Karl Marx; his life and work

346

KARL MARX

hungry forties ” shows that it was generally used and understood.

Marx’s claim to originality in connection with the development of the theory, considered as a matter of political economy, rests upon his analysis of the method of extracting the surplus- value from the labour-power of the workers. And though that is no small contribution to the development of political economy, and entitles him to a place among the great masters of the science, such as Sir William Petty, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, and others, it is less important, upon the whole, than his masterly development of the sociological side of surplus-value, the role it fills in social evolution. Great economist that he was, Marx was first and foremost a sociologist. His treatment of the economics of surplus-value may be rejected, even by Socialists, but his exposition of the part surplus-value plays in social evolution stands as one of the greatest contributions to human thought and knowledge.

Shortly before his death, when he was at last convinced that he could not hope for recovery, Marx called the attention of his youngest daughter, Eleanor, to the unfinished and fragmentary manuscripts of the second and third volumes of Capital. He spoke of them regretfully, but without a trace of bitterness, as a man who felt that he had failed in his life’s work. He directed that the manuscripts should be turned over to Engels. “ Perhaps he will be able to make something of them,” he said. How skilfully and faithfully Engels dealt with the mass of manuscript fragments is known to every reader of the two volumes, the title pages of which bear the characteristically modest legend, “ Edited by Frederick Engels.” Volume II was published in 1885, but Volume III did not appear until the end of 1894.

The share of Engels in these two volumes was much larger and more important than that suggested by the title pages; he was more than an editor, as that term is usually employed, and might better be described as part-author. It is almost impos-

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS 347

sible to say where the work of Engels joins that of Marx, so perfectly are they blended. No other man, it is safe to say, could possibly have accomplished the task which Engels accomplished under the difficulties which he describes in the preface to the third volume. Dr. George Adler has well said, in ' the Arbeiterzeitung, of Vienna:

“ The publication of the second and third volume of Capital was the last great gift of Engels to the proletariat. We speak of it as a ‘ publication,’ but it was really a new creation; in spite of the fact that Engels, with that modesty which is only the possession of great spirits, always belittled his activity as compared to that of his friend. He has, as no other could have done, followed the course of thought through the fragments, extracts and observations that were left behind, and completed the last two volumes of Capital. The greater part of the material was, so far as the form of the language was concerned, merely hastily thrown together, a simple jotting down of the thoughts as they passed through the mind of Marx — not arranged; in some cases almost completely worked out, in others merely fixed by catchwords, partly German, partly English and French, often almost illegibly written. To follow out the method laid down in the first book, which dealt with the process of production in a masterly analysis of the process of circulation of capital, and develop from the material left behind the further course of surplus-value, the division of profit into rent and entrepreneur wage, and the doctrine of ground rent, was a task that not only required the highest physical exertion, but a brain power not inferior to that of the original composer. Engels was the only one capable of this, for no other living person was so in accord with the author in the method of reasoning and the views, to the smallest details, of the relations involved in the development of capitalism. In the last two volumes of Capital Engels erected to the memory of Marx a more enduring monument than any cast in bronze, and, without so intending, carved upon it in imperishable letters his own name as well. Just as in life Marx and Engels were inseparable, so Capital cannot bear the name of either alone, but must always be known in the history of political economy as the Capital or Marx and Engels. And although Engels has marked with brackets and his initials,

34§

KARL MARX

F. E., the places where he has ‘ taken the actual material left by Marx and developed it to the necessary conclusion in as much as possible the Marxian spirit,’ yet no man can ever say which came from the spirit of Marx and which from the spirit of Engels.”

After Marx’s death there was a general tendency among European economists, particularly those of Germany and Austria, to discredit him by making it appear that he had taken his theory of value from Rodbertus, and was little better than a charlatan. So, in the preface to the second volume of Capital, Engels issued a rather sensational challenge to these critics and defamers of Marx. If, as they claimed, there was nothing new in Marx, that Rodbertus had long before taught all that was worthy of note in Marx’s teachings, Engels suggested that by the aid of the writings of Rodbertus, supplemented by the two volumes of Marx’s work, they ought to be able to answer the conundrum he propounded to them. This was the conundrum: “ Explain how an equal average rate of profit

can and must come about, not only without a violation of the law of value, but by means of it.” Let them see if they could provide the answer before the publication of Marx’s third volume, in which, they were told, the answer would be found.

