ibf

Astro Marxism: 12 Theses in 12 Signs

🦋🤖 Robo-Spun by IBF 🦋🤖

🌀🎭💢 Raumdeutung 🌀🎭💢

(Turkish, 🌌🚀 The Astro-Marxist Manifesto: The Twelfth Thesis of Praxis and Interpretation 🚀🌌, The Mystery of Marx’s Missing Twelfth Thesis/Theseus on Feuerbach: Who Can Resist the Revolutionary Superpower to Have One’s Cake and Eat It?, Theses On Feuerbach Karl Marx)

devr2

Marx’s Reconstructed Twelfth Thesis on Feuerbach:
“Interpretation is not merely a prelude to action; it is the very terrain upon which action takes place. Revolutionary practice is not only a transformation of the world but also a transformation of the way the world is interpreted. This process must traverse its own contradictions and acknowledge its blind spots before it can fully materialize.”

Preface: The Prophetic Vision of Young Marx and the Half-Said Truth

Karl Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach were written in 1845, when he was only 27 years old. To read them today is to witness the uncanny precision with which a young mind grasped the fundamental contradictions of philosophy, materialism, and human history. What makes these theses extraordinary is not only their clarity but their prophetic nature—Marx anticipates, decades before psychoanalysis, the key problem that Freud and later Lacan would formulate: the problem of the unconscious and the role of interpretation in shaping human action.

It is no accident that Marx left out the final, Twelfth Thesis. He did not fail to complete his argument—rather, he articulated as much as his historical moment allowed. As Jacques Lacan famously remarked, “truth is always half-said” (la vérité est mi-dite). This is not a failure of thought but its necessary condition. No thinker can fully articulate the truth of their own discourse because every discourse operates within its own blind spots.

Marx’s eleven theses chart a movement from abstract philosophy to revolutionary practice, mirroring the dialectical process of human emancipation. However, the missing Twelfth Thesis represents a crucial gap: the role of interpretation itself in shaping revolutionary action. This omission is not a shortcoming but a symptom of his time. Freud was not yet born, let alone his theory of the unconscious. The mechanisms of ideology, repression, and the symbolic order had yet to be articulated. Marx grasped, at a material level, the way in which human beings are shaped by social conditions, but he had not yet seen that interpretation itself—the way people make sense of their conditions—is not just a conscious process but one structured by hidden forces.

It would take psychoanalysis to reveal that human beings do not simply experience reality directly; they navigate it through dreams, desires, and unconscious formations. The missing Twelfth Thesis, then, is not just about the necessity of interpretation—it is about the impossibility of fully grasping one’s own position within history and ideology. Marx’s prophetic power lies in the fact that he could see, with extraordinary clarity, the material and social structures that shape human existence. But as a thinker of his time, he could not yet recognize the depth of unconscious processes that structure even revolutionary thought itself.

To complete the Theses on Feuerbach today is not to “correct” Marx but to extend his vision through the lens of psychoanalysis. If Marx prophesied the missing thesis, it is because he sensed—without yet being able to articulate—that ideology is not merely external but internal, not just a set of false beliefs but a way in which the subject is structured. The Twelfth Thesis, then, is the thesis of self-interrogation: the recognition that before changing the world, the revolutionary must first confront the hidden forces that shape their own desire for change.

Thus, Marx’s age at the time of writing these theses does not diminish their significance; it makes them all the more remarkable. At 27, he had already left philosophy behind and moved toward praxis, but in doing so, he also revealed the necessary limit of his time. The Twelfth Thesis could not yet be written—but its absence is itself a mark of the prophetic nature of his thought. Like a dream whose meaning is only understood later, Marx’s missing thesis is a sign of what was yet to come.

The Mystery of Marx’s Missing Twelfth Thesis: The Revolutionary Superpower and the Blind Spot of Interpretation

Introduction: The Missing Link in Marx’s Theses

Marx’s eleven Theses on Feuerbach provide a dialectical framework for understanding the relationship between theory and practice [*]. However, as Işık Barış Fidaner suggests, there is an absence—a missing Twelfth Thesis—which would correspond astrologically to Pisces, the realm of interpretations themselves [*]. This missing step, rather than being a simple omission, represents a fundamental blind spot in Marx’s materialist method: the question of interpretation and the unacknowledged necessity of traversing ambiguity. Marx’s praxis-oriented revolutionary perspective allows him to “have his cake and eat it” by forcefully leaping back from interpretation (Aquarius) to action (Aries), skipping the self-reflective, contextual ambiguity of Pisces.

