Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science

by Friedrich Engels

Excerpt from the original book:
"It was not my fault that I had to follow Herr Duhring into realms where at best I can only claim to be a dilettante. In such cases I have for the most part limited myself to putting forward the correct, uncontested facts in Opposition to my adversary's false or distorted assertions. This applies to jurisprudence and in many instances also to natural science. In other cases it has been a question of general views connected with the theory of natural science - that is to say, a field where even the profession al scientific investigator is compelled to pass beyond his own specialty and encroach on neighboring territory - territory on which his knowledge is, therefore, as Herr Virchow has admit ted, just as superficial as any of ours. I hope that in respect of minor inexactitudes and clumsinesses of expression, I shall be granted the same indulgence as is shown to each other by writers in this domain."

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Theory, Nonfiction, Economics, History, Science

365 pages, Paperback

First published July 7, 1878

About the author

German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.

With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).

Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Damn how will Dühring ever get back from this??

[Luís · Rating 3 out of 5]

The modern state is an essentially capitalist machine, whatever its form. The more productive forces he passes into his property, the more he truly becomes a collective capitalist and the more citizens he exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. Far from being suppressed, the capitalist system is, on the contrary, brought to its outbreak.

[thekar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book originally was a collection of newspaper articles by F. Engels against the somewhat-socialist, somewhat-reformist, somewhat-liberal Duhring, but soon readers realized that it was an excellent summary of Engels' views on philosophy, political theory, history, economy and socialism, so all articles got melded into this book. However, the article/review composition of the script and initial purpose of the author is still evident and this makes the book really hard to read.

This work covers a variety of subjects. The first part is very important because it is one of the few early manuscripts that about marxist philosophy of science (aka "dialectical materialism") and its differences with positivism and kantian idealism. A little difficult for anyone that is not familiar with Hegel, but nothing that can not be overcame in the age of wikipedia. The second part covers a wide scope of subjects, such as history of law systems, history of the German Unification - both fine examples of the marxist philosophy of history (or "historical materialism") - and political economy, where excerpts of Karl Marx's "Das Kapital I" are provided. The final part is, to my view, the most important as far as politics are considered, because it deals with socialism, its roots (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen) and its differences with branches anarchism, most notably the social central planning of the economy. Engels makes a few predictions of what thinks socialism should and will be, but most important of all, Engels states what socialism must be, as opposed to capitalism, meaning that socialism should aim to abolish the wage system, money as accumulation of wealth, the strict division of labour and the contemporary family.


This work was very influential to later communists, and notably, Lenin. Today, after the October Revolution and Soviet experiment, and the titanic effort to build a socialist state, many of Engels' claims, like the abolishment of labour division, may also seem to us "utopian", as he at his time viewed Owen. However, it remains a very important book in philosophical terms, and also gives a clear view of what is true marxism, as opposed to anarchist or socialdemocratic theories that are popular nowadays and are falsely labeled as "communist".

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

what a sassy little bitch

[Glenn · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is quite dense, but it's probably the best single (and fairly short) outline of the key ideas of Marxism. Engels thoroughly destroys Herr Dhüring, and presents some great arguments against claims which still manage to pop up today.

Verdict: absolutely essential reading.

[William Gedling · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible and thorough expedition of all areas within philosophy, economics and science. Quite truly one of the best guides to many areas within the Marxist understanding of the world and society around us. My favourite part was his dealing with the concept of infinity to which many groups have since come to reject; to their own detriment! Would recommend to anyone who are inclined to learn and study this beautiful, revolutionary philosophy.

[maerius · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book, exactly as the title suggests, is a thorough debunking of the sophistry of the charlatan Eugen Dühring - and to this our friend Fritz did not certainly disappoint. Thing is, nobody cares about Herrn Dühring anymore. So why did I read this? Prolly the same reason why you came for this review: this book is widely acclaimed as one of the most succinct and comprehensive summary of the whole of Karl & Fritz's works, from philosophy to political economy to socialism. This claim though, I'd dispute.

About, say, 60-65% of the work is more or less devoted to following Herrn Dühring into his from the ground up original foundations of critical philosophy and the conclusions derived therefrom; and in doing this it is reviewed that the entirety of Duehringian thought is either sheer ignorance and fallacy or plagiarism. To be honest, this is a slog. To be sure, it makes good laughing stock, but probably not that worth it to spend one's time on.

Certainly, the remaining 35-40% can be constructive for understanding Marxism more comprehensively - or at least for resolving disputes, misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning Marxism (just like Christians doing endless exegesis on the Holy Scripture it seems). But to what extent?

