Karl Marx; his life and work

323

vailing.1 But although Aristotle thus clearly perceived the dependence of political and social institutions upon economic conditions, it was left for Marx to discover in that relation a great law of historical development and a mode of historical interpretation, a discovery which has revolutionized the methods of the historian and the political economist.

Perhaps it is because Aristotle has become a symbol of unfathomable wisdom, as it were, that to compare with him a modern philosopher like Marx shocks us, as though the thing were impious. Aristotle belongs to the gods. We feel that Engels was far happier, when, speaking over the open grave of his friend in Highgate Cemetery, he linked his name with that of Charles Darwin. Not only were Marx and Darwin contemporaries, but their achievements form a somewhat striking parallel; Darwin explored the laws of organic evolution and Marx explored the laws of social evolution. Darwin explained man’s being and Marx explained his social institutions.

Engels made another estimate of his beloved and revered colleague. Within a few hours of the event, he wrote to Liebknecht describing Marx’s death. “ The greatest mind of the second half of our century ” was the phrase in which he expressed his estimate of Marx’s place in history. It is interesting to know what position among the immortals was assigned to Marx by the man who knew him as no other man could, his alter ego, but we need not concern ourselves with it. Whether Karl Marx was actually the greatest mind of the second half of the wonderful nineteenth century, when so many great minds flourished, we need not trouble to consider. It is enough to know that he belongs with the great minds of all ages; that his name is imperishably emblazoned upon history’s

deathless page. ^ ^

Marx’s greatness is now universally admitted. It is not seriously questioned by anyone. But the real secret and source of

1 Idem, VI, 4.


3²4

KARL MARX

his greatness is very little understood. To the world at large, his title to fame rests altogether upon his work as a political economist. It is as the author of Das Kapital that he is best known, and that work is regarded as doing for its author what the Wealth of Nations did for Adam Smith. Curiously enough, his far more important achievements, upon which his fame must ultimately rest, are almost entirely ignored. Without in any manner belittling his work as an economist, it may be said with confidence that either his discovery of the materialistic conception of history or his practical work as one of the builders of a great international movement would be a surer and better title to enduring fame.

Marx and Engels — for their names are quite inseparable — were not the first to recognize that our political and juridical institutions, our philosophic ideas and our concepts of justice and morality are rooted in the material conditions of life, which in turn depend upon the methods of production prevailing — the means of wealth production at our command. Aristotle, as we have already seen, perceived this truth with great clearness, and a multitude of other witnesses could be cited. The scientific greatness of Marx lies in the fact that he gathered existing ideas into a synthesis of inestimable value, working them consciously and systematically into a comprehensive formula. His work in this respect is very similar to that of Darwin, each made epoch-making contributions to modern thought through the development of creative syntheses of existing ideas.

Although some of the more narrow-minded among the followers of Marx have protested that this materialistic interpretation of history is inseparable from Socialism, in the sense that it cannot be accepted by those who do not at the same time accept the whole philosophy and programme of Socialism, the fact is that its acceptance is by no means confined to the believers in Socialism. A great scientific discovery of such magnitude, universal in its application, could not be limited to the creed of any party or movement. So it has become one of the commonplaces

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

of modern thought that the evolution of production exercises a determining influence upon our ideas of justice and morality, and through them upon our laws and customs. The materialistic conception of history has thus become the common possession of science, and is not to be confined to the bounds of any propaganda. People may differ as to the application of the theory and the conclusions to be drawn from it, but it is not disputed that the conditions of wealth production definitely, and, in the course of time, effectively, influence human thought and institutions. Much has been said concerning the “ weakening of the influence of Marx upon the Socialist movement ” by critics who have attached undue importance to the differences which have developed among the leading contemporary Socialist thinkers regarding the application of the theory to this or that event or historical epoch. They might just as well urge the same criticism against Darwin. Both the Darwinian biological theory of evolution and the Marxian sociological theory of evolution are disputed in detail, alike by critics and adherents, but their fundamental ideas are not challenged. It is no detraction from the merit of either of the great thinkers to admit that his work needs revision in the light of the fresh knowledge that has been acquired.

It is this theory of the determining part which economic conditions play in the historical process which constitutes the greatest and grandest of all the achievements of Marx. Had he done nothing else than develop this theory he would have been certain of a place among the greatest thinkers of all time. Next in importance to it — if we may be permitted to separate them — comes the discovery of what may be termed the mechanism of the process, the theory of the class struggle. When we have established the fact that the historical movement is dominated by economic forces, the next step is to comprehend the manner in which that movement proceeds, the methods by which the economic forces direct its course. Marx and Engels were not by any means the first to perceive that all through the fabric

32 6

KARL MARX

of history runs the thread of an unceasing struggle of hostile classes. Many other writers, both French and English, had seen that quite clearly.

