Karl Marx; his life and work

A more important work appeared from his pen in 1842, en- » titled The Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom. The book j at once attracted wide attention, and gave Weitling a foremost place among the writers of the time in the hearts of the workers associated with radical and revolutionary movements. In the Paris Vorwarts, in 1844, Marx praised the book highly, comparing Weitling to the bourgeois philosophers and theologians of Germany — much to the disadvantage of the latter. “Let the jejune and feeble mediocrity of German political literature be compared with this incomparable and brilliant debut of the German workingmen,” he wrote. What won from Marx this high-sounding praise was simply the fact that Weitling’s appeals were addressed to the workers as a class. While he

90

KARL MARX

never systematized his thought into anything approaching the conscious theory of class struggles which Marx developed, instinctively he at times approached quite near it.

. When Weitling came to Brussels, after his release from a jlong term of imprisonment in Switzerland on account of his Sconspiratory activities, it was natural that he should become I associated with Marx and Engels and the German Working-men’s Club. It was not long, however, before a clash occurred. No small part of the history of Marx’s life is made up of the record of such clashes and disrupted friendships, and superficial critics have jumped to the conclusion that he must have been of a quarrelsome, petty, and jealous temperament. Such conclusions are as absurd as they are unjust to Marx. Almost invariably his conflicts with fellow Socialists, no less than with enemies of the movement, were upon matters of principle, questions of theory or tactics into which the personal element entered as little as possible. In the case of Weitling, for example, his attack was not provoked by any jealousy or ill- feeling. Indeed, he respected the intrepid agitator very highly and often spoke of him in terms of admiration. The man’s fine courage, magnetic eloquence, and tireless energy appealed strongly to Marx.

r But Weitling represented in his person and teaching the old Utopianism. He was a product of that abortive “ senti- ! mental Socialism ” which Marx felt was a hindrance to the f development of a great proletarian political movement. Above all, he advocated that form of secret, conspiratory action which | Mazzini represented, a conception of revolutionary action fwhich Marx aimed to destroy, and upon which he waged war for many years afterward. It was substantially the same issue which later involved the fierce struggle against Kinkel and Wil- lich, in the Communist Alliance, and still later Bakunin, in the International. It was Weitlingism rather than Weitling which Marx attacked with all his fierce energy. In an oral debate with Weitling, of which the Russian writer, Annencoff, has


BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 91

given a most interesting account, Marx proved himself quite as formidable an opponent in that form of encounter as in ■written discussion, where he was so great a master.

Another notable revolutionist who visited Brussels in 1847 and attended some of the meetings of the Workingmen’s Club " was Bakunin, with whom Marx had become intimate during his stay in Paris three years before. Bakunin, who had been expelled from France, did not join the Club, maintaining a critical attitude toward the entire “ Marxist circle.” His sympathies were, naturally, with Weitling. While confining himself mainly to agitation among the Polish exiles in Brussels, stirring them to take action against Russia, he was more or less intimate with Marx and Engels, though the three could rarely agree upon any question of tactics.

Mention must be made here of a number of articles which Marx contributed in 1846-1847 to a monthly review, the Westfalischer Dampfboot, edited by Otto Liming. The articles, which were all anonymous, form two distinct series. The first series is of interest mainly because in them Marx criticizes the manner in which the editor of a German Communistic paper, Der Volkstribun, one H. Kriege, dealt with the Anti-Rent Riots in New York and elsewhere, and the agrarian question. Marx writes from a point of view of historical materialism, and severely criticizes Kriege for his failure to perceive the necessary and inevitable connection between economic and political phenomena. The second series is devoted to a criticism of the “ True Socialism ” of Karl Gruen and Moses Hess, and rather scornfully reproaches them for failing to recognize that an alteration in the methods of production compels changes in the whole social life. At about the same time he published in the Deutsche Brusseler Zeitung a criticism of Karl Heinzen very similar to that directed against Gruen and Hess.

In 1846 Proudhon published his celebrated book, La Philos- > ophie de la Misere. He and Marx had remained friends, \ though their relation had not been intimate since the departure i

92

KARL MARX

of the latter from Paris. Shortly before the appearance of the book, Proudhon wrote to Marx: “ I await your critical rod ”

(J’attends votre ferule critique). He had not long to wait. Marx had no sooner received a copy of the book and read it Sthan he began to write, in French, a reply to it. This was | published in Paris and Brussels in 1847, under the title, La j Misere de la Philosophie, and forever shattered the friendship 'of the two men. One cannot wonder at this result. Not all men can stand severe criticism and retain their friendship for the critic as Bruno Bauer did, and men of much broader minds than Proudhon have been angered by criticisms far less severe than that with which he was assailed by Marx.

The book is a masterpiece of polemical writing. Economic criticism does not generally make very fascinating or exhilarating reading, but Marx’s book has both merits. The language is singularly simple and beautiful, the scorn is scathing, the satire keen, and the logic impenetrable. Marx smites Proudhon hip and thigh and makes his work appear as trivial as a schoolboy’s essay. For readers of a later generation the brilliance of the book has rather tended to obscure its real merit and importance. For us to-day the importance of the work lies less in its controversial character, the refutation of Proudhon’s theories, than in the fact that it contains the first fruits of the immense amount of reading done during that visit to England in the summer of 1845, and a full and generous recognition of that brilliant school of English Ricardian Socialists, from whom he has been charged with “ pillaging ” his ideas.

