120
Instead of this, we find another statement. The Constitution
maintained "That the economic emancipation of the working
classes is therefore the great end which every political
movement ought to be subordinate as a means."
Since this proposition subsequently became the starting point of most furious
disagreements in the First International, we must explain it.
What did this proposition imply? The great goal of the proletarian movement
was the economic liberation of the working class. This goal could be reached only by
expropriating the monopolists of the means of production, by the abolition of all
class rule. But how could this be accomplished? Were the "pure" socialists and
anarchists right in their deprecation of political struggle?
No, was the reply contained in the thesis formulated by Marx. The struggle of
the working class on the political field is as necessary as it is on the economic field.
Political organisation is necessary. The political movement of the proletariat must
needs develop. It must not however be regarded, as it is regarded by the bourgeois
democrats and the radical intelligentsia, as something independent. These are only
interested in the change of political forms, in the establishment of a republic; they
want to hear nothing of the fundamental questions. This was why Marx emphasised
that for the proletariat, the political movement was only a means for the attainment
of their great ends, that it was a subsidiary movement. This statement was, to be
sure, not as clear cut as the one given in the Communist Manifesto or even in the
Inaugural Address, where it was expressly stated that the cardinal aim of the working
class was to gain political power.
True, to the English members of the International the proposition as it, was
formulated by Marx was quite clear. The Constitution was written in the English
language, and Marx utilised the terms with which the former Chartists and Owenites,
who were members of the committee, were thoroughly familiar. Apropos of this we
should recall that the Chartists' quarrel with the Owenites had been chiefly on the
ground that the latter took cognizance only of the "great end" and insisted on
ignoring the political struggle. When the Chartists advanced the Charter with its
famous six points, the Owenites accused them of having forgotten socialism
completely. Then the Chartists on their part asserted that for them, too, the political
struggle was not the chief aim. Thus twenty years before, the Chartists had
formulated the proposition which was now repeated by Marx. For them, the Chartists
121
maintained, the political struggle is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We can
see then why Marx's thesis did not arouse any opposition in the committee. Only a
few years later, when the heated discussions between the Bakuninists and their
opponents arose, did this point become the bone of contention. The Bakuninists
maintained that originally the words "as a means/index.htm" were not contained in
the Constitution and that Marx purposely smuggled them in later to foist his
conception of politics on the International. An omission of the words "as a
means/index.htm" does no doubt change the whole meaning of this point. In the
French translation of the Constitution these words were actually omitted.
A little misunderstanding arose which could have been easily explained but
which in the heat of factional conflict led to the absurd accusation against Marx of
falsification, of forging the Constitution of the International. When the Constitution
had been translated the French official edition did not contain the words "as a
means." The French text reads: "The economic emancipation of the working class is
the great end, to which the political movement ought to be subordinate." This was
deemed necessary in order not to attract the attention of Bonaparte's police which
regarded with great suspicion any political movement among the workers. At the
beginning the police did actually consider the French Internationalists as interested
more in economics than in politics. Precisely on the same grounds did the Blanquists
who were "politicians," also attack the poor internationalists as "economists."
The trouble was still more aggravated by the fact that this incorrect French
translation of the Constitution was reprinted in the French part of Switzerland and
from there it was spread through all the countries where the French language was
most familiar -- Italy, Spain, and Belgium. We shall see later, that at the first general
congress, which ratified the temporary Constitution of the International, each nation
accepted the text which it had before it. The First International was too poor to print
its Constitution in three languages. Even the English text was printed only in a
thousand copies, all of which were soon gone. Guillaume, one of the most bitter
opponents of Marx, and the one who most persistently accused Marx of forgery,
assures us in his History of the International that only in 1905 did he see for the first
time the English text with the words "as a means/index.htm" included! Had he
wanted to, he could have convinced himself long before that Marx was not a falsifier,
but this would not materially have changed the course of events. We know full well
122
that on the question of tactics the most violent discords may arise when to all
appearances the conflicting parties adhere in principle to the same programme.
The Constitution contained another point against which, it is true, the
anarchists did not protest but which from the point of view of Marxism inspires
doubts. We have already mentioned that, in order to reach an agreement among the
highly diversified elements which entered into the make-up of the committee, Marx
was forced to compromise on some points. These were made not in the Inaugural
Address, but in the Constitution. We shall soon see what these compromises were.
Right after the presentation of the principles, on the basis of which the
members of the committee that was elected at the meeting of September 28, 1864,
had decided to found the International Workingmen's Association, Marx continued:
"The first International Working Men's Congress declares that
this International Association and all societies and individuals
adhering to it will acknowledge truth, justice, and morality, as
the basis of their conduct towards each other, and towards all
men, without regard to colour, creed or nationality;
"This Congress considers it the duty of a man to claim the rights of a
man and a citizen, not only for himself but for every man who does his duty,
no rights without duties, no duties without rights."
Wherein lay the concessions made by Marx? We observe that concerning this
he himself wrote to Engels, "All my suggestions were adopted by the subcommittee. I
was compelled to insert into the Constitution some phrases about 'rights' and
'duties,' as well as 'truth, morality, and justice' but all this is so placed that it is not
likely to bring any harm."
And it really was not anything catastrophic. There s nothing terrible, per se, in
the words Truth, Justice, and Morality, as long as we realise that these concepts are
not eternal, unalterable, and independent of social conditions. Marxism does not
deny truth, justice, and morality; it merely proves that the evolution of these
concepts is determined by historical developments, and that different social classes
see in them different contents.
It would have been bad had Marx been compelled to reiterate the declaration
of the French and English socialists, had he been forced to say that we must fight for
socialism in the name of truth, justice and morality and not because, as he had so
marvellously presented in the Inaugural Address, it is inevitable, because it logically
Dostları ilə paylaş: |