Karl Marx; his life and work
Yüklə 1,7 Mb.
|
| 120
KARL MARX sometimes succeed in the attempt for a brief period. The his tory of the Liberal Party in England, and of the Democratic Party in America, illustrates this phenomenon with admirable force and clarity. But some members of this class, the petite bourgeoisie, realise the inevitability of the historical process, and of their own im pending reduction to the proletarian class. These may very logically, and often do, rally to the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, defending, not the forlorn hope of their present position, but their future interest. The contribu tion of this element to the working-class movement is not a small matter, for it brings to the movement “ fresh ele ments of enlightenment and progress.” Then, secondly, when the class struggle has become the most marked phenomenon of the time, when the process of the dissolution of existing society becomes glaringly evident, some members of the ruling class will cut themselves adrift and join the proletarian struggle. “ Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the no bility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat and in particular, a por tion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical move ments as a whole.”Here we have a clear and unanswerable reply to the cheap critics who profess to find a contradiction in the proletarian basis of the Socialist movement and the fact that others than proletarians — men like Marx, Engels, Lassalle, Liebknecht, Hyndman, Kautsky, Ferri and others — have played such an important part in its history. The reply has its meaning, also, for those elements within the Socialist movement whose con ception of the class struggle is so crude that they would confine the movement to actual proletarians and so exclude such men as those mentioned, who by their labours and their devotion have made it possible for the proletariat to carry on its intel lectual struggle with such brilliant success.
Before we pass from the philosophy of the Communist Manifesto to a consideration of some of its minor features, one other point claims brief attention. Seizing upon isolated, phrases, superficial critics of Socialism, whose words have, un fortunately, been echoed by many shallow-minded Socialists, have seized upon another “ glaring contradiction ” between the theory of Socialism and its practice. Uniting to an admirable regard for the letter of Marx a far from admirable disregard of the spirit of his teaching, they have held that the followers of Marx, instead of seeking, as they do, to improve the condi tions of the proletariat, should resist all such efforts at better ment ; that the more the workers are oppressed the more likely are they to revolt, and the sooner they are reduced to abject misery the sooner will they rise and overthrow the existing social order. According to this view, Socialism feeds upon the misery it seeks to abolish. The greater the poverty and degradation, the greater the resulting protest and revolt. But the facts are quite otherwise: The last man to heed the appeal of the Socialist is the wretched starveling in the “ bread line.” The hardest place for Socialism to make headway is in the slum, where the most abject misery and squalour exist. Marx knew that, for, wiser than many of his professed followers who vociferously shout his name, and claim to speak with his au thority, he realised the hopelessness of dependence upon the “ submerged tenth,” the debris of the human struggle. Marx knew that this element possesses none of the physical, mental or moral qualities requisite for successful, long-continued struggle, and, that there might be no mistake about it, no wash ing of effort to make a revolutionary force out of the human j waste, the Manifesto set forth that “ the ‘ dangerous class,’ j the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool 122 KARL MARX of reactionary intrigue.” Keen politician that he was, Marx knew only too well the weakness of the “ slum proletariat ” and the danger of relying upon its turbulent, short-sighted passion. He knew that the revolutionary struggle demands better physique, and greater mental and moral strength than are to be found among the “ social scum ” of our city slums. Certain passages in the Communist Manifesto have been seized by the enemies of Socialism and made the basis of much vulgar and maladroit criticism. Reference is made, of course, to those passages in the second part of the Manifesto in which the subjects of marriage and property are discussed. It is almost impossible to pick up a book or pamphlet against So cialism, belonging to the order of cheap, vulgar criticism, with out finding certain passages from the Manifesto torn from their contexts, and cited to prove that Socialism aims at the abolition of private property and monogamic marriage, and that these aims are openly proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto. One regrets to add that the literature issued by writers pro fessing to speak for the Roman Catholic Church is distin guished above all else by this maladroit and disingenuous spirit and method. The candid student whose object is to know the truth need only turn to the pamphlet itself, to appeal from garbled texts in a setting of prejudice to the Manifesto itself, and as a whole, to fathom the dishonest conspiracy of misrepresentation which has been waged so assiduously. In variably, the passages cited are torn from arguments designed to convey a meaning opposite to that which the vulgarian pur veyors of misrepresentation seek to prove by mutilated texts.That we may understand these passages, it is necessary to understand their history, the circumstances under which they were written. The Communists had long been charged with the same evil intentions as those attributed to the Socialists of to-day. It was an old charge then, in 1848. As far back as 1830, it had been charged against the Saint-Simonians, by a speaker in the Chamber of Deputies, that they were in favour
This little brochure, probably written by Bazard, who was in many ways to the Saint-Simonian movement of the period what Marx was to the later movement, seems to have been known to the authors of the Communist Manifesto, and to have suggested the manner of replying to the charges named. At all events, there is a similarity of method and argument striking enough to justify the belief that, either consciously or unconsciously, Marx and Engels drew from the Saint-Si monian pamphlet in formulating their replies to the charge which, like the Saint-Simonians, they felt called upon to notice and answer. Curiously enough, so far as known to the present writer, this relation of the Manifesto to an earlier document has not before been touched upon by any of the great multitude of writers who have made the literature of Socialism their theme. With regard to the vexed question of the abolition of prop erty, the Manifesto first points out that the abolition of ex isting property relations is not peculiar to the Communist move ment, that “ all property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.” Thus, it is pointed out, the French Revolution abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois, or capitalistic, property. The argument proceeds: “ The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the aboli tion of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois prop erty. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appro priating products that is based on class antagonism, on the exploitation of the many by the few. 124 KARL MARX “ In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. “ We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independ ence. “ Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peas ant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that. The development of indus try has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still de stroying it. “ Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property? “ But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i. e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of getting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh ex ploitation. Property, in its present form is based on the an tagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. “ To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective prod uct, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of so ciety, can it be set in motion. “ Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power. “ When, therefore, capital is converted into common prop erty, into the property of all members of society, personal prop erty is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class-character. “ Let us now take wage-labour. “ The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i. e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is abso lutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a la bourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and THE “COMMUNIST MANIFESTO” 125 that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable char acter of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.” It is very evident from the foregoing that property in things which are in their nature personal, serving personal functions and uses, is not the form of property assailed. That appro priation of the products of labour which is necessary “ for the maintenance and reproduction of human life ” is not attacked, except as to its insufficiency. Nothing could be clearer than the statement: “ All that we want to do away with is the mis erable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital.” The transformation of capi talist property into social property, then, does not involve the abolition of personal property, but, on the contrary, its wide extension: “ You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is al ready done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any prop erty for the immense majority of society.