It has also another and greater merit. In it we get the ' first approach to a comprehensive exposition of the materialistic conception of history. Here we find elaborated the theory that history must be interpreted in the light of economic development. Marx shows that mankind changes all its social relations in changing the methods of production. “ The hand mill creates a society with the feudal lord; the steam mill a society with the industrial capitalist. The same men who es*


BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 93

tablish social relations in conformity with their material production also create principles, ideas, and categories in conformity with their social relations. . . . All such ideas and

categories are therefore historical and transitory products.”

He pokes fun at Proudhon’s concept of “ eternal laws ” and argues that the relations in which the forces of production manifest themselves are not eternal laws, but that they correspond to definite changes in man and in his productive forces. He contends, with much lucid argument, that social life at any given time is the result of economic evolution. The theory is fundamental to the whole work, and not the subject of mere incidental allusions. That the critique utterly discredits Proudhon’s rather bombastic and pretentious book is undeniable, but the reader of to-day gets from it the impression that the attack is often quite as much directed toward the manner of Proudhon’s statement as to the substance, and that Marx really used the work of his old friend as a foil for the statement of his own views.

The Misere de la Philosophie created a sensation in radical j circles, as might have been expected, and added considerably! to the fame of the author, which was already far from small. I Meantime Marx was busy at Brussels with his work in connection with the German Workingmen’s Club. The world of German and French radicalism was seething with discontent. ' The old movements, Saint-Simonianism and Fourierism, had ’ burned out, and only the crude Communism of Etienne Cabet and Wilhelm Weitling kept the hopes of the workers alive.1 And the work of Marx and Engels had turned many of the . best-educated workers against the Utopian visions of the former and the equally Utopian insurrections and conspiracies of the latter.

The Communist “ movement ” of the time was made up of { three elements, the followers of Cabet, the adherents of Weit- ling, and that element which, dissatisfied with both Cabet and | Weitling, lacked both leadership and cohesion. The Com-¹

94

KARL MARX

^munist League, which was the organized expression of 'the I movement, was an international secret society with its headquarters in London. The “ Young Europe ” agitation which Mazzini carried on in 1834 had numerous offshoots, among others a “ Young Germany ” society which was organized in Paris in 1836 by German refugees and travelling workingmen. This society was at the beginning a mere conspiratory society, devoted almost wholly to the “ Young Germany ” propaganda with, of course, the usual convivial purposes of such clubs. At different times it bore the names, “ League of the Just,” “ League of the Righteous,” and finally, “ Communist League.” Later it became the International Alliance, with branches in many of the leading cities of Europe, composed mainly of German and French workingmen and radical Intellectuals. The headquarters of the movement, in 1847, were in London, where an Arbeiter Bildungsverein — Workingmen’s Educational Club —■ had existed for seven years.

The London Communistische Arbeiter Bildungsverein was founded in February, 1840, by three German exiles. They were: Karl Schapper, a proofreader who later became a

teacher of languages; Heinrich Bauer, a shoemaker, and Joseph Moll, a watchmaker. These three men had already been actively engaged in the revolutionary movement, and had been expelled from France at the end of 1830 for participation in the Blanquist conspiracy. The organization prospered and, because of its rather unusual prosperity and stability, and the fact that there was much greater freedom in London than on the Continent, it became, naturally, the central organization.

The conflict within the movement was responsible for the jattempt to reorganize it which led to the writing of the Com- \munist Manifesto and the domination of the whole movement by Marx and Engels. In the spring of 1847 Joseph Moll visited Marx in Brussels, and Engels in Paris, whither he had gone on business, and begged them to take up the task of

BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 95

bringing about a reorganization of the movement along the lines which they had been advocating.

During his stay in Paris in 1843-1844, Marx had discussed with the leading spirits of the movement there the desirability of such a reorganization, and ever since that time he and Engels had been urging it by newspaper articles, speeches, and correspondence. Marx had therefore made his position per- j fectly plain: he wanted a strong proletarian political move- j ment with a definite revolutionary aim and policy, which in- j volved the abandonment of attempts to create a Utopian para-1 dise beyond the seas, on the one hand, and of secret j conspiracies and violent insurrections upon the other. Thus, the suggestion of Moll was not unwelcome. It was, in fact, exactly what Marx and Engels had been wishing.

Such an undertaking however was not lightly to be regarded. Quite naturally, Marx wanted the assurance of enough influential support to afford reasonable hope of success. How many of the leaders would accept his programme? Would it be possible to unite the forces upon such a programme as he and Engels had advocated? Thanks to the energies of Moll, and the efforts of Engels while in Paris, sufficient assurance was given to warrant the attempt. It was arranged that the i German Workingmen’s Club of Brussels should enter the International Alliance, and that a congress should be held in London at an early date for the purpose of reorganizing the movement.

The congress was held in the summer of 1847 at the rooms ? of the Arbeiter Bildungsverein, in Great Windmill Street. Marx was not present, preferring to remain in Brussels untilj officially invited to act. Engels attended the congress, how- ; ever, as a delegate representing the members in Paris. With him was Wilhelm Wolff, the Silesian peasant, nicknamed “ Lupus,” to distinguish him at a time when there were several men of the same name active in the movement. A man of

9 6

KARL MARX

large gifts and remarkable energy, this “ Lupus ” Wolff was one of Marx’s best beloved friends, as may be seen from tne affectionate dedication of the first volume of Capital to his memory. Both men were delegates representing large organizations, but in a very special sense they represented Karl Marx. With great ability and earnestness they argued for what was already known as the Marxist programme.

