Delhi university library
Yüklə 241,89 Kb.
|
252 KARL MARX hardly surpassed even in the works of the most brilliant and many-sided of all later writers on Marxism, the Russian publicist Plekhanov. The attack on the Gotha Programme was Marx’s last violent intervention in the affairs of the party. No similar crisis occurred again in his lifetime, and he was left free to devote his remaining years to theoretical studies and vain attempts to restore his failing health. He had moved from Kentish Town first to one, then to another home on Haverstock Hill, not far from Engels, who had sold his share in the family business to his partner, and had established himself in London in a large, commodious house in St. John’s Wood. A year or two before this he had settled a permanent annuity on Marx, which, modest though it was, enabled him to pursue his work in peace. They saw each other nearly every day, and together carried on an immense cor respondence with socialists in every land, by many of whom they had come to be regarded with increasing respect and veneration. Marx was now without question the supreme moral and intellectual authority of inter national socialism; Lassalle and Proudhon had died in the ’sixties, Bakunin, in poverty and neglect, in 1876. The death of his great enemy evoked no public comment from Marx: perhaps because his harsh obituary notice of Proudhon in a German newspaper had caused a wave of indignation among the French socialists, and he thought it more tactful to remain silent. His sentiments towards his adversaries, living and dead, had not altered, but he was physically less capable of the active campaigns of his youth and middle years; overwork and a life of poverty had finally undermined his strength; he was tired, and often ill, and began to be preoccupied LAST YEARS 253 by his health. Every year, generally accompanied by his younger daughter Eleanor, he would visit the English seaside, or a German or Bohemian spa, where he would occasionally meet old friends and followers, who sometimes brought with them young historians or economists anxious to meet the celebrated revolu tionary. He rarely spoke of himself or of his life, and never about his origin. The fact that he was a Jew neither he nor Engels ever mentions. His references to individual Jews, particularly in his letters to Engels, are virulent to a degree: his origin had become a personal stigma which he was unable to avoid pointing out in others; his denial of the importance of racial categories, his emphasis upon the international character of the proletariat, takes on a peculiar sharpness of tone, directed as it is against misconceptions of which he himself was a conspicuous victim. His impatience and irritability increased with old age, and he took care to avoid the society of men who bored him or disagreed with his views, tie became more and more difficult im his personal relations; he broke off all connexion with one of his oldest friends, the poet Freiligrath, after his patriotic odes in 1870; he deliberately insulted his devoted adherent Kugelmann to whom some of his most interesting letters were written, because the latter insisted on joining him in Karlsbad after he had made it clear that he wished for no company. On the other hand, when he was tactfully approached, his behaviour could be friendly and even gracious, particularly' to the young revolutionaries and radical journalists who came to London in growing numbers to pay homage to the two old men. Such pilgrims were agreeably received 254 KARL MARX at his house, and through them he established contacts with his followers in countries with which he had had no previous relations, notably with Russia, where a vigorous and well-disciplined revolutionary movement had at last taken root. His economic writings, and in particular Das Kapital, had had a greater success in Russia than in any other country: the censorship— ironically enough—permitted its publication on the ground that ‘although the book has a pronounced socialist tendency ... it is not written in a popular style . . . and is unlikely to find many readers among the general public’. The reviews of it in the Russian press were more favourable and more intelligent than any others, a fact which surprised and pleased him, and did much to change his contemptuous attitude to ‘the Russian clodhoppers’ into admiration for the new generation of austere and fearless revolutionaries whom his own writings had done so much to educate. The history of Marxism in Russia is unlike its history in any other country. Whereas in Germany and in France, unlike other forms of positivism and materialism, it was primarily a proletarian movement, marking a sharp revulsion of feeling against the ineffectiveness of the liberal idealism of the bourgeoisie in the first half of the century, and represented a mood of disillusion ment and realism, in Russia, where the proletariat was still weak and insignificant by Western standards, not only the apostles of Marxism but the majority of its converts were middle-class intellectuals for whom it itself became a kind of romanticism, a belated form of democratic idealism. It grew during the height of the populist movement, which preached the need for personal self-identification with the people and their LAST YEARS 255 material needs, in order to understand them, educate them, and raise their intellectual and social level, and was thus equally directed against the reactionary anti- Western party with its mystical faith in autocracy, the Orthodox Church and the Slav genius on the one hand, and the mild agriarian liberalism of the pro-Westerners, such as Turgenev and Herzen, on the other. This was the time when well-to-do young men in Moscow and St. Petersburg, notably the ‘penitent’ young noblemen and squires, ridden by social guilt, threw away career and position in order to immerse themselves in the study of the condition of peasants and factory workers, and went to live amongst them with the same noble fervour with which their fathers and grandfathers had foDowed Bakunin or the Decembrists. Historical and political materialism—emphasis on con crete, tangible, economic reality as the basis of social and individual life, criticism of institutions and of individual actions in terms of their relation to, and influence upon, the material welfare of the popular masses, hatred and scorn of art or life pursued for their own sake, isolated from the sufferings of the world in an ivory tower, were preached with a self-forgetful passion: ‘A pair of boots is something more important than all the plays of Shakespeare’, said Chernyshevsky, and expressed a general mood. In these men Marxism produced a sense of liberation from doubts and con fusions, by offering for the first time a systematic exposition of the nature and laws of development of society in clear, material terms: its very flatness seemed sane and lucid after the romantic nationalism of the Slavophiles and the mystery and grandeur of Hegelian idealism. This general effect resembled the feeling 256 KARL MARX induced in Marx himself after reading Feuerbach forty years before: it aroused the same sense of the finality of its solution and of the limitless possibility of action on its basis. Russia had not experienced the horrors of 1849, its development lagged far behind that of the West, its problems in the ’seventies and ’eighties in many respects resembled those which had faced the rest of Europe half a century before. The Russian radicals read the Communist Manifesto and the declamatory passages of Das Kapital with the sense of exhilaration with which men had read Rousseau in the previous century; they found much which applied exceptionally well to their own condition: nowhere was it as true as in Russia that ‘in agriculture as in manufacture the capitalist transformation of the process of production signifies the martyrdom of the producer; the instrument of labour becomes the means of subjugating, exploiting and impoverishing the worker; the social combination and organization of the labour process functions as an elaborate method for crushing the worker’s individual vitality, freedom and independence’. Only in Russia the method, particularly after the liberation of the serfs had enormously enlarged the labour market, was not elaborate, but simple. To his own surprise, Marx found that the nation against which he had written and spoken for thirty years provided him with the most fearless and intelligent of his disciples. He welcomed them in his home in London, and entered into a regular correspondence with Daniel son, his translator, and Sieber, one of the ablest of Russian economists. Marx’s analyses were largely con cerned with industrial societies; Russia was an agrarian state and any attempt at direct application of a doctrine LAST YEARS 257 designed for one set of conditions to another was bound to lead to errors in theory and practice. Letters reached him from Danielson in Russia, and from the exiles Lavrov and Vera Zassulich, begging him to apply him self to the specific problems presented by the peculiar organization of the Russian peasants into primitive communes, holding land in common, and in particular to state his view on propositions derived from Herzen and Bakunin and widely accepted by Russian radicals, which asserted that a direct transition was possible from such primitive communes to developed communism, without the necessity of passing through the inter mediate stage of industrialism and urbanization, as had happened in the West. Marx, who had previously treated this hypothesis with contempt as emanating from sentimental Slavophile idealization of the peasants disguised as radicalism combined with the childish belief that it was ‘possible to cheat the dialectic by an audacious leap, to avoid the natural stages of evolution or shuffle them out of the world by decrees’, was by now sufficiently impressed by the intelligence, seriousness, and, above all, the fanatical and devoted socialism of the new generation of Russian revolutionaries to re-examine the issue. In order to do this he began to learn Russian; at the end of six months he had mastered it sufficiently to read scientific works and confidential government reports which his friends succeeded in smuggling to London. Engels viewed this new alliance with some distaste: he had an incurable aversion to everything east of the Elbe, and he suspected Marx of 258 KARL MARX tunnelling his way through an immense mass of statis tical and historical material, Marx wrote two lengthy letters in which he made considerable doctrinal con cessions. He admitted that if a revolution in Russia should be the signal of a common rising of the entire European proletariat, it was conceivable, and even likely that communism in Russia could be based directly upon the semi-feudal communal ownership of land by the village as it existed at the time; but this could not occur if capitalism continued among its nearest neighbours, since this would inevitably force Russia in sheer economic self-defence along the path already traversed by the more advanced countries of the West. The Russians were not alone, however, in paying homage to the London exiles. Young leaders of the new united German social democratic party, Bebcl, Bernstein, Kautsky, visited him and consulted him on all important issues. His two eldest daughters had married French socialists and kept him in touch with Latin countries. The founder of French social demo cracy, Jules Guesde, submitted the programme of his party to him, and had it drastically revised. Marxism began to oust Bakuninist anarchism in Italy and Switzer land. Encouraging reports came from the United States. The best news of all came from Germany, where the socialist vote, in spite of Bismarck’s anti-socialist laws, was mounting with prodigious speed. The only major European country which continued to stand aloof, virtually impervious to his teaching, was that in which he himself lived and of which he spoke as his second home. ‘In England’, he wrote, ‘prolonged prosperity has demoralized the workers . . . the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of lands would seem to be the LAST YEARS 259 establishment of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat side by side with the bourgeoisie . . . the revolutionary energy of the British workers has oozed away ... it will take long before they can shake off their bourgeois infection . . . they totally lack the mettle of the old Chartists.’ He had no intimate English friends, and his relations with such sympathizers as Bcesly or Belfort Bax had never been more than formal. He did indeed, in the last years of his life, allow himself to be wooed for a brief period by H. M. Hyndmm, the founder of the Social Democratic Federation, who did much to popularize Marxism in England. Hyndman was an agreeable, easy-going, expansive individual, a genuine radical by temperament, an amusing and effective speaker, and a lively writer on political and economic subjects. A light-hearted amateur himself, he enjoyed meeting and talking to men of genius, and, being somewhat indiscriminate in his taste, presently aban doned Mazzini for Marx. He thus described him in his memoirs: ‘The first impression of Marx as I saw him was that of a powerful, shaggy, untamed old man, ready, not to say eager, to enter into conflict, and rather suspicious himself of immediate attack; yet his greeting of us was cordial. . . . When speaking with fierce indignation of the policy of the Liberal Party, especially in regard to Ireland, the old warrior’s brows wrinkled, the broad, strong nose and face were obviously moved by passion, and he poured out a stream of vigorous denunciation which displayed alike the heat of his temperament, and the marvellous command he possessed over our language. The contrast between his manner and utterance when thus deeply stirred by anger, and his attitude when giving his views on the 260
KARL MARX events of the period, was very marked. He turned from the role of prophet and violent denunciator to that of the calm philosopher without any apparent effort, and I felt that many a long year might pass before I ceased to be a student in the presence of a master.’ Hyndman’s sincerity, his naivete, his affable and dis arming manner, and above all his whole-hearted and uncritical admiration for Marx, whom, with typical ineptitude, he called ‘the Aristotle of the nineteenth century’, caused the latter to treat him for some years with marked friendliness and indulgence. The inevit able breach occurred over Hyndman’s book, England for All, which is still one of the best popular accounts of Marxism in English. The debt to Marx was not acknow ledged by name, a fact which Hyndman lamely tried to explain on the ground that ‘the English don’t like being taught by foreigners, and your name is so much detested here. . . This was sufficient. Marx held violent opinions on plagiarism: Lassalle had been made to suffer for far less; be broke off the connexion at once and with it his last remaining link with English socialism.His mode of life had scarcely changed at all. He rose at seven, drank several cups of black coffee, and then retired to his study where he read and wrote until two in the afternoon. After hurrying through his meal he worked again till supper, which he ate with his family. After that he took an evening walk on Hamp stead Heath, or returned to his study, where he worked until two or three in the morning. His son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, has left a description of this room: ‘It was on the first floor and well lighted by a broad window looking on the park. The fireplace was opposite LAST YEARS 26t the window, and was flanked by bookshelves, on the top of which packets of newspapers and manuscripts were piled up to the ceiling. On one side of the window stood two tables, likewise loaded with miscellaneous papers, newspapers and books. In the middle of the room was a small plain wTiting-table and a Windsor chair. Between this chair and one of the bookshelves was a leather-coloured sofa on which Marx would lie down and rest occasionally. On the mantelpiece were more books interspersed with cigars, boxes of matches, tobacco jars, paperweights and photographs—his daughters, his wife, Engels, Wilhelm Wolff. . . . He would never allow anyone to arrange his books and papers . . . but he could put his hand on any book or manuscript he wanted. When conversing he would often stop for a moment to show the relevant passage in a book or to find a reference. . . . He disdained appearances when arranging his books. Quarto and octavo volumes and pamphlets were placed higgledy- piggledy so far as size and shape were concerned. He had scant respect for their form or binding, the beauty of page or of printing: he would turn down the corners of pages, underline freely and pencil the margins. He did not actually annotate his books, but he could not refrain from a question mark or note of exclamation when the author went too far. Every year he re-read his note-books and underlined passages to refresh his memory . . . which was vigorous and accurate: he had trained it in accordance with Hegel’s plan of memorizing verse in an unfamiliar tongue.’ Sundays he dedicated to his children: and 262 KARL MARX Qui-Qui, Quo-Quo, and Tussy; his wife was Mohme; he himself was known as the Moor or Old Nick on account of his dark complexion and sinister appear ance. His relations with his family remained easy and affectionate. The Russian sociologist Kovalevsky who used to visit him in his last years, was pleasantly surprised by his urbanity. ‘Marx is usually described’, he wrote many years later, ‘as a gloomy and arrogant man, who flatly rejected all bourgeois science and culture. In reality he was a well-educated, highly cultivated Anglo-German gentleman, a man whose close association with Heine had developed in him a vein of cheerful satire, and one who was full of the joy of life, thanks to the fact that his personal position was extremely comfortable.’ This vignette of Marx as a gay and genial host if not wholly convincing, at any rale conveys the contrast with the early years in Soho. His chief pleasures were reading and walking. He was fond of poetry and knew long passages of Dante, Aeschylus and Shakespeare by heart. His admiration for Shakespeare was limitless, and the whole household was brought up on him: he was read aloud, acted, discussed constantly. Whatever Marx did, he did methodically. Finding on arrival that his English was inadequate, he set himself to improve it by making a list of Shakespeare’s turns of phrase: these he then learnt by heart. Similarly, having learnt Russian, he read through the works of Gogol and Pushkin, carefully underlining the words whose meaning he did not know. He had a sound German literary taste, acquired early in his youth, and developed by reading and re-reading his favourite works. To distract himself he read the elder Dumas or Scott, or light French novels of the day; LAST YEARS 263 Balzac he admired prodigiously: he looked upon h He had always read enormously, but towards the end of his life his appetite increased to a degree at which it interfered with his creative work. In his last ten years hq^began to acquire completely new languages, such as Russian and Turkish, with the ostensible purpose of studying agrarian conditions in those countries: as an old Urquhartite he laid his hopes on the Turkish peasantry which he expected to become a disruptive, democratizing force in the Near East. As his bibliomania grew, Engels’s worst fears became con firmed; he wrote less and less, and more crabbedly and obscurely. The second and third volumes of Das Kapital, edited by Engels, and the supplementary studies which formed the fourth volume, edited by Kautsky from posthumous material, are greatly inferior in mental power, lucidity and vigour to the first volume which has become a classic. Physically he was declining fast. In 1881 Jenny Marx died of cancer after a long and painful illness. Each