The first section deals with philosophy. One can roughly divide this into ~3 parts: the philosophy of nature (but really most of it is just natural sciences), moral or human philosophy (truth, equality, freedom etc.) and finally dialectic. The first part can just be skipped in its entirety without punity; the second part may be of some interest for people reading this as socialists, but for someone like me who studies philosophy a bit more thoroughly, it's neat but not that interesting. And the third part, I think it's the only place I've come across where Karl or Fritz talks about the dialectic comprehensively as their subject-matter (rather than just using its methods or concepts in their inquiries). However, the dialectic an enormously complex matter, much more nuanced and convoluted than just "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" (which isn't even dialectic, and well to be sure isn't brought up in this work), or contradictions, or the negation of the negation (resolution of contradictions). The latter two are certainly important elements of the dialectic, but it's quite easy to come off with a very lacklustre understanding.

Now, one can study the dialectic either as an exclusively philosophical matter, in which case Hegel is unavoidable - and I'd even assert that for the Marxian materialist dialectic it would be more constructive and interesting to study the works of later Marxists, like Adorno, Lukacs or Zizek than to study Karl and Fritz themselves. But for historical materialism, i.e. the dialectic applied to the studies of history, political economy and sociology, Karl & Fritz's works are indispensible. 'Anti-Duehring' certainly has a section devoted to this: section 2 dealing with Political Economy, especially the chapters titled 'Theory of Force' which dispute Herr Duehring's claim that force, i.e. political might, is the major driving force of history and society; and in doing so Fritz demonstrates the renowned 'materialist conception of history'.

But I'd say that one is better served reading this alongside something like the first chapter of Karl's 'German Ideology', being more comprehensive and succinct, and not having to deal with the tomfoolery of Herrn Duehring; as well as other works on the anthropology of labour, trade, money, property, the State, debt etc. like Kropotkin, Graeber or Clastres (I think Fritz himself has a work on this, 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State', and although I haven't read the work I haven't heard good things about it). Because, although these chapters certainly have very interesting things, Fritz leaves more questions than he answers them.

Then we get to the more economic chapters on value, capital, surplus-value, rent, and finally on the history of classical political economy (Smith, Ricardo, Petty, Locke, Hume, Quesnay, etc.). Special interest on the chapters on value, simple/compound labour, capital & surplus-value, which are essentially cornerstones of Marxian political economy - the rest can be skipped. I want to dwell on this part a bit, for it's the part that most concerns and bothers me.

Marx's political economy (or just Marxian economics) is founded on the labour theory of value (LTV), which posits that the Value of a product is determined by the social necessary labour time required for its production. Alongside this, the product has 2 other sorts of value: use-value and exchange-value. This seems simple if you were to read this as a socialist learning more about revolutionary thoughts; but from an economic standpoint this is quite a controversial matter: the LTV has in general fallen out of favour in economics, and not just among mainstream neoclassical economists but also among some Marxian economists too. I don't know the exact details of this dispute so I can't comment, but in any case, getting a mere preliminary survey of the LTV from this book again raises more questions than it answers.

Then we have the theory of surplus-value (TSV), which relying on the LTV, is no less problematic. Now, the TSV is not just as simple as 'I produce $4 per hour, yet only receive $2 as compensation, this is clearly theft!' or to put it in another way, 'I have produced as much value as my wage is worth in 6 hours, yet I have to work for another 6 hours just to produce the capitalist's profit, this is clearly exploitation!'. It's much more nuanced than that, and much more problematic. It has to do with the concept 'labour-power', which as opposed to mere 'labour' is a commodity, and a special one at that, being the only commodity that creates value. It is this commodity that the worker sells to the capitalist for a wage. This wage is mere capital, more specifically it seems 'variable capital', for production. However, being a value-creating commodity, THE only one at that, labour-power creates the surplus-value which other sorts of capital (constant capital, like raw materials and facilities) cannot create. This surplus-value is then, as is well known, appropriated by the capitalist as profit (in other cases interest and rent) as well as further capital. This is, as even Karl and Fritz themselves asserted, not theft or injustice to the seller as far the laws of exchange of commodities are concerned: this extraction of surplus-value is indispensible from the course of the development of society as soon as labour is commodified, is attached a price tag and sold and bought at the labour market, as 'labour-power'. As long as the logic of exchange and money prevails, this extraction of surplus-value is inescapable, thereby sweeping away all the reformist pseudo-socialist struggle aiming, as its ultimate ends, at higher and equal pay.

But of course this has problems too - rooted in the LTV as it is. Why is labour the only commodity that creates more value? Why does something only have value when there is labour involved in it? Can't other forms of capital, i.e. constant capital, not in itself create more value, even if marginally less than labour? And how does this value, determined by socially necessary labour time, relate to market prices? I won't dispute it myself, seeing how ignorant I am of this matter. But I'd still approach this with keener awareness of its possible limitations (seeing how much these theories have come under fire) than a lot of socialists I've engaged with would, arrogantly and self-confidantly, despite not having done much reading themselves.