The main opposition came from the followers of Weitling, a few zealots who mistook high-sounding phrases for realities,

' and were unable to dissociate revolutionary activity from plotting, intrigue, conspiracy, and insurrection. Marx had in] curred the mortal enmity of this element by the vigour of his | onslaughts upon their methods. To him, they were mere • “ phrase-mongers ” and “ mouthers of revolutionary nothings.” To them, on the other hand, Marx was “ a mere theorist,” a “ closet philosopher,” a “ reactionary politician,” simply because he was opposed to their conception of immediate practical measures. The issue was, in brief, between the old notion of revolutionary action which had been so long tried, and the new notion which called for patient and long-continued preparation, and which recognised that no social change could be effected unless the economic conditions for the change were developed.

It is worthy of note that the opposition to Marx and Engels brought forth a specious form of demagoguery which has played a sinister role in the Socialist movement and which still crops out at frequent intervals. The opponents of Marx and Engels (sought to prejudice the proletarian element against their programme by raising the cry that they were not of the proletariat, i but “ Intellectuals,” members of the hated bourgeoisie. No official record of the discussions has ever been published, but from one of the members of the Arbeiter Bildungsverein, who, though not a delegate, was in a position to know what took place, and who was for many years the trusted and loyal friend of both Marx and Engels, the present writer learned that the

Wilhelm Weitling




Wilhelm Wolff

BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 97

cry of anti-intellectualism was loudly raised. Had the demagogues who raised this cry succeeded, the Communist Manifesto, the great declaration of proletarian independence, would never have been written. It is significant that the men who struggled so nobly to rouse the proletarian consciousness, whose genius gave birth to the battle-cry of the workers, “ Working men of all countries, Unite! ” were thus early, and for many years afterward, opposed by this petty demagogic spirit, by men who used isolated and ill-digested phrases from the Manifesto as weapons with which to attack its authors.

In spite of the opposition, Engels and Wolff succeeded ini_; their efforts. It was agreed that the International Alliance should be reorganized along “ Marxist ” lines. The old mystery was dropped as one throws off an old garment; in place; of a secret association for conspiratory action, it became hence- ] forth a society for open propaganda and the education of the ’ workers. At the same time, the name of the organization was ' changed to “ Communist League.”

For readers of this generation it is perhaps necessary to explain why this name was chosen, why it was not decided to call the organization the Socialist League. At that time the relative meaning of the terms “ Communism ” and “ Socialism ” was almost exactly the reverse of what it is to-day. We think of such Utopian schemes as those of Fourierism and Owenism as examples of “ Communism,” but in those days they bore the name of “ Socialism.” On the other hand, the working class movement, crude as it was, divided into factions headed by Cabet, by Weitling, and by Marx was known as “ Communism.” Socialism, then, meant Saint Simonianism, Fourierism, and Owenism, mere sects which had become discredited by all sorts of follies and extravagancies. They could not adopt the word Socialism without incurring much needless opposition and misunderstanding.

So far Engels and Wolff succeeded in their task. The congress was not yet prepared, however, to go the whole length 7

98

KARL MARX

of accepting the theoretical and practical programme of Marxism. Indeed, it would perhaps be better to say that such a programme had not yet been definitely formulated. Marx, as we have seen, had from time to time expressed his views in letters, articles, books, lectures, and personal discussions and for that very reason his “ programme ” had been given out piecemeal and never precisely published. It had probably not taken definite, cohesive form even in his own thought. Engels and Wolff, especially the former, knew in a general way what Marx wanted and informed the congress. Their presentation of his position favourably impressing a majority of the dele: gates, the congress decided to adjourn and to write Marx and Engels to attend another congress, to be held at an early date, for the purpose of outlining their idea of “ a complete theoreti- | cal and working programme ” for the League. With that Engels and Wolff were content.

And now, as soon as this first congress was over, a new ! phase of the struggle began. Even while the congress was in session, Cabet, in Paris, .was making a desperate fight to secure the support of the movement for his cherished scheme of establishing an Earthly Paradise in Texas. Cabet was born at Dijon, France, in 1788, and received a university education. In the Revolution of 1830 he had taken an active part and was “ rewarded ” upon the accession of Louis Philippe by being made Attorney-General of Corsica. The wily advisers of Louis Philippe were anxious to have Cabet removed from the political life of Paris, and that desire, quite as much as the desire to reward him for his services during the Revolution, led to what was practically banishment in the guise of a reward. But Cabet in Corsica became a thorn in the side of the government and was removed from office.

Returning to Paris, he became one of the most active opponents of the administration, and was elected, in 1834, as a deputy to the lower chamber by the citizens of Dijon, his native town. Here he continued to fight the government and


BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 99

was soon tried on a charge of lese majeste, and faced the necessity of choice between two years’ imprisonment or five years’ exile. Choosing the latter alternative, Cabet went to England, where he fell under the influence of Robert Owen and became a convert to his views. He wrote a book of no great literary merit, modelled closely upon More’s Utopia and called Voyage en Icarie, published in 1839, in which he rhapsodically describes Icaria, his Utopia, as “ a Promised Land, an Eden, an Elysium, a new terrestrial Paradise.”

