Karl Marx; his life and work
Yüklə 1,7 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Jenny Von Westphalen
298 KARL MARX formed, but actually officered and directed by allies of Baku nin, who made them in reality, though not nominally, branches of the Alliance. These were old tricks to Bakunin. In 1869 he used the fanatical Netchaieff to form conspiratory societies in Russia, branches of the Alliance in the name of the Interna tional, and caused the programme of the Alliance to be printed and distributed under the name of the International Working men’s Association — facts which were brought out in the trial of Netchaieff for murder. j When the International held its next congress in London, (from the seventeenth to the twenty-third of September, 1871, it ; was evident that the organization had been reduced to a mere shadow of its former self. The Paris Commune had brought great reproach upon it, and Bakunin’s intrigues had greatly weakened it by internal dissension. Moreover, the Intema- | tional was held responsible for all the wild vagaries of the An ' archists, to the great disgust of those working-class organiza tions, such as the British trade unions, which held Anarchism f to be an abomination. Marx was present at the London con , gress and the subject of Bakunin’s treachery was fully discussed, 1 full power being given to the General Council to deal with the Alliance.1 Just at this time the leaders of the British trades unions began S to withdraw from the International. It has been generally un derstood that they withdrew on account of personal differences with Marx, but in truth their withdrawal was due to a much more important cause. Differences of opinion there cer tainly were, but they were not, in themselves, sufficiently im portant to lead to such a step on the part of men like Odger, Applegarth, and others. When Engels returned to London at the end of 1870, after his permanent retirement from business, Marx seems to have fallen, probably unconsciously, into the habit of consulting him only, and relying completely upon his advice, and this gave rise, naturally enough, to jealousy and ill- feeling. But the more important cause was the crisis in the THE “INTERNATIONAL” trades union movement which drew all the active men in the trades union movement into the political struggle. In tardy fulfilment of a pledge to the unions, the Liberal Government, under Gladstone, brought in a bill for the repeal of the obnoxious Combination Laws, a substitute for the trades unions’ own bill which Frederic Harrison had drawn up in 1869, and which the Liberal Government bitterly opposed. The substitute bill, introduced by Mr. Bruce, who afterwards became Lord Aberdare, was a fraud. While it repealed the Combination Laws, as the unions desired, it also repealed an act of 1859 which had definitely legalized “ picketing.” Fur ther, it contained a penal clause against anything which the judges might hold to come within the meaning of such terms as “ molest,” “ threaten,” “ obstruct,” “ intimidate,” “ watch,” “ beset,” and so on. The unions were up in arms and so great was the storm of op position that the Government had to divide the bill into two separate measures —■ one legalizing trades unions, and the other, called the Criminal Law Amendment Act, embodying all the most harassing evils against which the unions had been striv ing for years. Thus the leaders of the trades union movement 5 were drawn into a political fight for the preservation of the | unions, and they deemed it wise to withdraw from the Inter- f national. They very wisely judged that their cause at this j critical time would be injured by association with the much- maligned International. Their withdrawal reduced the once 1 powerful organization to almost absolute impotence.When the next congress of the International met at The ^ Hague, the first week of September, 1872, it was for the pur- jj pose of settling once and for ever the issues represented by the : rivalry of Marx and Bakunin. Sixty-five delegates attended, ■ representing Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, : Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Spain, Switzerland and the United States. Marx and Engels were £ present, and it is well known that they had taken great pains to
A fight occurred over the report of the credentials com mittee. M. Maltman Barrie, who was a London journalist, appeared as a delegate from Chicago, and his admission was opposed by the Bakuninists and also by Mottershead, a London delegate, who objected that Barrie had been expelled from the British Federation, and, anyhow, was not a workingman. Marx championed the cause of Barrie and he was admitted. Paul Lafargue, Marx’s son-in-law, who was a delegate from Madrid and Lisbon, was objected to and bitterly denounced by the Bakuninists, as also was the brave Communard, Edouard Vaillant. The old cry was raised against these men, and even against Marx and Engels, that they were not proletarians, but “ bourgeois Intellectuals.” | At the close of a five days’ struggle the Marxists were once | more victorious. They had defeated the Anarchists and kept them from capturing the International, they had also prevented i its dissolution. But Marx and Engels knew full well that the | International could never again hope to be of much practical < service to the working class. They also knew that so long as i anything remained of the organization Bakunin and his friends would attempt to use it for the Anarchist propaganda. They resolved upon the bold and desperate plan of removing the I headquarters of the association to New York, and placing the $ central authority in the hands of F. A. Sorge, F. Bolte, and ■ other trusted German Socialists. After much opposition, this plan was adopted. Then the congress voted to expel Bakunin and Guillaume and another active Bakuninist, named Schwitz- guibel, so that the world might know that the International had