These chapters are good overviews of the matter of value and surplus-value as seen by Marxists, but they certainly are not to be contented with. However, as their major focus is still on attacking Duehring, I believe there are other resources available from which one can get a much more comprehensive and satisfactory survey of the ideas in this book, including other works from Karl and Fritz themselves. And, well eventually you'd have to tackle the bigger works, most importantly Capital - that's a given; but for a general introduction, this is not a really good place to start as many people claim. I'd recommend, for example, the youtube channel 'The Marxist Project', which explores pretty much all of the more important subjects of this book, also on an introductory level, but devoid of all the Duehringian mess and much more easily comprehensible.

I haven't read the last section on socialism, for a few reasons. For one, I have already read 'Socialism, from Utopian to Scientific' by Fritz (which apparently is an abridgement or extract from this very section), as well as have looked around at other resources on the matter of scientific socialism expounded by Karl and Fritz - so I'd say I already have a pretty good understanding of the matter, enough to skip this part.

But another reason is that, from experience I can say that, never trust Marx and Engels themselves when they talk about socialism or communism itself, as paradoxical as that may sound. It very easily lends into the vision of Marxist-Leninists of state managed central planning, labour vouchers and stagism, which is a clear disaster, absolute disaster. Just go read Kropotkin if you want to know what socialism looks like.

As for of the transition to socialism, that's an even more complex and convoluted matter - and the Marxian account is hundredfold problematic than its economic theories. Marxists have traditionally had faith in the proletariat, which will wake up from its dogmatic slumber of false consciousness as its conditions get worse and worse, take up arms to engage in a bloody revolution, triumph over the bourgeoisie in order to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and when it finally defeats the bourgeoisie once and for all, it erases itself as the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat withers away, and stateless, classless, moneyless society finally emerges.

A very teleological account, almost blueprint-like. This doctrine is almost religiously revered by Marxist-Leninists, who use this teleology, one that can almost compare to the second coming of Christ, to justify whatever astrocities they might commit. All in the name of constructing communism, no censorship, political repression, forced labour or forced disappearances will be enough. The enlightened vanguard party of the proletariat will guide the people to their victory; such is their faith. I don't buy their model of communism. This is where Marx and Engels are at their weakest, the most idealistic part in their other wise materialist philosophy. The proletariat has not risen up to take up arms - is it not just as simple as ideology (this I take cue from the post-structuralists and psychoanalysts who factor in desire, and from Bourdieu with his concept of habitus), and even then Marx and Engels have greatly underestimated the tremendous force of ideology. Central planning as Marx incessantly insisted on, has proved itself to be the direct opposite of what it claims to be, not socialism but a disgusting state bureaucracy, a command economy. Party politics and vanguardism remain nothing but orthodoxy and authoritarianism. And do not even bring up Engels' 'On Authority', a clear disaster of an attempt to refute anarchism. This is why I tell you not to bother with Marx and Engels themselves when it comes to socialism. Their philosophy and political economy are brilliant, so is their method of analysing current society. But their theories come crashing down when it comes to socialism.

It took a month for me to finish this, while I could've breezed through it in a week. F*ck school, f*ck exams.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even Marxists do not always agree with Marx, depending on the subject in hand, but it is surely desirable to establish just what it is that Marx had to say, when so many opponents of Marxism or indeed self styled supporters appear to have conflicting beliefs about this and even Marx himself is alleged to have protested along the lines "if that's Marxism then I'm not a Marxist." It is unlikely that we will find a better qualified commentator than Engels, since much of what Marx wrote is only available to us through his efforts and he collaborated with Marx throughout their lives.

This is an extraordinary book, which is not easy to read through from beginning to end, but is a rich scrapbook of insights and explanations that can be striking. It sets out a comprehensive rebuttal of the writings of Dühring for reasons that even Engels concedes have lost their interest; there is very little of Dühring that anyone really needs to remember and there are passages in this book (especially Part 1 chapters III to VIII) that I would be content to skip. I admit to an increasing amount of speed reading as I became accustomed to the way things would go. There is always the risk of missing gems though. In every section, and more so in the later pages than the early ones, Engels throws in snappy accounts of the correct alternative view according to Marx and these passages are a mine of useful information. As the book proceeds, explanations are supplied of key Marxist tenets, concerning the methods of philosophy or of political-economic theory, concerning capitalist economics and concerning socialism in its different forms.

For any academic or student, the opportunity to quote Engels on such a range of topics in such succinct, effective passages must be a godsend. It's not a beautiful book, it's not a pleasure to read, it's not even uplifting, but it is an invaluable reference to which one can turn for clarity and a definitive response to all sorts of questions that do, surprisingly, still turn up all the time. If not a pleasure to read, it is a delight to have read and to retain on my shelves, laced with pencil marks.

Quote

Finally, one more revelation which is “from the ground up original” {D. Ph. 525} but for that reason no less “going to the root of things” {200}: With regard to the origin of evil,

“the fact that the type of the cat with the guile associated with it is found in animal form, stands on an even plane with the circumstance that a similar type of character is found also in human beings... There is therefore nothing mysterious about evil, unless someone wants to scent out something mysterious in the existence of a cat or of any animal of prey” {210-11}.