Most cruel and despicable of all the perversions of his teaching from which Marx has suffered at the hands of his de- famers, is that which founds the charge of seeking to destroy monogamic marriage, and the family based thereon, upon passages from the Manifesto, garbled and torn from a context devoted, in fact, to an eloquent plea for the family. The sin gular beauty and purity of Marx’s own family life, his almost126 KARL MARX sublime devotion to his wife, make this particular misrepre sentation all the more reprehensible. It is probably a con servative statement that thousands of articles, pamphlets and books have quoted as a statement of the views of Marx this phrase: “ The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.” Standing by itself, isolated from the context of the argument in which it appears, this phrase wholly misrepresents Marx and his followers. Replying to the charge that the Communists aim at the abolition of the family, the Manifesto opens with a scathing tu quoque retort. The bourgeoisie have made marriage a sort of trade and based the family upon gain. It is this sort of family life that will disappear when capitalism disappears. Among the proletarians there is practically an absence of family life: “ The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed corelation of parent and child, be come all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple arti cles of commerce and instruments of labor.” To the charge of “ wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their par ents,” the Communists plead guilty. Then, too, there is prostitution, a form of community of women which has existed almost from time immemorial. Upon this head the Manifesto proceeds to an indictment of the bour geoisie. Not only is marriage for fortune, for title and social position a form of prostitution, even more hideous than that which flaunts itself upon the pavements of our cities, but bour geois society reeks with immorality, as evidenced by the chronicle of its life in the press: “ Our bourgeoisie, not con tent with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.” The tables are turned! The system of holding wives in
But, so far from seeking to legalize this system of “ free love,” of community of women, the Communists in reality aim to destroy it. Only under Communism, or, to use the modern term, Socialism, will family life be made real and se cure against these evils. “ It is self-evident,” the Manifesto argues, “ that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i. e., of prostitution, both public and private.” How deliberate and malicious the misrepre sentation of Marx’s views upon this point often becomes may be seen by comparing the passage quoted with the falsified form in which it is given by the Rt. Rev. James A. McFaul, Roman Catholic Bishop of Trenton, N. J., in a Pastoral Let ter, entitled Some Modern Problems, published in 1908. He mutilates and interpolates and gives the passage as follows: “ It is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women — present marriage — springing from that system of prostitution, both public and private.” By interpolating the words “ present marriage ” and omitting the explanatory “ i. e.,” the passage is made to convey a meaning exactly opposite to that intended by Marx. No attack upon the Catholic Church by Socialists could so dishonour her as such conduct on the part of her dignitaries 1 There are also some resemblances to another “ Manifesto ”
To accuse Marx and Engels of plagiarizing the work of Considerant, as some irresponsible Anarchist writers have done from time to time, is absurd in the extreme. The similarities in the two manifestoes are simply the likenesses in details of minor importance which inevitably result when different per sons choose the same theme and write of it with the same general sympathy. The passages that are most similar are merely the commonplaces of all literature of the kind, com monplaces far older than Considerant. There is no need to consider here either the programme of immediate social and political reforms sketched in the Mani festo, or the criticism of the older schools of sentimental and Utopian Socialists. The last named has no importance to-day save as a historical study. The programme, which was prob ably more the work of Engels than of Marx, is likewise out of date. Parts of it have become obsolete; parts of it have been adopted by bourgeois parties and become commonplaces of social reform movements. The great importance of the
Its fine peroration called upon the workers of all lands to unite as a class in a great political movement for their own emancipation. But Marx would have been the first to repudi ate the interpretation which some of his followers have given to the famous shibboleth. He knew well that the struggle of the proletariat must be, in form, if not in substance, a national struggle at first. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. It is no answer to the demand of the workers for the restriction of immigration tending to lower the standards of living, for example, to invoke the great name of Marx and cry, “ Working men of all countries, Unite! ” Marx, at least, never contem plated that the workers of all lands should unite in any one country. He knew, too, that the conquest of the powers of the State by the proletariat would not perpetuate the rule of the proletariat, simply changing the form of the class division, but that it would destroy the foundations of class rule and, for the first time in history, make the existence of classes impossible. VII CROWING OF THE GALLICAN COCK , In 1843, in his article upon Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, published in the Deutsche-Franzdsische Jahrbiicher, Marx had ' declared that the only hope for a real revolution in Germany lay in the awakening of the proletariat. Already he perceived that the proletariat could not liberate itself without breaking all chains, by doing away with the conditions which made classes possible and inevitable. With prophetic vision he t pointed out that there would be first a political revolution, be ; ginning in France as soon as industrial evolution had created a | sufficiently strong proletariat. “ Then the day of German in- j surrection will be announced by the crowing of the Gallican 1 cock,” he wrote. Now, perhaps sooner than he had expected, the Gallican cock’s shrill crow had been heard all over Europe.( The “ brave et loyal Marx ” received a warm welcome from his old friends when he returned to Paris on or about the first of March, 1848. Much had happened since his expulsion by M. Guizot three years before. The obsequious Minis- ter of Louis Philippe, reactionary to the core, but strangely obsessed by the idea that he was a sturdy Liberal, was himself an exile, a fugitive from vengeance. He arrived in London on the 3rd of March, having made his escape by way of Belgium. The reversal of roles which had taken place was surely dra- matic enough! To Marx and to his friends it was highly en- joyable and, doubtless, equally as unenjoyable to M. Guizot. And Louis Philippe, too, had escaped with his Minister, under the alias of “ M. William Henry Smith ”! - The monarchy was at an end. In its stead there was a Pro visional Government, a Republic, to be ratified by popular vote. 130
Ernest Jones Albert Brisbane
Ledru-Rollin, Flocon and Louis Blanc, among others, were in that Provisional Government, made up of as ill-assorted a body of men as ever attempted to guide the affairs of a nation. Blanc wanted the red flag, emblem of the Communists, adopted as the national flag; he wanted universal suffrage for both sexes, and the establishment of national workshops. But the Provisional Government could do nothing but compromise over this programme of the man whom most of the members indul gently regarded as “ un rheteur double d’un philanthrope Instead of the red flag, the old tricolour was adopted, with a red rosette added; the proposal for the establishment of na tional workshops — ateliers nationales — for the unemployed was adopted, but in a form which compelled Blanc to denounce the measure, and which M. Lamartine, the Foreign Minister, and M. fimile Thomas, the director of the workshops, con fessed to have been purposely designed to discredit Blanc and destroy his influence. Marx did not at this time meet “ Little Louis ”— as Blanc was nicknamed, in contradistinction to Louis Bonaparte — a fact by no means strange when we consider how busy Blanc must have been in those days so well described by Engels in an account written in 1848, of a journey he took on foot from Paris to Berne. “ I saw Paris again,” he says, “ during the short, fleeting weeks of the republican delirium, in March and April, when the workers ate during the day their dry bread and potatoes, and at night planted ‘ trees of liberty ’ in the boulevards, had displays of fireworks, and sang the Mar seillaise, and when the bourgeoisie hid themselves in their houses and sought to assuage the rage of the populace.” Marx and Engels were kept busy, too, during those stirring days. The Manifesto had given them a position of great importance in the radical world; they were now the acknowl edged leaders of the Communist movement, and the demands upon their time were very great. Then, there were friends like Heine, and others, not actively engaged in politics in the
132
KARL MARX way that Flocon and others were, with whom Marx used to visit. Above all, there was the incessant crowing of the Gaiii- can cock, the unfolding of the drama of revolution. Marx I was not deceived as to the nature of the Revolution by the [ mere presence of men like Flocon, Blanc and Ledru-Rollin { in the Provisional Government. He knew well that the Revo- lution was of bourgeois, not of proletarian, origin, and he fore- ! saw that in the April elections the radical elements would be defeated. To restrain the zeal of his over-enthusiastic fol- lowers was not always an easy task, but the development of events — the triumph of the conservative elements in the April elections, the attempt, later, to coerce workingmen into the army, the revolt of Paris and the persecution of Louis Blanc after the suppression of the May rising — abundantly vindi- cated his judgment and proved the superiority of his insight. The gaiety of the Parisian crowds, the noisy demonstrations, parades, tree-planting, and other hysterical outbursts of the time, would have had no attraction for Marx in any case, and he would have been the first to condemn them and make them the subject of his superb satirical wit. As it was, he was oc cupied with matters of far greater importance, engaged in a titanic struggle to prevent some of his fellow-exiles from car rying out a