354

p Habent sua fata libelli, the Romans said. Writers, too, have their fates, and at times most strange fates. Let us take Hegel as an example. How few in number are those, who have goneto the trouble of studying his philosophy; at the same time, how numerous are those “critics” who permit themselves to pass helter-skelter judgement on it! The selfsame frivolous people 355 would be profoundly shocked if someone took upon himself to condemn Herr Bernstein’s book, without even reading it. Whence siich different yardsticks? Why is it that such frivolity is permissible in respect of the great Hegel whereas it will be generally considered impermissible in respect of the petty Herr Bernstein? "That is the question."  [355•* 

p If Herr Bernstein knew the subject he judges of so naively and so clumsily, he would, of course, feel shame at his opinion of dialectics. He thinks that the dialectical "yes is no, and no is yes”, by hampering a sober attitude towards reality, places us in the power of the "self-development of notions”. But just that, is the shortcoming in the metaphysical thinking, whose devices Herr Bernstein characterises with the formula "yes is yes, and no is no".

p “Youth is wont to engage in abstractions,” says Hegel, " whereas one who has experience of life is not carried away by the abstract ’either ... or’, but adheres to concrete ground.” These simple words can provide a highly satisfactory characterisation of the difference between dialectics, on the one hand, and thinking according to the following formula, so dear to Herr Bernstein’s heart: "yes is yes, and no is no”, on the other.

p That formula is the selfsame "abstract either ... or”, a proneness to which, according to Hegel, is peculiar to youth. That the "abstract either ... or" hampered, for a long time, the proper posing of questions in social life and even in the natural sciences is something that is now known to all and sundry. In our country, the distinctive nature of a dialectical attitude to the object of study was revealed very popularly and clearly by the late N. G. Chernyshevsky. From the viewpoint of dialectics, "a definitive judgement can be made only in respect of a definite fact after all the circumstances it depends on have been examined.... For instance, is rain a blessing or an evil? This is an abstract question which cannot be answered definitively: rain is sometimes useful but sometimes, if more rarely, causes harm; one should ask definitively: has rain been useful if it fell after the wheat sowing has been completed, and it lasted for five hours? In this case a definitive answer can be given: yes, it has been useful.” It was from the same angle that, according to Chernyshevsky’s absolutely correct explanation, Hegel’s dialectical philosophy looked upon social phenomena. Is war ruinous or beneficial? "In general one cannot reply here in any decisive terms: one should know which war is in question.... The Battle of Marathon was a most beneficial event in the history of mankind.” But examining phenomena from this angle means placing their study on a concrete ground. 356 That is why dialectical philosophy lias recognised, to quote from Chernyshevsky, that "the former general phrases used to judge of good and evil, without any examination of the causes that have given rise to a definite phenomenon—these general and abstract dicta are unsatisfactory. There is no abstract truth; truth is always concrete".

p At first glance, this might seem self-evident, but that is so only to one wh0—consciously or unconsciously—has taken up the stand of dialectics and does not consider the "abstract either ... or" (in other words, the formula: "yes is yes and no is no”) the most important device in thinking. For instance, ask Count Leo Tolstoy whether Chernyshevsky’s words about war, which we have just quoted, are correct or not. He will answer that they are quite wrong since war is an evil, and evil can never be goodness. Count Tolstoy passes judgement on all questions from the viewpoint of the "abstract either ... or”, this stripping his conclusions of any serious significance. Dialectics is entirely alien to him as a thinker, which, incidentally, explains his instinctive revulsion for Marxism. It is regrettable that Chernyshevsky himself often forgot that "truth is always concrete”. In his political economy, he was himself often prone towards the "abstract either ... or”, but this indisputable fact presents no interest to us at present. It is important for us here to remind our readers how Chernyshevsky understood so well and explained so simply and tellingly (in his Essays on the Gogol Period in Russian Literature) the incompatibility of the dialectical view and abstract judgements.

p Anarchists often ask Social-Democrats whether they recognise the freedom of the individual, to which the latter reply that they do, but only conventionally, because absolute freedom for one person means absolute slavery for all those surrounding him, i.e., converts freedom into its opposite. This kind of reply is not to the liking of the anarchists, who seem sincerely to consider the Social-Democrats enemies of freedom and, for their part, have proclaimed unrestricted, i.e., absolute freedom of the individual. The conversion of freedom into its opposite is seen by them as sheer sophistry or—as some of them might well put it after getting acquainted with Herr Bernstein’s terminology— one of the pearls of Hegelian dialectics. The anarchical doctrine of freedom is utterly imbued with the spirit of the "abstract either ... or" (either freedom or despotism); it is completely built on the formula, so favoured by Herr Bernstein: "yes is yes and no is no”, while the Social-Democrats regard the question of freedom from the concrete point of view. They remember that there is no abstract truth, and that truth is concrete. In this respect, they are imbued with the spirit of dialectics.

