-made dogmas, but criteria for further research and the method for this research.” Then, historical materialism should be studied from its original works. “Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly.” Engels repeatedly emphasized that only the original works of the classic writers of Marxism fully and accurately clarified the scientific theory of historical materialism and also provided examples of its application to the study and description of concrete historical periods and events.

Engels’ Correspondence on Historical Materialism in His Later Years is an important literature in the development history of Marxism, which refuted various kinds of misunderstandings of Marxism and the materialist conception of history, clarified the theoretical confusion caused by bourgeois theorists and opportunists in the Social Democratic Party, helped young people to have a complete and accurate understanding of the fundamental principles of historical materialism, as well as defended Marxism, especially historical materialism.