How the Gods Were Made: A Study in Historical Materialism

by John Keracher

Introduction: When I came into contact with the Socialist Party of America, in the spring of 1910, I heard some of its members speaking about the Materialist Conception of History. I had never heard the term before & was curious to know just what it meant.
Approaching those members, I asked for an explanation. Soon, I discovered, as it seemed to me then, that there was something mysterious about it. They told me that they believed in it and were sure that it was quite scientific, but that it was not easy to explain as it was very “deep.” They said that I would have to read a good deal in order to grasp it. Later, I had an opportunity to ask some of the prominent members of that party to explain the Materialist Conception of History but I met with no success. I came to the conclusion that I was too green grasp the matter and for the time being passed it up.
Meanwhile, I had subscribed to a number of socialist papers and started to read socialist books and pamphlets. Soon I noticed that there was much contradiction existing on socialist theory. The authors and editors held different views, often quite opposite, on important questions of principle. This was explained to me as a “permissible difference of opinion on the part of the writers.” I was assured that everything was all right, that “in a democratic movement, such as ours, much allowance must be made for individual opinion.”
I was not satisfied with the answer. Something must be wrong, I felt, with a movement which permitted such a wide range of opinion on the principles of socialism. Directly opposite views could not both be correct. I was still religious, although a sceptic, and naturally asked the question: “Where does socialism stand on religion?”
To these questions I received three different answers. Some told me that socialism and religion were in harmony, that “Socialism is practical Christianity.” Others said, “Socialism is a materialist philosophy, and, therefore, leaves no room for belief in the supernatural.” There were still others, who said, “We take no stand whatever on religion. It is a private matter.” These conflicting opinions puzzled me.
Among the books which I had bought were some by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. I had previously read some pamphlets which mentioned them and had seen many quotations from their works in the socialist periodicals. I turned my attention to their writings and after a time began to grasp what was meant by the Materialist Conception of History. The more I read of their writings the clearer it became to me. I began to overcome my former indefinite position on the question of religion and upon other questions, such as social reforms, the function of industrial organisations (i.e. the unions), the State and other institutions. I came to the conclusion that if Marx and Engels were correct, a great many others, calling themselves socialists, must be wrong.
By this time I was quite enthusiastic about the illuminating effect of the Materialist Conception of History. It threw an entirely new light upon what little historic knowledge I had previously acquired. I was just learning to lecture. I had delivered a few talks on elementary economics and industrial history. It occurred to me that if I could explain to the workers what was meant by the Materialist Conception of History, I would be using my time to the best advantage. I tried the experiment with the material at my disposal and at the outset I met with a question that almost upset me. The question was put something like this: “It is all very well to use the Materialist Conception of History to explain material things and their relations, but how are you going to account for the SPIRITUAL things; can the Materialist Conception of History do that?”
It was this challenge which forced me to conclude that if the SPIRITUAL things could not be explained from the materialist standpoint, then there must be something wrong with the Materialist Conception of History. I felt that this could be done and set to work. The following data were collected from many sources. I claim no original ideas. I have simply put together the ideas of others for the purpose of showing where the so-called spiritual things came from, and also for the purpose of making comparison with other explanations of history, to prove the soundness of the Marxian method.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion

First published January 1, 1929

Reviews

[Maher Razouk · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب جيد ، معلوماته سهلة و ممتعة ، و حججه الفلسفية صحيحة نوعا ما

[علاء · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتابٌ مشوقٌ لحدٍ ما؛ حيثُ أَلقيتُ من خلاله نظرةً بسيطةً على الكثير من الآراء والأفكار المغايرة لتلك السائدة والمعروفة وإن لم تكن معظمها – أي الأفكار التي جاءت بها الدراسة – مقنعة أو قائمة على دلائل منطقيّة وواقعية ومثبتة.

- لم تكنِ الترجمةُ في المستوى؛ فكثيرٌ من الجمل بدون معنى فضلًا عن بعض الأخطاء الإملائية والنحويّة!

[Hagerkaan11 · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكتاب ممتع من حيث الميثولوجيا ومعلوماته وكيف ينشأ الدين والجنة مشابه لحياتهم المادية لكن الأمر يتوقف هنا فقط فالكاتب يقول لنتخلص من الخرافات (الدين ) ونضع بمكانه الاشياء المادية لتحقيق السعادة ونسعى لامتلاك اكثر من غيري لاحقق السعادة

[Muhammed Moussa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting

[Salfua السلفع · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب قصير ممتع بمعلوماته عباره عن دراسة في المادية التاريخية يتكلم عن الالهة و الخلود في كل ديانه تقريبا بطريقه موضوعيه و تناول بعض الانظمة الاقتصادية كالرأس المالية و النقابية و الاصلاحية ..

[Vct3j · Rating 4 out of 5]

- "الدماغ لا یمكنه عكس ما ھو غیر موجود ،فھو لا یعكس إلا الأمور الحقیقیة والواقعیة."

- "الشيء الذي لا یدخل إلى العقل لا یمكن استحضاره منه."
-
حرفيا قاعده اقرأ واقول هو منجد من 1929 مدري بس مو مستوعبه يعني ذا كله وهو كذا قبل كم اجل الحين كيف والله مدري وش ممكن اقول احس ودي ارجع اقرأه مره ثانيه عشان استوعب صح، بس بشكل عام كلامه كله صح اللى عن الميثولوجيا والعمل غير سالفه الدين ما اتفق معه فيها ،صح اتفق معه انه إذا أنا الحين فقير واعبد ربي خلاص ارضي باللى أنا فيه وماغير من نفسي او افعل الأسباب واستمتع بالدنيا لانه خلاص ان شاء الله بالجنه استمتع لا لا الأفضل استمتع دنيا وآخره بس بحدود الدين طبعاً لا انت اللى تركز على الدنيا بس وتجتهد فيها ولا بس الاخره لا يا تكسب الاثنين او الاخره المهم -بس اخذها هو من منظور المسيحيه تقريباً اللى فهمته بس اللى مشيت عليه وأنا اقرأ كان ببالي الإسلام - بس اللى ما اتفق معه وهو الشي الوحيد انه قاعد كأنه يروج له اللى هو فهمت زي انه الألحاد افضل شي وأنه الدين شي رجعّي او جهل بس طبعاً غلط وبس بالباقي كله اتفق معه بالعمل وكيف كل دين او الدول تتخيل الاخره بحسب المكان اللى هي عايشه فيه فيب وبعد يوم سولف عن الٓهة الفايكينغ وكيف أسماءها واللى هي البعض منها أسماء الأشهر الحين ( كنت توي شايفه له فيد باليوت ف حسيت اللى هو ذا اعرفه ما يحتاج 🫣بس احس تاكدت )والله مره حلو الكتاب ماتوقعت يعجبني بس طلع نفس ارائي ببعض الأشياء بس مو الدين بس يجننن وان شاء الله بعيده عشان افهمه زين الزين❤️‍🔥

[Aeham · Rating 3 out of 5]

- انتهيت من قراءة الطبعة الجديدة من هذا الكتاب وهي من إصدار الدار الليبرالية، مكونة من قسمين قسم أول معنون بكيف وجدت الآلهة " دراسة في المادية التاريخية " ووجدته ممتعاً ومفيداً قدم توضيحاً معقولاً لمفهوم المادية التاريخية، أما القسم الثاني المعنون بدين التوحيد القمري والذي يتحدث عن الأصوال، الارتباطات والتقاطعات التي تجمع بين الدين الإسلامي وديانة عبادة القمر التي أنتشرت على نطاق واسع في منطقة الشرق الأوسط عموماً وفي شبه الجزيرة العربية على وجه التخصيص قبل ظهور الإسلام فقد حمل كماً جيداً من المعلومات لكنه أفتقد إلى الترابط والتماسك في صياغته إضافة إلى وجود تكرار في أكثر من موقع ..
ملاحظة : الكتاب يحوي على كمية مزعجة من الأخطاء الطباعية والإملائية ..

[Eras. · Rating 4 out of 5]

فيه انحيازات لكن طريقة الشرح والسرد جميلة.

[Samah]

A Study in Historical Materialism

[أحمد دعدوش · Rating 1 out of 5]

سطحي ومؤدلج.