This challenge gave rise to a veritable international competition, which at times degenerated into a sort of guessing contest. Some of the most fantastic notions in the whole history of political economy were seriously offered as solutions of the problem, but, as Engels shows in the preface to the third volume, the only persons who came near to a correct solution were some of Marx’s own followers, who relied, not upon Rodbertus, but upon Marx. When at last the third volume appeared, after repeated delays — which had caused more than one critic gravely to suggest that there was no third volume, that Engels was deliberately fooling his readers in order to save the reputation of Marx — the critics were so staggered

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS 349

by what seemed to them to be a serious modification of the views expressed in the earlier volumes, if not an absolute abandonment of them, that they raised the cry that Marx had in the third volume flatly denied the theories propounded in the first. They were rather discomfited when it was shown that Marx had made elaborate notes for the third volume, and laid down all its main conclusions, long before the first volume was published. Indeed, he had done much of it before he began the actual writing of the first volume. Under these circumstances it was impossible for them to contend that Marx had consciously modified his position; that he had, to use the words of one of these critics, “ reasoned himself out of his theory of value and so, like the honest thinker he was, abandoned it.” No. There was another reason — Marx had involved himself in a serious and glaring contradiction. Here was the end of the Marxian system, a ludicrous impasse.

It would lead us too far from the purpose of this volume to enter at length into the merits of this controversy, and the reader must refer to the literature specially devoted to the subject.1 It is pertinent to this attempt to evaluate the achievements of Marx, however, to consider briefly the charge that he involved himself in an absolute contradiction. We cannot ignore a question which resolves itself into an inquiry whether Marx was really a philosopher or a fool. There certainly appears, at first sight, to be a distinct modification in the third volume of the position taken in the first, and detached passages can be very easily quoted to sustain that view. Indeed,

¹ By far the strongest statement in support of the contention that there exists a vital contradiction between the first and third volumes of Capital is Bohm-Bawerk’s Karl Marx and the Close of His System, which has been published in an English translation. On the other side of the question, accessible to the English reader, may be mentioned L. B. Boudin’s The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, and H. M. Hyndman’s Economics of Socialism (Fourth Edition, London, 1909), in both of which the subject is treated. Of course, Vol. Ill of Capital is indispensable.

350

KARL MARX

Marx himself calls attention to the fact.1 But the modification amounts to no more than this: In the earlier volumes, in

order to elucidate the manner in which production is carried on for the purpose of securing surplus-value, he takes the individual capitalist and his relation to his employees, but in the' third volume he is no longer dealing with the individual capitalist. Having shown how surplus-value is in general realized, he now proceeds to deal with the entire social capital and the partition of the total surplus-value produced by the entire working class of the nation. Failure to recognise this lies, in the judgment of the present writer, at the bottom of most of the concern over the “ great contradiction ” in Marx’s theory. Instead of recognizing that in passing from the simple to the complex certain new factors have to be encountered and duly allowed for, much as the practical engineer knows that the abstract mathematical law of the parallelogram of the forces can be applied only by making allowances for friction, resistance, and so on,2 critics persist in regarding the problem of the partition of the total surplus-value derived from the unpaid labour of all the workers, among all the various capitals employed, from this simple point of view of the individual capitalist and his relations to his own employees.

The so-called Revisionists within the Socialist movement in Germany and elsewhere, despite a not unnatural tendency to depreciate Marx and exalt themselves as his superiors, have rendered great service to the memory of Marx by throwing the strong light of criticism upon his theories and revealing their strength. As Marx was human and fallible, the Revisionists have naturally been able to detect flaws and errors in his work, but these are surprisingly few and small in view of the scope and magnitude of his work. They have shown that he overrated both the rate and the extent of capitalist concentration.

¹ Capital, Vol. Ill, page 194. English translation.

² Hyndman, Economics of Socialism (Fourth Edition) page viii.

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

35i

So much all except those fanatical “ Marxists ” who seek to make Marx a sort of Socialist Pope, clothed with infallibility, will cheerfully admit. Of course, some of these critics have themselves been misled into believing that wealth is much more widely distributed than it is. Statistics relating to the number of shareholders in companies and corporations, and the number of bank depositors, are particularly deceptive and hide the real facts as completely as if they were designed for that purpose and no other.

The concentration of wealth and industrial capital may not proceed as rapidly as Marx believed it would, but that it does proceed admits of no reasonable doubt. The accumulation of immense private fortunes, and the growth of great trusts and monopolies are facts which admit of no other interpretation. Only in the domain of agricultural industry is there a well marked tendency in an opposite direction. The great bonanza farms are giving place to relatively small farms. Marx unquestionably predicted the opposite of this — the success of great factory farms which would entirely crush out the small farms. Still, as several Socialists, including the present writer, have shown, there is a very real concentration going on in connection with our agricultural industry, though it takes forms entirely undreamed by Marx. The apparently free and independent farmers are more and-more dependent upon railroad companies, elevator companies, canning companies, trust- owned creameries, and so on. Despite this, however, it is f undeniable that Marx made a great mistake — perhaps the! greatest of his mistakes—-in predicting the rapid extinction of the small farm.

It may also be freely admitted that there is some reason to t believe that he was mistaken in his belief that the small shop- ' keepers and other classes of the petty bourgeoisie would soon become extinct. Petty investors and small storekeepers undoubtedly do persist, and even increase in numbers. What the , critics who gloat over this fact fail to perceive is that petty [


352

KARL MARX

retailers, mere attendants upon the city proletariat, are themselves little more than proletarians in everything but name. And the same may be said concerning the petty trades. No one who is at all familiar with the subject will contend that the vast majority of these small stores and petty industries yield to those engaged in them much, if any, more than the ordinary wage- earner receives. Nor is their position more secure than that of the average industrial proletariat, for they are always at the mercy of the great commercial and industrial concerns which are ever alert to seize anything that these gleaners of the fields may gather, if it be worth seizing. And these facts give to this class common political interests with the proletariat. Hence, the practical outcome is not, after all, very different from that which Marx foretold.1

«•••••« ••

When all is said that can be said concerning the mistakes of Marx, he remains a great historic figure of world-wide importance. Whatever modifications of his theories may be rendered necessary by capitalist development, he must always be regarded as the real founder of modern scientific Socialism. His name rises like a great beacon in the modern world, a beacon which illumines millions of men and women in all the lands which capitalism has touched with its blight. He took the chaotic and despised elements of proletarian revolt and made of them the greatest political movement in history. With a fidelity and whole-heartedness equalled only by his great genius and learning he served the working class and made its cause and its struggle his own. And to-day, more than a quarter of a century after his death, the international movement of the proletariat is inspired by his great cry:

“ Working men of all countries, Unite! ”

¹ For a more elaborate treatment of this subject the reader is referred to my Socialism, a Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles (New and Revised Edition, 1909), Chapters V. and VI.


INDEX

A

Adams, Charles Francis, 321.

Adx.es, Dr. Geobge, 20, 347.

Allan, William, 258.

Alliance de la Demooratie Social- iste, 273, 286, 297.

Annecke, Lieut., 162, 168. Anti-despotic Conqbess, 306. Anti-Semitism, 25.

Applegabth, Robert, 257, 288. Abbeiter Bildunqsvebein, 94, 95, 100, 139, 189, 196, 261. Abbeitebzeituno, of Vienna, 347. Abistotle, Marx compabed to, 322. Austrian Theory of Marginal Utility, 344.

Avelino, Db. Edward, 195.

Avelino, Eleanor Marx, 19.

B

Babouef, 77.

Baden Rebellion, 168.

Bakunin, Michael, 68, 70, 73, 77, 91, 156, 243, 253, 273, 289, 297, 300.

Appeal to the SIrvs, 154. charged with being b spy, 152. defends Herwegh against Marx, 152.

expelled by the International, 300. joins the International, 286. sketch of his history, 282.

Babbie, M. Maltman, 15, 274, 300. Babthelmy, 173, 176, 177, 184, 193.

Bauer, Bruno, 35, 54, 60, 61, 63, 65, 71, 75.

goes to University of Bonn, 51. characterized, 57. letter, 59, 61, 62.

Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, 62.

Baueb, Edgar, 191.

Bauer, Eduabd, 62.

Bauer, Heinrich, 94.

Bavaria Rebellion, 168.

Bax, Ernest Belfort, 15, 316.

Bebel, August, 251, 291.

Beckeb, Db., 175.

Becker, John Philip, 271, 280, 288. Beesly, Prof. E. S., 191, 262. Bernstein, Eduabd, 13, 102. Bernstein, Henby, 77.

Bismabck, Pbince Otto von,

Lothar Bucher and efforts to entrap Marx, 233. promotes Franco-Prussian War, 335. Blanc, Louis, 131, 132, 184, 223. Blind, Karl, 239.

Blum,. Robebt, 157.

Bohm Bawerk, 342, 349.

Bolte, F., 300.

Borkheim, Sigismund, 296.

Boudin, L. B., 15, 349.

Bracke, Mabx writes on Gotha Programme to, 331.

Bradlaugh, Charles, 199.

Bright, John, 225.

Brisbane, Albert, 74, 89, 149. characterization of Marx, 150.


354

INDEX

Bucher, Lothar, 199, 202, 233, 23S, 247, 296.

Buchner, Ludwio, 280, 281.

Burgers, 175.

B'dbkli, Karl, 280.

C

Cabet, Etienne, 68, 93, 97.

Texas colony, 98.

Voyage en Icarie, 99.

Cameron, A. C., 288.

Cavoub, Camillo Benso di, 201 Chartism, 135, 144.

Civil War in America, 219.

Cobden, Richard, 225.

Commune of Paris, 294,335, 336. Communism, Earlier meaning of, 97. Communist Alliance, 176, 179. Communist Leaoue, 94, 97, 106, 255, 233.

Communist Manifesto, 102, 104, 107109, 131, 135, 173, 178, 245, 248, 255, 265, 267, 277, 317, 318, 326, 332, 336.

Communists, Cologne Trial, 175. CoNSIDERANT, VICTOR, 128.

Cooperative Societies, Marx and, 332. Crimean War, the, 329.

D

Dammer, Dr. Otto, 226.

Dana, Charles Anderson, 187. Daniel, Dr., 175.

Darwin and Marx, 200, 323, 329. Darwinism and Marxism compared, 325, 329.

Dawson, W. H., 20.

Democratic Federation of Great Britain, 315.

Demuth, Helene, 81, 170, 208, 320. Deutsche Brusseuer Zeitung, 88. Deutsche JahrrScher, 63, 66. Deutsche-FranzSsische Jahrbucher, 68, 76, 77, 118, 130.

Dietzoen, Joseph, 247.

Dombronyi, Kate, 15.

Droucxe, Ernst, 145.

Duncker, Max, 250.

Dupont, Euoene, 280.

E

Eccarius, George, 139, 154, 184, 228, 258, 262, 280, 281, 288, 301. Echtermater,

Hallesche Jahrbucher, 63.

Eger, Bertha, 15.

Ehrhardt, 175.

Eichhorn, minister of education, 60, 61, 62. Engels, Friedrich, 54, 69, 70, 74, 120, 227, 239, 243, 245, 276, 299, 302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 312, 313, 317, 320, 321, 324, 325, 336. arrest at Cologne, 162.

Bavarian rebellion, 168. confidant of Marx, 298, 301. death of wife, 314. estimates of Marx, 323.

International Alliance, 95. issues challenge to critics of Marx, 348.

letter to Marx, 84. meets Marx, 72.

Das Kapital completed by, 346, 347. London meeting with Marx, 171. prosperity, 226.

Volk, das, 200.

Erbrecht, Rudolf, 35.

F

Fallersleben, Hoffman von, 63. Ferri, 120.

Feuerbach, Ludwig, 35, 54, 70, 73, 75, 76, 77. leader of the Young Hegelians, 55. Deutsche Jahrbucher, 63.

Flocon, Ferdinand, 88, 107, 131, 132.

INDEX

355,

Fourier, FitANgois Marie Charles, 67, 68, 77, 89.

Franco-Prussian War, 290, 33S. Freiugrath, Ferdinand, 42, 82, 145, 184.

farewell poem, 165. poem on Blum, 158.

Fritzsche, Wilhelm, 15, 226.

Frost, John, 184.

G

Gabler, J. P., 86.

Gans, EnuARD, 35.

Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 201, 218, 282. Garnett, Dr. Richard, 193.

George, Henry, criticism by Marx, 317.

Germany, Revolution of 1848, 140. Gesellschaftsfiegel, 86.

Ghent, W. J., 15.

Gladstone, William Ewart, 221, 225. Gottschalk, Dr., 162.

Greulich, Herman, 288.

Gruen, Karl, 57, 91.

Guillaume, James, 280, 286, 300.

H

Hales, John, 306.

Harney, George Julian, 136, 184. Harrison, Frederic, 299.

Hatzfeld, Countess, 218.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 34, 52, 70, 71, 73, 76.

Heine, Heinrich, 20, 24, 42, 68, 70, 77, 80, 131. benefits by criticisms of Marx and his wife, 80. conversion to Christianity, 23. Deutsche Jahrbiicher, 63. letter to Marx, 78.

Heinzen, Karl, 91.

Helvetius, 77.

Hermes, Georg, 59.

Herwegh, Georg, 66, 70, 71, 77, 152. Deutsche Jahrbiicher, 63.

German Legion, 132.

Rhenische Zeitung, 65.

Herzen, Alexander, 155, 243.

Hess, Moses, 65, 77, 91, 154, 284, 288. Hillouit, Morris, 15, 278.

Hirsch, Max, 250.

Holbach, P. H. T. d’, 77.

Holy Alliance, 18.

Howell, George, 262, 272.

Humboldt, Alexander von, 35, 82. Hyndman, H. M., 120, 315, 349.