‘His mission in life was to contribute in one way 01 another to the overthrow of capitalist society ... to contribute to the liberation of the present-day prc^tariac which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, of the conditions under which it could win its freedom. Fighting was his element. Abt’j he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success whicn. few could rival . . . and consequently was the best-hated LAST YEARS 265 md most calumniated man of his time ... he died, be- oved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary :llow workers from the mines of Siberia to the coasts of '.alifornia, in all points of Europe and America ... his ime and his work will endure through the ages.’ His death passed largely unnoticed among the general ablic; The Times did, indeed, print a brief and in- acurate obituary notice, but this, although he died . i London, appeared as a message from its Paris corre- londent who reported what he had read in the French ialist Press. His fame increased steadily after his ith as the revolutionary effects of his teaching became jre and more apparent. As an individual he never aptured the imagination either of the public or of professional biographers to such an extent as his more ensitive and more romantic contemporaries; and ndeed Carlyle and Herzen were infinitely more tragic igures, tormented by intellectual and moral conflicts :hich Marx neither experienced nor understood, and far tore profoundly affected by the malaise of their genera- ion. They have left a bitter and minute account of it, letter written and more vivid than anything to be found t Marx or in Engels. Marx fought against the mean nd cynical society of his time, which seemed to him to -ulgarize and degrade every human relationship, with , hatred no less profound. But his mind was made of ronger and cruder texture; he was insensitive, self- onfident, and strong willed; the causes of his unhappi ness lay wholly outside him, being poverty, sickness, and the triumph of the enemy. His inner life was tranquil, complicated and secure. He saw the world in simple jrms of black and white; those who were not with him were against him. He knew upon whose side he was,266 KARL MARX his life was spent in fighting for it, he knew that it would ultimately win. Such crises of faith as occurred in the lives of the gentler spirits among his friends, the painful self-examination of such men as Hess or Heine, received from him no sympathy. He looked upon them as so many signs of bourgeois degeneracy which took the form of morbid attention to private emotional states, or still worse, the exploitation of social unrest for some personal or artistic end—frivolity and self-indulgence criminal in men before whose eyes the greatest battle in human history was being fought. This uncompromis ing sternness towards personal feeling and almost religious insistence on a self-sacrificing discipline, was inherited by his successors, and imitated by his enemies in every land. It distinguishes his true descendants among followers and adversaries alike from tolerant liberalism in every sphere. Others before him had preached a war between classes, but it was he who conceived and successfully put into practice a plan designed to achieve the political organiza tion of a class fighting solely for its interests as a class— and in so doing transformed the entire character of political parties and political warfare. Yet in his own eyes, and in those of his contemporaries, he appeared as first and foremost a theoretical economist. The classical premisses on which his economic doctrines rest are to-day largely superseded; contemporary discussion proceeds upon a different basis. The doctrine which has survived and grown, and which has had a greater and more lasting influence both on opinion and on action than any other view put forward in modern times, is his theory of the evolution and structure of capitalist society, of which he nowhere gave a detailed exposition. This LAST YEARS 267 theory, by asserting that the most important question to be asked with regard to any phenomenon is concerned with the relation which it bears to the economic struc ture, that is the balance of economic power in the social whole of which it is an expression, has created new tools of criticism and research whose use has altered the direction and emphasis of the social sciences in our generation. All those whose work rests on social observation are necessarily affected. Not only the conflicting classes and their leaders in every country, but historians and sociologists, psychologists and political scientists, critics and creative artists, so far as they try to analyse the changing quality of the life of their society, owe the form of their ideas in part to the work of Karl Marx. More than half a century has passed since its completion, and during those years it has received more than its due share of praise and blame. Exaggeration and over-simple application of its main principles have done much to obscure its meaning, and many blunders, both of theory and of practice, have been committed in its name. Nevertheless its effect was, and continues to be, revolutionary. It set out to refute the proposition that ideas govern the course of history, but the very extent of its own influence on human affairs has weakened the force of its thesis. For in altering the hitherto prevailing view of the relation of the individual to his environment and to his fellows, it has palpably altered that relation itself; and in consequence remains the most powerful among the intellectual forces which are to-day permanently transforming the ways in which men think and act.
The complete edition of the works and private papers of Marx and Engels is still unfinished: their publication in the original languages which was commenced in Berlin under the auspices of the Marx-En 27O BIBLIOGRAPHY of Capital is by E. and C. Paul (Everyman’s Library: Dent), the only available English version of Vols. II and III is still that by E. Untermann (Chicago: C. H. Kerr & Co.); Vol. IV (Theories of Surplus Valite) has not been translated into English. There are also versions of A Contribution to Political Economy (trans. N. I. Stone: C. H. Kerr & Co.); Value, Price and Profit (ed. by E. M. Aveling, /Alien and Unwin) and Letters on India (ed. by B. P. L. and F. Bcdi, Lahore: Contemp. India Publica tions). Two useful compendia, which include a good many of the works cited above, are: A Handbook to Marxism (cd. E. Burns: Gollancz) and Selected Works (2 vols., Lawrence and Wishart).
The standard work is Karl Marx by Franz Mehring, brought up to date and excellently annotated by E. Fuchs and translated by E. Fitzgerald. Karl Marx: a Study in Fanaticism, by E. H. Carr, is a lively and interesting book based on detailed original research, which, on points of fact, supersedes all previous authorities. An equally scrupulous work but more sympathetic to its subject and his teaching is Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, by B. Nicolaicvsky and O. Maenchen-Helfen, which also embodies original material, particularly from Russian sources. Biographies exist also by John Spargo and Otto Ruhle, and shorter lives by M. Beer, R. W. Postgate and C. J. S. Sprigge; the last of these contains many points of interest. The standard biography of Engels is by G. Mayer (abridged and translated by G. and H. Highet, ed. by R. H. S. Crossman). BIBLIOGRAPHY 271 ,,
Of the immense polemical literature which surrounds Marx and Marxism the following works, of those written in or translated into English, are likely to be of most interest to the general reader: Karl Marx and the Close of his System, by E. v. Bohm-Bawerk (this, and the works by H. W. B. Joseph and V. Simkhovich cited below, constitute the most formidable attacks upon Marx’s economic doctrines). A counter-attack is provided by R. Hilfferding’s Bohm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx. What Marx Really Meant, by G. D. H Cole, the most competent large-scale popular exposition of Marxism, if not of Marx’s own views, since Engels and Hyndman. Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx and From Hegel to Marx, by S. Hook, lucid and penetrating critical studies of Marx and his predecessors. The Labour Theory of Value in Karl Marx, by H. W. B. Joseph, Marxism versus Socialism, by V. Simkhovich (for both these, see above). The Open Society and its Enemies, by Dr. Karl Popper: a work of exceptional originality and power. The second volume provides the most scrupulous and formidable criticism of the philosophical and historical doctrines of Marxism by any living writer. Alexander Gray in The Socialist Tradition, a model of clear, at times brilliant, always entertaining, exposition. This provides a very intelligent if more personal and less detailed examination of Marxism. Karl Marx, by Karl Korsch, a learned but ponderously written examination of Marxism in his historical setting. Historical Materialism and Ihe Economics of Karl Marx, by Benedetto Croce, an essay of arresting originality. The Marxist Philosophy and the Sciences, by J. B. S. Haldane, a stimulating, if not 272 BIBLIOGRAPHY wholly convincing, discussion of the usefulness of the method of dialectical materialism in the natural sciences, based largely on the theories of Engels. Marxism, Is it Science? by Max Eastman, an essay' of characteristic brilliance by this sharp and original critic and excellent writer, bitterly condemned as a heretic by orthodox Communists. Darwin, Marx, Wagner, by Jacques Barzun. a very readable essay. To the Finland Station, by Edmund Wilson (New York, 1940) contains a very striking intellectual portrait of Marx. What is Marxism? by Emile Burns, an orthodox Communist account. An Essay on Marxian Economics, by Joan Robinson, a char acteristically penetrating study. S. H. Chang, The Marxian Theory of the State (Philadelphia, 1931), a pains taking treatise. Karl Marx in his Earlier Writings, by H. P. Adams, a competent summary of the writings before the ‘London’ period. M. M. Bober’s Karl Marx’s Interpretation of History (U.S.A., 1927), a dry but useful study of this topic. A short but exceptionally able study of historical materialism by J. L. Gray forms a chapter of Social and Political Thinkers of the Nineteenth Century, ed. F. J. C. Hearnshaw. The pages devoted to Marxism in A History of Political Theory, by G. H. Sabine, an excellent summary. The Economic Doctrines of Karl Alarx, by K. Kautsky, the classical exposition of Marxist economics. Karl Marx, by H. J. Laski, the best short summary of Marx’s achievement. The same author’s Communism in this series is, despite its shortness, so far as is known to the writer, the best analysis of the movement and its intellectual basis in any language. Karl Marx's Capital, by A. D. Lindsay, an exceptionally fair dis cussion of its subject. Marx, Engels, Marxism, by N. Lenin, a magisterial exposition and, with his State and Revolution, BIBLIOGRAPHY -T& ^ one of the texts on which orthodox Communism is to-day based. Essays in the History of Materialism and Fundamental Problems of Marxism, by G. Plekhanov, classical treatises by the acutest thinker and most brilliant writer among the immediate successors of Marx and Engels. A duller but solider work is Earl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by D. B. Ryazanov, the most erudite of all Marxists, and the most pedestrian.