Marx closed the congress with a rousing speech. He is said to have spoken remarkably well for one who was not regarded as an orator, as he had done thoughout the congress in the vari ous debates. He was loudly cheered when he declared: “ I wish to labour with all my strength for the future solidarity of the workers. No, I will not leave the International. I will give the rest of my life and labours to the triumph of social ideas which I am sure will one day lead to the supremacy of the proletariat.” The removal of the seat of the General Council to New York, j so far away from the centre of the labour movement, quite out f of reach of the active European working-class movements, not j only meant the death of the International, but it was such a j mysterious move, apparently so foolish, that it was naturally re- j garded with suspicion in some quarters. What could Marx be' contemplating, what trick had he up his sleeve, were questions whispered even among his own supporters, and so strange did the removal seem that some seriously believed that it was by way of answer to the silly charge in some of the newspapers that the great Chicago' fire was the work of the International! Judging at this late day, in the light of what subsequently took place, it would seem as if Marx had again made the great mistake of confining his consultations upon questions of policy too much to Engels, instead of consulting freely with the friends who had formerly been in his confidence. Both he and Engels, as we know now, had contemplated the removal for a very long time, yet the proposition when it was made to the congress by Engels took many of the oldest friends of Marx by surprise. , It was probably a jealous sense of having been slighted which caused his old and tried friends, George Eccarius and ( Herman Jung, to turn against Marx at this time and ally them selves with his enemies. They felt that from the time Engels 1
For all practical purposes, the career of the International was terminated by the Hague congress. True, the organiza tion was maintained by the German-American workingmen for another three years, and an international congress was held at ' Geneva in 1874, but these were only the fitful flickerings of an expiring flame. On the fifteenth day of July, 1876, eleven ; men met in the city of Philadelphia and held the last congress ■ of the International Workingmen’s Association. Of the eleven, ten were delegates from American organizations, the I other being supposed to represent Germany. At this meeting |the International was formally dissolved. The last official word of the once powerful organization was a proclamation ending with the old slogan, “ Proletarians of all countries, Unite! ” This proclamation read: “Fellow Workingmen: “ The International convention at Philadelphia has abolished the General Council of the International Workingmen’s Asso ciation, and the external bond of the organization is no more. “ ‘ The International is dead! ’ the bourgeoisie of all coun tries will again exclaim, and with ridicule and joy it will point to the proceedings of this convention as documentary proof of the defeat of the labour movement of the world. Let us not be influenced by the cry of our enemies! We have abandoned the organization of the International for reasons arising from the present political situation of Europe, but as a compensa tion for it we see the principles of the organization recognised and defended by the progressive workingmen of the entire civ ilised world. Let us give our fellow-workers in Europe a little time to strengthen their national affairs, and they will surely
“ Comrades! you have embraced the principles of the Inter national with heart and love; you will find means to extend the circle of its adherents, even without an organization. You will win new champions who will work for the realization of the aims of our association. The comrades in America promise you that they will faithfully guard and cherish the acquisitions of the International in this country until more favourable condi tions will again bring together the workingmen of all countries to common struggle, and the cry will resound louder than ever: “ ‘ Proletarians of all countries, Unite! ’ ” The International .Workingmen’s Association was no more. XIII
THE LAST PHASE I From 1870 to 1883, the year of his death, Marx scarcely knew the luxury of fair health, even for a day. For ten years ibefore 1870 he had been greatly hampered by constantly re curring illnesses, each attack more alarming than the one before it, but after 1880 he enjoyed scarcely a single respite. Engels once described those last thirteen years as “ a protracted dying,” and it is little less than marvellous that the sufferer could have mustered the necessary strength and courage to do the vast amount of work he did in that time. Marx sometimes seemed to be wholly indifferent to pain, as though absorption in his work destroyed all consciousness of physical discomfort. Thus, soon after his recovery from the serious attack of the winter of 1869—1870, which had so nearly cost him his life, Jung found him one day in bed, propped up with pillows, writing. The bed was covered with books and papers, and Jung knew by the convulsive twitchings of his face that his friend must be in great pain. Marx would hardly refer to his condition at all, except to say with a brave effort to seem indifferent that he was “ a bit under the weather,” and it was only from the physician that Jung learned that he was suf fering from a large and exceedingly painful ulcer, which had made natural sleep impossible for weeks. ) Late in 1870 or early in 1871, the family moved to a smaller house, 1, Maitland Park Road, on Haverstock Hill, near the northern height of Hampstead Heath, amid fine old trees cen turies old. Marx loved Hampstead Heath, and revelled in its literary associations. He knew by heart, and loved to re peat, the literary lore of London’s magnificent “ playground ” 304 THE LAST PHASE 305 — its associations with Washington Irving, Leigh Hunt, Shel ley, Coleridge, Keats, Dickens, and