Evil is — the cat. The devil therefore has no horns or cloven hoof, but claws and green eyes. And Goethe committed an unpardonable error in presenting Mephistopheles as a black dog instead of a black cat. Evil is the cat! That is morality, not only for all worlds, but also — for cats.

[This is, in German, a play on words: für die Katze (for the cat) denotes something utterly useless or wasted effort. — Ed.]

[Note it is not Engels but Dühring who holds these opinions about cats. D. O'hA] ]

[Jehiel L · Rating 5 out of 5]

This text was written two to three years after the unification of the Lassallean and Marxist parties of Germany into what would later be named the SPD. The party at this stage was still in its theory very heterogeneous and eclectic. It was only at the beginning of the 1890s that Marxism was seen as winning dominance in the party. At the time of Engels' polemic against Duhring, 1877-8, the atmosphere of eclecticism made philosophies of a 'complete' system like that of Duhring appealing. For Marx and Engels this was an allure of dogmatism that needed to be combated.

Engels employs a critical method against Duhring. He does not hold against Duhring's absolute truth an absolute truth of his own. Engels' method is to expose the contradictions internal to Duhring's system. Socialism is not 'natural', it is not the 'right' way of organising society by some natural human essence. Neither is it the teleological end of history, the ultimate aim to which history moves in itself. It is a product of historical development where historical development is fought out in politics. It is the product of a political act and process. It requires leadership. Theory requires criticism, which requires seriousness. Engels calls for anyone who is to critique a certain field of knowledge to be knowledgeable in that field. You can only expose the contradictions of the object by knowing it well.

The materialist conception of history for Engels has philosophy pertain to thought. Philosophy is for the study of the subject. The study of the object is the task of science. Idealism rejects such an assignment. Before Marxism, idealism's refuge was in the philosophy of history. Idealism in the conception of history has since persisted in various forms, particularly in the challenges to Marxism from within the socialist camp itself.

Engels rejects absolute truth, that which is supposedly derived philosophically. Instead, knowledge develops historically. Knowledge of one's present is not a matter of deriving a philosophical principle, but conducting scientific investigation. This is an argument for concreteness: in politics, making objective assessments of the balance of forces. This is necessary for a strategic approach to politics and leadership.

This isn't relativism. It is easier to understand the principle by thinking of how natural science has truth while at the same time the present scientific theories will almost certainly be superceded in the future. Scientific theories which bear truth but then are superceded are not shown to be absolutely false, rather they are superceded dialectically by a demonstration that they are truths in certain conditions. Newtonian mechanics is an easy example. So it is with the science of history. We will only supercede our present theories by pushing them practically to their limits. Thus Marxism is concerned primarily not with philosophy but with political economy and with politics, the terrain on which class leadership is determined.

Engels defends the dialectical concept of spontaneity. Duhring rejects Darwinian evolution because he rejects the idea of development without a telos. Duhring cannot conceive of self-movement as anything but a question of self-identity, and therefore ends up in the idea that motion is something which had to be given to matter, not being in dialectical relation to matter. Engels discusses how non-life is not fundamentally different from life, that life and non-life are governed by the same laws. This has been affirmed by more recent science which understands how natural selection can occur with inorganic material. Motion requires non-identity, but at the same is not external to the world. 'From without' is a principle of materialism when conceived in a relation of unity. As we see in nature, spontaneity is not undetermined, but it is not determined by a purpose, i.e. it is not conscious. These concepts become important in political economy and politics.

Duhring's Theory of Force argued that force was foundational to political economy and to politics, rooted in a theoretical myth of the enslavement of one man by another as the original act of injustice. Engels points out that Duhring's story immediately falls apart, as the act of enslavement was motivated even in Duhring's own story by the economic benefit the slave would accrue the master. In fact, force is the means, economic advantage the end. Engels defends the significance of spontaneous economic development, involving voluntary relations, for understanding how society transforms. The development of private property itself involved not only 'coercion', but also 'consent'.

In the discussion of equality, Engels upholds what would come to be called consent in the dialectic of hegemony. Duhring posits that, in a 'society' of two equal people, the domination of one over the other is the root of all injustice. Whereas Rousseau argues that from a 'state of nature' of two equal people it follows that a relationship of domination can only be entered into voluntarily, Duhring argues that it follows that a relationship of domination can only be entered into by force. On the contrary, Engels argues, there is a history of voluntary servitude in real social life. Equality is abstract. Equality on one vector means inequality on another. What is concrete is the specific kind of equality, in the interests of certain classes, determined by certain historical conditions. Duhring is wrong to be for equality in general, and he's more wrong to elevate it to an absolute truth of the world. Engels' intertwining of logical and historical argument here is masterful. Spontaneous inequalities can be the basis for 'consent' in subordination. This is essentially a defence of the economic as a category of political analysis, the economic being the terrain of struggle on which the balance of forces is drawn. There is no concrete alliance which is between equal parties, or equal classes; one leads the other. There can be voluntary and forceful relationships of subjugation, what matters is the concrete political economic determinations. Engels points out that for one person to enslave another, they must have the means of exercising such force, which is based upon economic facts.

There's controversy around Engels for supposedly constructing 'dialectical materialism' as a new metaphysics to be found in nature, and supposedly arguing that society is reducible to natural laws. This could be seen particularly in his discussion of the negation of the negation. Engels' focus on natural science is often seen as a crude mechanical materialist interpretation of Marxist study of society, and Marx is often raised as being better for his dialectical character. However, Marx was just as interested in natural science as Engels. The choice of study of natural science was intentional as a means of developing the materialist conception of history with respect to understanding human scientific knowledge, and to develop the critique of idealism in the philosophy of history, a key philosophical opponent of Marxism.

Engels rejects a metaphysical conception of dialectics. When he describes a process as dialectical, and that science develops dialectical insight, he's calling upon us to study phenomena concretely, in historical development. The natural world has a history; the very cosmos develops historically. He's defending the category of science against a merely philosophical politics. Far from determinism, scientific laws do not undermine freedom. Freedom is allowed by the mastering of these laws. The objective balance of forces assessed by science is the terrain of action.

That political economy is foundational does not mean that politics is not primary for Marxism. Foundational is with respect to the object of study for theory. Practice, on the other hand, concerns the superstructure which is the realm of consciousness. Political economic relations become the material of action. Engels' argument is important because it emphasises a strategic approach to politics guided by science. Force as foundational gives way to voluntarism because the act is all that there is, and the concern must be the 'truth' of the act, its 'truth' found within itself. There are two sides to this, however, as Duhring is on the side of rejecting force as the original sin of injustice. On this basis, he adopts a pacifism, which is a kind of voluntarism in itself as it is concerned with the purity of one's actions so as to not descend into injustice. This abstract politics is anti-revolutionary, as revolutions are the forceful overthrow of the existing powers, acting outside the existing laws.

We should be careful to not take the section entitled 'Socialism' as a timeless doctrine of history. If we were to take Engels' analysis as doctrine of history rather than as conjunctural in the context of criticism, we could draw from it a unilinear logic of history, around the notion that capitalism had reached a stage at which no further social development could be achieved short of proletarian revolution. Engels would live for another 18 years after his criticism of Duhring was completed. In these years he would undergo a shift which put him in a transitional position at the dawn of imperialism, a transition towards a new assessment of the world situation only brought completely forward by Bolshevism. Though there are very important arguments made in this Anti-Duhring which were not rejected but instead were developed through history: the state as capital, the character of a revolution which can lead to the withering away of the state, the abolition not only of commodities but also of alienated labour, and so on. In 'Distribution' we find a summation of the critique of labour which is found in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Anti-Duhring is best understood not as a timeless doctrinal sacred text, but as a concrete intervention, in which Marxism is developed historically and scientifically through criticism.

[Sohan · Rating 3 out of 5]

সে সময় ইউটিউব থাকলে ভিডিওর টাইটেল হত, 'দেখুন ডুরিং সাহেবকে কেমন রোস্টিং করলো এঙ্গেলেস!' 😅

[Vittorio Ducoli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leggere Engels oggi

Leggere Engels oggi risponde per me a due esigenze.
La prima è di carattere letterario e documentario, e si riferisce al piacere di approfondire il pensiero di un autore che, insieme a Karl Marx, ha posto le basi di una interpretazione del mondo che ha davvero contribuito a cambiarlo, secondo una famosissima asserzione del filosofo di Trier. L'opera di Marx ed Engels, anche se non ha visto la storia dell'umanità evolversi completamente nel senso che i due autori ritenevano inevitabile (almeno sinora) è stata comunque la possente piattaforma teorica su cui si sono appoggiate le lotte del movimento operaio lungo due secoli, lotte che hanno trasformato profondamente i rapporti sociali ed hanno permesso, almeno nel mondo occidentale, il parziale riscatto di milioni di uomini da una condizione di assoluta povertà e subordinazione.
L'Anti-Dühring risponde perfettamente a questa esigenza. Il testo è infatti una sorta di compendio della elaborazione teorica marx-engelsiana, e presenta, in ciascuno dei tre grandi capitoli in cui è suddiviso (Filosofia, Economia politica, Socialismo) il pensiero dei due in una forma piana e comprensibile anche per i non “addetti ai lavori”. Il testo fu scritto da Engels inizialmente (1877-78) per polemizzare con le tesi social-positiviste di Eugen Dühring, che stavano prendendo piede nel movimento operaio tedesco; in breve però l'Anti-Dühring ebbe una larga diffusione, per la sua struttura “manualistica”, tanto che Engels ne curò altre due edizioni, con importanti revisioni, sino al 1894.
Questo suo carattere di “manuale” ha costituito anche il più grande limite di questo testo, perché è stato identificato spesso come la “bibbia” del marxismo ortodosso, una sorta di “marxism for dummies”, assumendo – accuratamente depurato dagli elementi ritenuti scomodi - un carattere dogmatico certamente lontanissimo dalla volontà del suo autore. Del carattere “manualistico” assunto dal testo e del suo essere invece senza dubbio un testo che approfondisce alcuni dei temi centrali della critica marxiana dà conto nella lunga ed illuminante introduzione Valentino Gerratana.
Leggere l'Anti-Dühring risponde per me anche ad un'altra, più profonda esigenza, che è quella di cercare di capire cosa, della immane costruzione marx-engelsiana, è oggi ancora utilizzabile come chiave per comprendere la realtà. Ebbene, la mia personale risposta è che il pensiero marxiano rappresenta ancora oggi una base imprescindibile per qualunque elaborazione teorica che si ponga l'obiettivo di una critica scientificamente fondata alla società e quello di un suo radicale cambiamento. La concezione dialettica della storia, le basi economiche dei rapporti sociali, i concetti di plusvalore e alienazione sono altrettanti moloch teorici con cui dobbiamo fare i conti ancora oggi, in un mondo che, seppure apparentemente lontanissimo da quello in cui vivevano i due filosofi, ne perpetua a livello globale i meccanismi basilari. Certo, nel libro ci sono anche ingenue previsioni sull'imminente crollo del sistema capitalistico o sulla fine delle grandi città, sostituite da diffuse comunità di produttori che, alla luce di quanto è realmente successo nell'ultimo secolo possono farci sorridere. Proprio questi elementi utopici, tuttavia, rappresentano a mio parere un ulteriore elemento di forza dell'Anti-Dühring, che perde il carattere dogmatico che il socialismo realizzato gli aveva attribuito per riacquistare la sua forza teorica e svelarci una inaspettata matrice visionaria nell'autore ritenuto il più pragmatico del grande duo. Per cambiare la realtà bisogna comprenderla, e siccome io ritengo essenziale, pena il disastro, provare a cambiarla, trovo in Marx ed in Engels molte chiavi di lettura perfettamente adattabili alla realtà odierna.
Oltre che funzionale alle esigenze citate leggere l'Anti-Dühring è comunque anche un piacere, perché la vis polemica che lo pervade ne fa un testo molto godibile, e rivela che anche Engels, come Marx, era anche un brillante scrittore, pieno di ritmo ed ironia.

[عبدالرحمن نعيم · Rating 3 out of 5]

مقدمة الطبعات المتأخرة للكتاب هى مدخل مهم لقرآة الكتاب فمن صريح عنوان الكتاب هذا الكتاب مرصود لتفنيد أراء أوجين دوهرنج وهو الألمانى الذى شابه كل فلاسفة قومه"الألمان" فى ذاك العصر بعدم الرضا إلا بإخراج مذهب فلسفى شامل وكامل يحاول تفسير كل شىء ويتطرق لكل شىء ...
يقول إنجلس فى المقدمة"للطيعات المتأخرة" أن هذه الأراء انتهت نظريا منذ فترة وهذا حقيقى وما تبقى للكتاب من أهمية نظرية هو عرض النظرية الماركسية من خلال المقارنات والمفارقات بينها وبين أراء دوهرنج ....
الكتاب عبارة عن فيض من الاقتباسات وقد سمح الكاتب إنجلز لخصمه بحضور كبير فى هذا الكتاب و كان الاقتباسات عبارة عن نوعين الاول لدوهرنج من أجل التعقيب عليها و إظهار تناقدات أراءه و إدانته من فمه
و النوع الثانى هو كان لفلاسفة و إقتصاديين آخرين طالهم الحديث و الأراء المتبادلة من أجل المحاججة وتوضيح الأدعاء عليهم أو إدانتهم ..........
و من بين هذه الاقتباسات يفرد إنجلز بعض المساحات لعرض الأراء الماركسية و المذهب المادى الجدلى فى التحليل وتوضيح حقائقها أفضل قسم فى الكتاب هو القسم الثالث الخاص بالنظرية الاشتراكية و تخطيط المجتمع المشاعى وقد نقحت ثلاث فصول من هذا القسم وصدرت فى كتيب منفصل .......
يسعنى ان أصف هذا الكتاب فى المجمل بأنه كتاب قيم ومهم ليس لكن ليس من الضرورى قراءته

[Arta · Rating 5 out of 5]

The last 100 pages or so of this is probably the most insightful theory I’ve ever read. Not only a masterclass in historical materialism, but also an object lesson on how to utilize that mode of historical analysis, and then draw political conclusions from it. Engels doesn’t simply present the principles of marxism, rather he takes you through the steps with him and shows you his process (he teaches you how to fish, if you will) meanwhile also giving the reader a useful lesson in argumentation by framing the book as a response to Duhring.

