Letters

Feuerbach lives

Jack Conrad’s ‘The sigh of the oppressed’ was of special interest - especially his competent, if brief, overview of Ludwig Feuerbach’s contribution to human thought and its contribution to the early Marxian view of the world (supplement, Weekly Worker May 26). I would, however, draw attention to important elements of Feuerbach’s work omitted by Jack. Some of them relate to my own research in the psychology of religion 30 years ago, which was largely inspired by Feuerbachian hypotheses.

Jack reminds us of Engels’ exclamation, “We were all Feuerbachians!” This refers to the left-Hegelians’ reception of Feuerbach’s The essence of Christianity (1841), but it leaves Weekly Worker readers barely aware of his earlier and crucial work, exposing the flaws of Hegelian philosophy. Feuerbach’s thinking and writing (as indeed that of Marx) was developing fast - as evidence of this, compare the two introductions to The essence of Christianity (1841 and 1846), illustrating the author’s continuing departure from Hegelian idealism and fixed forms of logic.

Feuerbach learned much of his philosophy directly from Hegel, but his doctoral thesis already evidenced a shift to humanism. His first (post-doctoral) publication, Thoughts on death and immortality (1830), was widely perceived as an irreverent onslaught upon theology’s use by the state, and was categorised as a dangerous and revolutionary piece of work.

Feuerbach’s Critique of Hegelian philosophy (1839) raised humanity above Hegel’s impassive and ‘reflective hero’; no wonder Marx praised his achievement so extravagantly, describing him as “the only one who has a serious, critical attitude to the Hegelian dialectic and who has made genuine discoveries in this field”. Feuerbach had shown Hegel’s philosophy as itself alienating, “estranging man from his own being and his own activity”, as Marx encapsulated it. Here indeed was Feuerbach at his philosophical best, employing the weapons of the dialectic to critique the dialectic of Hegel; he would soon use the same methodology for his criticisms of world religions and Christianity.

Weekly Worker readers should be familiar with CJ Arthur’s Dialectics of labour (1986), which touches upon the relationship between Feuerbach and Marx: “Much of what Marx says about the objective character of man and his world is drawn from Feuerbach. It is possible to overlook this and take as great discoveries of Marx himself things he copied wholesale from Feuerbach.” Re-read Arthur in conjunction with Jack Conrad!

Although Jack begins his article highlighting important aspects of morality, and although much space would be occupied overviewing Feuerbach, no reference is made to the latter’s remarks on morality in The essence of Christianity. Here’s Feuerbach: “Wherever morality is based on theology, wherever the right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established. I can found morality on theology only when I myself have already defined the Divine Being by means of morality ... I have no criterion of the moral and immoral, but merely an unmoral, arbitrary basis, from which I deduce anything I please ... We need no Christian rule of political right: we need only one which is rational, just, human.”

Marx and Engels insisted human liberation must be an historical act, brought about through social development, industry, commerce, agriculture and an active proletariat - not through any ‘act of will’ by moral individuals, transcending themselves in an existential sense. Arguably, Marx’s critique of Feuerbach seems well grounded: it is precisely when Feuerbach should be highlighting the consequences of his own critique that he fails. He remains too philosophical, too abstract, in his view of human nature.

However, it is questionable whether the differences between Marx and Feuerbach were as major as is routinely claimed. While Marx’s criticism of Feuerbach appears well founded, in that “he did not seek to destroy religion”, it is surely to make issue of a very secondary point. Having interpreted religion and philosophy dialectically, as alienated forms of a human activity, it is indeed true Feuerbach did not immediately set forth a ‘programme of action’, but that is hardly convincing evidence that Feuerbach “sees alienation in an entirely negative light” (as Jack tells us).

David McLellan offers a fairer prognosis: “Feuerbach certainly did not underestimate the importance of ‘practical activity’ ... (but) the religious problem was the only one that really interested him throughout his life, and secondly he did not judge the situation in Germany in the mid-1840s ripe for a transition from theory to practice - and subsequent events proved him right. Feuerbach was not at all opposed to practical activity at the appropriate time, but he considered it foolish to act before men’s minds were sufficiently prepared.”

Feuerbach’s critique of religion aims to show theology as no more than an esoteric psychology. What was absolute in Hegel becomes human in Feuerbach.