desperate plan. Day after day, night after night, this terrible ogre, this wild revolutionary “ monster,” at whose door it was for so many years the custom to place the blame for every outbreak of bloody revolt, struggled to calm the hot, surging tide of passion which had risen among the German radicals in Paris. That it involved setting himself against old and powerful friends, that he was misunderstood and reviled, called an intolerant despot and a coward, mattered nothing to Marx. He saw his duty and he did it. With rare wis dom and unflagging courage he opposed all appeals to passion and made a counter-appeal to patience and prudence. | Georg Herwegh, the poet, the “ iron lark,” had conceived \ the idea of forming a German legion to “ carry the Revolution CROWING OF THE GALLICAN COCK 133 to the Fatherland.” He made a stirring appeal to his fellow- exiles. Had not Marx himself told them that the crowing of the Gallican cock was to be the signal for the insurrection in Germany? And now that the signal had been given, was it not their solemn duty to begin ? He proposed, then, to organ ize an armed legion to march upon the Fatherland with its challenge to Prussian autocracy and despotism. At such a time, such a scheme could not fail to captivate the imaginations of many of the younger and more daring spirits, as well as of those of the older men who still clung to the old belief in con spiracies and insurrections which Marx had done so much to discredit and destroy. Among the younger men who were captivated by Herwegh’s plan was Wilhelm Liebknecht, later to become one of the dear est friends of Marx, and the political leader of the German Social-Democracy. When the February Revolution broke out in Paris, Liebknecht, then rather less than 22 years of age, was in Zurich, Switzerland. For two years past he had been identi fied with the Communist movement, but had never come into contact with either Marx or Engels. As soon as he heard of the fighting in the streets of Paris he hastened thither from Switzerland, hoping to take his place in the ranks as a soldier of the Revolution. He bore a letter of introduction from Julius Frobel, Herwegh’s old friend and publisher, to the poet, and at once became enthusiastic over the plan to have an armed legion carry the revolutionary war into Germany. He did not learn that Marx was in Paris at the time, fighting with marvelous tenacity and wisdom to defeat Herwegh’s plans. While the French Communists were absorbed in the cam paign for the April elections, their German comrades were engaged in a fierce struggle led by Herwegh upon the one side, reckless, emotional and passionate, and, on the other side, by Marx, cool, analytical and prudent. To Herwegh’s almost j hysterical appeals to passion and sentiment, Marx replied by I134 KARL MARX an appeal to cold fact. What could such a legion do against \ the Prussian army? Would it not be annihilated? It was not a question of courage, he could not be quelled by taunts of cowardice. Herwegh and his friends had no monopoly of courage, and those who opposed his plans to carry the Revolu tion into the Fatherland by an armed invasion would be found to be quite as ready to give their lives as the most vociferous shouters of all. The question was one of duty to the cause they loved. To give their lives recklessly in a futile and abor tive insurrection might be heroic, but it required greater hero ism to live for the struggle that would not be futile and abortive. Martyrdom might be splendid, but living service was of greater value. He appealed, too, to their sense of duty to their French comrades. Did they not see already the signs of the triumph of the hated bourgeoisie over the proletariat? Herwegh’s plan would admirably serve the bourgeoisie, by taking out of Paris “ troublesome elements,” as well as by removing a great many German labourers, thus easing the labour market, lessen ing the number of unemployed and relieving the situation with which they, the bourgeoisie, had to cope. He practically ac ! cused Herwegh of being the tool of the reactionary bour- f geoisie, claiming that they had “ inspired ” his plans. This charge was probably untrue, a desperate appeal to prejudice. Marx often made such appeals, thus creating for himself the reputation of being a bitter, intolerant and unscrupulous per son. It must be remembered, however, that he was serving no personal ambition but a cause dearer than life itself. The fate of the movement seemed to him to depend, as it probably did, upon the issue of the struggle. To save the cause from disaster he was willing to incur the hatred of men who had been his bosom friends, to bear calumnies as proudly as though they were laurels. l Marx won the fight, and though Herwegh did later lead a I small column of German workingmen into the duchy of CROWING OF THE GALLICAN COCK 135 Baden, to be scattered by the regular troops like so much chaff by the wind, the great bulk of the Communists refused to be drawn into the scheme to invade the Fatherland. Instead, a manifesto to the German workers was drawn up and for warded to Germany for general distribution. This set forth the demands of the German Communists, including: abolition of the monarchy and proclamation of a republic; payment of members of Parliament, so that workingmen might be eligible for election; conversion of feudal estates into State property; appropriation of all means of transportation, such as railways, canals, steamship services, by the State; the restriction of the laws of succession and inheritance; introduction of heavy, pro gressive income taxes and the abolition of all excise duties; establishment of national workshops; State guarantee of em ployment to all, with insurance against accident, old age and sickness; and universal free education. This programme was, of course, an adaptation of the im mediate, practical programme sketched in the Communist Manifesto. In the light of the development of German social legislation a generation later, the programme seems quite re markable as a forecast. But the chief value of the document for us lies in the evidence it affords of the political genius of Marx. With great sagacity, and that skill in political leader ship which he so often displayed, he had triumphed over Her- wegh’s romanticism at a time when romanticism was rife, and emphasized the importance of a proletarian political revolu tion, not as an end in itself, but as a conscious step toward a social revolution which should break the chains of the prole tariat and destroy class rule.Meanwhile, half Europe seemed to be in a ferment. The Gallican cock had apparently wakened by his crowing, not Ger many alone, but half Europe. In England, the success of the February Revolution gave a new impetus to the Chartist move ment, which for some years had flagged and waned, until roused, toward the end of 1847, by the agitation of the repub
But the news of the success of the February Revolution produced an effect that was electrical. As if by magic, the dissensions disappeared and the Chartist factions came together for the common fight. It had been widely rumoured that the British government contemplated some interference with the new French Republic, and it was commonly believed that some such action, looking to the immediate restoration of the mon archy, would be attempted. So, on the second of March, a monster meeting was held in London at the Circus of the Na tional Baths, Lambeth, at which speeches were made by the greatest Chartist orators, Ernest Jones, Feargus O’Connor and George Julian Harney; resolutions passed protesting against any interference with the French Republic by the British gov ernment, and a deputation, consisting of Jones, Harney, and McGrath, chosen to proceed to Paris to present an address to the 1 Provisional Government. Four days later Trafalgar Square was packed by a mob of London citizens, shouting them selves hoarse cheering for “ the Charter ” and the French Revolution. Upon the same day, March 6, riotings took place in vari ous provincial cities. Thousands of hunger-maddened unem ployed operatives marched through the streets of Glasgow, sacking shops, singing Chartist songs and shouting “ Bread or Revolution! ” The troops were called out and several per sons shot down in the streets. While this was going on in Scotland there were riotings all over England. At Manches ter, for example, thousands gathered in front of the workhouse and demanded the release of the inmates, stormed the police station and attacked the police in the streets with bludgeons secured in smashing the stalls in the market place. In Ireland
The British government was aroused and frightened. With such a condition of affairs at home it could give no thought to interference with France. Thus, part of the purpose of the Chartist leaders was fulfilled. In almost every city, the gov ernment had troops secreted, ready to shoot down rioters. Orders were issued to all who sold firearms and other weapons that great care should be exercised, and that they would be held responsible as accessories should any such weapons be used by their purchasers to attack life or property. It is said that gun manufacturers were ordered to unscrew the barrels of all firearms in their stock, so as to render them useless and dangerous only to their users. The British flag was everywhere torn down and trampled upon, and all over the land, in the cities, the French tricolour with the red rosette was displayed. Bands played the Marseillaise from morn till night, and thou sands of Englishmen who had never learned a word of French before, learned from the Chartist orators to cry " Vive la Re pub lique! Vive la France!” Day after day, great meetings were held in London and all the principal provincial cities and leading Chartist orators, like Feargus O’Connor and Ernest Jones, were followed by multi tudes of people shouting alternately in English and French, “Hurrah for the Charter!” "Vive la Republique!” “ Three cheers for Liberty! ” “ Vive la France! ” On the 13th of March more than twenty thousand persons gathered on Kennington Common to listen to speeches by Ernest Jones and other orators, undeterred by the presence of more than four thousand police, many of whom were mounted and armed with pistols and sabres. All through the evening excited thousands thronged the streets, singing and cheering KARL MARX