The effect of the book in France was astonishingly great. No other Utopian vision had ever so caught the popular fancy, or created such a furore, as this phantasy. All the conditions of the time were favourable to it. The Socialist movement represented by Saint-Simonianism and Fourierism had declined, and there was as yet no programme to unite those who were in a state of mental revolt against the existing social system. It had the merit of serving the useful purpose of firing the flagging zeal of large numbers of the workers for social regeneration. Pressed on by his admirers and friends to attempt the practical realization of his ideal, he consulted Robert Owen, who advised him to make Texas the theatre of his great experiment. At the time when the leaders of the working class were turning to Marx and to Engels, Cabet was making heroic efforts to realize the great hope of his life, and to unite the radical movement in support of his plans. He boasted, in 1847, that he had four hundred thousand adherents among the workers of France, but he found at last that not more than a few hundred could be induced to follow him to Texas.

In May, 1847, Cabet issued a proclamation to the workers of France, headed Allons en Icarie! He made a strong appeal to the Communists for support, saying: “ As we are here perse

cuted, calumniated, and damned by the government, the priests, the middle classes, and even by the revolutionary republicans (for they try to backbite us in order to ruin us physically and morally), let us leave France, let us go to Icaria, to found there

IOO

KARL MARX

a Communistic colony.” Copies of this manifesto were sent to the Communists of various cities outside of France, and in September, 1847, about two months before the date set for the I second congress at which Marx and Engels were to present

_i

their views, Cabet visited London, partly to take counsel with
Owen, but more especially to win over the members of the
Arbeiter Bildungsverein to his side. Most eloquently did he

s present his case and the members of the club gave it full con-
4 sideration, the discussion lasting a whole week. Their final
decision was against Cabet’s proposal. Their reply, which
i Frederick Lessner has preserved, is interesting as showing how
far they had come under the influence of Marxian ideas:

“ Assuredly all Communists acknowledge with pleasure that Cabet has fought, and successfully fought, with admirable perseverance for the sake of suffering humanity, and that he has rendered immense services to the proletariat by his warning against all conspiracies. But all this cannot induce us to follow Cabet, when he, in our opinion, pursues a wrong path. Though we esteem citizen Cabet, we must fight his plan of emigration, being convinced that if the emigration proposed by him should take place the greatest damage would be done to the principles of Communism. The reasons for our opinion are: “ (1) We think that when in a country the most scandalous briberies are going on, when people are oppressed and exploited in the most outrageous manner, when right and justice are no longer respected, when society begins to dissolve itself into anarchy, as is now the case in France, every champion of justice and truth should make it his duty to remain at home to enlighten the people, to encourage the sinking, to boldly face the rogues, and lay the foundation of a new social organization. If the honest men, if the champions of a better future mean to get away and leave the field to the religious obscurantists and exploiters, Europe will assuredly be lost to the people.

“(2) Because we are convinced that the establishment in America of a colony by Cabet, based on the principle of com


BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 101

mon property, cannot yet be carried out for the following reasons:

“(a) Because although those comrades who intend to emigrate with Cabet may be eager Communists, yet they still possess too many of the faults and prejudices of present-day society by reason of their past education to be able to get rid of them at once by joining Icaria.

“ (b) Because the differences and frictions which would naturally arise in the colony from the beginning would be still more excited and excerberated (sic!) by the agents and spies of the European governments and the middle classes, until they lead to a complete breakup of the colony.

“ (c) Because emigrants belong mostly to the artisan, class, whilst robust labourers are wanted for the clearing and cultiva? tion of the soil, and because an artisan cannot very easily be transformed into a farmer.

“(d) Because privations and diseases, produced by the change of climate, will discourage and induce many to leave.

“ (e) Because communism of property without a period of transition, in which personal property is transformed into collective property, is impossible for the Communists, who are de-? termined to acknowledge the principle of individual freedom. Icarians, therefore, are like a farmer who wants to reap a harvest without first sowing.

“ (3) Because no communism of property can be established and maintained at all by a few hundreds or thousands of persons without its acquiring a completely exclusive and sectarian character.

“ These are the principal reasons why we consider as harmful the proposals of Cabet, and we may say to the Communists of all countries: ‘ Brethren, let us stay here in

old Europe, let us act and fight in the trenches at home, for it is here that the elements for the establishment of Communism of property are at hand, and where it will first be established.’ ” This reply of the London Communists to Cabet is not only


102

KARL MARX

interesting as showing the strong influence of Marx and Engels; it is also a satisfactory reply to those belated and superficial critics who still think it a crushing criticism of Socialism to demand that the Socialists “ put their ideas to a practical test ” by establishing Socialist colonies. Cabet went back to Paris discouraged and found that the number of workers willing to emigrate to Texas was extremely — almost ludicrously — small. That the influence of Marxian ideas was already extensive, acting as a powerful check upon the illusions of Utopia-building, is apparent.

! At the end of November the second congress was opened in '.London, at the headquarters on Great Windmill Street, and t lasted for ten days, closing in the first days of December. Marx attended and expressed his views at great length, going with Engels from Brussels. He had prepared a carefully writ. ten statement of what he believed the theoretical basis and i practical programme of the League should be, practically a draft of the famous Manifesto.¹ This statement was read by Marx with great passion of voice and gesture and made a profound impression, and was received with great enthusiasm. As upon the former occasion, none but properly accredited delegates were admitted to the proceedings, and there was great anxiety among the members of the club as to the result of the debates. The news quickly spread that the congress ; had with practical unanimity declared itself in favour of the principles of Marx and Engels and ordered them to prepare a | manifesto, or declaration of principles, along the lines of the statement read by Marx. The news was received with general

¹ Engels and Marx drew up, independently of each other, separate plans of sketches for the Manifesto. When they came together for the purpose of comparing the two sketches Engels declared that Marx’s sketch was incomparably the better of the two, and it was agreed that they should elaborate it together. Eduard Bernstein has a page of the manuscript of Marx’s original sketch which contains several paragraphs relating to the subject of private property that are remarkably like those contained in the final version of the Manifesto.


BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 103

satisfaction. Upon all sides it was more or less vaguely felt that the movement had entered upon a new era.

Liebknecht, in his inimitable manner, relates an interesting incident of that historic occasion when Marx read his proposed statement to the congress. Marx, who read with fine declamatory power, spoke the dialect of the Rhineland. Added to that he lisped slightly, so that he was easily misunderstood unless listened to with special care. In the reading he seems to have slurred the word “ Arbeiter ” (workman) so that at least one of the delegates understood him to say, “ Achtblat- tler ” (plant with eight leaves). The delegate, an old Cabet- ist, joined in the general enthusiasm, the applause and loud “ Bravos ” which the reading of the statement provoked. But at the close he went with troubled countenance to Karl Pfander, the journeyman painter of Swabia: “ That was

magnificent! But one word I did not understand,” he said,

“ ‘ Achtblattler ’— I have heard of clover, of plants with four leaves, but ‘ Achtblattler * ? ” Pfander was puzzled and it was some time before the mystery was solved. There is a curious and interesting sidelight upon the ways from which the movement was now departing forever in Liebknecht’s suggestion that the old Cabetist had scented behind the mysterious ‘ Achtblattler ’ a new magic formula. It was hard to throw off the idea of secret conspiracy meetings with passwords and cabalistic signs!

Marx and Engels returned at once to Brussels. They were j now the acknowledged leaders of the movement. If Marx I was by common consent chieftain, Engels was equally regarded ’ as his lieutenant. For the congress had done more than instruct them to prepare the Manifesto: it was decided that the London Central Council should at once transfer its functions to the section at Brussels so that the organization might be more I immediately directed by Marx and Engels. Marx was in his j thirtieth year, while Engels was barely twenty-eight, both young men to have acquired such power.

104

KARL MARX

, By the end of January, 1848, the manuscript of the Com- \munist Manifesto, written in German, was on its way to the Sprinter in London. It was Frederick Lessner, the tailor, who took the manuscript to the printer and from him took the proofs to Karl Schapper for revision. The first copies were received 1 from the press upon the same day that revolution broke out in Paris, February 24. Thus the greatest political pamphlet in history was born amid the stirrings of revolution. The birth-i cry of modern Socialism, “ Workingmen of all countries, Unite 1 ” was scarcely heard by reason of the thunderings of revolution across the English Channel. The double event — the appearance of the long-awaited programme and the outbreak in Paris — made an indescribable impression on the German Communists in London. Surely, the hour had struck! What thought could they have other than that they were called to the high privilege of martyrdom, to lay down life and fortune for the deliverance of mankind?

Leaving for another chapter all discussion and analysis of the Communist Manifesto, some notice must be taken of some further activities of the busy period 1847-1848. Mention has been made of his Discourse upon Free Trade, and a further word seems to be necessary. Toward the end of 1847, after the return of Marx from London, a Free Trade Congress was held at Brussels. The congress was a move in the campaign of the English manufacturing class. Having secured the repeal of the Corn Laws, in 1846, they now invaded Continental Europe to agitate for the free admission of English goods to the Continental markets in return for the free admission of Continental corn into the English markets. Marx, who believed in the principle of free trade, got his name placed on the list of speakers and prepared an address for the occasion which was not, however, delivered. Whether by accident or design it is perhaps needless to inquire at this day: suffice it to say that the congress was prematurely adjourned and Marx got no opportunity to address it. So, on the 9th of January,

BIRTH CRY OF MODERN SOCIALISM 105

1848, the address intended for the Free Trade Congress was delivered before the Democratic Association of Brussels, of which Marx was vice-president. His position and argument have been condensed by Engels as follows:

“ While recognizing that protection may still, under certain circumstances, for instance, in the Germany of 1847, be of advantage to the manufacturing capitalists; while proving that free trade was not the panacea for all the evils under which the working classes suffered, and might even aggravate them; he pronounces, ultimately, and on principle, in favour of free trade. To him, free trade is the normal condition of modern capitalist production. Only under free trade can the immense productive powers of steam, of electricity, of machinery, be fully developed ; and the quicker the pace of this development, the sooner and more fully will be realized its inevitable results; society splits up into two classes, capitalists here, wage labourers there; hereditary wealth on one side, hereditary poverty on the other; supply outstripping demand, the markets being unable to absorb the ever-growing mass of the productions of industry; an ever-recurring cycle of prosperity, glut, crisis, panic, chronic depression and gradual revival of trade, the harbinger, not of permanent improvement but of renewed over-production and crisis; in short, productive forces expanding to such a degree that they rebel, as against unbearable fetters, against the social institutions under which they are put in motion; the only possible solution: a social revolution, freeing the social productive forces from the fetters of an antiquated social order, and the actual producers, the great mass of the people, from wage- slavery. And because free trade is the natural, the normal atmosphere for this historical evolution, the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created — for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favour of free trade.” 1

Even more popular as a propagandist pamphlet to-day is his

¹ Introduction to Free Trade.


io6

KARL MARX

Wage-Labor and Capital, a pamphlet which is widely circulated in many languages. Although composed of a series of articles which appeared in 1849, in the Neue Rhenische Zeitung, it really belongs to this period, for the articles were simply the substance of a series of lectures delivered before the German Workingmen’s Club of Brussels in 1847. ^ mainly

interesting as a sketch of Capital, as the germ of what was to appear twenty years later. Taken altogether, the work of the year 1847 makes a tremendous total, bearing eloquent witness to Marx’s boundless energy and devotion.

