No More Learning

30. Ibid. , XXXVI, 198.
31. Ibid. , XXXIX, 79.
32. Ibid. , XXVI, Part 2, p. 112.
33. Ibid. , XXIX, 436.
34. Ibid. , XXX, 640.
35. Ibid. , XVIII, 89 and especially XXII, 93-185.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 66 ERNST NOLTE
fraction of the diligence that Marx and Engels expended. There can be no doubt whatsoever that rigor, conscientiousness, and objectivity were basic principles of scholarship for Marx and Engels. The best intentions in the service of the noblest party are no substitute for them, nor, of course, are shouting and demonstrating.
So far we have dealt only with the external features of scholarship, with its workmanlike aspects, if you will. If we turn now to Marx's view of its content, we may often have the impression that he ascribes "faithfulness to fact," and therefore true scholarly rigor, only to the natural sciences and that he sees his own research as having scientific character in that it reveals the workings of social and economic laws. He writes in a frequently quoted passage from the foreword to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: "In studying such social changes, we must always distinguish be- tween material changes in the conditions of economic production - changes that can be precisely measured by scientific methods - and the legal, po- litical, religious, artistic, or philosophical forms they take, i. e. , the ideological forms, through which people become aware of a conflict and within which
they fight it out. "36If we were concerned here with more than Marx's and Engels' concept of scholarship, we would have to consider a number of other questions at this point. We would have to inquire into the relationship between dialectic and a linear concept of causality, into the question of whether we can admit a concept of conflict that is independent of the circumstances in which conflict is worked out, and into the meaning of the political character of Marxism itself.
In our present discussion we will have to limit ourselves to asking whether bourgeois thought has any relevance for the mode of inquiry and the method characteristic of Marxism. The answer must be not only that bourgeois thought is relevant to the Marxist approach, but that bourgeois thought created the Marxist approach. In his well-known letter of March 5, 1852, Marx writes to Weydemeyer: "As far as I am concerned, I cannot claim the honor of having discovered either classes or class conflict in modern society. Bourgeois historians had described the historical development of class struggle long before I came along, and bourgeois economists had laid bare the economic anatomy of this struggle. My contributions were to prove (1 ) that the exis- tence of classes is directly linked to specific historical stages in production methods, (2) that class struggle will inevitably lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat, and (3) that this dictatorship itself forms only a transition to the abolishment of classes and to a classless society. "37In other words, what
often goes under the name of Marxism today - demonstration of the exis- tence of classes, structural analysis of societies, acceptance of the concept of class struggle- all this is in fact, as Marx himself clearly stated, the product
36. Ibid. , XIII, 9.
37. Ibid. , XXVIII, 507ff.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? "BOURGEOIS" AND "MARXIST" HISTORIOGRAPHY 67
of bourgeois thought, particularly as represented in French and English writings.
It is well worth noting here, too, that in Marx's lifetime "classes" were a very palpable reality, not, as they are today, a phenomenon we can hardly perceive any more. It was against the law in Prussia as late as 1869 for noblemen to marry women of the petite bourgeoisie, and the French bourgeois thinkers Marx had in mind in the passage just cited above - Guizot, Mignet, the Thierrys- were all followers of the eighteenth-century writers Dubos and Boulainvilliers, a priest and a nobleman. And even if we take the nar- rower of Marx's and Engels' two concepts of class as our basis, a concept by which "estates" were not classes, what was more common usage in the era of Louis Philippe, the Citizen King, than the contrast of bourgeoisie and common people, indeed, of bourgeoisie and proletariat?
On the other hand, the elements of Marx's theory that he identified as his own contributions are precisely the ones that bourgeois thinkers have to call the undemonstrable, the political, the utopian, and the unscholarly tenets of Marxism. We have finally come to a point where "bourgeois" and "Marxist" scholarship differ radically and irreconcilably. But not even this difference is absolute, for bourgeois thought cannot be identified with any one of its manifestations, not with the historicism that most historians of the Second Reich in Germany subscribed to, nor with the positivism that dominated in the French Third Republic, nor with the pragmatism that characterizes most English and American historians. Bourgeois thought can readily admit the possibility that "class society" will be followed and replaced by a "post-class society," just as class society followed and replaced a society based on estates. Bourgeois thought can also accept as given the tendency to dislodge the ruling groups of the past and to initiate an era dominated by the "common man" or even by a broadly defined "proletariat. "But it cannot believe that at any time there will be a world society without inner differentiations, i. e. , classes, and without centers of power, i. e. , states, a world society, furthermore, in which individuals will no longer be subject to a division of labor. Skepticism
toward this idea of a classless society- an idea that is at the heart of Marxism - forms the one real dividing line between bourgeois and Marxist historiography. But both share the same methodological principles and they may share certain procedural techniques, such as structural analysis, ideo- logical critique, quantitative analysis in social history, and even economistic analysis.