many another famous writer. Occasionally he took his family and friends for re freshment to the world-famed “ Jack Straw’s Castle,” where Dickens loved to linger and write. He greatly admired the genius with which Dickens depicted social conditions, and on one of his visits to “ Jack Straw’s Castle ” entertained his friends by an impromptu impersonation of Old Scrooge, de claiming with great earnestness and passion. The work in connection with the International to which Marx devoted most of his time for several years prior to the Hague congress, and which he continued for some time after, has been sufficiently outlined in the chapters devoted to the history of the International. Little of importance remains to be added to that account. Presumably through the generosity of Engels, Marx was accompanied to The Hague by his wife and daugh ter Eleanor. At The Hague, as well as at the other cities visited, he was greatly annoyed by the persistent and unwel come attentions of well-meaning people who sought to lionize him, and mere curiosity seekers who simply wanted to see and meet the “ notorious Marx.” All these people were treated with scant courtesy. On the other hand, to the crowd of jour nalists from every one of the leading European countries which besieged him, following him wherever he went, he was most considerate and kind, granting interviews freely, and giving of his time and strength in a most prodigal manner. It is certain that when he checkmated his old enemy, Baku nin, by securing the removal of the General Council of the In ternational to New York, Marx hoped thereby to gain rest, and that freedom from personal strife and controversy which was necessary for the completion of Capital. He was a sick man; his time and strength for years had been largely spent in such strife, to the great hindrance of what he regarded as his life-work, and so he longed for peace in which to finish hismagnum opus. 20 3°6 KARL MARX His disillusionment was swift, complete, and exceedingly bit ter. In a very little while he was drawn again into controversies that taxed his strength and patience to the utmost. In the first place, the Bakuninists seized the opportunity which this sensational step afforded to arrange a congress of the dissatis fied elements. Accordingly, an “ Anti-Despotic Congress ” was held at St. Imier, at which all the acts of the Hague congress were repudiated. This gathering declared that the Interna tional was no longer in existence and so proceeded to found a “ new International.” Following the lead thus set, the Belgian sections of the Inter national passed resolutions at their congress declaring all the acts of the Hague congress null and void. The Spanish sec tions did likewise at their congress, at Cordova, and announced that they would join the new body founded at St. Imier — which was, of course, only Bakunin’s Alliance in a new disguise. The British Federation likewise rejected most of the Hague resolutions, and strongly condemned the transfer to New York. | The new General Council, which we now know to have been \ directly guided by Marx and Engels, suspended the Federation ; of the Jura, and expelled the Belgian and Spanish sections,( as well as a large part of the membership of the British Fed- eration. All this imposed upon Marx a vast amount of additional work, and that at a time when he needed rest and peace more than at any time in his life. He was called upon to advise the new General Council upon all matters of policy, and to reply to the attacks made by the Secessionists. The activity of John Hales, the ex-secretary of the International, practically wrecked the International in England. After the Hague congress, Hales, who had been secretly corresponding with the Bakunin- ist Alliance, and otherwise plotting against Marx and Engels, tried at a congress of the British Federation, in January, 1873, to get Marx expelled from the International, bitterly attacking ‘him as a “ despot,” a “ middle-class Intellectual,” and so on. Frederick Lessner
307 But the delegates to the congress^ though a majority of them voted against the resolutions of the congress at The Hague, and the transfer of the General Council of New York, voted down the resolution to expel Marx and adopted in its stead a motion “ assuring Dr. Karl Marx of the esteem of the British workers.” So persistent were the attacks of Hales, however, that Marx and Engels were compelled at last to make public re ply to them through the columns of the International Herald, as well as by a circular to the members, which was signed by ten members of the British Federal Council. Hales rejoined with a long, abusive pamphlet in which Marx and Engels were again denounced as autocrats and middle-class Intellectuals who sought to use the working-class movement for their own advancement. All this greatly wearied Marx, and he perceptibly aged » in appearance as a result of the heavy strain. By the end of , 1873 he was again a very sick man. His physician at this time absolutely forbade the use of tobacco in any form — an order i which Marx found it hard to obey. After the first few days, however, he developed a certain pride in the evidence of his strong will which observance of the prohibition indicated.) With childlike naivete he seemed to regard his abstinence from;1 tobacco as a wonderful feat which hardly another could accom-j plish. When Engels, Lessner, and other old friends called each day he would tell them with eager pride that he had not touched, tobacco for so many days. He was in fact as proud of this \ evidence of his superior will-power as of anything in all his ’ career. The immense gains made by the German Socialists in the f elections of 1874, when the Socialist vote, which in 1871 was 1 101,927, rose to about 450,000 and ten Socialists were elected j to the Reichstag, greatly elated Marx. He rejoiced in it es pecially as a rebuke to “ Bismarck and his middle-class tail,” and predicted the rapid march of the German proletariat to victory. When the election returns were received in London
308
KARL MARX there was great rejoicing among the German Socialist exiles, and Marx, ill as he was at the time, was among the most vociferous of them all. He was greatly annoyed when from time to time the news papers published alarming statements about the condition of his health, but when they announced his death, as happened more than once, he enjoyed it as a great joke. He wrote to Kugelmann, on the 19th of January, 1874: “ Do not bother at the noise made by the newspapers, and do not answer them. I allow the English newspapers to announce my death from time to time, and I do not contradict them. Nothing annoys me more than if my friends write to the press about my health. I do not care what it thinks.” A short visit to Harrogate about this time brought consider able improvement, but he relapsed as soon as he returned to London and was once more sent off to the seaside, this time to Ramsgate. He seems to have been suffering from a de rangement of the liver, bronchitis and a carbuncle. A special ist summoned by Engels from Manchester, a Dr. Grumpet, ordered him to go to Carlsbad at once, to take the cure there. Thither he went in the summer of 1874, after it had been ascertained that he would be free from molestation by the government. He was accompanied by his youngest daughter, Eleanor, and they stopped at Leipsic to see Liebknecht, with whom Marx discussed the proposed union of the two Socialist fac tions, the Lassalleans and the Marxists, or Eisenachers, as the latter were commonly called. Liebknecht was at the time edit ing a Socialist newspaper in Leipsic and since Marx had, from his London exile, for a long time been the chief adviser of the Eisenachers, he naturally embraced the opportunity to discuss matters at length with Liebknecht in person. In an address at the Erfurt convention of the German Social Democratic OParty, in 1891, Liebknecht told the story of the movement for Socialist unity. He said:
THE LAST PHASE ** As I sat in the editor’s office one beautiful morning in Leipsic, not long after I returned from imprisonment in the for tress of Hubertusburg, a man came in, who appeared not wholly unknown to me, though I could not immediately say who he was. I worked on, whereupon the man said to me: ‘ Tolcke is here and wishes to speak to you.’ I arose immediately. Tolcke met me with his outstretched hand, in which I at once placed mine. It required no previous conclusion of peace. We betook ourselves to an adjoining room. ‘ We must have peace,’ said Tolcke, and I replied ‘ Yes; we must have peace.’ “ From that moment, for me, peace was concluded, and as about that time similar steps were taken in the North, in Ham burg, in Altona, and in other places, it became evident to all of my friends in Germany'that now we must unite ourselves, let come what would. A hotspur on one side or the other sought to hinder the work of peace, but the union had to be; it was necessary for the interests of the party. 14 We met in conference for the purpose of acquainting our selves with a programme for union; on this side and that con cessions were made, and at last, after long, long deliberation, we agreed upon the draft known to you, which, almost un changed, was accepted by the Gotha congress.” When Marx met Liebknecht at Leipsic negotiations had not gone very far. What his attitude was later on when the draft of a programme had been agreed upon we shall presently see: for the moment we are interested in his visit to Carlsbad. He had been sent there principally on account of liver trouble and in somnia, and was greatly benefited. He proved to be a model patient, taking the treatment with the utmost conscientiousness and cheerfulness. He made many friends, and looked upon his stay there as one of the pleasantest experiences of his life. On their way home the travellers made a flying visit to Bingen, because Marx wanted to show his daughter where he and her mother had spent their honeymoon. They went, also, to Ber lin and spent three happy days with Edgar von Westphalen, and Marx was greatly amused when he learned afterward that an hour after they had left their hotel the police called to arrest him.
3io
KARL MARX Marx returned from Carlsbad so much improved that he and his friends began to hope that at last a permanent cure had been effected. He plunged once more into his work with some thing of his old-time ardour and vigour. But the development of affairs in connection with the effort to unite the German movement gave him the greatest possible concern, and took up much of his time. As soon as an agreement had been reached upon a draft pro gramme, as described by Liebknecht, it was very naturally com municated to Marx, who at once came to the conclusion that a great mistake was about to be committed, and set about trying to prevent its consummation. By many writers it has been as- I serted that Marx was opposed to the unity of the Lassalleans t and the Eisenachers, and that he manifested a petty, jealous j and intolerant spirit. All such accounts are untrue, and as t foolish as they are untrue. That he was mistaken in his atti- jtude there cannot be the slightest doubt now in the light of {the subsequent history of the German Social Democracy, and Marx himself lived to make frank and proud acknowledgment of that fact. But they do great injustice to a brave and noble spirit who accuse him of acting from motives of petty jealousy. Marx, as may be seen from his famous Letter on the Gotha Programme, believed in unity quite as strongly, and desired it quite as earnestly, as Liebknecht or anyone else. He was, ' however, very much opposed to the proposed method of effect ing it, to the adoption of an unsatisfactory and unscientific theo retical programme as a basis for such unity. He realized perfectly that the Lassalleans could not be expected to adopt, without modification, such a statement of theoretical principles as would satisfy himself and his followers, but he was opposed to the adoption of an unsatisfactory compromise programme. Rather, he argued, let that matter stand in abeyance. Treat the question of a programme as being of very minor impor tance; proceed with the unity of the movement by all means, but do not adopt a programme that is “ utterly condemnable THE LAST PHASE and demoralizing to the party.” That this was his position there can be no doubt, for in his letter to Bracke, dated from London, May 5, 1875, accompanying his severe critical annota tions to the proposed programme and asking that they be for warded to Geib, Auer, Bebel and Liebknecht, he wrote: “ Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes. Therefore if it was impossible to go be yond the Eisenach programme —■ and the circumstances of the times did not permit of it —-a simple agreement for action against the common enemy should have been concluded. But when a programme of principles is prepared (instead of post poning it to a time when a matter of that kind would be the result of longer common activity) boundary stones are erected before the whole world, upon which the height of the party movement is measured by the world.” And again: “It is known that the mere fact of the union satisfies the workers, but it is an error to believe that this momentary result is not bought too dearly.” This communication caused the greatest consternation among the members of the little group to which it was addressed. What were they to do? If they made the letter public the much-longed-for unity would be effectually prevented; it would offend the Lassalleans on the one hand and, on the other hand, rally all the opponents of unity among the Eisenachers beneath the banner of Marx. It was decided to keep the communica tion a secret, to treat it as a private and confidential communi cation, and to proceed with the arrangements for unity. Marx , was quietly but firmly informed that he could not view matters \ correctly from London; that unity was an imperative necessity; j and that while they attached great importance to his opinion, j they could not in this instance follow it. For Liebknecht es- j pecially it was far from easy to take such a stand in opposition to Marx.“ We went through the letter carefully,” says Liebknecht. “ I myself, who had lived with Marx, a comrade in struggle, 312
KARL MARX his pupil, who in London had tasted the cup of exile with him, always proud to call myself his pupil and friend — I was obliged to face the question, ‘ Is it for the interest of the party that we should go on in the manner that Marx wishes ? ’ I knew at that time, as well as to-day, that what he said theo retically against the plan was correct to the last letter. Theory and practice are, however, two very different things. So, though I unconditionally relied on the judgment of Marx as to theory, in practice I went my own way. I asked myself, ‘ Is it possible to carry out at this time such a programme as Marx demands?’ After mature examination I came to this convic tion, that it was not possible, and at the peril of being, for a time, at variance with Marx — whatever happened was not for long — I declared: ‘ It cannot be. Marx is dear to me, but dearer to me is the party.’ ” t So the advice of Marx was rejected and the union of the two Socialist factions effected at the Gotha congress, in May, 1875. Thus the present Social Democratic Party came into existence. |To say that Marx was angry at the rejection of his advice, is to , state the truth in mild terms. He was furious, and predicted [all sorts of dire evils as a result of the compromise. Against Liebknecht he was very bitter for quite a long time. Time proved his fears to be mere phantoms, however, and the bril liant success of the Social Democratic Party, in spite of all ob stacles, satisfied him that Liebknecht, Auer, Bebel, and the other Eisenacher leaders acted wisely in rejecting his advice. For the Gotha congress resulted in a true union of the German Socialist forces — a union which the enemies of the movement have found it impossible to destroy. It was not until 1891, in connection with the proposal to re vise the party programme at the Erfurt congress, in October of that year, that Marx’s critique upon the Gotha programme, together with his letter to Bracke, were made public by Fried rich Engels. Something of a sensation was caused by the publi cation, and there was a good deal of criticism of the action of the leaders in withholding it from the knowledge of the rank and file at the time of its receipt. That they were justified THE LAST PHASE 3:3 in so doing no one seriously questions to-day, whatever may have been his opinion in 1891. Had the communication been made public in 1875 there could have been no unity of the So cialist forces, and without that unity the history of German Socialism would be very much less inspiring than it is. Soon after the Gotha congress Marx was again ordered to Carlsbad. He went alone this time, and took the treatment with the same scrupulous care and fidelity that he had shown the previous year. An affable, good-humoured companion, ever ready to tell a good story or joke, and a brilliant conversa tionist, he became very popular among his fellow patients. But he was homesick and lonely for all that, and vowed that he would never again make the trip alone. So when he went to Carlsbad again in the following year, 1876, he was accom panied by his daughter Eleanor. It would be well-nigh impossible, and of small interest if it were possible, to chronicle in detail the work and experiences of the remaining years. In a sense, his work was done. True, he worked whenever his strength permitted upon the two re- J maining volumes of Capital, but the progress made was not very \ great. In addition to minor literary undertakings, he carried ' on an enormous correspondence with the working-class leaders; of various countries. As the Socialist movement grew, espe-f cially in Germany and France, the demands upon his time by; Socialists seeking his advice grew more and more numerous, i His advice, and