The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

of thought. The ‘spiritual’ work of thought appeared in the construction of perceptible objects in the form of
concepts grouped in a united totality. Hence his rejection of empiricism, which like idealism considers that
matter is eternal, imperishable and immutable; in reality, for dialectical and historical materialism, “matter is
change, matter is that which transforms itself, and the only thing that remains is change”. 164 It follows that all
knowledge is relative; it is possible only within certain “determined limits”. Finally, this relative knowledge of
material reality can only operate through the active intervention of consciousness. This consciousness, called
‘mind’ enters into a dialectical relationship with matter. There is a permanent inter-action between ‘mind’ and
matter: “Mind is dependent on things, and things are dependent on mind. Mind and things are real only through
their relationship”. 165
Dietzgen’s theory did not contradict that of Marx and Engels. Although often at the cost of maladroit
terminology, it extended it by working out a ‘science of the human mind’. This ‘mind’ was a complex of
inseparable qualities: consciousness, the unconscious, morale, psychology, rationality. From the revolutionary
viewpoint, Dietzgen’s importance lay in a triple emphasis: a) on the importance of theory as a radical
apprehension and transformation of reality, and consequently the rejection of any immediatist and reductionist
empiricism; b) the relativity of theory, which changes as social ‘matter’ changes; c) the active part played by
consciousness in reality, of which it is not a reflection but the very content. This systematisation of Marxism’s
main lessons in fact formed a weapon in the fight against any reduction of Marxism to a pure economic fatalism,
and against any fossilisation of the gains of historical materialism’s method and results.
All the Dutch Tribunist leaders – Gorter, Pannekoek, Roland Holst – were enthusiastic admirers of Dietzgen,
studying, translating and commentating on his work in depth. 166 The insistence on the role of ‘mind’ and the
‘spiritual’ in the class struggle was a direct call for workers’ spontaneity against the rigid framework of the
social-democratic and trade union bureaucracy. It was a direct call to struggle against the revisionist doubts and
fatalism, which saw capitalism as ‘eternal’ and ‘imperishable’, following the viewpoint of bourgeois
materialism. Above all, it was an appeal to the working class’ energy and enthusiasm in the struggle against the
existing regime, a struggle which demanded conscious will and a spirit of sacrifice for the cause – in short,
intellectual and moral qualities. The Dutch Marxists found, or thought they found, this call for a new proletarian
‘ethics’ in Dietzgen. 167 Dietzgen, they felt, had done no more than reveal the meaning of a Marxism whose
acquisitions had been hidden and deformed by the reformist and revisionist view point.
Nonetheless, there was disagreement within the Dutch left on the interpretation of the role of ‘spirit’ in the class
struggle. Roland Holst’s interpretation of Dietzgen was nothing less than idealist, a mixture of enthusiasm and
morality, a religious vision which minimised the use of violence in the struggle against capitalism. 168 For the far
more materialist Gorter, what is important is a more voluntarist interpretation, focused on so-called ‘spiritual’
subjective conditions: “The spirit must be revolutionised. Prejudices and cowardice must be extirpated. The most
important thing of all is spiritual propaganda. Knowledge, spiritual strength: this is what comes first; this is what
164 J. Dietzgen, L’Essence du travail intellectuel humain (Paris: Champ libre, 1973), p. 90.
165 Idem, p. 71.
166 Gorter translated Dietzgen into Dutch, while Pannekoek wrote a commentary in the 1902 preface of ‘The place and
meaning of Josef Dietzgens philosophical work’ (French translation: Champ Libre, 1973). Henriëtte Roland Holst wrote a
study on: Josef Dietzgens Philosophie: gemeinverständlich erläutert in ihrer Bedeutung für das Proletariat (Munich:
Verlag der Dietzgenschen Philosophie, 1910). This latter work is a long resume of Dietzgen’s texts, which insists greatly on
his notion of ‘morale’ and attacks Plekhanov in passing.
167 J. Dietzgen, op. cit., p. 183: “Our combat is not directed against morality, nor even against a certain form of morality, but
against the claim that a particular form of morality is an absolute form, morality in general”.
168 This minimisation of class violence as a material factor appears frequently in two of Henriëtte Roland Holst’s main
books: De strijdmiddelen der sociale revolutie (Amsterdam: J.J. Bos, 1918); and De revolutionaire massa-aktie. Een studie
(Rotterdam: W.L. & J. Brussse, 1918). For her mass action is not ‘violence’, and she often uses the ambiguous term
“spiritual violence”.
63