Brentano vs. Marx

 And finally the number of PAUPERS dependent upon poor relief from public funds in 1863: 1,079,382.

 On this basis we may make an unofficial list of those workers unquestionably very badly off in 1863: agricultural day

labourers in round figures 1,100,000; cotton operatives 469,000; seamstresses and milliners 751,000; tailors and

shoemakers, after the deduction of 30%, 401,000; lace-makers 150,000; paper-makers 100,000; hosiery workers 120,000;

smaller branches investigated by the CHILDRENS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION 189,000; and finally PAUPERS

1,079,000. Together 4,549,000 workers, added to which, in some cases, their family members.

 And 1863 was a good business year. The crisis of 1857 had been fully overcome, demand was rising rapidly, with the

exception of the cotton industry nearly all branches of business were very busy. So where is the "unexampled"

improvement to be found?

 The factory legislation of the forties had decisively improved the lot of those workers subject to it. But in 1863 this

benefited only the workers employed in wool, linen and silk, altogether about 270,000, while the cotton operatives were

starving. For bleaching workers and dye workers, legal protection existed Only on paper. Further: in branches of work in

which full male strength and sometimes dexterity are indispensable, the resistance of the workers, organised in trade

associations, had forced through for themselves a share of the proceeds of the favourable business period, and it may be

said that on the average for these branches of work, involving heavy male labour, the living standard of the workers had

risen decisively, though it is still ridiculous to describe this improvement as "unexampled". But while the great mass of

productive work has been transferred to machines operated by weaker men, by women and young workers, the politicians

like to treat the strong men employed in heavy work as the only workers, and to judge the whole working class according

to their standard.

 Against the 4 1/2 million worse-off workers and PAUPERS detailed above, we have, as well-off, 270,000 textile workers

in wool, linen and silk. Further we may assume that of the 376,000 metal workers one third were well-off, one third

middling, and only the last third, including the workers under 18, the nail-makers, chain-smiths, and women, were badly

off. We may classify the situation of the 566,000 miners as medium-good. The situation of the building craftsmen may be

considered as good, apart from those in the cotton districts. Amongst the joiners, at most 1/3 were well-off, the great mass

worked for blood-sucking SWEATERS. Amongst the railway employees there was already at that period colossal

overworking, which has only brought about organised resistance in the last 20 years. In short, we may add together in total

scarcely one million of whom we may say that their situation had improved in relation to the improvement in the business

and the profits of the Capitalists; what remains over is in a middling situation, has a few, on the whole insignificant,

benefits from the better business period, or consists of such a mixture of working people according to sex and age that the

improvements for the men are offset by the overworking of the women and young workers.

 And if this should not suffice, then one should consult the "Reports on PUBLIC HEALTH" which became necessary

precisely because the "unexampled" improvement for the working class in the 20 years up to 1863 showed itself as typhus,

cholera and other jolly epidemics, which finally spread from the working-class quarters to the genteel areas of the cities.

Here the unexampled "augmentation of the means of subsistence" of the British worker is investigated with respect to

housing and food, and it is found that in many cases his dwelling was simply a centre of infection, and his nourishment was

on the borderline, or even beneath the border at which starvation diseases necessarily occur.

 This was the real condition of the British working class at the beginning of 1863. This was the face of the "unexampled"

improvement for the working class of which Mr. Gladstone boasted. And if Marx is to he blamed for anything, it is that he

did Mr. Gladstone an unearned service by omitting his bragging statement.

 

----

Conclusion: Firstly, Marx "lyingly added" nothing.

 Secondly, he "suppressed" nothing about which Mr. Gladstone might have a right to complain.

 And thirdly, the octopus-like tenacity with which Mr. Brentano and his companions cling to this single quotation amongst

the many thousands of quotations in Marx's writing proves that they know only too well "how Karl Marx quotes" -- namely

correctly

 

1891: Brentano vs. Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (21 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:20]

---

TO DOCUMENTS

Marx / Engels

Archive

 

Marxist writers'

Archive

 

 

1891: Brentano vs. Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (22 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:20]

---

IN THE CASE OF BRENTANO VERSUS MARX

REGARDING ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF QUOTATION.

THE STORY AND DOCUMENTS

Written in December 1890 -- February 1891

First published as a pamphlet in: F. Engels,

In Sachen Brentano contra Marx wegem angeblicher Zitatsfälschung.

Geschichtserzählung und Dokumente

Hamburg, 1891

 ONLINE VERSION: Translated by John Peet

Transcribed for the Internet by [e-mail]

 

BRENTANO vs. MARX

by Frederick Engels

(The main pamphlet)

DOCUMENTS

 I -- THE INCRIMINATED QUOTATIONS

1 -- 

The Inaugural Address (of the First

International)

2 -- 

Capital, Vol. I

 II -- BRENTANO AND MARX

 3 -- 

The Charge

4 -- 

Karl Marx replies

5 -- 

Retort by Anonymous

6 -- 

Marx's second reply

7 -- 

The rejoinder of Anonymous

 III -- SEDLEY TAYLOR AND ELEANOR

MARX

 8 -- 

Attack by S. Taylor

9 -- 

Eleanor Marx's reply

10 -- 

Sedley Taylor's retort

11 -- 

Eleanor Marx's second reply

 IV -- ENGELS AND BRENTANO

 12 -- 

From Engels' preface to the fourth German

edition of Marx's Capital, Volume One.

13 -- 

Brentano's reply

14 -- 

From the Appendices to Brentano's reply

15 -- 

From the Parliamentary Reports of the London

Press or April 17, 1863

16 -- 

Gladstone to Brentano

17 -- 

Engels' reply to No. 17

 

1891: Brentano vs. Marx -- The documents

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/2-docs.htm (1 of 30) [23/08/2000 18:00:38]

---