What distinguishes the Marxian theory of class struggles is the idea of a constant economic motive acting in all the successive struggles of classes of which history is the record. Instead of regarding the sway of the various ruling classes as wicked conspiracies against justice and righteousness, the Marxian theory shows each dominant class to have been in its turn a necessary instrument of human progress, the product of economic conditions; its rise and fall being alike necessary and inevitable events in the evolution of mankind. History never stands still for long, and every new class which gains the mastery of society pushes outward and forward the bounds of man’s kingdom in the universe, until necessity evolves the class to take away its power in like manner as it wrested the power from a previously dominant class.

What this means can best be comprehended by a comparison of the manner in which the older Socialists of the Utopian school regarded the class warfare in society with that in which it is treated in the Communist Manifesto. In all the literature of the Utopian school of Socialists the struggle is invariably described as being between Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice. Their attack upon the dominant class always took the form of moral condemnation. But in the Manifesto, as we have seen in an earlier chapter, a vigorous description of the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is accompanied by a glowing tribute to the historical accomplishments of the bourgeoisie such as few of its own apologists ever penned. This recognition of the historical role of the capitalist class stands out as the most distinctive feature of the Manifesto, and of the scientific Socialism of which it is the first clear expression.

The objective of the struggle between classes is always economic gain. The dominant class compels the subjected

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

327

class of producers to surrender its surplus proauct in forms varying with the economic conditions. The slaves gave a surplus of labour as compared with that required for their own maintenance. It was very easy to visualize the manner of their exploitation. But in the capitalist system of society this is not the case. There is no open surrender of surplus labour. The system of wages obtains and the workers sell their labour-power in an apparently free market where equal values are exchanged for each other. But the workers are exploited, nevertheless; they have to yield up to the dominant class a surplus as truly as did any of the subjected classes of antiquity. To understand the present form of society, therefore, and the class struggle by which it is characterized which goes on beneath the surface of its institutions of apparent freedom, the hidden form of exploitation must be revealed. That was the great task which Marx undertook in Das Kapital.

He concluded that the equivalent to the surplus labour of the slave producer which the modern wage-earner surrenders to the ruling class is the surplus value which he produces over and above the price paid to him by his employer for his labour- power. The wages which the worker receives, no matter whether in the form of time or piece wages, is not the equivalent of a certain amount of work done, or value produced, but simply the price paid by the employer for the labour-power of the worker, which labour-power the employer buys at its full value in the market and uses up just as he uses up his raw materials, with a view to getting a surplus value over and above the price paid for the labour-power. The constant effort to obtain surplus value is the raison d’etre of capitalist society. Without this surplus value as the objective of production the capitalist mode of production could not exist.

Nor is that all. Not only is surplus value the life of modern capitalist society, it is also the underlying cause of all its inherent struggles and its progressive development. It is the struggle for surplus value, manifesting itself in the competition

KARL MARX

of members of the employing class for preeminence, and the deeper and more bitter struggle between employers and employed over questions of wages and hours, which is the compelling force that drives the development of the system to its fullest capacity. It forces the improvement of the technique of production and the accumulation of great masses of capital, so that the struggle tends to become one of the great mass of the people, reduced to the status of proletarians, against a relatively small class of exploiters. There comes a point in this struggle at which, in order 'to save themselves from utter and complete degradation and servitude, the exploited class of proletarians must expropriate the capitalist class, the monopolists of the means of life. Production will then cease to be carried on for the sake of the surplus value rendered by a class below to a class above. Its place will be taken by cooperative production with no thought of class exploitation.

Now, it is quite true that within the ranks of the Socialist followers of Marx there has arisen a school of so-called “ Revisionists ” who reject the Marxian theory of surplus value, which fact has given rise to a good deal of rejoicing on the part of the opponents of Socialism, who see in this “ Crisis of Marxism,” as it has been called, signs of the impending dissolution of Social Democracy. But these Socialist critics of Marx do not deny that the workers are exploited, and that in consequence of that fact there is a war between the wage-workers and ,the capitalists. Still less do they deny that the capitalistic economy is one of surplus value, and that the struggle for surplus value is the propelling force of its development. In other words, they do not reject the sociological aspects of the theory of surplus value; what they reject is merely Marx’s explanation of the manner in which the surplus value is derived, not the fact of its derivation nor the function it fills in the evolutionary process. They are agreed that the objective of capitalist production is surplus value, and also that the struggle for surplus value is at once the cause of the class warfare that goes on in

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

329

present society, and of the ever-advancing improvement in the technique of production.

Thus we have three distinct, but correlated, discoveries which together form the body of the Marxian philosophy. First, the materialistic conception of history; second, the role of class struggles in social evolution; third, surplus value as the explanation of the struggle of the classes in present society, and the cause of that expansion of capitalism which must inevitably lead to another form of social organization. These three discoveries taken together constitute a philosophical synthesis to which the name “ Marxism ” has been applied, just as the name “ Darwinism ” has been applied to the body of Darwin’s teaching. And it is this philosophy which, more than anything else, entitles Marx to a place among the great thinkers of all ages.

In particular Marx belongs with the great evolutionists of the nineteenth century. In the Pantheon of history he belongs with Darwin and Spencer and the other great evolutionists. His claim to be regarded as the first of the scientific Socialists is not vitiated by the fact that at times he seemed to lapse back into Utopian habits of thought. It is quite true, for example, that at times his thought harked back to the crude Utopian notion of a sudden and violent revolution. We know that he cherished the illusion that the Crimean War would precipitate such a revolution all over Europe and usher in a new social order, and it would be easy to cite other examples of violent I contradiction between his utterances and his philosophy of “ rev- j olutionary evolution.” The fact is that his illusions concerning the probable effects of the Crimean War, and other similar utterances, can only be regarded as lapses into the Utopianism from which his work was to emancipate the movement.

All students of the psychology of revolutionary movements and their leaders are familiar with the exuberant and excessive optimism common to them, and which seems to be a necessary condition of their existence. Marx admirably illustrates this

33°

KARL MARX

temperament, and it is probable that without it he would have been unable to do the work he did. Liebknecht tells the story of how, in 1852, Marx was greatly excited by the exhibition of a model of an electric locomotive drawing a railroad train, in a Regent Street shop window. What if the reactionaries were triumphant for the moment? Fools! Could they not see that a new revolution had begun already, that a new and invincible revolutionist had appeared upon the scene of action ? The great power, King Steam, whose coming had made the revolution of the last century, was now overthrown by a far mightier power, maker of a far greater revolution. Why doubt the speedy overthrow of capitalism? Was not all the force of science enlisted for that purpose? Capitalism simply could not stand the electric locomotive! In a little while all the steam engines would disappear, and the world would be dominated by electricity. The Revolution had begun with the advent of the whirling little model in the Regent Street shop window. Almost sixty years have past since then; electricity has made rapid strides, and is revolutionizing the industrial processes of the world, but King Steam is not yet completely overthrown; few railways are even yet operated by electricity, though steady progress is being made in that direction; and capitalism seems to assimilate the new force without any great trouble. That electricity is revolutionizing the world has been a commonplace for a generation. Marx was right in regarding it as a great revolutionist, but he was rather mistaken as to the speed and duration of the revolution. Electricity very admirably typifies the “ revolutionary evolution ” which was the basis of Marx’s profoundest thought.

Next in importance to his scientific achievements ranks the practical work of Marx in the development of a great international political movement of the proletariat. It is not by reason of his scientific discoveries that “ Marxism ” and “ Socialism ” have become practically synonymous and interchangeable terms

-3. f)

|(j2S)A ^AWx^

L^<* \^¹- r^^v

Karl Marx

(From a photograph given to Mrs. Beesly in i8pi)

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

33¹

throughout the civilized world. It is rather because the Socialist movement of the world partakes of the temper and spirit of Marx. Not only did Marx provide the movement of the proletariat with weapons forged upon the anvil of his wonderful intellect, but he also planned its campaigns and outlined its tactics and policies. Working under enormous disadvantages, very often far removed from the actual battlefield, and living in exile, he nevertheless managed to impress his thought upon the movement and to dominate it completely. That he made mistakes is true, but when all the circumstances are taken into account it is surprising that there should be so few of these of any serious moment.

When he wrote to his friend Bracke, in the letter which ac- j companied his criticism of the Gotha Programme, that “ every j step of real movement is of more importance than a dozen pro- j grammes,” Marx gave us the key to all his practical work in j connection with the development of a political movement of the I proletariat. If we except a few instances of minor importance I when the bitterness of personal controversy warped his judg- f ment, all his political life was consistent with the thought that the actual movement of the workers should never be subor- ! dinated to theoretic considerations.

Marx was, in fact, a good deal of an opportunist, and of the j two wings of the present day Socialist movement, popularly j denoted as “ Opportunist ” and “ Impossibilist ” respectively, | the former is much more truly Marxian than the latter, at least j in its fundamental principles. In its application of those principles the opportunist wing of the present day Socialist movement may at times cease to be Marxist, or even Socialist of any description, being scarcely or not at all distinguishable from bourgeois reformers. Theoretically they are Marxists as regards political tactics, but Marx, opportunist that he was, never ceased to be first and foremost a Socialist and a revolutionist.

