Routledge Library Editions karl marx

CHAPTER FIVE: EXILE IN BRUSSELS

1. 
   The Ge^^n Ideology
   

D^^en out of France Marx went with his family to Brussels. Engels feared that in the end the authorities would plake trouble for him in Belgium also, and in fact the trouble came immediately.

In a letter to Heine Marx writes that immediately after his arrival in Brussels he was summoned to the Administration de la SUreti Publique to sign an undertaking not to print anything concerning current Belgian politics. He agreed to this with an easy conscience, for he had neither the intention nor the possibility of doing anything of the kind, but as the Prussian government continued to importune the Belgian authorities with demands for his expulsion Marx formally abandoned Prussian citizenship in the same year, on the 1st of December 1845.

Neither at that time nor at any subsequent period did he seek citizenship in any other country, although in the spring of 1848 the provisional government of the French Republic offered him French citizenship in a fashion which did him all honour. Like Heine, Marx was unable to make up his mind to such a course, though Freiligrath, who was so often played off against them as a German to the core and the brilliant antithesis of the two “ vagabonds without a Fatherland ”, saw no objection at all to taking out naturalization papers during his exile in England.

In the spring of I 845 Engels arrived in Brussels and the two friends then went together to England for the purposes of study and stayed there for six weeks. ^^hist he was in Paris Marx had begun to occupy himself with MacCulloch and Ricardo, and during this visit to England he was able to take a deeper look into the economic literature of the island kingdom, although for the moment he saw “ only those books obtainable in Manchester ” and the extracts and writings in Engels’ possession. During his first stay in England Engels had contributed to The New Moral World, the organ of Owen, and to The Northern Star, the organ of the Chartists, and he now renewed old friendships

log '




and together the two friends established many new contacts with the Chartists and socialists.

When they returned from this journey they began a new joint work. “ We decided ”, as Marx observed laconically later, “ to work out our own standpoint together as against the opinions and the ideology of German philosophy, in fact, to settle accounts with our former philosophic conscience. We did this in the form of a criticism of post-Hegelian philosophy. The manuscript, two big octavo volumes, was already in the hands of a Westphalian publisher when we were informed that altered circumstances rendered publication impossible, whereupon we abandoned our manuscript to the gnawing criticism of the mice. We did so with little regret because our main object had been achieved—we had come to an understanding with ourselves.” As a matter of fact, the mice really did get at the manuscript, but its remnants are sufficient to explain to us why its authors were not all too depressed at the misfortune.

Their thorough, even all too thorough, settlement of accounts with Bruno Bauer proved a hard nut for their readers to crack, and the two big volumes, comprising together about 800 pages, would have been a still harder one. The title of the work was The German Ideology, a Criticism of Recent German Philosophy and its Representatives Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer and Stirner, and a Criticism of German Socialism and its Various Prophets. Speaking from memory Engels declared later that the criticism of Stirner was no less voluminous than Stirncr’s own book, and the examples which have since been published indicate that Engels’ memory was thoroughly reliable. The work is a still more discursive superpolemic than The Holy Family even in its most arid chapters, and the oases in the desert are still more rare, though they are by no means entirely absent, whilst even when dialectical trenchancy does show itself it soon degenerates into hair-splitting and quibbling, some of it of a rather puerile character.

It is true that our taste in these matters is more fastidious to-day, but that alone is not sufficient explanation, particularly as both Marx and Engels had shown before and have shown since, and showed even at the same time, that they were capable of epigrammatically trenchant criticism and that their style suffered little from prolixity. The decisive factor was that these intellectual struggles took place in a very small circle and most of the combatants were very young. It was the same phenomenon that literary history has observed in Shakespeare and his dramatic contemporaries: a tendency to ride a turn of speech to the death, to give the statements of their opponents as foolish a meaning as possible by literal interpretation or misrepresentation, a




tendency to exaggeration and recklessness of expression—all that was not meant for the general public but for the esoteric understanding of the fellow-expert. Much that is indigestible or even ununderstandable in Shakespeare’s humour to-day can be explained by the fact that, consciously or unconsciously, he was influenced in his work by considerations of what Greene and Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher would think about it.

Something of the sort is probably the explanation of the tone which Marx and Engels consciously or unconsciously adopted when dealing with Bauer and Stirner and others of their old companions in the art of purely intellectual gymnastics. What they had to say about Feuerbach would have been much more interesting because it would have been something more than purely negative criticism, but unfortunately this part of the work was never completed. Fairly clear indications of their attitude are given in one or two aphorisms about Feuerbach jotted down by Marx in 1845 and published a few decades later by Engels. Marx complained chiefly that Feuerbach’s materialism lacked an “ energizing principle ”, just as he had complained in the same way in his student days about Democritus. This, he declared, was “ the chief weakness of all previous materialism ”, the appreciation of the thing, the reality, the sensuality, only in the form of the object or the idea, and not subjectively, not in practice, not in human sensual activity. In consequence the active side had been developed by idealism as against materialism, but abstractly only, for naturally idealism knew no real sensual activity. In other words, when Feuerbach abandoned the whole of Hegel he had abandoned too much whilst, in fact, it was necessaty to transfer Hegel's revolutionizing dialectics from the realm of thought to the realm of reality.

Whilst still in Barmen Engels had written audaciously to Feuerbach in order to win him for communism and the latter had answered in a friendly tone, but, for the moment at least, in the negative. Feuerbach expected to go to the Rhineland in the summer and Engels was planning “ to drum it in to him ” that he must go on to Brussels, and in the meantime he sent Hermann Kriege, a pupil of Feuerbach, to Nlarx, describing him as “ a splendid agitator ”.

However, Feuerbach did not go to the Rhineland, and his subsequent works showed that it was too late for him to discard his “ old shell ”. His pupil Kriege also failed to come up to the mark. He did carry communist propaganda over the Atlantic, but he caused irreparable mischief in New York and it reacted ruinously on the communist colony which Marx had begun to gather around him in Brussels.

2. 
   “ True Socialism ”
   

The second part of the work which Marx and Engels had planned was to deal with German socialism and its various prophets and to dissolve critically “ the whole flat and stale literature of German socialism ”.

^This attack was launched against men like Moses Hess, Karl Grun, Otto Luning, Hermann Plittmann and others, who had created quite a respectable literature particularly in magazines. There was the Gesellschaftsspiegel which appeared monthly from the summer of 1845 to the summer of 1846, the Rheinische Jahrbiicher and the Deutsches Btirgerbuch, which both appeared in 1845 and 1846, the Wesifalisches Dampjboot, a monthly which first appeared in 1845 and which lasted into the German revolution, and finally one or two dailies such as the Triersche Zeitung.

The extraordinary phenomenon which Karl Grun once termed “ True Socialism ”, an expression which Marx and Engels adopted ironically, had a short life. By 1848 practically nothing was left ofit and what remained disappeared immediately the first shot of the revolution was fired. It exercised no effect whatever on the intellectual development of Marx, who was its masterful critic from the beginning, but the harsh verdict he passes on it in The Communist Manifesto does not sum up his whole attitude towards it, and for a time he regarded it as a mixture which for all its absurdities might produce something worth while, and Engels was even more firmly of this opinion.

Engels co-operated with Moses Hess in the publication of the Gesdllschaiftsspiegel and even Marx made one contribution to it. Both Marx and Engels co-operated with Hess on numerous occasions during the Bru^els period, and at one time it appeared as though Hess had completely adopted their ideas. Marx repeatedly tried to persuade Heine to contribute to the Rheinische Jahrbiicher, whilst this publication and the Deutsches Btirgerbuch, both of which were issued by Puttmann, printed contributions from Engels. Both Marx and Engels contributed to the West- falisches Dampfboot, and this organ published the only part of the second section of The German Ideology which has yet seen the light of day.¹ It was a thorough and sharp criticism of a book which Karl Grun had published on the social movement in France and Belgium.