Throughout the whole period, ever since his residence in Brussels, in fact, the Prussian government had maintained its hatred and fear of Marx. With each fresh manifestation of his growing popularity and influence among the German Communists the hate and fear were naturally intensified. Time and again attempts had been made to bring about his expulsion at the hands of the Belgian government, but without success until , the end of February, 1848. Probably because the removal of the headquarters of the Communist League to Brussels and the : acceptance of the leadership of Marx had frightened the Belgian government, at last Marx was arrested and ordered to Jeave Belgian soil at once. The “ long Prussian arm ” had reached him once more.

But the “ Marx luck,” proverbial from his boyhood, did not desert him. Belgium was closing her doors against him, but f France had already opened her doors and offered hearty welcome. Only a day or two previously on the 25th of February I the “ Provisional Government ” through one of its members, his old friend Flocon, of the Reforme, had begged the “ brave ' and loyal Marx ” to return to the country whence tyranny had banished him, and where he, like all fighting in the sacred cause, the cause of the fraternity of all people,” would receive hearty welcome. So Marx hastened to Paris: the rebel who had been expelled in 1845 returned in 1848 as a welcome and honoured guest.

Ferdinand Flocon

VI

THE “ COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ”

At this point we may with logic and good reason suspend our narrative, and, leaving Marx in Paris with his friends, all aglow with the excitation of their triumph, return to the Communist Manifesto, the first printed copies of which Marx probably received upon his arrival in Paris. To know the man it is not sufficient merely to follow his movements, we must know his thought. And the Manifesto gives us such a picture of the thought of Marx at this period as cannot otherwise be obtained.

The public life of Marx may be said to divide itself into three great epochs. The first culminated in the Communist Manifesto, with its mingled threat to the bourgeoisie and its inspiration to the proletarians. The second epoch culminated in the organization of the International Workingmen’s Association, in 1864, the melting of the dividing lines of race and language in the fires of class solidarity. The third epoch culminated in the heroic breaking up of that great organization to save it from the dominion of his arch enemy, the Russian rebel, Michael Bakunin — or was it, perhaps, in his peaceful death in 1883?

The great document, which is to modem Socialism what the Declaration of Independence is to America, opens with a brief prologue, terse, tense and defiant. It sets forth that “ A spectre is haunting Europe ”— the terrible red spectre of Communism, to exorcize which all the Powers of old Europe have entered into an alliance. As we read it is easy to imagine the satirical grin with which this alliance of Pope and Czar,

107


io8

KARL MARX

Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies, was described as “ holy ” by the writer. It is easy to realize the glee with which he—for this prologue is the work of Marx alone; no other hand has touched it!—sets forth that all parties, in opposition, whether radical or reactionary, are charged by those in power with being “ Communistic.” The sure and unerring instinct of the writer grasps the truth that in this fact is a tremendous confession of fear engendered by the great undisciplined strength of the Communists.

Thus it becomes evident that all the Powers of Europe — the Powers of courts and thrones — acknowledge Communism itself to be a Power — a Power of the workshops and the streets to be feared. So it becomes necessary that this Red Power should throw off its disguise, come out from the secret places of its hiding into the light of day, and publish its aims. In the open daylight the “ nursery tale ” of the Red Spectre must be met with a manifesto of the party itself. So, the Communists of many nations have decided to publish their views and their aims in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages. The Red Power has found its voice!

The manifesto proper begins with the declaration of its fundamental principle: all written history, since the dissolution of primitive tribal communism based upon the common ownership of land, is the history of class struggles. Exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed, have struggled, and the story of their struggles is the story of society, of civilization:

“ Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

“ In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere


THE ¹¹ COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ”

a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

“ The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society, has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

“ Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”

The idea that the revolution in the methods of production which gave birth to the capitalist era, revolutionized also the whole character of society, replacing feudal conditions and institutions with others better adapted to the needs of the new era, has become commonplace. But when it was proclaimed so brilliantly sixty years ago, it was strikingly original and revolutionary. And it is strong proof of its literary art that the body of the Communist Manifesto is still fresh and striking, the vivid, dramatic phrases carry the reader along with irresistible power. With crisp, ringing phrases, simple, and free from superfluity, like cameos cut by a master-hand, the Manifesto made the philosophy of history comprehensible to the proletariat. Judged simply as a literary achievement, the little German pamphlet of twenty-five octavo pages, which came, in February, 1848, from an obscure London printery, is a work of rare genius. Had its authors done nothing else, their fame would be secure.

This doctrine of historical development through class antagonisms and struggles resulting from economic conditions is the vital principle of the Communist Manifesto. All else is incidental and relatively unimportant — satirical tu quoque arguments in reply to vulgar criticisms, ridicule and contempt


no

KARL MARX

for the older schools of sentimentalists and conspirators, suggestions for an immediate programme for the party. By a perversity that is exasperating to the honest student, most of the modem critics of Socialism fasten upon these relatively trivial and unimportant “ things of the moment ” and base upon them their attacks upon the movement of to-day, sixty years later! When they do give attention to the great vital principle of the work, these critics see in it only an appeal to passion and hatred and accuse the Socialists of attempting to create strife, to set class against class.