When working on my doctorate of philosophy, I was interested to explore the Feuerbachian hypothesis that theology plays only a minor role in determining which congregation a religious person chooses to join; rather it is the believer’s personality that plays the major role in this decision. My special interest was fundamentalist Christianity and people often queried why in this scientific age, when the majority of intelligent individuals reject religion, I should be devoting so much time and energy to such an investigation. The simple answer was that, contrary to popular belief, fundamentalism was a ‘growth area’ in the world of religion, and had been for more than half a century.

My hypothesis was that contrasting religious communities - fundamentalist and liberal - could be distinguishable, in principle, exclusively by the ‘personalities’ of those they recruited. I attended weekly Bible meetings of 15 Brighton congregations, making it very clear from the outset I was not myself a believer. These meetings provided the best opportunity for participation in discussion, and to mix with and get to know congregation members. By the end of the first year, I had selected four contrasting communities suitable for my research; I had developed a friendly, informal relationship with the four group elders/ministers, playing down my own atheism (yet never pretending to believe).

My objective with each congregation was to submit identical questionnaires to each, exploring psychological attitudes. My preliminary investigations led me to hypothesise that the fundamentalist person shared essential characteristics: fear of uncertainty, obsessive sense of urgency, perceived personal inadequacy, anti-intellectualism, a schizoid view of the world, personal guilt feelings, etc. It was anticipated that, although every fundamentalist may not share each characteristic to the same degree, the majority will share most. Specifically, my hypothesis was that religious communities are distinguishable by the salience afforded community members for these psychological traits.

On completion, a copy of the 90,000-word thesis was passed to each of the four participating congregations. Surprisingly, all were delighted, not only with my reportage of my experiences with their communities, but also the ‘personality scores’ obtained. The two fundamentalist communities, for example, were more likely to give extreme scores to the 10 personality statements on the questionnaires, which I interpreted, psychologically, as registering their high scores for ‘dogmatism’; the Jehovah’s Witness elder specifically wrote to confirm that they were indeed “close-minded” and “dogmatic”!

I actually received documentary and statistical help from Canon John Drury, editor of the periodical Theology, who wrote to thank me for the “project findings”. Similarly, Peter Brierley, editor of the UK Christian Handbook for the Bible Society, wrote to say: “I am sure you are right in feeling that membership has far more to do with psychology than theology. There are a number of current trends which would support your comment.”

Perhaps Feuerbach would be pleased to know his psychological initiatives were still under investigation a century and a half after his death.

Feuerbach lives
Feuerbach lives

Small world

How? On June 2, we are told, an international body published a report calling for drugs to be on sale legally and a UK body of distinguished persons called for the 1970 act to be repealed (‘End war on drugs now’, June 9).

Small world, isn’t it?

Small world
Small world

Consensual rape

Consensual rape
Consensual rape

Official

I am in the United States and have read the Weekly Worker for a number of years now since I discovered it online. While I am what you would call an ‘official communist’, I find the paper thought-provoking.

I like Mike Macnair’s and James Turley’s articles better than the ‘gossipy’ polemics with other British groups; they are more substantive, even when polemical in intent themselves. For example, it would never have occurred to me to compare the formal political programmes of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International with Eurocommunism. Now that doesn’t seem so far-fetched at all; apparently the French Communist Party’s executive is going to support the candidacy of the Left Party, whose roots, it is claimed, are in Trotskyism and the French Socialist Party.

Official
Official

Trot dialogue

I have read Gerry Downing’s contributions to the Weekly Worker for quite some time. Only on small points can I fault him (generous praise from a communist).

The Revolutionary Communist Party, and predominantly the Workers Socialist League (Thornett/Lister/Richardson), represented the pinnacle of Trotskyist politics in the UK. The fact that the WSL was parasitisiced by the Pabloite Spartacists from one side, and Shachtmanite Matgamnists on the other, is a foul tragedy (but a tale for another day).

The point. With a handful of comrades, Downing et al have kept aflame the tiny spark of Bolshevik Leninism in the UK. The healthiest Trotskyist forces in the world are grouped around the Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International, which is led by the Workers Communist Party of Italy and the Workers Party of Argentina.

They have differences and tolerate differences within their ranks. In the last 30 or more years (the length of their groups’ existence), they have never crossed the class line.

I invite comrade Downing and his forces to consider opening a dialogue.

Trot dialogue
Trot dialogue

Questions

Questions
Questions

Bus cuts

Bus cuts
Bus cuts