By Andrew Martin

The German Ideology is a significant philosophical work written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1845-1846. It was written when Marx and Engels were living in Brussels. Marx had been expelled from France and faced increasing pressure and surveillance from German authorities due to his radical political activities and writings. As a result, he sought a safer and more politically tolerant environment to continue his work.

Brussels, the capital of Belgium, offered a relatively liberal and cosmopolitan atmosphere compared to other European cities at the time. It was known for its relative political openness and intellectual vibrancy, making it an appealing destination. In this environment, Marx and Engels were able to refine the ideas that formed the German Ideology, and it remains an influential text that lays the foundation for Marxist theory.

But it is a very challenging piece of work to understand, especially if the reader is not acquainted with the philosophers Marx and Engels are criticising. Many versions of the text are abridged, based on Marx and Engel’s original manuscripts. The German Ideology was not published during Marx and Engels’ lifetime and remained relatively unknown until the 20th century. However, it laid the groundwork for later works, including The Communist Manifesto and Capital, and played a pivotal role in shaping the Marxist theoretical understanding of history and social change.

The book is the final reckoning and coming to terms with the “philosophical tradition”, by which Marx and Engels meant the accumulated body of philosophical ideas and theories that have developed over time. They saw these as shaped by historical conditions and as reflecting the dominant ideas of the ruling classes.

Although it was never published in their lifetimes, Marx and Engels considered the German Ideology to be mostly valuable as a work of “self-clarification”. Marx later related that he abandoned it “willingly” to the “gnawing criticism of mice”.

This article attempts to break down The German Ideology into its component parts and provide an overview of the ideas contained in it.

Historical Context

The “German Ideology” emerged during a period of intellectual ferment and radical political thought in Europe. Marx and Engels sought to critique prevailing philosophical and political theories while developing their own materialist conception of history. The historical context of the book can be understood within the broader intellectual and political climate of mid-19th century Germany.

During this time, Germany was undergoing significant social and political changes. The country was transitioning from feudalism to capitalism, experiencing the rapid spread of manufacturing and grappling with the rise of the bourgeoisie and the working class. It was also a period of intellectual ferment, with various philosophical and political currents emerging.

Marx and Engels wrote The German Ideology in response to and as a critique of the prevailing philosophical ideas of their time. They sought to challenge the dominant idealist and speculative philosophies that emphasized abstract concepts, individualism, and subjective ideas as the driving forces of history.

Instead, Marx and Engels proposed a materialist and historical approach, arguing that social and economic conditions shape human consciousness and social relations. They developed their theory of historical materialism, asserting that the mode of production, specifically the relations between the owners of the means of production and the working class, fundamentally determines the social, political and ideological structures of society.

Critique of German Philosophy

In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels challenge the dominant German philosophical tradition, particularly the ideas of Ludwig Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians. They argue that these philosophies, which focus on abstract ideas and consciousness, fail to understand the material conditions that shape society.

Marx and Engels criticise Feuerbach’s philosophy, which centred on the idea that human beings create and project their own concepts of God and religion. They argue that Feuerbach’s focus on human consciousness and subjective ideas divorced from material reality fails to address the social and economic factors that give rise to religious beliefs. Marx and Engels instead emphasise that religious beliefs are shaped by the material conditions of society, particularly the economic relations of production.

Similarly, Marx and Engels critique Max Stirner’s individualist philosophy, which championed the supremacy of the ego and rejected social and communal bonds. For instance, Stirner wrote in his work The Ego and its Own (also known as The Unique and its Property): “But thereby I, who have only just found myself as spirit, at once lose myself again, in that bow down before the perfect spirit, as a spirit which is not my own, but a spirit of the beyond, and I feel my emptiness”.

Although this appears to us as a spiritual and contradictory abstraction, Stirner was rejecting the concept of an absolute or perfect spirit. He argued that by bowing down before such a perfect spirit, individuals deny their own uniqueness and individuality, losing their own selfhood in the process. Stirner emphasised the importance of the self and asserted that he had only recently discovered himself as a unique individual, as a spirit. His writing advocated radical individualism. Stirner criticised the tendency of certain philosophical and spiritual systems to negate the individual’s selfhood and reduce them to a mere vessel or servant of a higher, abstract spirit. He sought to emphasise the importance of self-actualization and the recognition of one’s own uniqueness as a path to personal fulfilment and freedom.

For Stirner, life was a journey of self-discovery, his consciousness developed by personal reflection; his relationship to the world a purely individual one, writing: “And now I take the world as it is for me, as my world, as my property: I relate everything to myself”.

Stirner believed that individuals should view the world and everything within it from their own perspective, asserting their own desires, interests, and needs as the primary focus. He advocated for the recognition and assertion of the individual’s own self-interest as the guiding principle of action.

Stirner’s egoism posits that individuals should prioritize their own self-realisation and self-interest above any abstract principles, moral codes, or social obligations. He argued against being subservient to external authorities or institutions, instead encouraging individuals to assert their own uniqueness and pursue their own desires.

Marx and Engels never denied the importance of individual freedom, but they argued that Stirner’s focus on individual freedom and self-interest neglects the social context in which individuals exist. According to Marx and Engels, human beings are social beings whose actions and ideas are fundamentally shaped by the material conditions and social relations in which they live.

Materialist Conception of History

At the core of The German Ideology is Marx and Engels’ materialist conception of history. They propose that the driving force behind historical development is the material conditions of production, such as the means of production and the social relations they engender.  They assert that the mode of production and its corresponding division of labour shapes social structures, institutions, and ideologies.

According to the materialist conception of history, the primary driving force behind historical change is the development of productive forces, which refers to the technology, tools, and resources available in a given society. These often sharply come into contradiction with the way society is structured, disrupting, and reorganising the division of labour. The productive forces determine the way in which goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed. These can radically impact the way people interact with each other or, as Marx and Engels put it, “engage in social intercourse”.

In addition to the productive forces, the materialist conception of history emphasizes their connection with the social relations of production, which refers to the relationships between different classes in society based on their ownership and control over the means of production. These social relations of production create class divisions and conflict. In all class societies, a hierarchy with different social roles has emerged within their given mode of production.

Marx and Engels identified different modes of production throughout history, such as primitive communism, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism/communism. In each mode of production, the social relationship of the productive forces takes on a distinct form. Under capitalism, private property takes the form of generalised commodity production which both Marx and Engels saw as stunting human development.

Human Development

Marx and Engels delved deeper into questions of consciousness and went beyond drawing broad outlines of historical development. They contended that it was the material forces of production and their inherent contradictions that shaped the formation of consciousness.

They argued that the development and conditions of an individual’s life, rather than their consciousness or thoughts, determine their nature and potential. In other words, they believed that people’s material conditions and the socio-economic structure of society shape their thoughts, beliefs, and behaviours.

According to Marx and Engels, human beings are not isolated entities with fixed characteristics but rather social beings whose development is influenced by their interactions with the world. They argued that individuals’ lives are shaped by the economic system, social relations, and the prevailing mode of production in a given society:

It depends not on consciousness, but on being; not on thought, but on life; it depends on the empirical development and manifestation of the life of the individual, which in turn depends on conditions obtaining in the world. If the circumstances in which the individual lives allow him only the one-sided development of a single quality at the expense of all the rest, if they give him the material and time to develop only that one quality, then this individual achieves only a one-sided, crippled development.

No moral preaching avails here. They added:

“..in the framework of the division of labour personal relations necessarily and inevitably develop into class relations and become fixed as such.”

What Marx and Engels clearly meant is that distinct social classes with opposing interests emerge arising from the social structure and organisation of society.

Class Struggle and Alienation

Capitalism, rather than realising the potential of the development of the individual, stunts their development, producing the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass engaged in “universal competition…cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction”. Marx and Engels argued that capitalism’s focus on profit accumulation and the division of labour restricts individuals from achieving a well-rounded development, as they are often reduced to performing repetitive and monotonous tasks. They argued against one-sided and limited development, advocating for a society that allows individuals to develop all aspects of their being in a balanced and fulfilling manner.