■ffisCHYLUS, 32, 262 Albert (nl Alexander Martin), "55. l6" Alsace-Lorraine, 234., 236 Anneke, 158 Annenkov, 104-5 Anli-Duhring, 250-1 Applegarth, 244 Arago, Francois Jean Dom inique, 155 Aristotle, 36, 47, 260 Arnim, Bettina von, 68 Austro-Prussian War, 235 Babeuf, Francois Noel (‘Gracchus Babeuf’), 14, 100, 173, 206 Bach, Johann Sebastian, 52 Bacon, Francis, 183 Bakunin, Michael, 1, 79, 84, 100, 105-9, tig, 130, 145> H7-y> '59, 165. 173. 196, I99-, 202, 212, 214, 2l6, 217-18, 220-1, 235, 239. 245-8, 252, 255, 257-8 Balzac, Honore de, 3, 83, 263 Barbra, Armand, 95, 100 Bauer, Bruno, 65-6,68, 71, 75, 97. 124. 130 Edgar, 68, 75, 130 Egbert, 68, 75, 130 Heinrich, 148 Bax, Belfort, 259 Bebel, Ferdinand August, 236, 238, 258 Beesly, Edward Spencer, 208, 258 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 68 Belgium, 247 Bentham, Jeremy, 36 Berlioz, Hector, 84 Bernstein, Eduard, 258 Bismarck, Prince Otto von, "59, 199-200, 207, 214, 235-7. 240, 258 Blanc, Louis, 14, 95-6, 99, 108, 155, 161, 240 Blanqui, Jerome Adolphe, 14, 83. 95. too, 161, 172, 238, 240, 242 Blue Books, 168, 233 Borne, 31 Bray, Charles, 15, 170 British Museum, 2, 17, 168, i8r, 233 Brusseltr Zeitwxg, 146 Butler, Bishop, 1 Byron, 147 Cabet, Etienne, 74, g6 Carlyle, Thomas, 22, g5, 182, 265 Cartesian Physics, 251 Cervantes, 32 Charles X, 95 Chartism, 15, i6g-7o, 186, 191, 197. 213. 259 Chateaubriand, 147 Chemyshevsky, 255 China, 200 Christian Socialism, 96, 170, 182 Class Struggle, 7-13, 14, 89, 132-3. "93. "95. 238, 266 Cobbett, William, 170 Commune, Paris, 174, 238-
Communism, 14, g6, 174-7, 257 index Communist League, 148-50, 171 Compton, 209 Comte, 17, 124, 144, 209 Condillac, 36, 40 Gondorcet, 29 Considerant, Victor-Prosper, 95
D’Alembert, 40 Dana, Charles Augustus, 184- 5* 215 Danielson, 256-7 Dante, 32, 262 Darwin, Charles, 146, 232 Decembrists, 255 Delacroix, Eugene, 84 Democratic Alliance, 246 Democritus, 78 Demuth, Helene, 182—3 Descartes, 42 Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbuchcr, 79.84 Dezami, 74, 95 Dialectic, 56-63 Diderot, 36, 40 Dietzgcn, Joseph, 232 Disraeli, Benjamin, 27, 98 Duhnng, Eugen, 250 Dumas, Alexander, 262 Eccarius, 217 Economist* The, 168 Emcyclopa&dttte, 40, 85, 90, 114 Engels, Friedrich, 4. 72, 77,88, 100-4, I22> t45> 148, 150. 156,164-5,167,169,177', 179, 181-6, 188, 192, 194- 6, 199-200, 205, 215-16, 23°. 234-6. 238, 243. 247, . 249-53. 257, 261, 263-5 Epicurus, 78 Europe, 189 Feuerbach, Ludwig, 14, 75-7, 85,123-4, >26,131,143,
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 31,45 Flocon, 155, 161 Fourier, Frangois Marie Charles, 15, 60, 74, gi-G, 125,133.154,184,226-7 France, 247, 255 Franco-Prussian War, 234-7 Frederick the Great, 28 Frederick William 111. 24., 28, 61 IV, 61 Freihgrath, Ferdinand, 104, 163, 167, 182, 184, 232, 253
Galileo, 42, 46, 50 Gans, Eduard, 66-7 Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 147, 167 Gautier, Theophilc, 84 Germany, 23-7, 61-2, 156-7, 185,193-201,214,236-7, 247,254,258 Gibbon, Edward, 233 Gladstone, William Ewart, 21,
