Brentano vs. Marx

report in confirmation of this passage, Mr. Brentano states:

 

"...and finally he has the impudence to base himself on newspaper reports which directly contradict him".

 

This really does demand great "impudence". However, Marx has his on his face, and nowhere else. [Play on words: "Stirn"

means forehead and impudence.-- MECW Ed.]

 With the aid of "impudence" which may easily be distinguished from that of Marx, Anonymous, alias Lujo Brentano, then

manages to have Gladstone say that

 

he "believes this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power not to be confined to classes in easy circumstances".

 

Actually, according to The Times and Hansard, Gladstone says he would look with pain and apprehension upon this

intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if he believed it was confined to the classes in easy circumstances, and he

adds, according to The Times, that it is, however, "confined to classes of property".

 "Indeed," the righteously indignant Anonymous finally exclaims, "to describe these practices we know only one word, a

word with which Marx is very familiar (see Capital, p. 257): they are simply 'nefarious'."

 Whose practices, Mr. Lujo Brentano?

 

II

M

arx's reply (Der Volksstaat, August 7, 1872, 

Documents, No. 6

) is good-natured enough to deal with all the stir created

by Mr. Brentano about Professor Beesly, The Theory of the Exchanges, etc.; we leave this aside as being of secondary

importance. In conclusion, however, it produces another two facts which are absolutely decisive for the main issue. The

"lyingly added" passage is to be found, besides in the Times report, in the reports of two other London morning papers of

April 17, 1863. According to The Morning Star, Gladstone stated:

 

"This augmentation" -- which had just been described as an intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power -- "is an

augmentation entirely confined to the classes possessed of property."

 

According to The Morning Advertiser:

 

"The augmentation stated" -- an intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power -- "is an augmentation entirely

confined to the classes possessed of property."

 

For any other opponent, these proofs would be "absolutely devastating". Not, however, for the anonymous Brentano. His

reply (Concordia, August 22, 1872, 

Documents, No. 7

), which betrays undiminished impudence, was never seen by Marx,

since numbers of Concordia later than that dated July 11 were not sent to him. I myself first read this reply in Brentano's

reprint (Meine Polemik, etc., 1890), and must therefore take note of it here, for better or for worse.

 

"The dogged mendacity with which he" (Marx) "clings to the distorted quotation ... is astonishing even for someone

for whom no means are too base for his subversive plans."

 

1891: Brentano vs. Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (5 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:19]

---

The quotation remains "forged", and the Times report "shows the exact opposite, since The Times and Hansard fully

coincide". The confidence of this declaration is, however, simply child's play compared to the "impudence" with which Mr.

Brentano suddenly gives us the following information:

 

"Marx's second method of obscuring the Times report was simply to suppress, in his German translation, the relative

clause which showed that Gladstone had only said that the augmentation of wealth, which was shown by the income

tax returns, was confined to the classes of property, since the working classes were not subject to income tax, and

that thus nothing about the increase in the prosperity of the working classes could be learned from the income tax

returns; not, however, that the working classes in reality had been excluded from the extraordinary augmentation of

national wealth."

 

Thus when The Times says that the oft-mentioned augmentation is confined to the classes of property, then it says the

opposite of the "lyingly added" sentence, which says the same. As regards the "simply suppressed relative clause", we shall

not allow Mr. Brentano to get away with that, if he will bear with us for a moment. And now he has happily survived the

first great leap, it is easier for him to assert that black is white, and white black. Now that he has managed to deal with The

Times, The Morning Star and The Morning Advertiser will give him little trouble.

 

"For these papers, even as he" (Marx) "quotes them, speak for us. After Gladstone has said, according to both

papers, that he does not believe" (which, as we know, Mr. Brentano claims) "this intoxicating augmentation of

wealth and power is confined to the classes which find themselves in pleasant circumstances, he continued: 'This

great increase of wealth takes no cognizance at all of the condition of the labouring population. The augmentation

which I have described is an augmentation entirely confined to the classes possessed of property.' The context and

the use of the expression 'take cognizance' show clearly that this increase and the augmentation of the increase cited,

and the citing," (sic!) "are intended to indicate those discernible in the income tax returns."

 

The Jesuit who originated the saying Si duo faciunt idem, non est idem was a bungler compared to the anonymous

Brentano. When The Times, The Morning Star and The Morning Advertiser declare unanimously that the sentence which

Brentano claims Marx had "lyingly added" was actually uttered by Gladstone, then these papers speak unanimously "for"

Mr. Brentano. And when Marx quotes this sentence verbatim, this is a "lying quotation", "impudent mendacity , complete

forgery", "a lie", etc. And if Marx cannot appreciate this, that passes the understanding of our Anonymous, alias Lujo

Brentano, and he finds it "simply nefarious".

 But let us deal with the alleged "lying addition" once and for all by quoting the reports on our passage in all London

morning papers on April 17, 1863.

 We have already had The Times, The Morning Star and The Morning Advertiser.

 Daily Telegraph:

 

"I may say for one, that I should look almost with apprehension and alarm on this intoxicating augmentation of

wealth and power if it were my belief that it was confined to the masses who are in easy circumstances. This

question to wealth takes no cognizance at all of the condition of the labouring population. The augmentation stated is

an augmentation entirely confined to the classes possessed of property."

 

Morning Herald:

 

"I may say that I for one would look with fear and apprehension at this intoxicating increase of wealth if I were of

opinion that it is confined to the classes in easy circumstances. This great increase of wealth which I have described,

and which is founded on accurate returns is confined entirely to the augmentation of Capital, and takes no account of

the poorer classes."

1891: Brentano vs. Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (6 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:19]

---