Marx and Engels argue that each epoch is characterized by a dominant mode of production and corresponding class structure. For example, feudalism was characterized by a ruling feudal class that owned land and controlled agricultural production, while the working class consisted of serfs who worked the land.

Capitalism, according to Marx, emerged with the rise of the bourgeoisie, the class of capitalist owners who control the means of production. The working class, or proletariat, who sell their labour power to the bourgeoisie, forms the majority of the population.

Marx and Engels believed that capitalism, with its inherent contradictions and exploitative nature, would eventually give way to socialism, where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the working class. They envisioned socialism as a transitional stage leading to communism, where class distinctions and the state apparatus would wither away, and a classless society would be established.

In summary, the materialist conception of human history posits that the development of productive forces and social relations of production are the key drivers of historical change, leading to the emergence and transformation of different social systems and classes throughout history.

Importance of Revolution and Communism

Marx and Engels stress the necessity of revolutionary action to overthrow the capitalist system and establish communism. They argue that communism represents a classless society where private property is abolished, and the means of production are collectively owned and controlled.

Marx and Engels contended that the ruling class have always represented their interests as the universal interests of all society. in the past, each ruling class had its own specific economic and social conditions, which shaped the lives of the individuals belonging to that class. The ruling class would present its own practical task, such as the establishment of its political power and the maintenance of its economic dominance, as a universal task that would benefit all members of society. This was a way to legitimize their rule and garner support from other classes.

For example, in feudal society, the nobility claimed that their domination was necessary for the protection and well-being of all members of society. Similarly, in capitalist society, the bourgeoisie asserted that their pursuit of profit and private property was in the best interest of everyone, promoting economic growth and prosperity:

Particularly in the relations that have existed hitherto, when one class always ruled, when the conditions of life of an individual always coincided with the conditions of life of a class, when, therefore, the practical task of each newly emerging class was bound to appear to each of its members as a universal task, and when each class could actually overthrow its predecessor only by liberating the individuals of all classes from certain chains which had hitherto fettered them – under these circumstances it was essential that the task of the individual members of a class striving for domination should be described as a universal human task.

Incidentally, when for example the bourgeois tells the proletarian that his, the proletarian’s, human task is to work 14 hours a day, the proletarian is quite justified in replying in the same language that, on the contrary, his task is to overthrow the entire bourgeois system.

They argue that the proletariat, as the majority class and the producers of wealth, has the potential to transform society. Through revolutionary action, the working class can seize control of the means of production and establish a classless society based on common ownership and democratic control over the means of production. This envisioned society is referred to as communism.

Marx and Engels see communism as a solution to the problems they identify in capitalist societies. In a communist society, the private ownership of the means of production would be abolished, and the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” would guide the distribution of resources. They envision a society where social and economic relations are based on cooperation and mutual benefit rather than exploitation and competition.

In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels argue that communism represents the ultimate goal of human emancipation, where individuals are freed from class divisions, alienation, and oppressive social relations. They view revolution as a necessary means to achieve this goal, as it is through the revolutionary struggle of the working class that the existing capitalist order can be overturned, and a new communist society can be established.

Influence and Legacy

The German Ideology has been studied and interpreted by numerous scholars and activists. It is an insightful and radical work that has laid the foundation for the modern socialist movement. It was rescued in the 1930s by researchers in the USSR at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. We have the practical application of Marx and Engels’ ideas forged in the Russian Revolution to thank for its preservation. The ultimate realisation of the ideas in The German Ideology will require many more revolutions.

Capitalism’s pervasive encroachment into all systems of natural life threatens the very existence of humanity. The ideas in The German Ideology help to make sense of a world that is out of control. Indeed as the book notes: “Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and … the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, … a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.”

Understanding The German Ideology requires engaging with complex philosophical and historical concepts. This writer’s advice is to read the original work and explore secondary sources to gain a deeper comprehension of Marx and Engels’ ideas.