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 32, 68 Gogol, Nicolai Vasilievitch, 262 Gotha Programme, *249-52 Gottschalk, 158 INDEX Granville, George Leveson- Gower, 2nd Earl, 244 Greely, Horace, 215 Grun, 132-7, 19r Guesde, Jules, 258 Guizot, Francois Pierre Guil laume, r 4,, 145, 150 Hamey, G. J., 191, 244 Harrison, Frederic, 209 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Fried- rich, 31. 45. 46. 48. 49. 5*. 52, 53, 54, 56, 60, 63, 64,
Hegelianism, 17, 30, 35, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 65, 66, 67,
Heine, Heinrich, 27, 31, 67, 72, 78, 84, 96, 98, 104, 145, 234, 262, 266 Helvetius, Claude Adrien, 36, 40 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 45, 48 Herwegh, Georg, 104, 156 Herzen, Alexander, 1, 75, 84, 105, 171, 176-7, qoi, 214, 220, 255, 257, 265 Hess, Moses, 14, 71, 103, 133— 7, 191, 266 Historical Materialism, 14, 121-44 Hodgskin, Thomas, 15, 170 Holbach, Paul Heinrich Diet- rich von, 14, 40, 72, 77 Holderlin, 32 Holland, 247 Homer, 32-3 22/ Hugo, Victor, 84 Hume, David, 36, 44, 46 Hungary, 188 Hyndman, Henry Mayers, 249, 259-60 India, 186-8 International, First, 205, 221, 235-8,240-8 Ireland, 186-8, 259 Italy, 188, 199, 216, 247, 258 Jews, the, 25-7, 97-8, 253 Jones, Ernest, 191, 244 July Revolution (1830), 61, 95 Kant, Immanuel, 27 Kantsky, Karl, 258, 263 Kepler, Johann, 42 Koppen, 68, 79 Kossuth, Louis, 2, 147, 167, 188, 201 Kovalevsky, 262 Kugelmann, 232, 253 Labour Party, 244-5 theory of value, 14-15, 224-5 Lafargue, Paul, 260-1 Lamartine, Alphonse Marie Louis de, 95, 155 Lamennais, Felicite-Robert de, 96 La Mettrie, Julien Offray de, 4°, 77 Laski, Harold Joseph, 210 f. Lassalle, Ferdinand, 2, 31, 98, 147, 165, 194-202, 206, 210, 214, 220, 236, 238, 249-50, 252, 260 INDEX Lavrov, 257 League of the Just, 143-6, 1^.8 Peace and Freedom, 217 Ledru-Rollin, 95, 99 Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 27,35,47 48,52,54,59 Lenin (ne Vladimir Hitch Ulianor), 77, 147,173,242 Leroux Pierre, 74, 96 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 27, 72 Levi, Herschel, 26 See also Marx., Heinrich Marx, 26 Liebknecht, Wilhelm, 167, 182, 194, 214, 232-3,236, 238, 249-50 Liszt, Franz, 84 Locke, John, 1 36 Louis-Phihppe, 81, 95, 162 Lucraft, Benjamin, 170 Mably, Gabriel Bounot de, 14 Macaulay, Lord Thomas Babmgton, 233 Macchiavelli, Niccolo, 74 Marat, Jean Paul, 191 Marrast, Jean Pierre \rmand, 95 Marx, Edgar, 182, 183 Fleanor, 253, 264 Franziska, 182 Guido, 182 Heinrich (ne Herschel Levi), 23, 26, 31-2 Henrietta, 23, 31 Jenny (Frau Marx) See Wcstphalen, Jenny von Jenny (daughter oi Karl), 145.263-4 Marx, Karl, works of Civil War in France, 241 Communist Manifesto, 149- 55, 161, 169, 193, 223, 230, 241, 256 Critique of the Gotha Pro gramme, 249—50 Political Economy, 127-8, 203 Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The, 145, 178 German Ideolosj, 121 f, 263 Herr I ogt, 166, 203 Kapital, Das, 9, 20-1, 160, 168-9, 203* 222-6, 230-2, 234-5. 246, 251, 256-7, 263 Miser e de la Plulosophe, La, 115-20 Theses on Feuerbach, Eleven, 131-2 Marx, Sophia, 31 Materialism, 35-44, 75-8, 143 Mazzini, Giuseppe, 2, 99, 1 j./, 177, 188, 199, 201, 217, 240, 259 Mettermch, Prince, 24, 61, 150 Mexico, 200 Mignr t, Francois \uguste Marie, 14, 89 Mill, John Stuart, 170, 182, 217 Milton, John, 52 Moll, 148 Morris, William, 182 Musset, Alfred de, 84 Napoleon 1,23, 25,28, 45,137, J4L 235 III, 164, 171, 178, 203, 207, 216,237 National Socialism, igg Nechayev, 246 Neue Rheimsche Zetiunq, 157- 61,163,177 Newton, Sir Isaac, 42, 46, 50, 52. 59 J\few Tork Tribune, 96, 184-5, 191. 2'5 Nicholas I, 74, 17S Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 22, 130 Observer, The, 243 Odger, George, 244 Owen, Robert, 43, 99, 154,190 Palmerston, Lord, 189-90 Pasteur, Louis, 146 Paul, Jean, 147 Pecqueur, Constantin, 95 People’s Paper, 203 Peterloo, 170 Philosophic Radicalism, 36 Plekhanov, 242, 252 Poland, 188, 199 Poussin, Nicolas, 52 Proletariat, 8, 14, 87, 135-40, 146-59, 172-6, 193, 203- 5, 227-30, 221-4 Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, 7, 74, 86, 91, 95, 111-20, "49. "54. "95-6, 198, 202, 207, 212,214,216, 226-7, 239, 242, 245-7, 250, 252 Pushkin, Alexander, 262 Pyat, Felix, 239 Quesnay, Francois, 86 Rationalism, 26, 29-31, 33- „ 44. "37 Reclus, Jean Jacques Elisee, 239 Rheinuche ^eihmg, 72-4 Ricardo, David, 86, 117, 224 Rodbertus-Jagetzow, Johann Carl, 197 Rochefort, Henri, 239 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 42,
DEX 279^ Ruge, Arnold, 79-80, 97, 104, 124, 145, 232 Russell, Lord John, 189 Russia, 74, icg, 180-00, 200, 234-5. 242, 249, 254-8 Saint-Simon, Claude Henri, Comte de, 14, 60, 89-92, 96-7, hi, 124-6, 142, "44. 245. 250 Sand, George, 84, 96 Saturday Review, 23Q Savigny, Friedrich Karl von, 66-7 Schapper, 148 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von, 45, 66 Schiller, Johanrf Christoph Friedrich von, 32, 147 Schlegel, August Wilhelm von, 33 , T Schleswig-Holstein, 159 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 22 Scotland, 191 Scott, Sir Walter, 262 Shakespeare, 32, 255, 262 Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 147 Sieber, 256 Sismondi, Jean Charles Leonard Simonde de, 14, 86, 93-4, 102, 113, 125 Smith, Adam, 14, 86, 89 Social Democratic Federation, 259 Sorel, Albert, 119 Spain, 200, 216, 235, 244, 247, 249 Spencer, Herbert, 17, 144 Spinoza, Benedict de, 14, 40 Stein, Heinrich Friedrich Carl, Baron von, 14 Stendhal (ni Marie-Henri Beyle), 83 Stirner, Max, 68, 107,124, 130 Strauss, David, 65 200 IN^ex Sue, Eugene, 122, 263 Sutherland, Duchess of, tgi—2 Switzerland, 247, 258 Taine, Henri, 17 Thierry, Augustin, 14, 89 Thiers, Louis Adolph, 238-9 Thompson, William, 15 Times, The, 265 # Tolpuddle, 170 Trade Unionism, 170, 175, 206-14, 220, 227 Trotsky, Leo, 173 True Socialists, 132-7, 154, 191 Turgenev, Ivan, 84, 255 United States of America, 247, 258 Urquhart, David, 189-90, 263 Valles, Jules Louis Josep 239 Vico, Giovanni Battista, 144 Vogt, Karl, 203 Voltaire, Francois Mar ■ Arouet de, 27, 36, 42, 4 46, 72, 191 Wagner, Richard, 84 Weitling, Wilhelm, 14, 100, 109-10, [45, r65, 172 Westphalen, Jenny von (mar ried Kar) Marx\ 33, 69, 78, 145, 182-3, 261-3 Ludwig von, 32, 33 Willich, 156, 164, 177 Wolff, Wilhelm, 167, 232, 261 ‘Young Hegelians’, 65, 66 103, 196 Zassulich, Vera, 237 Printed in The Cnmelot Press LtdLondon and Southampton 49 Yüklə 241,89 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|