Brentano vs. Marx
Yüklə 263,28 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- No. 10. SEDLEY TAYLORS RETORT
"The Times, April 17th:
"The augmentation I have described, and which is founded, I think, on accurate returns, is an augmentation entirely confined to classes of property.
"This augmentation is an augmentation confined entirely to the classes possessed of property, Morning Advertiser, April 17th:
"The augmentation stated is altogether limited to classes possessed of property. The anonymous Brentano, in the "deadly shifts to which his own masterly conduct of the attack had reduced him", now took refuge under the assertion usual in such circumstances, that if the quotation was not a forgery it was, at all events, "misleading", in "bad faith", "craftily isolated", and so forth. I am afraid you would not allow me space to reply to this accusation of Herr Brentano, repeated now, after eleven years, by Mr. Taylor. Perhaps it will not be required, as Mr. Taylor says:
"The whole of this Brentano-Marx correspondence is eminently worthy of being unearthed from the file of newspapers in which it lies buried and republished in an English form."
I quite agree with this. The memory of my father could only gain by it. As to the discrepancies between the newspaper reports of the speech in question and the report in "Hansard" I must leave this to be settled by those most interested in it. Out of thousands and thousands of quotations to be found in my father's writings this is the only one the correctness of which has ever been disputed. The fact that this single and not very lucky instance is brought up again and again by the professorial economists is very characteristic. In the words of Mr. Taylor,
"it throws upon the latter disputant's" (Dr. Marx) "standard of literary honesty a light which can ill be spared at a time when his principal work is presented to us as nothing less than a fresh gospel of social renovation".
I am, Sir, yours faithfully, Eleanor Marx London, November 30, 1883
TO-DAY, MARCH 1884
Gentlemen, No one can regret more than I do that Miss Marx should have been refused the public hearing to which she was so manifestly entitled. I am, however, far from thinking with her that the question whether a particular sentence did, or did not, occur in Mr. 1891: Brentano vs. Marx -- The documents http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/2-docs.htm (18 of 30) [23/08/2000 18:00:38] Gladstone's speech "was the only point at issue between" Dr. Marx and Professor Brentano. I regard that question as having been of very subordinate importance compared to the issue whether the quotation in dispute was made with the intention of conveying, or of perverting, Mr. Gladstone's meaning. It would obviously be impossible to discuss in this letter the contents of the voluminous Brentano-Marx controversy without making an inadmissible demand on your space. As, however, Miss Marx has in your columns characterised as a "calumny" and "libel" an opinion publicly expressed by me, [Note by Engels: In the covering letter to the Editors of To-Day, not published here.] I feel bound to ask your insertion, side by side, of the two following extracts, which will enable your readers to judge for themselves whether Dr. Marx has quoted fairly or unfairly from the Budget Speech of 1863 in his great work, "Das Kapital". My reason for using the Times report in preference to that of Hansard will be obvious to readers of Dr. Marx' letters in his correspondence with Brentano.
page 678, note 103 "In ten years, from 1842 to 1852 "From 1842 to 1852 the taxable inclusive, the taxable income of the income of the country increased by country, as nearly as we can make out, 6 per cent... increased by 6 per cent.; but in eight "In the eight years from 1853 to years, from 1853 to 1861, the income 1861, it of the country again increased from the had increased from the basis taken basis taken by 20 per cent. That is a in 1853, 20 per cent! The fact is so fact so strange as to be almost incred- astonishing as to be almost incred- ible.... ible...
of
was confined to the classes who are in easy circumstances. This takes no cognisance at all of the condition of the labouring population. The augmentation I have described, and which is founded, I think, upon accurate returns, is an augmentation entirely confined to "...entirely confined to classes of classes possessed of property. Now, the property... must be of indirect benefit augmentation of Capital is of indirect to the labouring population because it benefit to the labourer, because it cheapens the commodities of general cheapens the commodity which in the consumption... business of production comes into di- rect competition with labour. But we have this profound, and I must say, inestimable consolation, that, while the "...while the rich have been growing rich have been growing richer, the richer the poor have been growing less poor have been growing less poor. poor! At any rate, whether the ex- Whether the extremes of poverty are tremes of poverty are less I do not less extreme than they were I do not presume to say. presume to say, but the average condition of the British labourer, we have the happi- Mr. Gladstone, in House of ness to know, has improved during the last Commons, 16th April, 1863 20 years in a degree which we know to be extraordinary, and which we may almost 1891: Brentano vs. Marx -- The documents http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/2-docs.htm (19 of 30) [23/08/2000 18:00:38]
Yüklə 263,28 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|