357

p Of course, Herr Bernstein will willingly condemn the anarchical doctrine of freedom and will agree with the impossibility of abstract Iruth. Inasmuch as he will express himself in this sense, he will himself go over to the viewpoint of dialectics.  However, he will do that unconsciously, in consequence of which he will he unable to get out of the muddle of notions he has fallen into. Moliere’s M. Jourdain could speak in tolerable prose without even suspecting the existence of prose speech.^^172^^ But when dialectics comes up for discussion by people capable only of an unconscious use of the dialectical method, they will say nothing about it except sheer nonsense.

p The search after concrete truth is a distinctive feature of dialectical thinking. This very thought was expressed by Chernyshevsky when he said that, since the times of Hegel, " explaining reality has become the bounden duty of philosophical thinking" and that "hence the extraordinary attention to reality, to which no thought had formerly been given and which had been cruelly distorted to please one’s own one-sided prejudices".

p If that is so—and that is indeed so—one can easily understand the role played by dialectics in the development of socialism from a utopia into a science.

p The French Enlighteners of the eighteenth century looked upon social life from the angle of the abstract oppositeness of good and evil, of reason and stupidity. They were constantly "falling into abstractions”. Suffice it to recall their attitude towards feudalism which they saw as an utter absurdity, and flatly refused to acknowledge that there had been a time when it was, in its way, a rational system of social relations. One can sometimes discern in the Utopian socialists a profound dissatisfaction with eighteenth-century abstract thinking. Indeed, in their treatment of history, some of them sometimes abandon the abstract formula "yes is yes, and no is no" in favour of the dialectical point of view. However, this has been only at times, the vast majority of them remaining satisfied, in the overwhelming majority of cases, with the "abstract either ... or" in their disquisitions of social life. All tlieir systems are imbued with the spirit of that "either ... or”, and it is that "either ... or" that has given tlieir systems thoir Utopian nature. To turn from a utopia into a science, socialism had to outgrow this device in thinking, and rise to the dialectical method. It was Marx and Engels who carried out this necessary reform in socialism: however, they could do so only because they had previously gone through the school of Hegelian philosophy. They themselves freely acknowledged that they owed very much to the dialectical method but it pleases Herr Bernstein that this should bo otherwise. He has told us that the development of socialism from a utopia into a science 358 took place despite dialectics, not thanks to it. {This of course, is very strong wording, but is just as lacking in proof as the outstanding thought once voiced by Mr. L. Tikhomirov in his booklet Why I Stopped Being a Revolutionary, namely, thai Mussiari literature developed thanks to the autocracy, not despite it. >

p Herr Bernstein is firmly convinced that Hegel and his pupils looked down on clear-cut notions, considering them metaphysics.  The reader has already learnt from Cliernyshevsky’s words what close attention to reality was demanded by Hegel’s dialectical philosophy. However, close attention to reality is impossible without clear-cut notions, which is why one has to assume that, in this case too, Herr Bernstein has failed to understand the great thinker. Indeed, that is how the matter stands, in proof of which it will suffice to read (and, of course, understand) Paragraph 80 of Hegel’s big Encyklopddie, which runs as follows:

p Paragraph

p “Thinking, as intelligence, stops short of clear-cut determinateness and its distinction from any other determinateness; it regards such limited abstraction as existing for itself and endowed with being."

p Supplement to Paragraph

p “Rational thinking should first and foremost be given its due, and in the same way recognition should go to the service it has rendered inasmuch as without rational thinking it is impossible to arrive at anything firm and definite either in the area of theory or in practice. Cognition begins with existing things being taken in their definite distinctions. Thus, for instance, in a study of Nature, distinctions are made between individual substances, forces, kinds, etc. and are denoted in this isolation. Science’s further success consists in a transition from the viewpoint of the ratio to that of reason which studies each of these phenomena— as registered by the ratio as separated by a precipice from all the others—in the process of its transition into another phenomenon, in the process of its inception and destruction."

p Anyone capable of seeing, behind words, the notions linked with them will agree—unembarrassed by Hegel’s terminology which sounds so strange today—that the road of investigation he has indicated is that very road following which the science of today—for instance, natural science—has arrived at its most outstanding theoretical achievements.

p Far from ignoring the rights of the ratio (and consequently of clear-cut notions) Hegel energetically defended its rights even in areas which might seem very far removed from the “rational”, 359 i.e., in philosophy, religion and art. He made the reiined remark that any successful work of drama presupposes a number of clearcut characters. As for philosophy, that, in his words, calls first and foremost for precision (Prazision) of thought!  [359•* 

p But what does the real character of Hegelian philosophy matter to Herr Bernstein? Of what concern to him is Hegel’s Encyklopadie in general, and any of its paragraphs in particular? He is well aware that he will always find readers who will applaud him even if they notice his errors. He actually “criticises” Marxl lie is attempting to destroy the Marxist “dogma”. That is quite enough today to win resounding fame. Of course, it is also not a bad idea to make a study of what you are out to criticise, but that can well be got along without__

p Herr Bernstein sets great store by his own common sense, but Kngels was quite right when he said that common sense is a good thing only as long as it does not emerge from the confines of its own competence. The lengths to which Herr Bernstein’s words have taken him are shown by the following consideration he has voiced, not, incidentally, in the book under review but in an article he published in Neue Zeit after the appearance of the book.^^173^^

In his well-known work on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels says that the world as seen by dialectics is a sum of processes, in which things and their images in the mind, i.e., notions, do not remain immobile, but are in a state of constant change. In principle (“prinzipiell”), Herr Bernstein "of course" finds this proposition a correct one, but he is unaware of the limits within which it remains correct, and of the way the words "constant change" are to be understood. As he puts it, the changes the organism of any particular man is subject to are nevertheless incapable of turning him into a creature of quite a different kind. Such profundity of thought might well have been envied by Sancho Pariza himself. Yet does Herr Bernstein really think Hegel and the Hegelians were capable of losing sight, even for a single instant, of so profound, longstanding and praiseworthy a truth? As though foreseeing the appearance of “critics” a la Bernstein, Hegel drew the attention of his listeners to the development of any given phenomenon being able to make actual only that which is contained within it as a possibility (an sich). He quoted plants as an example, saying that though a plant does change, that takes place in accordance with the nature of its embryo, so that the plant "is not simply lost in ils infinite change".  [359•**  After that, judge for yourselves whether there was any need for Herr Bernstein’s profound remark!