that of Engels, was sought upon every impor tant question of party policy, and when the matters concerning which advice was sought were too important to be intrusted to the mails, delegations were sent for personal consultation. In addition to these delegations Marx was constantly visited by prominent Socialists from all parts of the world, bringing important information, seeking advice, or paying their respects to their famous leader and comrade.He should have gone to Carlsbad again in 1877, but learned that the German and Austrian governments, having become KARL MARX greatly alarmed at the growth of the Socialist movement, had agreed to expel him, and so refrained from going that year, much to his disadvantage. The expense and strain of the jour ney were too great to be undertaken in the face of probable expulsion. He never went to Carlsbad again, a fact which he and his friends deeply regretted because he had always derived so much benefit from the treatment there. We can summarize his life from 1875 to 1880 as being de voted mainly to his work as the chief adviser of the Socialist forces of the world, interrupted by frequent periods of illness. Sorrows, such as the death of some of his grandchildren, the children of his daughters, Jenny Longuet and Laura Lafargue, oppressed him greatly and added to the misery of the period. And when, in 1878, his friend’s wife, Mrs. Engels, died, he felt the blow almost as keenly as Engels himself, for she had been as much his friend as was her husband. A big-hearted, lovable Irishwoman, Mrs. Engels had been an enthusiastic ad herent of the Fenian movement, and inspired much of Marx’s interest in the Irish cause. The winter of 1879-1880 was especially trying for Marx. A hard cough shook his broad, powerful frame until his distress was pitiable to behold, but he bore his sufferings with indomi table courage and undiminished cheerfulness. Then, toward the “ end of the summer of 1880 came the illness of his wife, from which it was soon evident she could never recover. For months she bore all the terrible tortures of cancer, from which she i could not be relieved. Poor Marx was frantic with grief, and his old enemy, insomnia, made life almost unbearable. In the midst of it all a grave attack of pleurisy, from which recovery seemed to be almost impossible, confined him to his bed for many weeks. His daughter Eleanor wrote of this time: “ It was a terrible time. In the large front room our little mother was lying, in the small room next to it ‘ Mohr ’ was also confined to his bed. And these two, so much accustomed THE LAST PHASE 315 to one another, so closely allied to each other, could not be together in the same room any longer. . . . “ 4 Mohr ’ recovered from his sickness for this once. Never shall I forget the morning when he felt strong enough to go into dear mother’s room. They were young once more to , gether — she a loving girl and he an adoring youth, who to gether entered upon life —■ not an old man wrecked by sickness and a dying old woman who took leave of each other.” In 1881 the Democratic Federation of Great Britain was * formed, mainly as a result of the activity of Mr. H. M. Hynd-f man. The programme of the Federation was radical-repub-' lican and quasi-Socialist, and it was not until three years later that it adopted a thorough-going Socialist programme and changed its name to the Social Democratic Federation. At the first meeting of the Democratic Federation, Mr. Hyndman pre- 5 sented copies of his book, England For All, to all present, a work remarkable for the fact that it contained the first attempt j to present in English an outline of the most important parts of Marx’s economic teachings. It was in fact largely drawn from Capital, which had not yet been translated into English.In view of Mr. Hyndman’s record during the nearly thirty years which have elapsed since then, as a brilliant, devoted and courageous expositor and advocate of Marx’s theories, it is interesting to note that he was distrusted and bitterly denounced by Marx in letters to Sorge, and others. Mr. Hyndman’s bourgeois affiliations, his friendship for Mazzini, and the fact that he had, only the year before, unsuccessfully contested the parliamentary division of Marylebone, as an independent can didate, were all factors in the prejudice with which Marx re-1 garded him. Marx felt slighted, moreover, that Mr. Hynd- \ man had not referred to him in his book by name, instead of \ anonymously as a 44 great German thinker.” Only the fact that these letters — never intended for publication — have been dragged from obscurity from time to time by unscrupulous crit ics, and made the basis of the most bitter attacks upon Mr. 316 KARL MARX Hyndman justifies this reference to them. Under all the cir cumstances, it was, perhaps, not unnatural that he should have been regarded by Marx as a “ political adventurer ” at that time, but by absolute and devoted loyalty to the cause for which Marx also gave his life, he has lived down the suspicion and proved how baseless it was. That Marx, were he alive to-day, would frankly repent every one of his bitter and unjustifiable words there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who knows anything of his nature. And to drag those bitter judgments from the oblivion of more than a quarter of a century, and use them as if they applied to the Hyndman of to-day, is to dis honour the memory of Marx himself. But although the publication of Mr. Hyndman’s book, and the founding of the Democratic Federation, provoked Marx to the anger indicated by these bitterly passionate and scornfully abusive letters, his gentle, suffering wife saw in them signs of an awakening interest in the ideas for which she and her be loved husband had so cheerfully sacrificed their lives. She re joiced in these things, and in an article about her husband writ ten by Mr. Bax for one of the magazines, even though Marx himself might be annoyed by the fancied slight by Mr. Hynd man and the errors of Mr. Bax. She was