[An · Rating 4 out of 5]

Em sap una mica de greu lo malament que queda Dühring, però s'ha de dir que Engels fa un treball espectacular d'exposar els fonaments del socialisme científic a través de la crítica del pensament metafísic. La crítica negativa del sistema filosòfic com a deducció matemàtica de totes les ciències partint d'a prioris, esdevé exposició positiva d'una concepció del món (que no sistema) on pel canvi de la quantitat en qualitat, les lleis que regulen el moviment d'un determinat nivell de comprensió de la realitat no poden ser extrapolades directament a la resta de nivells. Quan la ciència esdevé conscient de si mateixa (i potser al sXIX ho podia semblar, però ara no en tinc cap dubte que no és així) la filosofia esdevé superflua o, com a mínim, queda reduïda a lògica (a poder ser, dialèctica).

Algunes cites:

"Las fuerzas activas obran en la sociedad absolutamente como las fuerzas naturales, ciegas, violentas y destructoras mientras las deconocemos y no contamos con ellas; pero una vez que las conocemos, cuando comprendemos su actividad, su dirección y sus efectos, no depende sino de nosotros someterlas cada vez más a nuestra voluntad y conseguir nuestros fines gracias a ellas". p303

Amb l'apropiació social del mitjans de producció, diu Engels, "la humanidad saltará del reino de la necesidad al reino de la libertad." p307

Petonets lliures! Lliures quant a acció conscient sobre la necessitat! ❤️‍🔥

[Suryashekhar Biswas · Rating 5 out of 5]

"[T]he productive forces created by the modern capitalist mode of production and the system of distribution of goods established by it have come into crying contradiction with that mode of production itself, and in fact to such a degree that, if the whole of modern society is not to perish, a revolution in the mode of production and distribution must take place, a revolution which will put an end to all class distinctions.

On this tangible, material fact, which is impressing itself in a more or less clear form, but with insuperable necessity, on the minds of the exploited proletarians—on this fact, and not on the conceptions of justice and injustice held by any armchair philosopher, is modern socialism's confidence in victory founded."

- Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part II: Political Economy, I. Subject Matter and Method

[Becks · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is an essential piece of theory for all comrades to read and study throughout their lifetime.

[Daisy · Rating 4 out of 5]

u lost me on the economics babes but love you anyways 🫶🏻

[Owain · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book establishes the fact that Herr Eugen Dühring is a pseudophilosophical idiot. The whole of Engels' book is dedicated to proving exactly why Dühring's ideas are wrong.

At least, that may have been the point but the fact that Anti-Dühring is still read by Marxists today highlights the importance of what Engels wrote. The enduring ideas are not necessarily the reasons why Dühring was wrong but Engels' answer to them. In this book the author clarifies and expands on many points laid out in the life of Marx and Engels one of the most significant being that this book contains the material extracted to Socialism: Scientific & Utopian. The book does tend to be quite dry and quote-heavy although I found the 1800's style literary bitchslaps quite entertaining. It is however essential reading material for serious Marxists presenting the materialist view of socialism rather than a utopian one.

[L C Dodson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mandatory reading for anyone who seriously calls themselves a socialist or identifies with Marxist movements. Its insane how so many of Duhring's fantastical nonsense is still repeated among the modern left today; IE 'returning the full value of one's labor,' abstract principles of justice, and thinking 'force' is a monopolizing power the state just has interdependent of capitalism. Some parts were a bit of a bore and filled with 19th century jargon, but this is something we can all learn from.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Engels was a brilliant person…for his time. He was best when he did concrete studies on German peasant revolts, military developments, and in some cases questions of natural science. However, most of Anti Dühring is simply a critique of a personified strawman in the form of Dühring, a racist, narcissistic fool. While Marx had critiqued Proudhon, he even admitted that Proudhon’s early work was foundational to the working class. Dühring, on the other hand, just made a temporary impression whose value only survived in later German “scientific” racism.

Contrasting this with Capital, I am happy Marx’s method (about which they argued) won over in presentation over Engels’. He assumed that writing in a “popular” way would make topics more accessible, but in fact he throws rigor out the window half the time and speaks in general about concrete questions of production and reproduction. Granted, I’m speaking about one of the most educated socialists, so I’m not as much frustrated with Engels as I am the dogmatic reception he has received.

There are sloppy mistakes on dialectics (Hegel did not have a law of quantity to quality, that was just a footnote in which Marx noted that that relationship was interesting. Hegel instead had an observation about quality turning into a determination of quantity, a qualitative-less determination, in his Logic. There are generalizations about production and its forms, using historical examples from own place and applying them elsewhere. There are strange analogies with natural science, which not only feel outdated but likewise gave as a premise the idea that dialectics serves as a system more than method (an idea he himself criticized later on in his work on Feuerbach). There are speculative promises about the end of philosophy (isn’t that what Engels is doing?) and the end of the state, many of which lack concrete development.

None of these problems may be noticeable since Dühring’s philosophy stands as a shining contrast. It’s just unfortunate that this work was held in such high, dogmatic esteem without incorporating it with critiques adequate for later times. While I accept his important role in the history of socialism, and I understand he himself was frustrated with this work, its contents should be taken with a grain of salt, and I understand why he admired Marx so much.

[Jerome Berglund · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really strange text, further complicated by a translator overtly hostile toward its author one discerns from the less than subtle introduction, causing a reader to wonder how accurate contents can be in consequence. Essentially a lengthy diatribe and case study in refuting junk theory and picking apart specious, problematic arguments and erroneous contentions, useful for scholars in applying for their own purposes against charlatans and provocateur reply guys in the spheres of public discourse. Engels is a formidable opponent in the realm of logic and debate, and his Harlem Globetrotter dunking on this vexing and ludicrous chump is a breathtaking spectacle to behold. A deep cut and b side of the author's body of work, you'd probably be better served focusing first on other entries in his oeuvre, but there are definitely many memorable and instructive lessons to be gleaned in watching this righteous savaging unfold. Somewhat akin to classic John Stewart Daily Show critiques or that Penn and Teller program Bulls***. Also presents valuable insights into the heart of and core righteous indignations which spur co-conceiver of one of humanity's most constructive philosophies to date. Dense and dry, but worth the effort, and also occasionally unexpectedly hilarious at times too.

[Voyager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written in a polemical style as a refutation of Eugen Dühring's attempt at creating a single complete socialist system (hence the book's title), this classic work by Engels does an excellent job of elaborating many of the more complicated aspects of Marxist theory on issues of philosophy, morality, political economy, the state, and so on — Engels' polemical style making this book very easy for anyone to understand, even if one may find the style of "Dühring says x, but for y reason he is wrong" often employed a bit repetitive.

The impact of this book across the various aspects of Marxism, from Lenin's extensive use of this book for reference in his famous Materialism and Empirio-Criticism to its use in organising the economy of the Soviet Union and extensive references in Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., only serves to demonstrate the monumental significance this book has for Marxism, its detailed, multi-faceted, yet easily understood content making it a book of supreme importance for Marxists to study and return to time and again, be they just introducing themselves to Marxism for the first time or engaging in a deeper study of philosophy, political economy, etc. The importance and brilliant content of this book really cannot be overstated and no Marxist education can be considered complete without having thoroughly studied and mastered this book's contents.

[Jonathan Hinckley · Rating 4 out of 5]

"If Hegel had not died long ago, he would hang himself."

Very brutal polemical response to poor Mr Durhung which, in outlining the deficiencies of his derivative 'world system', arrives at probably the best exposition of Dialectical Materialism and its applications. The section written by Marx ("From the Critical History") is a little dry, but only because he's flexing his acute knowledge of political economy: you can tell he was quite deep into his 20 year study lol
The primary purpose of the book, however, is dealing specifically with Durhung's philosophy, so unless you're prepared to wade through wordy negations of German Idealism (which is more readable than it sounds), i'd stick to "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" which was adapted from portions of the text anyway.

[Margarida]

"Quando submetemos a natureza ou a história humana, ou nossa própria atividade intelectual, à análise pensante, o que nos salta à vista, em primeiro lugar, é a imagem de um entrelaçamento infinito de interconexões e interações, no qual nada permanece o que e como era nem onde estava, mas tudo se move, se modifica, devém e fenece. A visão original, ingênua mas objetivamente correta do mundo é a da filosofia grega antiga, e o primeiro que a expressou com clareza foi Heráclito: tudo é e também não é, pois tudo flui."

[Bun · Rating 5 out of 5]

there's a good reason why Lenin calls this the textbook of scientific socialism. absolutely critical for understanding the fundamentals of Marxism in depth, and Engels criticizes misconceptions and strawmen of Marxism that exist to this day.

[Toon Melis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first marxist book I really struggled with, the philosophical part was very hard, i understood maybe 5% of it. From the economical part i understood half and from the Socialism part I understood nearly everything.

It was a good book for realising I have a loooot to learn still!

[Neal Maro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Warming up for my eventual resumption of Grundrisse.

[sadeleuze · Rating 5 out of 5]

in this polemic, Engels brilliantly outlines the marxist worldview whilst countering Dühring.
an excellent summary of Engels' views on philosophy, political theory, history, economy and socialism, however it is evident that all the scattered articles got melded into this book, which make it harder to read.

1/ the first part is mostly about "dialectical materialism".
2/ history or law systems, of the German unification...
3/ it deals with socialism, its roots and differences with Owen, Fourier, St Simon, the social central planning of the economy...

[Deniz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dönemin profesör ve düşünürü Eugen Dühring'in kendi düşünce sistemini oluştururken Marx'a, bilimsel sosyalizme ve diyalektik-tarihsel materyalizme karşı sunduğu sığ eleştirileri Engels, dolu dolu bir şekilde çürütüyor. Bunu yaparken de marksist düşüncenin ilkelerini açıklıyor. Engels'in zekasının kitabın her sayfasında hissedildiği temel marksist eserlerden birisi. Kesinlikle okunması gereken bir başyapıt.

[G Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Basically the bible of Marxism