Brentano vs. Marx

completely dropped -- though shamefacedly and quietly -- and Mr. Brentano, forced from the offensive onto the defensive,

is retreating to his second line of defence. We simply note this; we believe that in sections III and IV we have thoroughly

broken through the centre of this second line, and turned both flanks.

 But then the genuine university polemicist appears. When Brentano, emboldened by the scent of victory, has thus driven

his enemy into the corner, the foe acts like the cuttlefish, darkening the water and hiding the subject of controversy by

focusing attention on completely inconsequential secondary matters.

 The Jesuits say: Si fecisti, nega. If you have perpetrated something, deny it. The German university polemicist goes further

and Says: If you have perpetrated a shady lawyer's trick, then lay it at your opponent's door. Scarcely has Marx quoted The

Theory of the Exchanges and Professor Beesly, and this simply because they had quoted the disputed passage like he had,

than Brentano the cuttlefish "clings" to them with all the suckers of his ten feet, and spreads such a torrent of his "dark

fluid" all around that you must look hard and grasp firmly if you do not wish to lose from eye and hand the real "subject of

controversy", namely the allegedly "lyingly added" sentence. In his rejoinder, exactly the same method. First he starts

another squabble with Marx about the meaning of the expression CLASSES IN EASY CIRCUMSTANCES, a squabble

which under the best of circumstances could produce nothing but that very "obscuration" which Mr. Brentano desires. And

then dark fluid is again squirted in the matter of that renowned relative clause which Marx had maliciously suppressed, and

which, as we have shown, could perfectly well be omitted, since the fact to which it indirectly alluded had already been

stated quite clearly in an earlier sentence of the speech which had been quoted by Marx. And thirdly, our cuttlefish has

enough dark sauce left over to obscure once again the subject of controversy, by claiming that Marx has again suppressed

some sentences from The Times -- sentences which had absolutely nothing to do with the single point at issue between

them at that time, the allegedly lyingly added sentence.

 And the same waste of sepia in the present self-apologia. First, naturally, The Theory of the Exchanges must be the

whipping boy.

 Then, all of a sudden, we are confronted with the Lassallean "iron law of wages" with which, as everyone knows, Marx

was as little connected as Mr. Brentano with the invention of gunpowder; Mr. Brentano must know that in the first volume

of Capital Marx specifically denied all and every responsibility for any conclusions drawn by Lassalle, and that in the

same book Marx describes the law of wages as a function of differing variables and very elastic, thus anything but iron.

But when the ink-squirting has started there is no stopping it: the Halle congress, Liebknecht and Bebel, Gladstone's budget

speech of 1843, the English trade unions, all manner of far-fetched things are resorted to so as, faced with an opponent who

has gone over to the offensive, to cover by self-apologia the defensive line of Mr. Brentano and his lofty philanthropic

principles, treated so scornfully by the wicked socialists. One gets the impression that a round dozen cuttlefish were

helping him do the "hushing up" here.

 And all of this because Mr. Brentano himself knows that he has hopelessly run aground with his claim about the "lyingly

added" sentence, and has not got the courage to withdraw this claim openly and honourably. To use his own words:

 

"Had he" Brentano "simply admitted that he had been misled by this book", Hansard, "...one might have been

surprised that he had relied upon such a source" as absolutely reliable "but the mistake would at least have been

rectified. But for him there was no question of this."

 

Instead the ink was squirted in gallons for obscuring purposes, and if I have to be so discursive here, this is only because I

must first dispose of all these far-fetched marginal questions, and disperse the obscuring ink in order to keep eye and hand

on the real subject of the controversy.

 Meanwhile Mr. Brentano has another piece of information for us in petto [in store], which in fact "could only be amusing".

He has, in fact, been so lamentably treated that he can find no peace and quiet until he has moaned to us about all his

misfortune. First the Concordia suppresses his name in the interests of the reputation of the paper. Mr. Brentano is

magnanimous enough to consent to this sacrifice in the interests of the good cause. Then Marx unleashes upon him the

loutishness of his scurrilous polemics. This too he swallows. Only he wished to reply to this "with the verbatim publication

of the entire polemic". But sadly

 

"editors often have their own judgement; the specialist journal which I regarded as suitable above all others refused

to publish, on the grounds that the dispute lacked general interest".

1891: Brentano vs. Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (13 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:20]

---

 

Thus do the noble suffer in this sinful world; their best intentions founder on the baseness or indifference of man. And to

compensate this unappreciated honest fellow for his undeserved misfortune, and since some time will probably pass before

he rounds up an editor who has not "often his own judgement", we herewith present him the "the verbatim publication of

the entire polemic".

 

VI

I

n addition to the introductory self-apologia, Mr. Brentano's little pamphlet contains two appendices. The first contains

extracts from The Theory of the Exchanges, intended to prove that this book was one of the main sources from which Marx

concocted his Capital I shall not go into detail about this repeated waste of sepia. I only have to deal with the old charge

from the Concordia. His whole life long Marx could not and would not please Mr. Brentano. Mr. Brentano thus certainly

has a whole bottomless sack of complaints against Marx, and I would be an idiot to let myself in for this. There would be

no end to pleasing him.

 But it is naïve that here, at the end of the quotations, "the reproduction of the teal budget speech" is demanded from Marx.

So that is what Mr. Brentano understands by correct quotation. However, if the whole actual speech is always to be

reproduced, then no speech has ever been quoted without "forgery".

 In the second appendix Mr. Brentano has a go at me. In the fourth edition of Capital, volume one, I drew attention to The

Morning Star in connection with the allegedly false quotation. Mr. Brentano utilises this to once again obscure completely,

with spurts of sepia, the original point at issue, the passage in the Inaugural Address, and instead of this to hit out at the

passage in Capital already quoted by Mr. S. Taylor. In order to prove that my source of reference was false, and that Marx

could only have taken the "forged quotation" from The Theory of the Exchanges, Mr. Brentano prints in parallel columns

the reports of The Times and The Morning Star and the quotation according to Capital This second appendix is printed here

as 

document No. 14

.

 Mr. Brentano has The Morning Star begin its report with the words "I MUST SAY FOR ONE" etc. He thus claims that the

preceding sentences on the growth of taxable income from 1842 to 1852, and from 1853 to 1861 are missing in The

Morning Star; from which it naturally follows that Marx did not use The Morning Star but The Theory of the Exchanges.

 "The readers" of his pamphlet "with whom he is concerned, cannot check up on him!" But other people can, and they

discover that this passage is certainly to be found in The Morning Star. We reprint it here, next to the passage from Capital

in English and German for the edification of Mr. Brentano and his readers.

 

"The Morning Star", April 17, 1863        "Capital", Vol. I, 1st ed., p. 639;

                                          2nd ed., p. 678; 3rd., p. 671;

                                          4th ed., p. 617, Note 103

"In ten years, from 1842 to 1852 the      "From 1842 to 1852 the taxable

taxable income of the country increased   income of the country increased by

by 6 per cent, as nearly as I can make    6 per cent...

out -- a very considerable increase in

ten years. But in eight years from 1853

to 1861 the income of the country         ... In the 8 years from 1858 to 1861 ...

again increased from the basis taken in   it had increased from the basis taken in

1853 by 20 per cent. The fact is so       1853, 20 per cent! The fact is so

astonishing as to be almost incred-       astonishing as to be almost incred-

ible."                                    ible."

In German translation:

 The absence of this sentence in his quotation from The Morning Star is Mr. Brentano's main trump card in his claim that

1891: Brentano vs. Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/index.htm (14 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:00:20]

---