The fact that “ True Socialism ” also developed out of the dissolution of Hegelian philosophy has led to the contention that in the beginning Marx and Engels were its adherents and that for this reason they criticized it all the more sharply later, but ¹ No longer true. See Bibliography.—Tr.




this was not true. The difference between Marx. and Engels and the supporters of “ True Socialism ” was that although both sides had arrived at socialism from Hegel and Feuerbach, Marx and Engels had studied the character of socialism from the French Revolution and from English industry, whilst the supporters of “ True Socialism ” had contented themselves with translating socialist formulas and slogans into “ corrupt Hegelian German ”. Marx and Engels did their best to raise “ True Socialism ” above this level and at the same time they were fair enough to recognize the whole tendency as a product of German history. It was flattering enough for Grun and his friends when their interpretation of socialism as an idle speculation on the realization of the human character was compared with the fact that Kant understood the expression of the will of the Great French Revolution only as the law of the really human will.

In their pedagogic efforts to improve “ True Socialism ” Marx and Engels spared neither patience nor severity. Cooperating with Hess on the Gesellschaftsspiegel Engels let many of Hess’ things pass, though it must have gone against the grain, but in the Deutsches Bfirgerbuch in 1846 he proceeded to make things hot for the “ True Socialists ”. “ A little humanity,

as they have begun to call the thing, a little ‘ realization ’ of this humanity, or rather monstrosity, a little about property— at third or fourth hand—a minor proletarian jeremiad, the organization of labour, the formation of pitiful associations for uplifting the lower classes, plus an all-embracing ignorance of economics and the real nature of society—that is the whole business, and even then it loses the last drop of blood and the last vestige of energy and vitality thanks to theoretical impartiality and ‘ the absolute calm of thought ’. And with this tiresome stuff they want to revolutionize Germany, to set the proletariat in movement, to make the masses think and act! ” I t was consideration for the proletariat and the masses which chiefly determined the attitude which Marx and Engels took up towards “ True Socialism ”. They attacked Karl Grun more violently than any other of its representatives not only because he in fact offered them the most opportunity, but because, living in Paris, he was causing hopeless confusion amongst the workers there and had won a disastrous influence over Proudhon. And when they dissociated themselves so sharply from “ True Socialism ” in The Communist Manifesto, even clearly indicating their former friend Moses Hess, they did so because thereby they were opening up the path for practical agitation on the part of the international proletariat.




In the same way they were perhaps prepared to forgive “ True Socialism ” the “ pedantic naivete ” with which it took “ its clumsy elementary exercises so seriously and solemnly, and trumpeted them out into the world in such a blatant fashion ”, but certainly not its alleged preparedness to support the government. The struggle of the bourgeoisie against preMarch absolutism and feudalism allegediy offered it “ the desired opportunity ” for attacking the liberal opposition in the rear. “ It served the German absolutist governments, with their camp following of parsons, schoolmasters, clod-hopping squires and bureaucrats, as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening advance of the bourgeoisie. It formed the sweetened supplement to the bitter scourge and the volleys of bullets with which the same governments belaboured the insurrection of the German workers.” This was greatly exaggerated in point of fact and quite unjust as far ^ the persons were concerned.

In the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbiicher Marx himself had pointed out that the peculiarity of conditions in Germany made it impossible for the bourgeoisie to rise against the government without itself being attacked in the rear by the proletariat, declaring that the task of socialism was thus to support liberalism where it was still revolutionary and to oppose it where it was already reactionary. In detail, however, this task w^ not easy to perform. Even Marx and Engels had occasionally defended liberalism as still revolutionary when it was in fact already reactionary, whilst the “ True Socialists ” sinned in the other direction and condemned liberalism whole and entire, a proceeding which was naturally agreeable to the German governments. The biggest sinner in this respect w^ Karl Grun, but Moses Hess was not without fault, whilst Otto LUning, who edited the Westfalisches Dampfboot, was perhaps least guilty. In any case, their errors in this respect were committed from foolishness and lack of judgment and not from any desire to support the governments. In the revolution which passed sentence of death on all their illusions they were all without exception on the left wing of the bourgeoisie, not to mention Moses Hess, who fought in the ranks of the German Social Democracy. Not one single man amongst the “ True Socialists ” went over to the enemy, and of all the shades of bourgeois socialism in their day and since, the “ True Socialists ” have the best record in this respect.

In addition they harboured great respect for Marx and Engels and placed their publications willingly at the disposal of the two friends even when “ True Socialism ” came in for a drubbing thereby. It w^ obviously not secret malice, but a lack of




understanding which prevented them slipping their old skin. Unfortunately they subscribed whole-heartedly to the old Philistine idea that things must always go smoothly and without uproar. They felt that a young party could not afford to be particular, and that when discussions became inevitable they should be conducted with all decorum and in the best of taste. In particular they felt that reputations like those of Bauer, Ruge and Stirner must be treated with respect. Naturally they caught a Tartar in Marx and on one occasion he declared : “ It is characteristic of these old women that they are always striving to gloss over and whitewash all real party disputes ”. However, the robust ideas of Marx on this subject met with understanding here and there even in the ranks of the “ True Socialists ”. For instance, Josef Weydemeyer, who was related to Luning by marriage and who collaborated in the editorship of the West- falisches Dampfboot, became one of the loyalest supporters of Marx and Engels.

Weydemeyer had been a lieutenant in the Prussian artillery but had abandoned a military career on account of his political convictions. As sub-editor of the Triersche Zeitung, which was under the influence of Karl Grun, he had fallen in with the “True Socialists”. In the spring of 1846 he went to Brussels. Whether he did so with the express intention of meeting Marx and Engels we do not know, but in any case he quickly became friendly with them and stoutly opposed the chorus of protest which arose in the ranks of the “ True Socialists ” at the ruthlessness of the criticism exercised by Marx and Engels, although even his brother-in-law Luning joined in the protest. Born in Westphalia, Weydemeyer had something of the quiet and even slow, but loyal and tenacious character attributed to his countrymen. He never became a writer of any outstanding talent, and when he returned to Germany he obtained work as a surveyor in connection with the building of the Cologne-Minden railway, collaborating in the editorship of the Westfalisches Dampfboot only in his spare time. In his own practical way he now sought to be of assistance to Marx and Engels in a difficulty which was becoming more and more serious the longer it made itself felt, namely, the difficulty of obtaining a publisher.

Owing to the spite of Ruge the Literarisches Kontor in Zurich was closed to them. Ruge knew very well that whatever Marx might write it would hardly be of poor quality, but he practically presented a pistol at the head of his partner, Frobel, in order to prevent him having any business relations with Marx, whilst Wigand in Leipzig, the chief publisher of the Young Hegelians, had already refused to publish a criticism of Bauer, Feuerbach




and Stirner. Weydemeyer therefore opened up a welcome prospect when he persuaded two rich communists in Westphalia, Julius Meyer and Rempel, to agree to put up the necessary money to found a publishing house which was to begin its activities with no less than three productions : The German

Ideology, a library of socialist authors, and a quarterly magazine edited by Marx, Engels and Hess.

However, when it came to the point and the promised money fell due the two capitalists went back on their word, although they had in the meantime confirmed it to Moses Hess. “ Business difficulties” cropped up just at the right moment to. paralyse their spirit of communist self-sacrifice. The result was a bitter disappointment for Marx and Engels, and it was aggravated by the fact that Weydemeyer was unsuccessful in his efforts to place the manuscript of The Ge^wn Ideology elsewhere, and the latter was now abandoned for good and all to the gnawing criticism of the mice.

2.