for the Charter and French Revolution and next day, after Jones had reported the result of the hasty visit of the Chartist deputation to Paris, the singing and cheers were renewed, and " Vive la Republique! Vive la France! ” resounded through the London streets, a chorus of solemn warning to the govern ment. The French Revolution had kindled a revolutionary blaze from Land’s End to John o’Groat’s. It would take us too far from our purpose to continue the account of the English movement up to the pathetic fiasco of the ioth of April, when London presented the aspect of a be sieged city. All the shops and factories being closed, heavy battery guns were placed at various points, troops drawn from all over the country were massed ready to slay the workers with bullets or sabres as they marched to the House of Par liament to present their monster petition for the Charter with 'its millions of signatures. Nine thousand soldiers openly pa raded, and tens of thousands secreted at strategic points, (not to speak of many thousands more under orders in the other cities) six thousand police, mostly armed with cutlasses, broadswords or pistols, and eight thousand special constables — such was the force upon which the government relied to crush any attempt of the workers to parade behind that petition which required the power of four horses to draw it. All these preparations had been made because there had been so much talk of physical force. It had been openly boasted that thousands of the Chartists would go armed and that the refusal of the petition, or the least resistance on the part of the police, would be the signal for a sharp, decisive blow. When they saw the force which had been mobilized by the government, the Chartist leaders advised the abandonment of the procession and a few delegates took the petition to the House of Commons. It bore five million, seven hundred thousand signatures, the largest petition ever presented to that much-petitioned body. The German Communists were en thusiastic supporters of the movement, many of them belonging
On the 13th of March, the day of the immense gathering of $ Chartists upon Kennington Common, while the British workers were shouting themselves hoarse with cries of “ Five la France! ” the spirit of the Revolution was regnant in the Austrian capital. Upon that day the people of Vienna rose against the government. “ It was,” says Marx, “ a govern ment detested by all, a government so universally hated, that the small minority of nobles and money lords which had sup ported it made itself invisible on the very first attack.” Prince Metternich, the Prime Minister, had tried to avert the con tagion of revolution by so misrepresenting the news from Paris as to make it appear that the February Revolution was a reign of Anarchy, Socialism and terror, brought about as the result of the triumph of the labourers over the capitalists. It was a shrewd move. To appeal to the class interests of the bourgeoisie and the petty traders, to inspire them with an earnest fear of an uprising, which might give the proletariat its opportunity to attack them, was a brilliant idea. Unfor tunately for Metternich, however, he was so unanimously de tested by all classes that no credence was given to any state ment he made. The more he tried to poison their minds against the French revolutionary spirit, the more it appealed to them. Students and others sang the Marseillaise in the streets and the tricolour appeared. There was, as Marx has
for liberty and popular rights. They compelled the magis- trates to go with them, and, forcing their way into the imperial palace, loudly demanded that the Emperor should dismiss his old counsellors and grant a new constitution. Metternich re- signed and fled to London, and an imperial proclamation was issued, abolishing the press censorship, establishing a national guard, and convoking a National Assembly. Blood had been shed, it is true, but relatively little. On the 16th of May, * the Emperor and Empress fled with their family to Innsbruck. In Germany, too, the news of the February Revolution pro f duced a profound impression. The Marseillaise was sung by | crowds upon the streets, and in the taverns. In Cologne, a I former artillery officer, August von Willich, of whom we shall I hear further, led a mob into the Council Chamber and de- - manded that the municipality as a whole petition the King for freedom, for constitutional government. A few days later, on March the 18th, Professor Gottfried Kinkel, famous later for the imprisonment from which he was daringly rescued by Carl Schurz and others, and of whom, also, we shall hear more, led a great multitude in solemn procession through the streets, carrying the black, red and gold tricolour, the forbid-
rden banner of revolution. The city seemed to be draped with black, red and gold. In Berlin, also, there had been an outbreak. On the 18th of March, in the early afternoon, tens of thousands of people gathered in front of the royal palace. Four days before the King had announced that he would on that day, the 18 th, announce further important concessions to his people in re- Yüklə 1,7 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|