Whoever makes this criticism libels Marx and proclaims his unfitness to assume the role of critic. To criticize wisely one must first understand, and no one who understands the theory of the class struggle can honestly bring against it the criticism we are discussing. Prior to Marx, all movements for social regeneration were essentially ideological. They made the issue a moral one. Existing social institutions were “ wicked,” the fruits of sin. To work for change was “ holy ” and “ righteous ”; to resist was “ Mammonish ” and “ sinful.” But for the wickedness of the oppressor life would be a paradise. The propaganda was one of virtue against vice. Even Weitling, whose appeals were to the workers, was a religious enthusiast, like Piers the Ploughman, denouncing property as sinful, and basing his teaching upon the teachings of Jesus as he understood them.

What the result of all that ideological agitation was, we know. When ethical appeal and argument proved unavailing, resort to violence was inevitable. Conspiracies, riotings, and insurrections were the logical outcome of the old ideological conception of the nature of the problem. Agitation might bring together masses of discontented workers, but they were powerless to accomplish anything so long as they regarded the problem in the light of a contest between justice and injustice, good and evil. Weitling could only plan conspiracies and raids, and when these assumed large dimensions his own fol-


THE “ COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ” 111

lowers were terrified into silence. Thinking that nothing stood in the way of universal community of goods except the wicked greed of the masters, he proposed to raise an army of twenty thousand revolutionaries, to go with torch and sword into all the great cities of Europe, terrifying the bourgeoisie into a recognition of eternal justice, a proposal which alarmed his followers. No wonder that Marx spoke of the Communist movement of the early forties as “ a giant — but a giant in the cradle.”

The great merit of the Manifesto lies in the fact that it gave ? the death-blow to that dangerous ideological conception of the ' social problem. Instead of being a wicked invention, to be destroyed by triumphant virtue, the capitalist system is shown ! to be a logical and necessary stage in social evolution, its in-! stitutions the resultants of economic conditions. The great so- i cial achievements of the bourgeoisie are recognized in a man- i ner remarkably free from passion. No apologist of capitalism has ever portrayed its historic role with greater fairness, or with deeper insight than the authors of the Manifesto:

“ The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.

“ The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can

112

KARL MARX

ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

“ The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

“ The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world- market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of the Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a world-literature.

“ The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i. e., to become bourgeois themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its own image.

“ The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and


THE “ COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ” 113

has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian, countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

“ The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, become lumped together in one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs tariff.

“ The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor? ”

It is a superb picture of the great part played by the capitalist system and its ruling class in the drama of human progress which the Manifesto gives. No enthusiastic apologist of capitalism, it is safe to say, ever perceived more clearly, or described with more convincing eloquence, the enormous benefits, material and spiritual, with which capitalist production won its way. What a change of attitude for the revolutionary masses ' the acceptance of the Manifesto involved can hardly now be comprehended. From regarding it as an unalloyed curse, the ; creation of evil genius, bearing the cursed brand because it! denied Eternal Justice, the genius of Marx and his coworker compelled the revolutionary proletariat to regard the capitalist f system as a great and splendid epoch, marked by the greatest 1 extension of man’s kingdom in the universe; to see in its prog- 8

H4

KARL MARX

ress an immense stride toward the goal of human brotherhood, and in its evils only the necessary price of progress and the inevitable accumulation of failures incidental to its successes, the legacy which it must bequeath to a new epoch — just as it inherited from feudal society its failures together with its successes.

The presentation of the contribution of capitalism to world- progress is followed by a brief summary of the process of its development out of the economic conditions and institutions generated in feudal society, and a description of the process of its decline, the signs of its approaching dissolution. Just as the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, when it proved inadequate to contain the productive forces already developed, became a fetter upon life which had to be broken, to make way for free competition and the economical and social sway of a new ruling class, together with the social and political forms necessary to the new order, so capitalism arrives at the stage where its organization of industry proves more and more inadequate and fetters life. The bourgeoisie, having fulfilled its historic role —a role resplendent with great achievement — must give way to a new class developed under its own rule:

“ Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many, a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that,


THE “COMMUNIST MANIFESTO” 115,

in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

“ The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.”

The first part of the Manifesto closes with a description of the development of the modern proletarian class. With a more rigid adherence to the “ iron law of wages ” than would have been possible had it been written, say, twenty years later, when Marx’s economic thought had matured, it depicts the increasing dependence and exploitation of the workers and their inevitable revolt. Not only has the capitalist system produced the conditions which necessitate its overthrow, but it has also produced the agency, the interest, the social class, by which this is to be accomplished. The bourgeoisie has done more than forge the weapons that are to bring death to itself; it has called into existence the power by which the weapons must be wielded, the modern proletariat, or wage-working class.

Capitalism depends upon wage-labour, and wage-labour, in turn depends upon competition among the labourers. The law

1x6

KARL MARX

of wages needs competition for its operation. But competition belongs to production on a small scale, to the comparative isolation of the workers which such small-scale, competitive industry involves. The development of large production, massing great bodies of workers together, inevitably tends to produce a sense of solidarity of interest, of mutual interdependence, among the labourers, leading, sooner or later, to their combination into unions for defence against oppression, and aggressive struggle for improved conditions. Now and then, especially in the absence of similar combinations of employers, the workers gain victories, more or less important and substantial. But, upon the whole, and in the long run, these victories are of less importance than the fact of their union. “ The real fruit of their victory lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers.” And the necessary conditions for such union are provided by the development of capitalist production by massing the workers together, by bringing the workers of various localities together, and so centralizing the numerous local struggles of small groups into a national class struggle.