as cheerful in the torture of her lingering death as ever she had been in health, and laughed and joked in spite of everything. At the time of the German elections of 1881 she inquired with feverish anxiety for the results, and rejoiced as much as her husband or any of their friends at the victories of the Social Democrats. She saw in the onward sweep of her German comrades abun dant justification and reward for all the years of exile and suf fering, and was content. | On the second of December, 1881, she died, her last words I addressed to her husband. When Engels came in response to a hasty summons, he said, “ ‘ Mohr ’ is dead, too.” He knew well that Marx could not long survive the loss of his wife, THE LAST PHASE 3i7 the comrade of so many years of hardship and struggle. A few days later, they buried her in Highgate Cemetery, and as the .coffin was lowered, Marx tottered and would have fallen into the grave had not Engels caught him. A bent and broken old man, he tried to forget his grief by plunging once more into his work, hoping to finish Capital be fore his death. But he was sick and barely able to attend to the flood of correspondence which continued to pour in upon him from all parts of the world. There is one letter of this period which is of special interest to American readers because of the criticism it contains of Henry George and his well-known work, Progress and Poverty. A copy of the book was sent to him by Sorge, and he wrote:“ Before your copy of Henry George’s book reached me, I received two other copies. . . . For the present I must limit myself to expressing very briefly irty opinion of the book. The man is far behind the times in his theoretical views. He knows nothing about the nature of surplus-value, and so wastes his time, after the English manner, and in speculations which the English have left behind, about the relations of profit, rent, interest, and so on. His fundamental idea is that everything would be all right if ground rents were paid to the State. (You will find that kind of payment mentioned in the Communist Manifesto, among transitional measures). This view origi nated with the bourgeois economists, and it was next asserted — if we overlook a similar demand at the end of the XVIIIth century — by the first radical followers of Ricardo, soon after his death. I expressed myself in regard to it in 1847, the book which I wrote against Proudhon: ‘We know that the economists, such as Mill (Mill senior, not his son, John Stuart Mill, who has repeated it, but in a somewhat modified way), Cherbuliez, Hillditch, and others, have demanded that rent should be paid to the State so as to serve as a substitute for taxes. This is a frank statement of the hatred felt by the industrial capitalist for the landowner, who seems to him to be a useless, unnecessary member in the organism of Capitalist society.’ “ As already stated, we inserted this appropriation of ground 318 KARL MARX rent by the State among our many other demands, which, as also stated in the Manifesto, are self-contradictory, and must be such of necessity. , “ The first to turn this demand of the radical English bour geois economists into a Socialist panacea, to declare it as the solution of the antagonisms inherent in the present system of production, was Colins, a Belgian by birth, and formerly an officer of hussars under Napoleon. In the latter days of Guizot and in the early days of Napoleon le petit, he rendered the world happy by pouring out on it, from Paris, thick volumes upon this ‘ discovery ’ of his, as well as on the other discovery he made, viz.: that there is no God in existence, but an ‘ immor tal ’ human soul, and that animals have no gift of perception. For if they had one, he argued, they would also have a soul, and we would be cannibals, and then no kingdom of justice could be established on earth. His ‘ anti-landownership ’ theory as well as his soul, etc., theory, has been preached for years in the Paris monthly, Philosophie de I’Avenir by the few surviving followers of his, mostly Belgians. They call themselves ‘ Ra tional Collectivists ’ and have commended Henry George. “ After them, and along with them, this ‘ Socialism ’ has, among others, been threaded out into a thick volume by a block head by the name of Samter,1 a Prussian banker, and formerly collector of lotteries. “ All these ‘ Socialists,’ including Colins, have this in com mon, that they let wage-labour, and with it capitalist production, stand as before, and want to deceive the world that by turning ground rent into a tax paid to the State, all the evils of the capitalist system will disappear of themselves. The whole is merely a socialistically-fringed attempt to save the rule of Cap italism, and to establish it in fact on a still larger foundation than it has at present. “ This cloven hoof sticks out in a manner not to be mistaken in all declarations of Henry George. He is still less to be for given since he should have asked himself the question: ‘ How is it that in the United States, where, in comparison with civil ized Europe, the land was more accessible to the great mass of the people, and to a certain degree still is, that in this country the capitalist system, and the consequent servitude of the work ing class, have developed faster than in any other country? ’ 1 Phis is Adolf Samter, the economist. THE LAST PHASE 3i9 “ At the same time, George’s book and the sensation which it has created in your country have this significance, that it is the first, even if unsuccessful, attempt to cut loose from the or thodox political economy. “ Henry George seems, moreover, to be entirely ignorant of the history of the American Anti-Renters. Otherwise he is a writer of talent (he has also a good talent for Yankee puff) as his article on California in the Atlantic Monthly shows. He also has that repugnant arrogance and conceit which is so char acteristic of all panacea-hatchers of this kind.”The letter to Sorge from which this extract is taken bears the date of June 20, 1881, and was written in London. Marx tried hard during the summer to finish Capital, the monument he desired to erect to his wife’s memory, but he could make little progress. His physician persuaded him to go abroad ; again, and he consented only when it was urged that he would be very likely to gain the strength necessary to finish the second ; and third volumes of his cherished work. So, early in 1882, he ; went to Paris and Argenteuil, where he spent some weeks with his daughter and son-in-law, the Longuets. From there he went to the south of France, and thence to Algiers. The fates were against him. During the whole of the time he was away the weather was very bad, so that he derived no benefit from the change. At Mustapha (Algiers) he found a very capable physician and was treated with great kindness and every mark of respect at the hotel where he stayed, but he re turned to London worse than he left, rather than better. He f went then to Ventnor, in the Isle of Wight, where he spent the ; autumn and winter of 1882. Lonely there, and hungry for the s love of children, he begged that his favourite grandchild, ) Jean Longuet, now a prominent Socialist journalist in France, I might be sent to him, and this was done. He seemed to gain strength at Ventnor, but was sorely dis tressed to receive word that his eldest daughter, Madame Lon guet, was ill. With the worry occasioned by this distressing news he became once more a victim of insomnia. Then came
320
KARL MARX word that she was out of danger and he wrote to his youngest daughter, Eleanor, that there was no cause for worry. His old courage and cheerfulness, in a measure, returned. But within an hour of the time that she received her father’s letter — on January 8, 1883—Eleanor received a telegram saying that Jenny had died very suddenly. Knowing what a terrible blow this would be to her father, she hastened at once to him, wondering all through the long journey from London to Ventnor how she could break the force of the blow. He read her message from her face and said simply, “ Our little Jenny is dead!” He would have no ministration or comforting; nothing would satisfy him except that she hasten at once to Paris to care for the motherless children, and within half an hour she was on her way back to London and thence to Paris. A few days after that Marx returned home to die. For about six weeks he was in a very critical state, and then there were apparent signs of improvement, as if the once iron con stitution had in some mysterious manner regained some of its old strength. The doctors — both the family physician and specialists who had been called in — believed that he would once more recover and cheat the grave for years longer. “ If we can maintain his strength by nourishment,” they said, “ there is a good chance to make him well and strong again.” These false hopes inspired his friends, and laughter was once more heard in that household from which its happy sound had so long been banished. He talked once more of finishing Capital, and even Engels believed that he might.It was not to be, however. On the afternoon of the four teenth of March, 1883, shortly before two o’clock, the crisis came, and Engels was at once summoned. He found Eleanor and the good Helene Demuth in tears; Marx had gone from the bedroom to his study, they said, where, seated in his arm chair, he seemed half-asleep, as though he were losing con sciousness. Engels went to the study at once, and found his Karl Marx's Grave in Highgate Cemetery
321 old friend, not half asleep, but fully and forever, with a smile upon his lips. Karl Marx was dead. ••••••# 1 • Three days later they laid his body to rest in the grave where that of his wife had been laid fifteen months previously. Only a small handful of mourners gathered around the grave that Saturday afternoon to hear Engels, his voice broken by sobs, pay the last tender and affectionate tribute to the memory of his great friend. But Marx is immortal, and to-day the So cialists of all lands, millions strong, regard that grave in High- gate Cemetery as a sacred shrine. The simple stone tablet at the head of the grave bears this inscription:
And Karl Marx Born May 5, 1818; died March 14, 1883. And Harry Longuet Their Grandson Born July 4, 1878; died March 20, 1883. And Helene Demuth Born January 1, 1823; died November 4, 1890. XIV
HIS ACHIEVEMENTS rA prominent English Marxian Socialist has spoken of Marx with a disciple’s unrestrained enthusiasm as “ the Aristotle of the nineteenth century.” The comparison can scarcely be called obvious or felicitous, though it is by no means so un reasonable as at first sight it seems. The range and pro fundity of the German thinker’s philosophical and economic studies compel something of the same admiration that is uni versally evoked by the genius of the great Stagirite. Not only so, but the two names are inevitably associated because Aris totle clearly anticipated the great concept of the historical process which is rightly regarded as the supreme discovery of Marx. It has been said that most of Aristotle’s discoveries have lain dormant and required rediscovery in modern times, and it might almost be said that the materialistic conception of history, which is Marx’s chief contribution to modern thought, dwarfing all his achievements as a political economist, is an Aristotelian discovery rediscovered in modern times by Marx. Such a description would, however, do less than justice to Marx. Aristotle was fully alive to the dependence of social and po litical institutions upon economic conditions. He observed, for example, that, just as the food of animals determines their habits as gregarious or solitary, so are men’s lives different in the pastoral, the hunting and fishing, and the agricultural stages of society.1 And when grouping the different types of democ racy the basis of his grouping is the economic conditions pre- 1 Politics, I, 8. 322 HIS ACHIEVEMENTS Yüklə 1,7 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|