How Is one a materialist In practice?

(1) First aspect of the question.

We have seen that there is no third philosophy and that, if one is not consistent in the application of materialism, either one is an idealist, or one obtains a mixture of idealism and materialism.

The bourgeois scientist, in his studies and in his experiments, is always a materialist. This is normal since, in order to advance science, one must work on matter and, if the scientist really thought that matter exists only in his mind, he would find it useless to experiment.

There are thus several varieties of scientists:

1. Scientists who are conscious and consistent materialists.

2. Scientists who are materialists without knowing it, i.e., almost all of them, for it is impossible to do scientific research without presupposing the existence of matter. But, among these, we must distinguish between:

dare call themselves such: these are agnostics, those whom Engels calls “shamefaced materialists,” and

b) Those scientists who are unconscious and inconsistent materialists. These are materialists in the laboratory, but outside of their work they are idealists, religious believers.

In fact, the latter have not known how or have not wanted to organize their ideas. They are in perpetual contradiction with themselves. They separate their work, necessarily materialist, from their philosophical con­ cepts. They are “ scientists,” yet, while they may not deliberately deny the existence of matter, they think, not very scientifically, that it is useless to know the real nature of things. They are “ scientists," but they believe, without any proof, in impossible things. (See the case of Pasteur, Branly and others who were believers; whereas the scientist, if he is consistent, must abandon his religious beliefs.) Science and faith are absolutely opposed.

(2) Second aspect of the question

Materialism and action : While it is true that the real materialist is one who

applies the formula at the base of this philosophy everywhere and in every case, he must also be careful to apply it correctly.

As we have just seen, one must be consistent, and to be a consistent materialist, one must transpose materialism into action.

To be a materialist in practice is to act in accordance with philosophy by taking reality as the primary factor, and thought as the secondary factor.

We are going to see the attitudes of those who, without realizing it, regard thought as the primary factor and are then at that momemt idealists without knowing it.

1. What do we call someone who lives as though he were alone in the world? An individualist. He lives within his shell; the outside world exists only for him. For him, the important thing is himself, his thought. He is a pure idealist, or what is called a solipsist. (See the explanation of this word in Part One, ch. 2.)

The individualist is selfish, and being selfish is not a materialist attitude. A selfish person restricts the universe to his own person.

2. The person who learns for the pleasure of learning, as a dilettante, who assimilates well, has no difficulties, but keeps it all for himself. He assigns primary importance to himself, to his thought.

The idealist is closed to the outside world, to reality. The materialist is always open to reality; this is why those who take courses in Marxism and who learn easily ought to try to transmit what they have learned.

3. The person who argues about everything in relation to himself undergoes an idealist distortion.

For example, with regard to a meeting in which things were said which were disagreeable for him, the idealist will say, "This is a bad meeting." This is not how things should be analyzed; the meeting should be judged in relation to its organization, to its goal, and not in relation to oneself.

4. Neither is sectarianism a materialist attitude. Because the sectarian has understood the problems and is in agreement with himself, he main­ tains that others must be like him. This is again giving primary importance to oneself.

5. The doctrinarian who has studied the texts and has drawn definitions from them is still an idealist when he is satisfied with quoting materialist texts, when he lives only with his texts, for then the real world disappears. He repeats these formulas without applying them to reality. He gives primary importance to the texts, to ideas. Life takes place in his con­ sciousness in the form of texts and, in general, it is found that the doctrinar­ ian is also a sectarian.

Believing that revolution is a question of education, saying that by explaining "once and for all" to workers the necessity of a revolution they must understand and that, if they do not understand, it is not worth it to try to make a revolution, all of this is sectarianism and not a materialist attitude.

We must observe the cases where people do not understand, find out why this is so, note the repression, the propaganda of bourgeois news­ papers, radio, cinema, etc., and look for all the possible ways in which to make what we want understood, by leaflets, brochures, newspapers, schools, etc.

To lack a sense of reality, to live in the clouds, and, practically, to make plans without taking situations and realities into account, is an idealist attitude, which assigns primary importance to beautiful plans without seeing whether or not they are practicable. Those who are constantly criticizing, but who do nothing to improve the situation, who propose no remedy; those who lack a critical sense towards themselves, all of these people are inconsistent materialists. 4

4. Conclusion

From these examples, we see that the faults which are found in us all to a greater or lesser degree are idealist faults. We are afflicted with them because we separate practice from theory and because the bourgeoisie, which has influenced us, likes us not to attach any importance to reality. For the bourgeoisie, which supports idealism, theory and practice are two completely different things having no relation. These faults are thus harm-

ful and we should fight them, for the bourgeoisie profits from them. In short, we should observe that these faults, engendered in us by society, by the theoretical bases of our education and culture, and rooted in our childhood, are the work of the bourgeoisie—and rid ourselves of them.

3