III. STATE MARXISM, FREE MARXISM, AND SCHOLARSHIP
Bourgeois historiography cannot, of course, offer any proof for its disbelief because the future is not among its subjects of inquiry. But within its area of
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 68 ERNST NOLTE
competence it can ascertain that leftist Marxists have kept the ruling wing of Marxism under sharp and constant attack from nearly the first day the Communist Party came to power. Critics ranging from Rosa Luxemburg, Hermann Gorter, and the Kronstadt sailors on through Arthur Rosenberg and Trotsky and up to Ernst Bloch and a recent publication entitled Socialism as a Ruling Political Power38 have all used Marxist terminology to attack Marxist government. They have spoken of exploitation, class, the rule of a minority over the majority, etc. The disillusioned Left of earlier times and the New Left of the present and of the recent past have pointed out more emphatically than any bourgeois historian ever has that the term "socialistic" can be applied to the governments of the Soviet Union, its allies, and the People's Republic of China only in quotation marks and only as a shorthand term of convenience.
We have to distinguish, then, between state Marxism and free Marxism. Both make use of Marxist terminology but in contexts of differing scope, and we cannot help but notice that state Marxism is a "political science" in the narrowest sense of the term. It lacks the critical distance toward its own state and government that we find among bourgeois scholars, even among the most determined representatives of "bourgeois class interests. " Conversely, free Marxism embodies the most radical and total form of critical distance and consequently represents the purest development of bourgeois scholarship imaginable. Where free Marxism can play an extremely stimulating and fruit- ful role within the framework of the bourgeois society and scholarship that nourish it, historiography under the wing of state Marxism is a discipline without autonomy or initiative. Certain lines of inquiry are cut off by rigid taboos that the discipline has made its own. Wherever tradition and special circumstances have made resurgence of autonomy and spontaneity possible, these impulses have been robbed of their vigor or suppressed by force. The fate of historians in Czechoslovakia is a case in point.
But bourgeois historiography is both able and obliged to make still another distinction within Marxism. There is not just one form of state Marxism, the state Marxism of the Soviet Union or of the "Chinese-Soviet bloc. " As early as 1964 Pravda spoke of the "cold war" that the Chinese leadership was waging against the Soviet Union,39 and by now the Sino-Soviet conflict has long become a given factor in world politics, a factor that has more or less split the communist parties of the world into two camps. Today, it is not only appropriate but essential to ask whether Marxism is not more likely to aggravate rather than lessen conflict between states, provided they are more or less equal in strength. It would seem at least possible that a world divided
38. "Der Sozialismus als Staatsmacht: Ein Dilemma und fUnf Berichte," in Kursbuch, 30 (Berlin, 1972).
39. Europa-Archiv (1964), Chronology, under September 2, 1964.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? "BOURGEOIS"5 AND "MARXIST" HISTORIOGRAPHY 69
up among four or five major Marxist powers would be futher removed from unity than a bourgeois system of a hundred national states held together by trade interests and also, of course, by what Marxists would call neoimperialism and neocolonialism.
In addition to these distinctions, bourgeois historiography will have to note still other features of Marxism and Marxist scholarship. It is easy to explain the contrast between state and free Marxism because the Marxism of Marx and Engels is primarily a synthesis of bourgeois faith in progress, including an optimistic belief in expanding production, and the primitivism of the early socialists. This primitivism was based in turn on the oldest elements of human social order - tribal allegiance and village democracy - whose vestiges had survived into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Along with statements in Marx that represent his theory as the apotheosis of the Enlightenment, there are others that would make Marxism appear to be the very essence of Romantic reaction against the Enlightenment. 40These two elements, which can only be brought together in an intellectual structure, necessarily fall apart again as we leave the realm of the intellectual. In the last analysis, the con- cept of a classless society as a kind of global clan democracy proves to be nothing more, in Kant's terms, than a hypostatization of a regulative idea.
Bourgeois historiography is thus by no means a passive object of criticism for Marxist historiography. On the contrary, it, too, fulfills a critical function both comprehensive and fundamental in nature. It does so by refusing to accept the oversimplified image of two major and equal schools of thought standing in opposition to each other. Bourgeois and Marxist historiography are not mutually exclusive. Their relationship to each other is much more complicated than that, and within this relationship there is room for unity, disagreement, and interdependence. Such a relationship corresponds, in a somewhat different form, to the relationship between bourgeois and Marxist states. We are clearly not dealing with any mere historical sequence here, as a naive orthodoxy would have us believe. Lenin and Stalin after him were both fully aware that the "socialism" of their country was a "different" and more difficult path than that of the "advanced capitalistic states" but that it did not represent a "higher stage" of development that left the bourgeois states "behind by an entire historical epoch. " The "capitalism" of the West arose from specific historical premises. It has modified these premises, but it has not altered them completely. Indeed, it depends on them for its very existence. One of these premises was a political order based on the estates. Otto Hinze called this order the precursor of representative government in the history of the world. Another premise was the separation of church and state. Still a third was the relative autonomy of intellectual life; a fourth, the
40. MEW, XXXII, 51.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 70 ERNST NOLTE
growth of a relatively apolitical business community that was allowed to run the economy, or at least major portions of it, as though national economy were private enterprise.
From the essentially accidental and unplanned combination of these factors developed that overwhelming, world-encompassing, and - to the unsophis- ticated mind- "unnatural"force that constitutes the basic premise of all modern history and that Marxism, grossly oversimplifying, identifies as ''capitalism. " But the fact that the business community has not to this day become a political class, that it has never really ruled but has remained one faction among many and one that could be divided against itself at that - this is precisely what characterizes all the strengths and weaknesses of a social order that is the most unusual and complex in the history of the world. By contrast, the Marxist states have been and continue to be phenomena of social concentration and mobilization. They are led by a new class, a "tiny
seed," as Lenin put it,41 that means to transform and will transform everything. We could describe this class as a substitute bourgeoisie or, better yet, as a political bourgeoisie whose power is unchecked, undisguised, and publicly sanctioned. The historiography of state Marxism serves as its mouthpiece.
My considerations thus far may have created the impression that I would like to see Marxist historiography's claim to infallibility give place to that of bourgeois historiography and that I am developing a doctrinaire apology for my own society and state in imitation of the united front that Marxist historiography and the Marxist state present. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is obvious, of course, that in considering the history of its own society bourgeois historiography will not be animated by boundless indig- nation at social exploitation; and despite the recognition that some Marxist writers take of "progressive tendencies" in bourgeois society, this indignation remains the informing pathos of all Marxist historiography. The informing impulse of bourgeois historiography, on the other hand, is the need to under- stand, for this Marxist pathos is closely linked to the aspect of Marxism that most inspires the bourgeois historian's skepticism- utopian faith in the coming of a classless society and the resulting priority of political practice over the. cognitive act. Bourgeois historiography is also informed by the insight that isolated and unmitigated "exploitation" has occurred only in cer- tain historical periods, that as a rule any kind of organization or leadership will produce exploitation, and that the achievements of the "ruling classes"
therefore have to be evaluated above and beyond their relationship to any antiseptically isolated and constantly shifting body of "progressive ideas. "
"Bourgeois scholarship" is even less a Platonic and immutable entity than its Marxist counterpart. Today, for example, historians of the Federal Re- public, unlike their predecessors in the nineteenth century, work closely
41. W. I. Lenin, Werke, XXXIII (Berlin, 1966, 3rd ed. ), 428.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? BOURGEOIS AND MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY 71
together with American historians and form, in some respects, a single com- munity of scholars with them. Gerhard Lozek was not wholly arbitrary in his judgment when he spoke of NATO historians and designated Friedrich Meinecke as their precursor, but I think we can be legitimately proud of the fact that even at the height of the Cold War the corresponding term of "Warsaw-Pact historians" never appeared, to my knowledge, in any of our scholarly publications. In our present circumstances an unobjective glorifi- cation of the Bismarck government is an impossibility, and the critical atti- tudes that have long been dominant in American studies of Bismarck's Reich have now been widely accepted by German historians. The same is true to an even greater extent of current attitudes toward the Third Reich and the Fascist era.
But the difficulty and the importance of our task lies in resisting the tempta- tion merely to celebrate the break with the past or to decry the past's continu- ing influence on our present life. It is our job to accept both the break and the continuity as given and to illuminate them intellectually. No statesman, Russian or American, and no foreign historian can relieve us, as German bourgeois historians, of this obligation. We will never be able to meet it to our full satisfaction, and we will inevitably make mistakes, sometimes very grave ones. But it is precisely the difficulty of this task that makes it appealing to the mind and worthy of the mind's best efforts.
Free Marxism, with the help of its Archimedian point, has a less complex task, and we would do well to keep free Marxism constantly in view to orient ourselves by. State Marxism has before it a task comparable to ours if it is to make Stalinism and western Social Democracy subjects of serious inquiry. To do so, it will have to rid itself of those totally un-Marxian phrases it has been wont to use: the unfortunate cult of personality and the despicable treachery of corrupt working-class leaders. It is important for us to keep these parallels in mind.
IV. CONCLUSIONS -AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR THE FREE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN IN THE "POST-COLD-WAR" PERIOD
Let me sum up my argument and draw a few final conclusions. Bourgeois and Marxist historiography are not opposites like black and white or even like black and not black. They share essential methodological similarities that justify describing them both as "scholarly. " On another level, they are divided by a difference that is essential and irreconcilable. They are related in their origins, but the fact that Marxist historiography is an offshoot of Western thought will make bourgeois historical scholarship appear to be the more original, comprehensive, and complex discipline. Both stand in peculiar and differing relationships to the societies in which they occur. An advantage of the "bourgeois" order rooted in liberal European society is evident in the
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 72 ERNST NOLTE
fact that one school of Marxism belongs to this order and can only exist within it. A comparable situation has not evolved in Marxist societies. But this liberal European order is not, to cite Marx again, "frozen in immutable crystalline forms. "42Its capacity for change derives in part from the fact that it fosters relatively autonomous scholarship that calls both itself and the society in which it is based into question. The line of questioning it pursues is not absolute in intent, but it suffices for an understanding and, to a certain degree, for a justification of society.
The scholarship of state Marxism has always been up to now the scholar- ship of a hard-pressed state caught up in the arduous process of "self- assertion" and "catching up" with rival states. In this condition approxi- mating military mobilization, the serenity was lacking that is crucial for the existence of anything like autonomous scholarship. But state Marxism, like free Marxism, has always - in principle at least - clung to the universal perspective that makes Marxism of any stamp superior to a bourgeois scholar- ship that isolates itself in its own national state or limited methodology.
I am presenting these ideas at a specific time and in a specific place. I would not offer a series of lectures on the Cold War if I were not convinced that those who consider the Cold War over now are at least in some sense correct. The essential feature of the Cold War was that a special constellation of events, opinions, and actions created in the Western world a state of tension and general ideological unity comparable to those which had always been taken for granted under state Marxism. Up to a certain point in the Cold War, free Marxism fought in the front lines for the Western cause. But this tension, this new Thirty Years' War, was alien to the Western system and therefore gradually eased. This university, which was founded at the height of the Cold War and is a product of it, was to feel this change more acutely than any other institution in our society, and no other is in a more difficult situation during this period that is no longer one of war but is not yet one of peace. The following conclusions seem to me inescapable:
Free Marxism has its legitimate place in this university and in other uni- versities of the Western world. But it must realize that the very fragmentary freedom bourgeois society provides is at the same time very real in its im- perfection, and for free Marxism it is, in a much more precise and inviolable -ense than it was for the workers' movement, what Engels described as "air, light, and room to grow in. "43Free Marxism must also commit itself to a clearly defined position. It must try to be beyond both major social orders, and within the one in which it is based it must surely remain provocative, but it should not be critical only of "the other side.
"
We should grant state Marxism and its adherents a voice and guest status
42. MEW, XXIII, 16. 43. Ibid. , XXXV, 270.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? "BOURGEOIS
1
AND "MARXIST ' HISTORIOGRAPHY 73
at our universities, but full reciprocity is not yet possible, although it would seem justified in the abstract. A certain amount of exchange seems essential to me, but we should take up a dialogue only with those historians of the GDR or the Soviet Union whose work meets scholarly standards. The examples cited at the beginning of our discussion suggest what constitutes both accept- able and non-acceptable standards.
These views may well elicit astonishment; they will also elicit objections from many - and not just from Marxists. I understand and appreciate the great concern that weighs on many people and many scholars now as they consider the new shift in our political situation and the possible effects of that shift. There are clearly great risks involved if bourgeois and Marxist scholars, if men primarily interested in historical truth and others primarily interested in the effects of political activity, come together in this part of the city, regardless of what form their meeting takes, while in the other part of this same city there is no possibility of their meeting at all. But I think we can put our confidence in the power of thought. Thought quickly demon- strated that the polarity with which we began our considerations here does not in fact apply. And what else is thought but the human instrument by which we, as finite, historical beings, constantly redefine our relationship to history as a whole? A theory that seeks to codify this relationship for all time and for some perfect and post-historical being cannot be valid. Marxism does not propose such a theory, but one element of the tradition that forms an integral part of Marxism would have it so. Thought will alter Marxism, just as the course of history will alter the nature of Marxist states.
In the coming years, free Berlin and its Free University could assume a role every bit as important as the one they assumed during the Cold War, provided they remain alert and are not guided by naive trust. They could provide an arena in which new developments could arise and in which poli- ticians and historians of the GDR might even dare to admit- as Friedrich Engels did eighty years ago44- that history had proved them wrong in some important respects. But I do not want to create the impression here that I am out to find political dodges and subtle tactics designed to weaken the other side. What I do want to say can perhaps be best summed up as follows: The history of this century has so shaken us all, both bourgeois and Marxist historians of every conceivable variety, and so thoroughly toppled our most cherished assumptions that we would all do well to relinquish our dogmatism and join forces as thinking men.
44. Ibid. , VII, 514 and 516.
[Translated by ROBERT and RITA KIMBER]
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:36:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?