required reading
"on historical materialism" is the title present in the feuer text, but the essay (which is the introduction to the 1892 edition of socialism: utopian and scientific) has apparently also been subsequently published as a standalone text. the core of the essay compares and contrasts the approaches of the british and continental aristocracies to the question of religion, coming to the conclusion that the british aristocracy took a much more "effective" approach in controlling its population.
the essay begins with a defence of "materialism", which engels defines as a peculiarly english philosophy ultimately rooted in bacon's scientific method. to bacon, and apparently engels, "natural philosophy" (the archaic name for "science") is the only true philosophy. however, bacon was also an alchemist; it was only through the further development of hobbes and locke that english materialism, in a fully atheist form, was to be exported to france for still further development. the point that engels is trying to make is twofold: (1) that materialism had it's roots and origins within england and not france or germany as may have been popularly thought at the time and (2) that despite the advancements in thought that were occurring in english universities, the "unwashed masses" of english peasants and the bourgeoisie were still deeply ignorant and deeply religious.
engels also separates materialism from both agnosticism and deism in case there was any question as to the atheistic nature of what he is proposing. he casts aside deism without so much as a second thought by quoting marx as follows "deism is but an easygoing way of getting rid of religion". he spills much more ink on agnosticism but does not give it much more respect. agnosticism, according to engels, is an archaic approach to the question of religion because the science of the day had discarded the necessity of a creator. of what value is a creator if it is not accountable for the creation? he further derides agnostics as materialists in all but name by going through a long-winded argument that is essentially little more than a summary of hegel's response to kant...
if i may interject, i'd like to point out that this introductory section will probably come off as largely juvenile by today's standards. after all, the double-slit experiment (and quantum physics in general) is enough to go back to taking kant seriously again. the contempt that engels shows for his irrational, ignorant opponents actually makes him come off as somewhat of an atheist fundamentalist, which also characterizes the text with a large dosage of irony.
this cursory delve into the mainstream philosophical questions of the day aside, the text is actually primarily a brief history lesson. it places the three major battles of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy within the context of the english and continental approaches to religion. central to marxist history is, of course, the idea of class struggle, particularly between three classes: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. also keep in mind that the purpose of religion within a marxist framework is, of course, to control the population....
the first battle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was the reformation. marx keys in on two of the many reformers, luther and calvin, in order to contrast what happened in england with what happened in germany. in germany, the aristocracy won handily; lutheranism became, like roman christianity, a deeply feudal religion. calvin, on the other hand, produced republican movements in holland, scotland and england, the latter of which led to the second struggle, the "glorious revolution". this "glorious" revolution, however, was somewhat of a failure; the english aristocracy had actually defeated the upstart bourgeoisie, placed it back under its own subservience and left it in philosophical ignorance. enlightened philosophies such as materialism continued to be hoarded by the aristocracy; the bourgeoisie languished in the ignorance of christianity. on the continent, however, materialism flourished and with it came the third battle, the french revolution. according to engels, the french revolution was the first time that the bourgeoisie successfully usurped power from the aristocracy (for a brief time).
while the french revolution was occurring in france, the industrial revolution was occurring in england. by definition, the primary beneficiaries of the industrial revolution would be the english bourgeoisie, who finally saw their power eclipse the aristocracy - through peaceful, financial means and not through violent class struggle. the bourgeoisie then used that newfound financial power to gain political power by passing bills through parliament, such as the reform act. in other words, they legislated themselves into power; however, they were never able to push the aristocracy out of power. a second conclusion of the industrial revolution was the creation of a new class, the proletariat, which began for the first time to organize politically through the creation of new parties, such as the chartists in england. all of that led to the first uprisings of the proletariat, in 1848, which were crushed not by the bourgeoisie but by the aristocracy. interestingly, engels notes that the british aristocracy responded to these uprisings by increasing funding for religious proselytization across the country side.
the years after 1848 saw increasing unrest amongst the proletariat throughout europe, especially in germany. again, engels points out that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy came to the common conclusion that, in order to prevent the "destruction of society", the working class must be evangelized. in england, no such approach was necessary because the british aristocracy had already spent lavishly on maintaining a religious proletariat and bourgeoisie; engels comes to his key statement of the essay while discussing this,
They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religion muss dem Volk erhalten werden" — religion must be kept alive for the people — that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"
engels ends the essay by deducing that germany, not england, will be the scene of the first proletarian revolution.
full text:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Socialism_Utopian_and_Scientific.pdf
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/books/congress/D/16.9.E57/index.html