To extend this idea, we will analyze the connection between each of Marx’s theses and their astrological counterparts, illuminating the dialectical motion of his argument. Furthermore, we will explore how the absence of a Twelfth Thesis signifies a deeper issue: the difficulty of dealing with the role of interpretation in revolutionary practice.

The Dialectical Zodiac of Marx’s Theses

1. Aries ♈︎: Sensuous Human Activity

“Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.” (Thesis I)

Aries, the initiator of the Zodiac, represents the force of action, the birth of something new. Marx begins his critique by asserting that Feuerbach fails to grasp that human activity itself is an objective force. Idealists contemplate reality, materialists describe it, but revolutionaries act upon it. This rejection of passive contemplation marks the fiery impulse that sets Marx’s dialectic in motion.

2. Taurus ♉︎: The Proof of Practice

“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth… in practice.” (Thesis II)

Taurus, associated with material proof and tangible reality, represents the necessity of demonstrating truth in practice rather than in abstract debate. Marx’s rejection of scholasticism mirrors Taurus’s insistence on the concrete.

3. Gemini ♊︎: The Unity of Change and Self-Change

“The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.” (Thesis III)

Gemini, the sign of duality and transformation, captures the essence of this thesis. Circumstances shape people, but people also change circumstances. This interrelation is only comprehensible through revolutionary practice, which refuses to separate the external world from human agency.

4. Cancer ♋︎: The Secret of the Holy Family

“After the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.” (Thesis IV)

Cancer, associated with the family, roots, and tradition, is the perfect symbol for this thesis. Feuerbach dissolves religion into its secular foundation, but Marx takes this further—if the holy family is merely a projection of the earthly family, then the earthly family itself must be critiqued and revolutionized.

5. Leo ♌︎: The Heroic Human-Sensuous Activity

“Feuerbach… does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.” (Thesis V)

Leo, the sign of self-expression and heroic individuality, is embodied in this thesis. Marx emphasizes that sensuousness is not just passive perception but active engagement. This is the moment of the revolutionary hero, the Theseus who dares to face the labyrinth of ideology.

6. Virgo ♍︎: Critiquing the Religious Essence

“Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.” (Thesis VI)

Virgo, analytical and detail-oriented, corresponds to this thesis, which carefully dissects the false abstraction of “human essence.” Feuerbach makes the mistake of treating human nature as a fixed entity, ignoring the historical and social relations that define it.

7. Libra ♎︎: The Social Framework

“Feuerbach… does not see that the ‘religious sentiment’ is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society.” (Thesis VII)

Libra, the sign of balance and social structures, aligns with Marx’s argument that religious sentiment is a product of society. There is no isolated individual—every person belongs to a specific historical and social framework.

8. Scorpio ♏︎: The Rational Solution in Practice

“All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice.” (Thesis VIII)

Scorpio, the sign of transformation and uncovering hidden truths, embodies this thesis. The mysteries that push thinkers toward mysticism dissolve when confronted through revolutionary practice. What seems enigmatic is, in reality, a product of material conditions.

9. Sagittarius ♐︎: The Limits of Contemplative Materialism

“The highest point reached by contemplative materialism… is the contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.” (Thesis IX)

Sagittarius, associated with philosophy and higher knowledge, marks the highest intellectual point of pre-Marxist materialism. However, this peak is not sufficient—mere contemplation of civil society is still limited. Something more is needed.

10. Capricorn ♑︎: Structuring Social Humanity

“The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.” (Thesis X)

Capricorn, the builder of structures and systems, represents the shift from analyzing civil society to actively reconstructing it. The new materialism does not merely observe society—it seeks to change its foundation.

11. Aquarius ♒︎: Interpretation of the World

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” (Thesis XI)

Aquarius, the sign of intellectual vision and abstract thought, corresponds perfectly to this final (written) thesis. Marx critiques philosophers for being trapped in interpretation rather than transformation. However, there is an unspoken issue here: interpretation itself is unavoidable, even in revolutionary activity.

12. The Missing Pisces ♓︎: Interpretation and Its Blind Spot

Pisces, associated with ambiguity, dissolution, and the interplay of multiple meanings, is absent from Marx’s framework. But why?

The Twelfth Thesis, if it existed, would address the necessity of traversing the confusion of competing interpretations before revolutionary action can proceed. Instead of acknowledging this interpretative ambiguity, Marx jumps back to Aries, to action, sidestepping the self-reflective moment that would force him to grapple with the conditions of his own discourse.

Had Marx written a Twelfth Thesis, it might have stated: “Interpretation is not merely a prelude to action; it is the very terrain upon which action takes place. Revolutionary practice is not only a transformation of the world but also a transformation of the way the world is interpreted. This process must traverse its own contradictions and acknowledge its blind spots before it can fully materialize.”

This missing step suggests that even the most radical praxis must contend with its own conditions of interpretation. Without this, the risk remains that revolutionary movements will dismiss necessary introspection, mistaking dogmatism for materialism.

Conclusion: The Revolutionary Superpower and Its Limits

Marx’s missing Twelfth Thesis is not an oversight but an implicit problem in his dialectical materialism: the challenge of dealing with interpretation itself. His revolutionary impulse allowed him to “have his cake and eat it” by escaping the limbo of ambiguous meaning, but no revolution can entirely escape the need for self-examination.

In the end, the missing Pisces reveals a deeper truth: action without interpretation can lead to blind force, while interpretation without action leads to paralysis. The real revolutionary superpower is not just to change the world—but to recognize how one’s own interpretations shape that change.

1. Aries ♈︎: Human Activity as Objective Activity (Thesis I)

“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.”

Aries, the initiator of action, embodies the necessity of understanding human activity not merely as an abstract object of contemplation but as something inherently practical. Marx criticizes Feuerbach for treating reality as something to be observed rather than something to be actively engaged with. This is the defining limitation of contemplative materialism—it sees the world as something external, something that exists independently of human intervention. Feuerbach wants to ground his materialism in “sensuous objects” rather than abstract thought, yet he still considers human activity from a distance rather than recognizing it as an objective force in itself.

Marx points out that idealism, despite its flaws, at least acknowledges an “active side”—though only in an abstract form. What idealism lacks, however, is an understanding of real human activity—revolutionary practice as the force that changes the world. Feuerbach, by failing to grasp this, remains confined to a theoretical attitude, unable to break free from the passive stance of contemplation. The reference to the “dirty-judaical manifestation” of practice in The Essence of Christianity suggests that Feuerbach associates action with something lesser, something contaminated by material concerns, rather than recognizing it as the primary means of transformation.

Thus, Aries as the initiation of the dialectical process corresponds to the recognition of activity as objective activity. It is the first step in moving from mere observation to revolutionary change. Feuerbach stops at the level of passive materialism, unable to grasp the necessity of engaging with reality as a living process. Marx’s intervention marks the moment where contemplation must give way to movement, where the world must be acted upon rather than merely interpreted.

2. Taurus ♉︎: Proving the Truth in Practice (Thesis II)

“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.”

Taurus, the sign of materiality, stability, and verification, corresponds to the necessity of proving ideas in the real world rather than engaging in empty speculation. Marx rejects the notion that truth is a purely theoretical issue, insisting instead that truth must manifest itself in practical activity. This marks a fundamental break from both classical materialism and idealism, both of which are preoccupied with the correctness of their respective theories rather than their practical application.

Feuerbach remains within this theoretical framework—he attempts to establish a materialist understanding of the world but does not take the crucial step of subjecting this understanding to real-world testing. Marx dismisses the dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice as nothing more than scholasticism. The implication here is that theoretical debates about truth are meaningless unless they can be demonstrated in action.

This Taurus-like insistence on verification through engagement with the material world directly opposes the tendency of philosophers to construct closed logical systems that remain disconnected from lived experience. For Marx, the truth of an idea is not found in its internal coherence but in its effectiveness when put into motion.

Taurus, as an earth sign, demands concrete proof, a grounding in material reality. This is precisely what Marx insists upon: the this-sidedness (or Dasein, as one might put it in Heideggerian terms) of thought must be demonstrated in practice. Revolution is not merely a concept—it is something that must be actualized. The practical question of proving truth in action is what separates genuine materialism from mere theoretical posturing.

Thus, in contrast to Feuerbach’s contemplative stance, Marx demands a shift towards an active materialism—one that does not merely describe the world but proves its theories by changing it.

3. Gemini ♊︎: The Unity of Changing Circumstances and Self-Change (Thesis III)

“The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself.”

Gemini, the sign of duality, communication, and transformation, represents the interplay between external change and self-change. In this thesis, Marx criticizes conventional materialist theories for failing to recognize that human beings are not just passive products of their circumstances but are also active agents in changing those circumstances.

Marx’s argument here challenges deterministic views that treat individuals as mere reflections of their environment. Traditional materialists assume that change happens externally, that people are shaped by their conditions. However, Marx points out that this viewpoint leads to a division of society into two categories: those who shape history and those who are shaped by it. This division is artificial—it ignores the reality that all people, in the process of transforming their world, are themselves transformed.

Gemini’s nature as a sign of interplay and exchange captures this dialectical movement perfectly. There is no fixed separation between the person and the world; rather, there is a continuous interaction between the two. Marx insists that circumstances do not change on their own—men change them. And in doing so, they change themselves. The revolution is not just an external event; it is also an internal transformation.

The idea of educating the educator is particularly significant. If we assume that social change comes from above, from those who already possess knowledge or power, we fail to see that those who teach must also learn. In a revolutionary process, the leaders of change must themselves be changed. This dynamic prevents the static hierarchy that traditional theories tend to assume.

Furthermore, Marx’s statement—“The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.”—reinforces the point that this transformation cannot be grasped merely in theory. It must be realized through action. The process of revolution is not simply a matter of altering material conditions; it is the simultaneous transformation of the world and those who inhabit it.

Thus, Gemini represents this necessary fluidity, the rejection of rigid distinctions between subject and object, between change and changers. Revolution is not just a structural shift—it is a process of becoming, a dual transformation of both the material world and human consciousness.

Conclusion: The Movement from Passive Materialism to Revolutionary Praxis

Marx’s first three theses map onto Aries, Taurus, and Gemini as stages of movement from contemplation to action:

  1. Aries ♈︎ (Thesis I): Recognizing human activity as an objective force rather than a passive reflection of reality.
  2. Taurus ♉︎ (Thesis II): Insisting that truth must be proven through real-world practice, not theoretical debate.
  3. Gemini ♊︎ (Thesis III): Understanding that changing the world and changing oneself are inseparable processes that can only be grasped through revolutionary action.

Together, these three theses establish the fundamental difference between Feuerbach’s contemplative materialism and Marx’s revolutionary materialism. Feuerbach remains within the realm of passive observation, while Marx demands engagement. The dialectical progression is clear: action is not just a response to reality but a transformative force within it. Revolution is not something external—it is a continuous process of mutual change between the world and those who seek to transform it.

By grounding Marx’s theses in the Zodiac, we see that his thought is not static but dynamic—always moving, always in flux, always demanding the leap from theory to practice.

4. Cancer ♋︎: The Earthly Family as the Secret of the Holy Family (Thesis IV)

“Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis.”

Cancer, the sign of home, family, and deep emotional roots, corresponds to the way Marx identifies the earthly family as the underlying reality behind the illusion of the holy family. Feuerbach’s analysis of religion leads him to dissolve its supernatural elements into their real-world, secular origins. But Marx takes this insight one step further: if religious ideas are merely reflections of human social structures, then the critique of religion is incomplete unless it also critiques those social structures themselves.

Feuerbach correctly identifies the split between the religious world and the secular world as a form of self-alienation. In religious consciousness, the world is duplicated—there is the material reality in which people live, and there is a divine world that mirrors, yet appears superior to, that reality. The key move Feuerbach makes is to demystify this divine world by showing that it is nothing but a projection of human social life. This is an important step—it reveals that religious beliefs are not grounded in divine truth but in the lived conditions of human beings.

However, Marx argues that Feuerbach does not go far enough. If religion is merely an ideological reflection of real social structures, then the transformation of consciousness requires the transformation of those social structures. This is where Cancer’s symbolic association with family comes into play. Marx gives the example of the holy family, which is revealed to be nothing but a sanctified version of the earthly family. The religious conception of divine fatherhood, obedience, and moral authority is rooted in the material reality of patriarchal family structures.

Thus, Marx delivers the crucial revolutionary insight: if the religious world is an ideological projection of the real world, then dismantling the illusion requires not only an intellectual critique but a material revolution of the conditions that produce the illusion. As he puts it, “after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.”

The significance of this claim cannot be overstated. It means that abolishing religion as an ideology is not enough—the underlying social relations that give rise to religious ideology must also be changed. This extends beyond just family structures to all institutions that reinforce hierarchy, obedience, and alienation. Marx, therefore, critiques Feuerbach for stopping at a theoretical critique when the real task is practical revolution.

Cancer, as a sign deeply tied to familial bonds, security, and tradition, helps us see how ideological structures like religion are intimately linked to social structures. Marx’s insight is that ideology cannot be fully overcome unless the social institutions that sustain it are themselves transformed. The revolution must not only take place in the realm of thought but in the fundamental structures of human life.

5. Leo ♌︎: The Human Hero and Sensuousness as Practical, Human-Sensuous Activity (Thesis V)

“Feuerbach, not satisfied with abstract thinking, wants contemplation; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.”

Leo, the sign of self-expression, vitality, and heroic action, represents the revolutionary subject—the human being who does not merely contemplate reality but actively transforms it. Marx’s critique of Feuerbach in this thesis is centered on the concept of sensuousness. Feuerbach understands the importance of human sensuous experience, but he remains within the framework of passive contemplation rather than recognizing sensuousness as a practical force.

Feuerbach rejects pure abstraction in favor of sensuous reality. He insists on grounding thought in the real, physical world rather than in speculative idealism. However, his understanding of sensuousness is still contemplative—he sees it as something to be experienced rather than something that acts. Marx argues that this is a fundamental limitation: sensuousness is not just a mode of perception but a mode of action. It is human-sensuous activity.

Here, Leo’s energy of self-assertion and embodied expression comes into play. The revolutionary human being is not merely a passive observer of the material world; he is an active participant in shaping it. Marx’s concept of praxis—the unity of theory and practice—demands that human activity be understood as something that does not just reflect the world but transforms it.

Leo represents the Twelfth Theseus, the heroic figure who enters the labyrinth of ideology and material conditions to confront and change them. In contrast to Feuerbach’s passive contemplation of sensuousness, Marx calls for an understanding of human beings as active agents who interact with and reshape the world. This means that materialism must move beyond describing the world in empirical terms—it must become a materialism of action.

Thus, in Marx’s critique, Feuerbach’s materialism is incomplete because it lacks this active dimension. Sensuous experience, for Marx, is not merely about perception—it is about labor, about engagement, about struggle. It is in revolutionary practice that human beings become fully sensuous, fully alive.

6. Virgo ♍︎: Criticism of the Religious Essence (Thesis VI)

“Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.”

Virgo, the sign of analysis, precision, and critique, corresponds to Marx’s dissection of Feuerbach’s concept of human essence. Feuerbach believes he has uncovered the truth behind religion: that what people worship as divine is actually just a projection of their own human nature. However, Marx identifies a crucial flaw in this reasoning—Feuerbach treats human essence as if it were something universal, something inherent to each individual in an abstract sense.

Marx rejects this notion outright. Human essence is not something fixed, something timeless that exists within individuals independently of history. Instead, “in its reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations.” In other words, what it means to be human is not an intrinsic property of individuals—it is something shaped and defined by the social structures in which people live.

Virgo’s meticulous attention to detail helps us see why Feuerbach’s mistake is so crucial. By treating human nature as an abstract essence, Feuerbach ignores the historical and social processes that shape human beings. He assumes that there is a common, unchanging human essence that simply needs to be recognized in order to overcome religious illusion. But Marx insists that human beings are products of history, and their so-called essence is nothing more than the sum of the relationships they exist within.

This is why Feuerbach’s critique of religion ultimately fails. If religious sentiment is a social product, then merely identifying it as such does not change anything. What is needed is not just a theoretical critique of religious illusion but a materialist understanding of how social conditions produce religious belief in the first place. Only by changing those conditions can religion truly be abolished.

Marx further critiques Feuerbach for reducing human essence to a kind of generalized, abstract unity. “Essence, therefore, can be comprehended only as ‘genus’, as an internal, dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals.” This means that Feuerbach sees human beings as fundamentally the same regardless of historical and social context. Marx sees this as a failure to engage with the real dynamics of class struggle, historical development, and the material conditions that define what it means to be human at any given moment.

Virgo, as the sign of precise, critical analysis, aligns with Marx’s rigorous deconstruction of Feuerbach’s errors. True materialism cannot be satisfied with abstractions—it must analyze the real, concrete ways in which social relations shape human life. Thus, in contrast to Feuerbach’s passive humanism, Marx offers an active materialism that recognizes history as the battleground on which human essence is forged.

Conclusion: The Move from Critique to Action

Through Cancer, Leo, and Virgo, we see how Marx’s materialism shifts from Feuerbach’s contemplation to revolutionary practice:

  1. Cancer ♋︎ (Thesis IV): Recognizing that religious ideology is rooted in real social structures, especially the family.
  2. Leo ♌︎ (Thesis V): Moving from passive contemplation of sensuousness to active engagement with the material world.
  3. Virgo ♍︎ (Thesis VI): Understanding human essence as a social product rather than an abstract, timeless truth.

These steps dismantle the illusions of religion and humanism, clearing the path for a revolutionary materialism grounded in historical struggle and transformation.

7. Libra ♎︎: Belonging to a Particular Form of Society (Thesis VII)

“Feuerbach, consequently, does not see that the ‘religious sentiment’ is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society.”

Libra, the sign of relationships, balance, and social order, corresponds to Marx’s critique of Feuerbach’s failure to recognize that religious sentiment is not an isolated, individual experience but a social construct. Feuerbach, in his attempt to demystify religion, focuses on the individual as the fundamental unit of analysis. He assumes that religious belief stems from a universal human essence, making it appear as though religious sentiment is a natural part of human consciousness.

Marx, however, argues that this approach is flawed because it abstracts the individual from the social conditions that shape them. In reality, religious sentiment does not arise from some timeless human nature but from the specific material and historical conditions of society. The individual is not an independent, isolated entity; rather, they belong to a particular form of society.

Libra’s role as the sign of balance and structure reflects this emphasis on the social context in which individuals exist. Just as a Libran perspective sees relationships and social contracts as fundamental, Marx insists that human beliefs and behaviors cannot be understood in isolation from the societal structures that produce them.

Feuerbach fails to see that religious belief is not a purely personal or spiritual matter—it is a byproduct of economic, political, and social realities. The individual he analyzes is not a free-floating human essence but a subject conditioned by class structures, traditions, and historical circumstances. Marx’s argument is that if we want to understand and ultimately overcome religious ideology, we must recognize that it is not an individual delusion but a collective social phenomenon.

Libra represents the recognition that every human being is embedded in a network of relationships, institutions, and historical forces. Feuerbach, by focusing on the individual in the abstract, overlooks the reality that people do not exist apart from the material conditions that shape them. To truly critique religion, one must critique the social order that produces it.

8. Scorpio ♏︎: The Rational Solution of All Mysteries in Human Practice (Thesis VIII)

“All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”

Scorpio, the sign of depth, transformation, and uncovering hidden truths, is the perfect astrological counterpart to Marx’s claim that all mysteries, which lead thought toward mysticism, find their solution in human practice.

Marx’s critique here is directed not just at Feuerbach but at all forms of thought that treat social life as something mysterious or inexplicable. Mysticism thrives when people perceive reality as governed by forces beyond their control—whether those forces are divine, metaphysical, or even economic in an abstract sense. The tendency to view history as shaped by fate, destiny, or the will of a higher power is a form of ideological mystification.

Scorpio, as a sign associated with penetrating the depths of reality and exposing hidden forces, aligns with Marx’s insistence that what appears as mysterious or supernatural is, in fact, the result of material conditions that can be understood and changed through practice. Mysticism emerges when people are alienated from the true conditions of their existence—when they experience their own social world as something foreign and uncontrollable. But when they engage in practical, revolutionary action, these mysteries dissolve.

This thesis is a direct challenge to all forms of passive or contemplative materialism. Instead of treating the unknown as something to be worshipped or merely pondered, Marx asserts that the answers to humanity’s greatest questions lie in human practice. Revolutionary activity is the means by which people demystify their world, taking control of their own destiny instead of resigning themselves to abstract explanations.

Trotsky, who had his Sun in Scorpio, embodied this principle in his revolutionary praxis. Rather than accepting the existing order as an impenetrable mystery, he sought to uncover its internal contradictions and actively reshape society. True to Scorpio’s transformative nature, he recognized that history does not simply unfold according to hidden laws—it is made by human beings in struggle.

Thus, Scorpio represents Marx’s argument that there is no need for mysticism once human beings engage in the practical, collective transformation of their world. The unknown is not something to be feared or revered—it is something to be understood and changed through revolutionary activity.

9. Sagittarius ♐︎: Reaching the Highest Point of Contemplative Materialism (Thesis IX)

“The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.”

Sagittarius, the sign of philosophy, exploration, and reaching intellectual heights, corresponds to Marx’s observation that the greatest achievement of contemplative materialism is merely the contemplation of individual human beings and civil society. This represents the limit of Feuerbach’s materialism—it recognizes the existence of material reality but fails to grasp its dynamic, transformative potential.

Sagittarius seeks knowledge and wisdom, but Marx’s point here is that knowledge alone is insufficient. Feuerbach’s materialism is not idealist—it does recognize that human beings are shaped by the material world—but it remains contemplative because it treats material conditions as objects of study rather than sites of revolutionary transformation.

The highest point of contemplative materialism is the observation of civil society and individual existence, but it does not recognize that both are products of historical struggle and can be changed through praxis. This is where Marx breaks from Feuerbach—rather than stopping at the contemplation of human life within existing structures, he calls for their transformation.

Sagittarius, in its search for meaning, represents this moment of intellectual expansion, but it also risks stopping at theoretical understanding rather than moving into practice. Just as Sagittarius can sometimes get lost in endless exploration without taking decisive action, Feuerbach’s materialism remains stuck in the mode of analysis without progressing to revolutionary engagement.

For Marx, the goal is not just to reach the highest point of contemplation—it is to move beyond contemplation into revolutionary practice. Civil society and individuals are not static objects to be studied; they are historical realities that can and must be changed.

Thus, Sagittarius represents both the strength and the limitation of contemplative materialism. It reaches a broad, overarching view of reality, but unless it moves beyond observation into action, it remains trapped in theory. Marx’s materialism pushes beyond this limit, insisting that true understanding of society can only be achieved through its transformation.

Conclusion: From Contemplation to Transformation

Through Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius, Marx advances his critique of contemplative materialism:

  1. Libra ♎︎ (Thesis VII): Understanding that religious sentiment and human beliefs are social products, not abstract individual phenomena.
  2. Scorpio ♏︎ (Thesis VIII): Recognizing that all mysteries, which lead thought to mysticism, have their solution in human practice.
  3. Sagittarius ♐︎ (Thesis IX): Acknowledging the highest point of contemplative materialism but moving beyond contemplation into revolutionary transformation.

These three theses demonstrate how Marx dismantles the last remnants of Feuerbach’s materialism. He shifts from analyzing individuals and society as objects of study to recognizing them as dynamic forces that must be actively engaged with and transformed.

The move from Libra (social belonging) to Scorpio (uncovering hidden truths through practice) to Sagittarius (the peak of contemplation before action) mirrors the dialectical movement of Marx’s materialism. The transition from analysis to praxis is not just an intellectual exercise—it is the foundation of revolutionary change.

10. Capricorn ♑︎: Structuring Human Society, or Social Humanity (Thesis X)

“The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.”

Capricorn, the sign of structure, discipline, and systemic organization, corresponds to Marx’s distinction between civil society and human society. Traditional materialism, including Feuerbach’s, operates within the framework of civil society—it observes individuals, institutions, and economic systems as they currently exist. But Marx’s materialism takes a different approach: it does not merely analyze the structures of society as static entities; it seeks to rebuild them in a way that allows for true human emancipation.

Civil society, in Marx’s analysis, is the domain of private interests, competition, and alienation. It is a fragmented world where individuals are separated from their collective potential, bound by economic necessity and ideological constraints. Feuerbach, by focusing on individual humans within this framework, remains trapped in the logic of bourgeois society—he critiques religion and idealism, but he does not critique the very structure of the world in which they arise.

Marx’s new materialism moves beyond this by focusing on human society, or social humanity. This is not just a theoretical shift but a revolutionary one. Instead of treating human beings as isolated individuals navigating an immutable social order, Marx insists that society itself must be transformed.

Capricorn, with its emphasis on long-term planning, institutional restructuring, and practical organization, reflects this shift. The transition from old materialism to new materialism is not merely an intellectual development—it is a project of rebuilding society in a fundamentally different way.

Marx’s dialectical materialism thus goes beyond Feuerbach’s static contemplation. While Feuerbach remains within the logic of civil society, Marx demands a movement toward a new form of social organization—one based on collective human potential rather than private accumulation and alienation. This is the Capricornian task of building the future, of constructing a materialist framework that is not just analytical but actively transformative.

11. Aquarius ♒︎: The World as the Container of Interpretations (Thesis XI)

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.”

Aquarius, the sign of intellectual vision, revolution, and radical reconfiguration, corresponds to Marx’s most famous thesis: the break with pure interpretation in favor of revolutionary transformation. Up to this point, Marx has systematically deconstructed contemplative materialism, idealist philosophy, and Feuerbach’s incomplete humanism. Now he presents the ultimate challenge: the world is not something to be merely interpreted—it is something to be changed.

This is the fundamental rupture between philosophy as an act of contemplation and philosophy as an act of revolution. The entire history of philosophy, from Plato to Hegel, has been concerned with interpreting the world—constructing systems of thought, organizing knowledge, and explaining reality. But for Marx, this is not enough. The task is not just to understand the world but to intervene in it.

Aquarius represents this revolutionary rupture, this shift from passive observation to radical transformation. It is the sign of collective action, of breaking free from inherited systems, of reimagining reality itself. Marx’s materialism is not just a philosophy—it is a political project, a call to arms for those who refuse to accept the world as it is.

Yet, hidden within this thesis is a crucial question: If the world is not to be merely interpreted, what role does interpretation play in its transformation? Marx’s statement suggests a clear break between theory and practice, but the reality is more complex. Even revolutionary action requires a framework of interpretation—after all, how does one know what to change, and how does one decide how to change it? This brings us to the missing thesis.

12. Pisces ♓︎: The Blind Spot of Interpretation (The Missing Thesis XII)

“Interpretation is not merely a prelude to action; it is the very terrain upon which action takes place. Revolutionary practice is not only a transformation of the world but also a transformation of the way the world is interpreted. This process must traverse its own contradictions and acknowledge its blind spots before it can fully materialize.”

Pisces, the sign of fluidity, ambiguity, and the dissolution of boundaries, corresponds to what is missing from Marx’s theses: the moment of interpretation itself, the blind spot in his dialectical system. Marx jumps from the critique of philosophy (Thesis XI) directly into the imperative to change the world, but he does not explicitly address the process through which revolutionary actors navigate the interpretative dimension of reality.

This missing step—this Twelfth Thesis—represents the dialectical necessity of confronting the contradictions within interpretation itself. If philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, and if the point is to change it, then we must ask: How do we interpret the necessity of change? How do we make sense of our own historical position?

Marx’s critique of Feuerbach reveals that ideology is not merely an illusion but a product of material conditions. But if ideology is embedded in material reality, then revolutionary action is never purely external—it must also reckon with its own ideological conditions. The revolutionary cannot simply declare “we must change the world” and act without reflecting on how their own framework of change is shaped by history, ideology, and inherited ways of thinking.

Pisces represents this moment of introspection, of swimming through the murky waters of meaning, contradiction, and uncertainty. It is the space where interpretations collide, where revolutionary practice must grapple with its own self-understanding before leaping into action. The missing thesis, then, is not just an addition to Marx’s system—it is the necessary step that prevents revolution from becoming blind force.

Marx’s decision to leave this thesis unwritten can be understood in two ways:

  1. As a symptom: The absence of the Twelfth Thesis reflects a blind spot in Marxist thought—an assumption that interpretation itself can be bypassed in favor of direct action. Yet history has shown that revolutions without self-critical interpretation risk falling into dogmatism or authoritarianism.
  2. As an invitation: The missing thesis is not a flaw but an open-ended challenge. Marx leaves it to future revolutionaries to complete the dialectical movement, to navigate the complexities of interpretation in the struggle for transformation.

Pisces, in its dissolving nature, represents this paradox: the necessity of interpretation even in the face of urgent action. It asks the revolutionary to pause, to question, to reflect—without losing sight of the goal.

Conclusion: Completing the Zodiac of Praxis

With the missing Twelfth Thesis reconstructed, we see how Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach map onto a full dialectical cycle:

  1. Capricorn ♑︎ (Thesis X): Recognizing that materialism must move beyond analyzing civil society to actively reconstructing human society.
  2. Aquarius ♒︎ (Thesis XI): Breaking with passive interpretation and demanding the transformation of the world.
  3. Pisces ♓︎ (Thesis XII): Acknowledging that interpretation itself is part of the revolutionary process, that action without self-critical reflection risks reproducing ideological blindness.

In the movement from Capricorn (structuring society) to Aquarius (revolutionary rupture) to Pisces (interpretative self-awareness), we complete the dialectical arc of Marx’s argument. The Twelfth Thesis does not contradict Marx’s revolutionary imperative—it deepens it, ensuring that revolutionary practice is not merely force but also a process of meaning-making.

Thus, the missing Pisces thesis is both a challenge and a necessity. It is the moment of uncertainty before the leap, the space where interpretation and action intertwine. Without it, revolution risks becoming mere reaction; with it, revolution becomes a conscious act of historical transformation.

8 comments

Comments are closed.