Not only so, but the system also turns the organization of the workers into a political force, a party. This development of political class solidarity is of necessity slower than the economic solidarity represented by the unions. Numerous setbacks are encountered, but the political movement “ rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier.” It takes advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie to further its own interests. With the recent experience of the English workers in the agitation for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and the earlier agitation for Franchise Reform, in their minds, the authors of the Manifesto point out that the bourgeoisie in its struggle to secure its own interests must appeal to the proletariat, and thus draw it into the political arena, supplying it thereby with political education and training, the weapons which the proletariat,

THE “ COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ” 117

sooner or later, uses to fight the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the bourgoisie produces, above all, its own grave diggers.

The historic role of the bourgeoisie, then, cannot be lightly regarded. In its way, and in its place in the great drama, it is quite as important as that of the proletariat itself. To break down national and racial barriers, thus liberating great spiritual forces essential to the building of a free and gladsome world; to open new continents, find new sources of wealth, unite the workers and provide them with the political knowledge and experience, as well as the technical knowledge, without which they must remain as “ a giant in a cradle,” is no mean or trivial role. The role of the proletariat is different, of course; it carries on the movement of the drama to its grand climax — but Hamlet is no more essential to the play than Ophelia!

The historic role of the proletariat is to succeed the bourgeoisie, which it must first of all vanquish in the inevitable struggle —

“ Le combat ou la mort; la lutte sangninaire ou le neant.

“ C’est ainsi que la question est invinciblement posee.”

No need exists for making a secret of this fact. The inexorable spirit of History, the Zeitgeist, proclaims it aloud. Therefore, “ the Communists disdain to conceal their aims and views.” That they have done so in the past is true, but that was before the laws of social development were known to them. Now, away with secret, conspiratory methods! Away with cabalistic mysteries and rites! The Communists openly declare that they aim to bring about a social revolution. But by “ revolution ” is meant a result, not the method of its attainment; not a method of bringing about the transformation of society, but the result, regardless of the methods by which it is attained. The transformation of the social forces of production from capitalist property to social property is the revolution. This — the result — is not more or less revolutionary

118

KARL MARX

whether attained by peaceful political action or by torch and sword and barricades.

Heretofore, social revolution had meant only a method of protest and revolt: Street rioting, insurrections, intrigues, con

spiracies, coups d’etat, resulting in nothing more substantial than wresting concessions from frightened ruling classes, overturning dynasties, or ousting governments. In this narrow sense the French have been called “ the most revolutionary people in Europe.” But such “ revolutions ” are not “ social ” in the sense in which Marx uses the term. After a successful coup de force people proceed to live as before. The class struggle persists, the wage-worker continues to be exploited. What Marx insists upon is the need of a transformation of social relations, the abolition of class divisions resting upon the exploitation of the proletariat.

This revolution must be accomplished by the proletariat. That is its role, imposed upon it by the very nature of its own being. In the Deutsche-Franzosische Jahrbiicher, in 1843, j Marx had written that “ The Reformation was the work of a Monk; the Revolution will be the work of a Philosopher.” So far had his thought progressed in less than five years! The Manifesto makes it plain that the revolution must be the work of a class, a class driven on by the urge of its interest, the irresistible urge of self-preservation. And “ the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.”

That we are not mistaken in our interpretation of the meaning of “ social revolution ” as Marx uses the term is shown by the Manifesto itself. After setting forth “ the first step,” the conquest of the political powers, it proceeds: “ The proleta

riat will use its political supremacy, to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i. e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.” Mark well the words

THE “COMMUNIST MANIFESTO”

“ by degrees.” Two years later, Marx gave, in a single phrase, a clear exposition of his thought, when he scornfully rebuked those who would “ substitute revolutionary phrases for revolutionary evolution.”

Marx knew well that the revolutionary struggle must be carried on by the proletariat, that the revolution must be the work of the wage-earning class. But he also knew that no social movement could ever be confined absolutely to a single class. Just as class divisions are not always absolute and definite, one class merging into another class, so in every class struggle there must be some merging, some individuals of the class in power allying themselves with the aggressive, struggling class, against the class to which they themselves naturally belong. He knew well that when the bourgeoisie struggled to overthrow feudal aristocracy some members of the aristocratic class, gifted with a sense of the historical movement, went over to the bourgeoisie. He knew, also, that the trades unions had been aided, especially in England, by members of the class to oppose which the unions were formed. It was this knowledge which defeated the demagogic opposition to Marx and Engels as “ Intellectuals ” before the Manifesto was written.

It was perfectly natural, therefore, that the authors of the Manifesto, while insisting that the working class must bring about its own emancipation, should guard against a too narrow interpretation of that principle. They pointed out that, in the first place, the life-process of capitalist production, the concentration of industry and capital into few and fewer hands, threatens the existence of many members of the capitalist class, by crushing them in the relentless competitive struggle. The lower middle-class, composed of small storekeepers and petty manufacturers, are naturally reactionary rather than revolutionary. They “ try to roll back the wheel of history,” or, in other words, to hinder and prevent the logical development of industry, to preserve competition and resist concentration. They naturally appeal to the proletariat to assist them, and