That Marx can be fairly described as an opportunist is abundantly shown by the statement in the letter to Bracke, and by

332 KARL MARX

the efforts he made through the International to unite the workers upon a programme of practical reforms. The Marx t of this later period was in many important respects a very different person from the Marx of 1848. Then, in the Corn's, munist Manifesto, he could treat such reforms as the Ten i Hours Act with cold reserve, but in 1864, in the inaugural address of the International, he described that particular reform as a great moral victory, an important step toward the regeneration of the working class. The Manifesto makes it perfectly plain that in 1847 Marx viewed that and other reforms in quite another light. Then he could write that the “ real fruit ” of such victories was not an actual improvement in the conditions of life enjoyed by the workers, but the “ ever expanding union of the workers ”—a gain in class solidarity. The thought is almost pitifully immature compared to that of seventeen years later.

In like manner, in 1851, in The Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx referred in a very disparaging manner to the English Coopera-

_I

tive Societies, but in the inaugural address of the International
the development of the Cooperative Societies is celebrated as a
great achievement of the working class, a victory in fact.

These are illustrations of the manner in which, while stead-

fastly adhering to the fundamental idea of the necessity of
a working-class party — an idea derived from his conception of
the historic role of the working class and the existence of a great
class struggle in society — his thought was more mature, and
his political wisdom had greatly ripened. Socialism, on its prac-
tical, political side, must conform to the thought of this later pe-
riod, not to the youthful and immature expressions of the Com-
munist Manifesto, if it would claim the sanction of Marx’s ma-
turest thought. The sagacity and practical statesmanship mani-
fested by the efforts to unite the radical elements of the middle
class with the workers, under the political conditions then pre-
vailing in Europe, and the wise philosophic comprehension of
those movements of the working class which, while stopping far

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

333

short of Socialism in their aims, materially advanced its interests and fighting powers, contrast in a most striking manner with some of the expressions of a raw, crude radicalism, which Marx manifested in his youth, but learned to regard with contempt.

From the very beginning of his political life Marx set himself against those who would make theoretical agreement a condition for practical association. That was his attitude in connection with the Communist League, and it remained his attitude throughout his life. Thus at Cologne, in 1848, he.and Engels joined the existing Democratic society, consisting of middle-class radicals, and did not attempt to form a new society with a theoretical basis which they could approve. The same attitude was adopted in connection with the International, and his advice in connection with the Gotha congress of the German Socialists that a simple agreement for common action should be concluded, leaving the formulation of a programme of principles in abeyance for a time, since the two factions could not then agree upon a satisfactory programme, shows that Marx held consistently to that position. It is impossible, of course, to say with certainty that Marx, were 'he alive to-day, would do thus and so, but it seems a fair inference from the facts of his life that in England, for example, his sympathies would be with the Labour Party, despite its lack of a satisfactory theoretical programme, rather than with the Social Democratic Party, which, despite its admirable theoretical programme, practically considered, remains a mere sect.1

It scarcely needs saying that Marx and his great coworker Engels were far from indifferent to the value and impor-

¹ Perhaps it is prudent to explain here that this conjecture must not he regarded as implying agreement with all that the Labour Party s representatives in Parliament do — or with their non-action. It is quite certain that Marx would be a thorn in the flesh to many of the Labour Party leaders. What is meant is that the Labour Party in England seems to represent the real movement of the workers which Marx regarded as being vastly more important than theoretical correctness.


334

KARL MARX

tance of a correct theoretical basis for the propaganda of the revolutionary proletarian movement. Those impatient opportunists who seek to prove the contrary by reference to the attitude of Marx in the practical movement, and by citing passages which emphasize the importance of the actual movement over all theoretical considerations, must either be very disingenuous or stupidly blind to the consistency and vigour with which he insisted upon the necessity of a correct theoretical understanding as an essential part of the equipment of whoever aspired to a position of leadership in the working-class movement. None ever recognized more fully than Marx that a correct understanding of the laws of social development and of political economy is imperatively necessary as a foundation for the formulation of i correct policies for the practical movement. All that can with truth be said is that he recognized the futility of expecting or insisting upon either complete theoretical understanding or agreement as a condition of party membership or of practical 1 cooperation in the movement.

His opposition to the Gotha Programme shows clearly enough the importance which Marx attached to correct theory. In any country where Socialism is a growing political power it is quite evident that only a minority of those who by their votes proclaim their adherence to the movement could give a satisfactory exposition of its theoretical basis. The great majority of the Socialist voters of Germany, France, England or America, it is safe to say, know little or nothing of the materialistic conception of history, and have only the vaguest possible notions of the theory of surplus value. They are drawn to the movement because they see in its programme hope of relief from the evils of their lot, and because the ideal, the ultimate aim, of the movement attracts them.

In many ways the creation of the International stands out as the greatest achievement of Marx upon the field of practical politics. And the decline of that organization was so rapid and ignominious, its life so short and its real accomplishments so

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS