What do you think?
Rate this book
Cuadernos de Pasado y Presente #58
Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History
From the preface: "The materialist conception of history is not only important because it allows us to explain history better than has been done up to now, but also because it enables us to make history better than has been hitherto done. And the latter is more important than the former. From the progress of the practice our theoretical knowledge grows and in the progress of the practice our theoretical progress is proved. No world-conception has been in so high a degree a philosophy of deeds as the dialectical materialism. Not only upon research but upon deeds do we rely to show the superiority of our philosophy. " Karl Kautsky (1854-1938), compiler of Karl Marx's Theories of Surplus Value (1905-10), has been rightly considered the successor of Engels in the intellectual leadership of the Marxian School. Kautsky was the founder of Die Neue Zeit and a political leader of the German Social Democrats. He denounced both Germany's aggression in World War I as well as the conduct of Russian Bolshevism after the 1917 Revolution. This book was originally published in 1906.
- GenresPhilosophyHistory
212 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2002
2 people are currently reading
94 people want to read
About the author
Karl Kautsky
542 books60 followersCzech-German philosopher and politician. He was a leading theoretician of Marxism. He became the leading promulgator of Orthodox Marxism after the death of Friedrich Engels.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 19, 2008
Karl Kautsky wrote this book largely in reaction to the wave of neo-Kantianism affecting Second International Marxism. Eduard Bernstein, a leading theorist of neo-Kantian Marxism, is an especial target of the book.
Kautsky is remarkably clear in his attacks on Kantian ethics for being ahistorical and unconnected to concrete material reality. He is equally clear in pointing out what advantages Marxist ethics have over Kantian ethics: they envision and point the way to a society in which things actually are as they ought to be, and human beings reconnect with their essential human nature and interact with one another in ways that tend toward general and individual flourishing.
And overall, Kautsky's explanation of what gives ethics done from the Marxist standpoint its universality (as opposed to the narrow concerns of bourgeois morality) is spot on. "Certainly it is capital which creates the material foundation for a general human morality, but it only creates the foundation by treading this morality continually under its feet. [...] The proletariat alone have no share in the capitalist exploitation; they fight it and must fight it and they will on the foundation laid down by capital of world intercourses and world commerce create a form of society, in which the equality of man before the moral law will become – instead of a mere pious wish – reality."
There are some problems with the text, however. The long description of "Darwinist Marxism" and its approach to ethics seems dubious to me, as I would not readily agree that animals have a "moral sense." Morality seems tied up with rationality and that I would not attribute to animals at large. In Kautsky's defense, he does devote special attention to the case of highly developed ape species, where the argument seems most plausible.
The book is a bit problematic, as well, where Kautsky's tendency towards positivism pops up and he asserts that "the moral ideal becomes a source of error in science, when it takes it on itself to point out to it its aims." But the worth of science is very much tied up with its value to class struggle and human progress. And human progress is (I think, anyway) very much an ethical concern. Certainly it would be wrong to willfully bend science to fit a predetermined "ethically correct" result, but it is also a mistake to argue that the value of science to human beings is not determined from the outset by its value to the human project of expanding human freedom.
More than that, there is a deterministic tone throughout that is particularly startling in the last two pages where Kautsky asserts that socialism and the victory of the proletariat is "inevitable," thereby drastically underplaying the subjective role of an active layer of working class fighters armed with socialist politics in waging and winning class struggle.
Kautsky is remarkably clear in his attacks on Kantian ethics for being ahistorical and unconnected to concrete material reality. He is equally clear in pointing out what advantages Marxist ethics have over Kantian ethics: they envision and point the way to a society in which things actually are as they ought to be, and human beings reconnect with their essential human nature and interact with one another in ways that tend toward general and individual flourishing.
And overall, Kautsky's explanation of what gives ethics done from the Marxist standpoint its universality (as opposed to the narrow concerns of bourgeois morality) is spot on. "Certainly it is capital which creates the material foundation for a general human morality, but it only creates the foundation by treading this morality continually under its feet. [...] The proletariat alone have no share in the capitalist exploitation; they fight it and must fight it and they will on the foundation laid down by capital of world intercourses and world commerce create a form of society, in which the equality of man before the moral law will become – instead of a mere pious wish – reality."
There are some problems with the text, however. The long description of "Darwinist Marxism" and its approach to ethics seems dubious to me, as I would not readily agree that animals have a "moral sense." Morality seems tied up with rationality and that I would not attribute to animals at large. In Kautsky's defense, he does devote special attention to the case of highly developed ape species, where the argument seems most plausible.
The book is a bit problematic, as well, where Kautsky's tendency towards positivism pops up and he asserts that "the moral ideal becomes a source of error in science, when it takes it on itself to point out to it its aims." But the worth of science is very much tied up with its value to class struggle and human progress. And human progress is (I think, anyway) very much an ethical concern. Certainly it would be wrong to willfully bend science to fit a predetermined "ethically correct" result, but it is also a mistake to argue that the value of science to human beings is not determined from the outset by its value to the human project of expanding human freedom.
More than that, there is a deterministic tone throughout that is particularly startling in the last two pages where Kautsky asserts that socialism and the victory of the proletariat is "inevitable," thereby drastically underplaying the subjective role of an active layer of working class fighters armed with socialist politics in waging and winning class struggle.
October 20, 2021
This is probably the best work by Kautsky on the philosophical aspects of Marxism, if not the best work by Kautsky overall. Yet even with this work, there are serious issues.
To start, this work was only published in 1906. While he uses the Russian Revolution 1905 as an excuse for delayed publication, the dispute over Kantianism and revision of Marxism had been raging in the German Social Democratic Party since 1898; Plekhanov had been in the fight since the beginning, whilst Luxemburg entered by 1899. Kautsky had been reluctant to even enter into this debate with a large-scale rebuttal of Bernstein, Schmidt, and others abandonment of Marxism; this work carries the stains of that reluctance.
The very fact that this work's main focus is ethics rather than a complete defense of dialectics and philosophical materialism is telling: Kautsky simply did not want to enter into the forefront of this debate. He valued political expediency over theoretical and practice integrity.
Aside from his assertion that there was "commercial capitalism" in Ancient Greece, there is little to complain about. His connection of Epicurean ethics and materialism is correct, but he is very vague on the actual link between them. He also says that Epicurean philosophy could not give humanity "peace of soul without which true happiness is impossible," a phrasing that almost crosses into Kantian or idealist territory. What is the "peace of soul"? What is, materialistically, "true happiness"? He does not say, and could not say.
His rebuttal of Kant is correct, and is a rebuttal of more than just ethics. His characterization of Kantianism as a "conservative" philosophy is correct. However, everything he says here is almost identical to the critique of Kant made by Plekhanov and others.
The section on Darwin is interesting but frankly superfluous? Why did he write it? It was unnecessary, simply a nod to Darwinian science and materialism in an attempt to legitimize Marxist philosophy against Kantians and outside observers. This obsession with Darwinism is what led people like Enrico Ferri into racial science and Fascism. His contention that animals have a "moral law" is dubious at best, and a cross into idealist territory at worst.
The final chapter on the "Ethics of Marxism" is interesting, but time and time again he shows his ignorance of Hegelian philosophy and dialectics just like the rest of the 2nd International. He uses the term "dialectical materialism," yet he describes dialectics as a vulgar and mechanical "social evolution," despite the fact that opportunities arise to refer to quantitative-qualitative change and the negation of the negation several times. Additionally, he relies on the so-called "moral law" of animals, an already dubious concept, to lay the basis for the development of "moral precepts" in humans. His sections on moral principles outgrowing the mode of production, however, is enough to make up for many of this work's deficiencies as well as explain the inability of capitalism to surpass conservative morality (racism, homophobia, etc.) despite the age of neoliberalism supposedly outgrowing these morals.
I have marked this work as something to return to because I am afraid I did not pay enough attention to this work and may have been too harsh upon Kautsky. The journey through works of the era of the 2nd International is a fatiguing one indeed.
"So soon as the moral principles grow independent they cease to be in consequence, an element of social progress. They ossify, become a conservative element, an obstacle to progress."
"The longer, however, the outlived moral standards remain in force, while the economic development advances and creates new social needs, which demand new moral standards, so much the greater will be the contradiction between the ruling morals of society and the life and action of its members."
To start, this work was only published in 1906. While he uses the Russian Revolution 1905 as an excuse for delayed publication, the dispute over Kantianism and revision of Marxism had been raging in the German Social Democratic Party since 1898; Plekhanov had been in the fight since the beginning, whilst Luxemburg entered by 1899. Kautsky had been reluctant to even enter into this debate with a large-scale rebuttal of Bernstein, Schmidt, and others abandonment of Marxism; this work carries the stains of that reluctance.
The very fact that this work's main focus is ethics rather than a complete defense of dialectics and philosophical materialism is telling: Kautsky simply did not want to enter into the forefront of this debate. He valued political expediency over theoretical and practice integrity.
Aside from his assertion that there was "commercial capitalism" in Ancient Greece, there is little to complain about. His connection of Epicurean ethics and materialism is correct, but he is very vague on the actual link between them. He also says that Epicurean philosophy could not give humanity "peace of soul without which true happiness is impossible," a phrasing that almost crosses into Kantian or idealist territory. What is the "peace of soul"? What is, materialistically, "true happiness"? He does not say, and could not say.
His rebuttal of Kant is correct, and is a rebuttal of more than just ethics. His characterization of Kantianism as a "conservative" philosophy is correct. However, everything he says here is almost identical to the critique of Kant made by Plekhanov and others.
The section on Darwin is interesting but frankly superfluous? Why did he write it? It was unnecessary, simply a nod to Darwinian science and materialism in an attempt to legitimize Marxist philosophy against Kantians and outside observers. This obsession with Darwinism is what led people like Enrico Ferri into racial science and Fascism. His contention that animals have a "moral law" is dubious at best, and a cross into idealist territory at worst.
The final chapter on the "Ethics of Marxism" is interesting, but time and time again he shows his ignorance of Hegelian philosophy and dialectics just like the rest of the 2nd International. He uses the term "dialectical materialism," yet he describes dialectics as a vulgar and mechanical "social evolution," despite the fact that opportunities arise to refer to quantitative-qualitative change and the negation of the negation several times. Additionally, he relies on the so-called "moral law" of animals, an already dubious concept, to lay the basis for the development of "moral precepts" in humans. His sections on moral principles outgrowing the mode of production, however, is enough to make up for many of this work's deficiencies as well as explain the inability of capitalism to surpass conservative morality (racism, homophobia, etc.) despite the age of neoliberalism supposedly outgrowing these morals.
I have marked this work as something to return to because I am afraid I did not pay enough attention to this work and may have been too harsh upon Kautsky. The journey through works of the era of the 2nd International is a fatiguing one indeed.
"So soon as the moral principles grow independent they cease to be in consequence, an element of social progress. They ossify, become a conservative element, an obstacle to progress."
"The longer, however, the outlived moral standards remain in force, while the economic development advances and creates new social needs, which demand new moral standards, so much the greater will be the contradiction between the ruling morals of society and the life and action of its members."
January 7, 2026
I read this in college for a paper and thought it was rather rigid. I reread it many years later and wasn't sure what to think about it. It gives the historical development of ethics in relation to Marxism, but not much else.
Read Trotsky's Their Morals and Ours: The Class Foundations of Moral Practice and Revolution and the Road to Peace in Colombia: Lessons from the Cuban Revolution, primarily by Fidel Castro.
Read Trotsky's Their Morals and Ours: The Class Foundations of Moral Practice and Revolution and the Road to Peace in Colombia: Lessons from the Cuban Revolution, primarily by Fidel Castro.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews