Karl Marx; his life and work
Yüklə 1,7 Mb.
|
ERNESTO REINHOLDO OKCMIO 0 HOIS IS PlIIDOSOrllORU.H K T HR IflKITA vmo rijui-uvrm xTtjia fAaaxHrnpovo CAROLO P R 11> B R IC 0 B A C II M A N fi O IJ'auittl'iO WTLXniAI'W IHIIUI'l-Lllfil.W.'. wi a oso pin a* norroRi rnvatiw ii' mi, rvrrvw •>*> uni « munrn pupfexhomk nmuro o*nn non iis'fmTnnio mt OBTrrni i rati duo mbmi.vhs nonETA-mi citftUuuE I'tmnpouTisA* M-anAi.iiMr.tb (I'll IE PMUUkxsM A*TI«I tT WltOUAim 11’nuriK APIIP TflOkCnVW ABTHm ST UTTTJIAHVII ERHIXSW HIMIIOOttl >1 IT lllttHnML'M (MltTKLMJMM OIITTUO IBCM DM liHU V NATCIIA . , v.™ . JtmOe.1. AUAROUI * sockT AfcOlKA MUTfcMIUOXUi IT UnMt IE.' O R D 0 P II I h 0 S O P II O R I) M VllO PILUJMMIJSSNIlJffiKt IKJCnMIMO K caholo iK i: \ it i doctoris pmiiOsonnAE uonores WINITlTWf 1CRA It PRimKGLt HCKflU DOCTRLRA* KT VIHTUT1S AfKCTATAK LXWCMA KT OMAMKNTA dstclit ■ 0 I t'% » A . , PUDIill'O HOC J) J P L 0 M A T E IT I lKTRIMT 3 E*T «f-V* »UIKU PMUWOPIHHICK ^ ‘ 'f' "nJ B ■" . * mK j ■ . : • I ' '■ • '41X? i ■ * ■ . ■ Karl Marx's Diploma as Doctor of Philosophy
61 phalen, who had always been friendly to him, but he could not bring himself to seek that, regarding it as a great humiliation. Just at this time Bauer visited Berlin and spent a long vaca tion of several months with his friend. Bauer foresaw the troublous times ahead of the radical movement, and realized that Eichhorn’s failure to promote him would probably be fol lowed by the revocation of his license to teach. He urged Marx on with his thesis, and tried to induce him to make it as moderate and conservative as possible. But Marx, even though he saw the wisdom of the advice of his friend, and the futility of beating his head again a stone wall, was resolute; what he felt, that would he write! Bauer urged the enlist ment of Edgar von Westphalen’s powerful influence, but Marx was obdurate, rejecting the proposal with all the scorn of his youthful, independent spirit. Marx now conceived a plan for obtaining his degree away » from Berlin. It would be easy, he thought, to secure a doc- ; tor’s degree at some small university, almost immediately, j After that, he could join Bauer at Bonn, perhaps as tutor at the f university, but if not that, then as editor of the long-con-| templated periodical. That he could obtain a position at the university seemed almost beyond hope: he was Bauer’s friend, and that would prove an insurmountable obstacle. Only in the event of some powerful influence winning Eichhorn’s friend ship for him was such an appointment likely. A letter from Bauer, dated March 28, 1841, expresses approval of Marx’s plans and proceeds: “ Above everything, try to remove allthe obstructions in your way. See if you cannot win Eichhorn to your side. When the people here once know that one of the men higher up is in your favor, then everything else will be well. I can no longer witness all that is going on here, and this very summer the periodical must come fnto existence. It is impossible to stand it any longer.” Three days later he wrote again, intimating that he had thought of writing to 52
KARL MARX Jenny, but refrained out of solicitude for Marx. This prob ably refers to the plan of securing the support of Edgar von: Westphalen, which was always in his mind. In another letter, dated April the 12th, 1841, he again ad jures Marx to be careful in the preparation of his dissertation. “ But if your work is already in print,” he says, “ then let it go as it is and we will see how it will strike them. As the prophet says, ‘ Later everything, but now silence! ’ . . . Later you can knock them over their heads until they howl, but do not rise before the right time.” The letter goes on to beg Marx to take immediate action: “ Will it be possible for you to leave Berlin this month ? Do everything in your power to be able to do so. It would relieve you, calm your bride, and make it still possible for you to get a place at Bonn. Ed uard 1 will do almost anything. Give him the manuscript of your everlasting Work; let him attend to the printing and proof reading, and when everything is ready send it off to Jena so that they can send you the diploma to Treves or Bonn, or he might keep it for you in Berlin and send it to you whenever or wherever you desire. But you yourself do not have to stay in Berlin on account of these things.” Marx acted promptly enough this time. On the 15th of • April he was at Jena and received his diploma as Doctor of ' Philosophy. Thus the first part of the ambitious programme was realized, but the friends were not destined to succeed with the remainder. Within a few weeks of Marx’s graduation Bauer’s work, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synopti- ker, appeared and precipitated a crisis. A furious storm of ; angry protest and denunciation went up from the faculty at I Bonn and the author was removed from his position. Eich-i horn, the Minister of Education, at once instituted a policy of increased academic repression in all the German universities, ( and very soon afterward Bauer’s license to teach was revoked. I The blow was a severe one for Marx. An academic career,
1 Eduard Bauer, Bruno’s younger brother. THE YOUNG HEGELIANS either at Bonn or elsewhere, was now clearly out of the ques- j tion, and equally impossible was the publication of the peri- ) odical which he and Bauer had planned, for the reactionary policy was applied to the philosophical press as well as to the universities. Since 1838 Arnold Ruge had published, with his friend Ech- ? termayer, the Hallesche Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Kunst und f Wissenschaft, a liberal review of a very high degree of literary ^ and philosophical excellence. Ruge, who was a young Hegel ian and a poet, had spent five years in the fortress of Holberg for his activities in the movement for a free and united Ger many. While Bauer, Marx, and some of the other more radi cal spirits were inclined severely to criticize its shortcomings, the Hallesche Jahrbiicher was a great liberal force, detested by the orthodox party. Edited in Halle, it was published from Leipsic —’ a device by which the editors fancied they could es cape censorship and keep the periodical beyond the reach of the Prussian government. Not to be outwitted, the government ordered the publication j in Leipsic to be stopped. As the periodical bore the name Hallesche Year Book, it must be published from Halle, and be subject to the censorship there. Ruge — for Echtermayer ceased to be associated with him — moved to Dresden and in July 1841 issued the first number of the review from that city under a new title, the Deutsche Jahrbiicher. Perhaps because he was now free to consult only his own wishes, Ruge made the review more radical than before, greatly to the satisfaction of ; Bauer and Marx. Still there were the rigid restrictions of the ‘ censorship which made the publication of many important arti cles impossible. Ruge therefore arranged for the publication j of a special edition containing such radical articles as could not, be published in Germany. To this edition Ruge, Bauer, Feuer-j bach, Marx and others contributed. Especially radical was thej poetry of the period which was published in the Year Book. Heine, Hoffman von Fallersleben, and Georg Herwegh con-t
64
KARL MARX tributed songs and verses which served to inspire the radical elements with an intense passion. If Herwegh was less of a poet than Heine, or even than Hoffman von Fallersleben, he was much more of a political agitator, and his verse presented the issues of the time more directly and forcibly. When he travelled he was acclaimed by cheering multitudes who re garded him as the prophet of a new order. Herwegh sought and obtained audience with the King at Berlin. It is said that, according to royal etiquette, he was not permitted to say anything unless asked by the King to speak, and that the monarch gave him no chance to speak, say ing simply: “ I esteem an open opposition, and I wish you success: we want honest enemies.” In spite of this, a paper Herwegh was about to issue was suppressed, and when he wrote to the King, reminding him of his words, so recently spoken, the poet was arrested and subjected to great indignities. The papers that published Herwegh’s letter to the King were vig- I orously persecuted. Alarmed by the trend of events, Ruge moderated the tone of his periodical, making it more conserva- j tive, but to no avail. It was suppressed in 1843 by order of the Saxon government.. Owing to the rush of events, and the sudden development of t the crisis at Bonn, so soon after his graduation at Jena, the essay upon the Epicurean philosophy with, which he qualified for his Doctor’s degree was not printed. Most of the manuscript I still exists, but vitally important parts are missing. From the manuscript of an introduction to the essay, written, probably, after the Communist Manifesto, it is evident that Marx still hoped to publish it. The struggle to obtain the Doctor’s de- | gree necessary to an academic career had, so far as his im ! mediate purpose was concerned, been in vain. The crisis at I Bonn and the reactionary triumph made an academic life im- | possible for him. Journalism and political agitation were des tined to claim the next few years of his life. IV JOURNALISM — POLITICS — SOCIALISM Marx now turned to political journalism for his livelihood. The most advanced of the bourgeois Radicals of the Rhine province had started a daily political newspaper, the Rhenische j Zeitungt for the promotion of their ideas. The paper repre sented no particular school of thought, but drew to itself all dissatisfied and protesting elements. Among its contributors whose names are of historic interest were Bruno Bauer, Fried rich Koppen, Max Stirner, Moses Hess, Georg Herwegh and Marx, who was probably the youngest of them all. It was not long before the superiority of Marx’s literary / style and his journalistic talent began to assert themselves, and in October, 1842, he was made editor-in-chief. No sooner had he entered upon his duties in that position than he began a vigorous fight for the freedom of the press, attacking the rigid censorship with merciless logic and biting satire. “ You * accept the greatness and power of Nature,” he wrote, “ with out demanding that the rose should bloom like the thistle. But you do demand that different mighty spirits should follow one narrow path.” The attack was so bold and so brilliant that it attracted attention all over Germany, a new star had appeared in the sky of political journalism. Within a week or 5 two after Marx assumed the editorship, the inevitable happened \ and warning came from the censor that unless the tone of the paper improved at once it would be suppressed. But Marx was not dismayed. With consummate skill, he kept up his attacks upon the restrictions placed upon the freedom of the press, and yet managed to keep within the bounds of safety. 5 65
, Naturally the stockholders of the paper were alarmed. At f a meeting held on the 17th of February it was decided to ask f for the resignation of the editor-in-chief, and steps were taken to secure the revocation of the order of suppression. Letters were sent to the King, delegations and committees visited the Minister of the Public Press at Berlin, petitions were signed by influential persons, but all to no avail. On the 23rd of March, a few days after Marx left the paper, the last issue of the Rhenische Zeitung made its appearance. “ The cloak of radicalism has fallen, and the almighty despotism stands naked before the eyes of the entire world,” wrote Marx to Ruge, who replied: “ The entire press of Germany could not, on account of one or two officials, nor even the King, be sup pressed. It is done with the consent, and in the name, of the whole population. If the opposition in the publishing world wishes to open new battle-fields, it must do so outside of Ger many.” Ruge was thinking of a revival of his Year Book. As he had previously published the radical section of the Deutsche Jahrbiicher from Switzerland, it was quite natural that his thought should run to Zurich as the best place from which to issue such a publication. But Marx, who was much the better politician, strongly urged that Zurich was not a safe or de sirable place. He pointed out that the expulsion of Herwegh Georg Herwegh
from Zurich in February was but one of numerous indications of the subservience of the Swiss government to the wishes and orders of Berlin, and that freedom of political discussion was well nigh as impossible in Zurich as in Berlin. Marx was restive and anxious to enter the political fray, and argued that Paris alone offered the necessary freedom for such a publica tion as they contemplated. Undoubtedly Marx had another reason for desiring to issue the journal from Paris. During his brief occupation of the » editorial chair of the Rhenische Zeitung he had published an enthusiastic and laudatory article upon Lorenz von Stein’s book, : Social Movements in France, which severely criticised the social-; ism of Fourier and Saint-Simon. But he had also published several articles in which the Socialist theories of Fourier and { Saint-Simon were rather freely praised. For this he was very strongly rebuked, and efforts were made to induce him to 1 attack those theories editorially. This he refused to do, upon i the ground that he had not sufficiently studied them, and was j accused of being himself a Socialist. This he denied in an editorial setting forth his position. That Stein’s book hadft awakened in him a strong sympathetic interest in the subject) cannot be denied. Not only that, but he was already mastered : by a passionate resentment of social misery and injustice, and: the articles in the Rhenische Zeitung in which he voiced the cry j of “ the poor dumb millions,” hounded by the police and * robbed by their poverty of opportunity to develop their mental and spiritual powers, read strangely like the customary Socialist indictment of modern society.He desired, then, to move to Paris that he might make a » careful study of the communistic theories and movements of ; the time. Ruge, upon his part, agreed, the idea of an intel-1 lectual Franco-German alliance for philosophical and political | freedom making a strong and successful appeal to his imagina-1 tion. Accordingly, it was arranged that Ruge should proceed ? to Paris to interest as many radical thinkers as possible in the
68
KARL MARX I new venture, and to arrange for the early publication of the Deutsche-Franzosische Jahrbiicher, and that Marx should fol low within a couple of months, after his marriage with Jenny von Westphalen. Meantime, he wrote and published anony mously a brilliant and violent attack upon the Prussian censor ship. The article, signed “ Rhinelander,” appeared in the Anekoda zur Neuester Deutschen Philosophie und Publicistik von Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Koppen, Karl Nauwerk, Arnold Ruge and einigen Ungenannten, 1843. , In the summer of 1843 he married Johanna Bertha Julie Jenny von Westphalen — to give her full name — and, after a brief 1 honeymoon, and the conventional trip to Bingen on the Rhine, the young couple went to Paris, arriving there in the autumn. They were warmly welcomed by Ruge, and Marx immediately became one of the most influential members of a notable group of radicals, including Heinrich Heine, the poet, Michael Baku nin and Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the Anarchist philosophers, and Etienne Cabet, the famous Utopist. His intercourse ! with Heine and Proudhon was especially intimate. The t former visited him almost daily, while his discussions with the I latter, whom he says he “ infected with Hegelianism, greatly to his hurt, since not knowing German, he could not study the matter thoroughly,” often lasted all through the night. Just what influence Proudhon in turn exercised upon Marx is largely a matter of conjecture. It seems probable that Proudhon’s severely critical attitude toward the Utopian Socialism of Fourier and Saint-Simon helped Marx to a clear definition of his own position. That Marx was profoundly interested by Saint-Simon’s ideas we know. If the mystical and hierarchical features of the “ New Christianity ” repelled him, there was much in the French thinker’s works to win his ready sympathy, intellectual assent and generous admiration. He who had written so eloquently in the Rhenische Zeitung of the “ poor dumb millions ” could not fail to give sympathetic hearing to Saint-Simon, whose chief
Nor was that all. During the troubled times of 1814 and 1815, with rare courage and political prescience, Saint-Simon had advocated an alliance of France with England, to be fol lowed by the alliance of both with Germany, thus constituting a triple alliance which could secure and guarantee the peace of Europe. As Engels has well said, “ to preach to the French in 18x5 an alliance with the victors of Waterloo required as much courage as historical foresight.” Above all, in 1817, > Saint-Simon had declared, in L’Industrie, that politics is the science of production, and that politics would be completely ab- f sorbed by economics, thus indicating that he perceived, even \ though but dimly, that political institutions are the results of | economic conditions — a remarkably near approach to the great theory of the economic interpretation of history which Marx later made the corner stone of his philosophy. With these facts in mind, it is easy to understand the tre mendous influence of the Saint-Simonian teaching upon Marx, in spite of the religious mysticism which enveloped it. Just so it is easy to understand how his admiration for Fourier’s keen ' criticisms of the prevailing system, which showed that poverty is the paradoxical result of plethora, and his conception of his torical development, dwarfed and triumphed over the contempt j with which he regarded the fantastic elements of Fourierism-
, It was some months before the Year Book appeared, two issues appearing together, as a double number, early in 1844, with contributions by Marx, Ruge, Heine, Bakunin, Herwegh, Feuerbach, Engels, and several others. No other issues of the publication ever appeared. Several causes conspired to the early failure of this most ambitious enterprise. First of all, the editors had failed to obtain the desired cooperation of prominent French writers; second, financial difficulties arose, the publisher had little capital for such an enterprise and the cost of transporting the books to Germany proved to be greater than had been anticipated. But more important than either of these causes was the disagreement of the editors. Ruge was bitterly disappointed at his colleague’s definite acceptance of Socialism. They were an ill-matched pair, each pulling t in a different direction. The two quarrelled, and Ruge spoke with much bitterness of his old associate and friend for many years afterward. What justice, if any, there was in Ruge’s strictures will probably never be known. Marx seems never Claude Henri Saint-Simon Franqois Marie Charles Fourier
to have given his side, and Ruge was peculiarly unreliable. He was an irascible man, capable of the most petty jealousies, constantly quarrelling and extremely abusive. His abuse of Herwegh was hardly less violent than that which he heaped upon Marx. It is perhaps enough to say that Ruge was petty and irascible, and that Marx was imperious and tempes tuous. Two essays by Marx appeared in the Deutsche-Franzdsische • Jahrbiicher, each of great importance to the serious student of his life. The first essay was an introduction to a criticism of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law. Its dominant note was an argu- I ment that theological criticism was rapidly being replaced, of ? necessity, by political criticism. The influence of Feuerbach is strongly apparent throughout, but it strikes an original and independent note, also. In it we see that he had begun to forihulate his theory of the materialistic conception, or, more aptly, economic interpretation, of history. How far he had 1 advanced toward the definite formulation of his theory may j be gathered from his statement that “ revolutions need a ; passive element, a material basis,” and his insistence that the j “ relation of industry ” and of wealth in general to the po- j litical world is “ the chief problem of modern times.” The ‘ trend of his thought is clearly evident; we see, as it were, the theory of history which bears his name in the making.The second essay was a searching criticism of Bruno Bauer’s ? treatment of the Jewish question. Bauer had contended with much subtlety and brilliance that the social emancipation of the Jew was dependent upon the emancipation of the Jew from. Judaism. Thus Bauer made the matter one of religion,. of theology. Marx, on the other hand, contended, with equal subtlety and brilliance, that the Jewish question was essentially an economic one. The social emancipation of the Jews was > to be expected as a result of the emancipation of the Jew from \ “ practical Judaism,” that is, from commercialism and usury. It is noteworthy that he argues that the great importance of
It was in September, 1844, that Marx met for the first time the man whose name and deeds are so inseparably inter woven with his own that to write the life of one is practically to write the life of both —- Friedrich Engels. The two men had already had some correspondence -during the days when Marx was editing the Rhenische Zeitung, to which Engels 1 contributed, but this was their first meeting. Engels was born fat Barmen, in the Rhine province, on the 28th of November,, I 1820, the son of a manufacturer who was part owner of a j large cotton mill in Manchester, England. Educated at the ■ “ Realschule ” at Barmen and the Gymnasium at Elberfeld " for a commercial career, he had not neglected classical studies. During a period of apprenticeship spent in a mercantile estab lishment at Berlin, and while undergoing the year’s military service required at that time, he devoted all his leisure to i philosophical studies and became one of the most enthusiastic of the younger members of the Young Hegelians, writing some clever letters to the Rhenische Zeitung. In 1842 he went to England to take up a position in the factory owned by his father’s firm and immediately sought to connect himself with the radical elements there. The Chartist movement, already declining, interested him and he became a warm admirer of Feargus O’Connor, the brilliant but erratic leader of the Chartists, writing for his paper, the Northern Star. He also formed the acquaintance of Robert Owen, then an old man, to whom he became greatly attached. He wrote for Owen’s paper, the New Moral World, and always spoke of him in later years in terms of admiration and sincere affection. Dur JOURNALISM — POLITICS — SOCIALISM 73 ing the period, 1842-1844, Engels made an exhaustive study |> of English industrial conditions and upon his return to his ' home in Barmen, in 1844, set about shaping the results of his j investigations into a book which, under the title The Condition ( of the Working Class in England in 1844, was published in i Germany in 1845. The book stands to this day as a classic example of sociological analysis and description. That we may understand the spontaneity of the close friend ship which developed between the two men, it is necessary to visualize, as it were, their respective mental attitudes. From some letters of Marx, Ruge, Feuerbach and Bakunin, which ^ were published as an introduction to the Year-Book, we see * Marx already opposing the sterile “ dogmatism ” of the Social- j ism of the period, and urging the need of definite political ac-{ tion of the workers. Just as in the article on Hegel he pointed to the development of a proletarian political movement in France as soon as the industrial evolution had created a suffi ciently numerous proletariat, so in the letters he wrote to the same effect: “Nothing prevents us from combining our crit-i icism with the criticism of politics, from participating in politics, J and consequently in real struggles,” he said. “We will not, then, oppose the world like doctrinarians with a new prin-, ciple: here is truth, kneel down here! We expose new princi ples to the world out of the principles of the world itself.I We don’t tell it: Give up your struggles, they are rubbish, wef will show you the true war cry! We explain to it only the real} object for which it struggles, and consciousness is a thing it must acquire even if it objects to it.” Thus Marx. The germs of the central doctrines of the famous Communist Manifesto are already apparent. It is sig nificant, too, that Marx, who has been criticised for his “ dog matism ” and “ doctrinarianism,” should have begun thus early to oppose both — a fight which he waged to the very last, as we shall see. Engels, on his part, had come inde-|’ pendently to a similar position. In his studies of the English ‘ 74
KARL MARX working class movements he had reached the conclusion that | the political movement represented by Chartism, and the social ■ movement represented by Owenism, needed to unite upon a higher plane, though, it is curious to note, he had small friend ship for the one man of the time who was trying to accomplish that end, James Bronterre O’Brien, the eloquent and scholarly advocate of Chartism, who pointed out the economic signifi cance of that great struggle and was the first to coin and use the now formidable political term “ Social-Democracy.” How nearly Engels had already approached the intellectual position of Marx, the conclusions which both later embodied in the Communist Manifesto, may be seen from this passage, one of many which might as aptly be cited: “ Socialism in its present form can never accomplish anything for the labouring class; it would never lower itself to stand for an instant on the basis of Chartism. The union of this Owenism, the reproduction in an English form of the French Communism, must be the next step, and has already begun.” In the Year Book, too, he had published the outline of a historical criticism of political economy. Crude as the outline is, and despite the evidence it affords of the young author’s lack of preparation for such an ambitious task, it is significant as showing how Engels, like Marx, had come to feel the whole question of Socialism to be an economic one. . When, therefore, Engels made a brief visit to Marx in Paris, on his way home to Barmen, in the autumn of 1844, they ; were already in close agreement upon all the fundamental j points of what was henceforth to be their joint lifework. It 'is not strange that this intellectual agreement should have given rise to feelings of friendship and mutual regard. But it is 'not so easy to account for the intensity of their friendship, the romantic attachment which bound their lives together as one, ironclad, and impregnable. Outwardly, the two men dif fered greatly: Marx was rather tall (not “short” as Al bert Brisbane described him) and stout; Engels was taller, JOURNALISM — POLITICS — SOCIALISM 75 but thin; Marx was so dark (not a “blonde ” as the Italian ■ writer, Croce, describes him!) that his friends nicknamed, him “ Negro ”; Engels was a pronounced blonde. They were, as Engels himself has remarked, men of different, but for- j tunately complementary, temperaments, habits and gifts, and/ the division of labour which took place enabled each to serve the ; other, making one well-rounded whole. In modern times there has not been another example of friendship so romantic and beautiful, and cooperation so loyal, between men of equal intel lectual power and achievement. This is the more remarkable in view of the popular view that Marx was heartless and un lovable — a view as false as Signor Croce’s picture of the “blonde ” Marx! Before Engels returned to his home in Barmen, the two s friends planned and actually began a work setting forth their attitude toward their former associates of the Young Hegelian ! school, and against Bruno Bauer, Max Stirner and Ludwig Feuerbach in particular. This work was to mark their definite separation from the idealism of the whole Hegelian school of [ thought. Although the complete work was never published, { they served their immediate purpose by publishing, in 1845, at f Frankfort-on-Main, their celebrated, but little known book, | The Holy Family; or a Review- of the Critical Critique against I Bruno Bauer and his Followers. From a letter written by J Engels to Marx on January 20, 1845, from Barmen, we] learn that his share in the work was very small, consisting of “ about a sheet and a half out of the whole.” Considered as the production of young men, the book is a remarkable piece of critical work, alike by reason of its brilliant style and the great learning it displays. Though the share of Engels was small, it was the first fruit of a literary partnership unparalleled in modern times. The importance of the little work for us lies in the evidence ■ it affords of the development of the theory of historical ma terialism in the mind of Marx. In place of the brief and
76
KARL MARX *almost vague hints which appeared in the Deutsche-Franzo- \sische Jahrbiicher articles, there is a more positive and em- iphatic tone. There is an air of well-grounded assurance in the passage which points out the basic economic causes of the French Revolution, that the individual of the French Revolu tion differed from the individual of classic antiquity mainly because his economic and industrial conditions were different. The certitude and audacity common to his later polemical work is evident in the almost scornful manner in which he asks: “ Do these gentlemen think that they can understand the first word of history so long as they exclude the relations of man to nature, natural science and industry? Do they believe that they can actually comprehend any epoch without grasping the industry of the period, the immediate method of production in actual life? ” The influence of Feuerbach is strongly marked throughout | the book. There is some criticism of Feuerbach, but it is i something of a shock for the reader of to-day to note the air ■ of superiority which Marx adopts toward Hegel, whom he treats with ill-concealed disdain, and to compare with it the j generous enthusiasm of his treatment of Feuerbach. At first this seems pitifully immature. We must, however, bear in mind the polemical character of the book. The controversial spirit and temper are not exactly conducive to a judicial esti- ; mate. Marx was anxious at the moment to discredit the He- j gelian ideology and to emphasize the materialist factors, f Later, when the controversial temper had passed away with the need for controversy, a juster estimate was possible. Marx could write then, in 1865, “ Compared with Hegel, Feuerbach is very poor. Nevertheless, after Hegel, he made an epoch, because he accentuated certain points . . . which had been left by Hegel in an obscure and mystic light.” So we must judge his failure to criticize the mechanical ma terialism of Feuerbach in the light of the controversial need of the moment, which Die Heilige Familie was written to Ludwig Feuerbach
supply. That he recognised its weakness and sterility is evi denced by the manner in which he exposes the mechanical na ture of the older French materialism, represented by Helvetius and Holbach, and points out that the Utopianism of Fourier and Babouef was its logical development. And in some notes made at about the same time, for the larger work he and Engels had in mind, he took up the same point, objecting to Feuerbach’s view of religion upon the ground that Feuerbach failed to recognize that man is a product of his social relations, and that religion is itself a social outgrowth. He objects too, to the doctrine of the old mechanical materialists, that men are simply the products of their environment, because it does not take into account the fact that men can change their environment. In order to obtain a clear, uninterrupted view of the early development of the thought of Marx, the mental process which culminated in the formulation of his famous theory of his torical development, we have again outrun the chronology of events and must retrace our steps. Not long after the failure of the Deutsche-Franzdsische Jahrbiicher, there appeared in Paris the first issue of a new radical magazine, the Vorwarts, designed to appeal to the large body of liberal-thinking Ger mans then resident in France. The publisher was Henry Bernstein, an actor, and among the earliest contributors were Heine, Herwegh, Hess, Bakunin, and Arnold Ruge who con tributed a number of articles signed “ A Prussian.” Marx joined the staff of the new journal and at once began to attack the Prussian government.It was not long before he became the editor of the paper, • which, on account of its brilliant list of contributors, and its | trenchant attacks upon the Prussian government, soon obtained I great popularity and a large circulation in the radical circles 5 of Germany. Naturally, the fierce attacks of Marx, Her wegh, Ruge, and others, upon the Prussian government, were not at all to the liking of the latter. Protests against per
78
KARL MARX mitting the publication of the journal were lodged with the French government and the radicals in Germany were more oppressed than ever. A letter from Heine to Marx, one of the few still extant, is interesting for the light it throws upon the effect of the Vorwarts* attacks and exposures upon the mind and temper of reactionary Prussian officialdom. The letter was written in September, 1844, from Hamburg, whither the poet had gone to visit the aged mother for whom his love was so tender and pathetic. It refers to the publica tion in the Vorwarts of some portions of the famous poem, Deutschland, ein Wintermahrchen, many lines of which are said to have been inspired or suggested by Marx. This “ Winter’s Tale ” is perhaps the most variously estimated of all Heine’s writings. It has been praised as the greatest and condemned as the most inferior of his works. But, be the literary value of the poem what it may — it lies about midway between the two extremes already presented — Socialists will always read it with special interest and pleasure as the first of Heine’s works to sound the clear, strong note of his Socialist faith. Its ap pearance stirred the hearts of German radicals everywhere, and made the reactionary government furious. It was Heine’s first great challenge as “a soldier in the liberation war of Humanity.’’ Of more importance than the light it throws upon the re lations of Heine and Marx, and of greater interest, for our present purpose, than the reference to the famous poem and the book, the Neue Gedichte, in which it appeared, are the references to the Vorwarts, and to the effect it had produced upon the official mind. It is evident that the poet believed that his connection with the paper made it exceedingly dangerous for him to remain in Germany. The letter reads: “ Yüklə 1,7 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|