Study of his life nd work maximilien Rubel and Margaret Manale

opxnent. The proletarian emancipation would not be the result of socialist theorising or utopian-system-building, but of the present contradiction between the social organisation and the instruments of production, the most powerful of which is the proletariat, the ‘revolutionary class’ itself. At the point when the productive forces have developed sufficiently to create acute class struggles, the proletarians ‘no longer need to search in their minds for a science, they need only take note of what is happening before their eyes and make themselves the organ of this change’ (Oeuvres 1:93).

Proudhon desired to eliminate social antagonisms by replacing wages with a value system based on hours of labour, or ‘constituted value’, and exchangeable for gold or silver. Marx remarked that this was essentially a reform in wage-distribution which merely gave money a new form. He pointed out that ‘Every commodity whose value is constituted on the basis of labour time will always be exchangeable, always be money ... Money is not a thing but a social relation’ (Oeuvres 1:53). Only when the social structure itself is changed can money be eliminated. Labour time, moreover, is under the capitalist system of production the measure of value and therefore the ‘formula for the modern slavery of the working man’ (Oeuvres 1:27).

The upheaval of the proletariat, in contrast to all previous revolutions, will eliminate ‘what is commonly called political power, for political power is exactly equal to an official compendium of the antagonisms in civil society’ (Oeuvres 1:136). The revolution is prepared through the organisation of the working class in permanent coalition or trade-unions whose dual purpose is to put a stop to competition among the workers themselves and to rival the bourgeoisie for political power. While destroying the traditional social forms, the revolution will conserve ‘the fruits of civilisation, the acquired productive forces’ (MEW 4:410) in order to establish a higher social order. Time in this new society will no longer be the criterion determining production and value, but the usefulness of an object for human needs and self-expression:

What is produced today through the interaction of capital and competitive labour will be accomplished through an agreement relating the sum-total of the production forces to the sum-total of


existing needs, after the present relation between capital and labour has been abolished (Oeuvres 1: 50).

In September the monthly Westphalisches Dampfboot pub- lished a chapter taken from the unpublished German Ideology and devoted to Karl Griin's book, Die soziale Bewegung in Frank- reich und Belgien (1845). Marx criticised Griin for plagiarising Hess and other socialist thinkers and for, consciously or unconsciously, falsifying the authors he presumed to explain in his book. Marx depicted Griin as vain and boastful, priding himself on being Proudhon’s teacher and critical of Cabet’s narrowmindedness. In fact Grim had ‘read as little of the Saint-Simonians as of Saint-Simon himself’, namely nothing, and was most inaccurate when copying from the works he did read on Saint- Simon and his followers (MEW 3:492E). Marx had little esteem for Grim for employing the ‘empty ideological phrases of German philosophy’, while imagining himself superior to the ‘superficial French’ socialists who examined the real circumstances of man’s material existence (MEW 4:49 2f.).

In an article against the communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, published anonymously in the DBrZ on September 12, Marx exposed the fraud of a government socialism propagated by Prussia in the interests of the proletariat, and of income tax as a measure which would necessarily lead to communism. He ridiculed the Beobachter’s proposal to offer the people ‘panem et religionem’ in place of ‘panem et circenses', ignoring the fact ‘that the proletariat expects no one’s help but its own’ (MEW 4:194). The people, and especially the communists among them, are aware that ‘the liberal bourgeoisie is only pursuing its own interest, that one cannot rely on its sympathy for the masses’ (MEW 4:193). The proletariat nevertheless, supported, the bourgeois struggle for liberalism in political representation, knowing that bourgeois freedoms would help it in turn to gain recognition and strength as a political party. Religion, by contrast, had never served the interests of the proletariat. Christianity, in particular, preached the necessity of class domination and appeased the oppressed masses with promises of heavenly recompense and with clarity. It justified worldly crime instead of looking for the roots of crime and misery in actual social circumstances. While Christianity taught him to be cowardly, humble, meek, ‘the proletarian who refuses to be treated liK^f


1847 69

scum needs his courage, his self-respect, his pride and his sense of independence even more than he needs his bread’ (MEW 4:200).

In October and November the DBrZ published in instalments an article by Marx entitled ‘The Moralising Critique and the Criticising Moralism. A Contribution to German Cultural History. Against Carl Heinzen.’ Again, Marx espoused the cause of the proletariat, in its struggle to wrest political power from the bourgeoisie. The first need of the proletariat was unification. To this end the liberal bourgeoisie granted a number of concessions which facilitated the political organisation of the proletariat as a class. While the proletarians were willing to support the cause of the bourgeois revolution as a precondition for their own revolution ‘not for an instant can they consider it to be their final goal’ (MEW 4: 352). In preparing its social upheaval, the working class ‘must first produce the material conditions of a new society’ (MEW 4: 338) and neither good will nor purely intellectual effort can spare it this task.

At the beginning of August the Correspondence Committee in Brussels was reorganised into a branch of the newly founded Communist League. This group, which also assumed the League’s regional directorate in Belgium, elected Marx president of the local organisation and member of the directorate. Later in the month Marx founded with Engels the Brussels German Working Men’s Society, an open and public organisation under the control of the secret Communist League, which served as its recruiting organ. Marx participated—as a liberal democrat—in a Free Trade Congress held in Brussels September 16-18. Although he had prepared a speech on protective tariffs, free trade and the working class, he was refused the opportunity to speak. He consequently later elaborated the speech into an article published in the Brussels newspaper Atelier democratique (Sept. 29) and translated into English for publication in The Northern Star (Oct. 9). Marx declared himself in favour of free trade in the interests of the working class which wanted a betterment of its condition and not a continuation of the status quo. Free trade would expand the territory where the laws of capitalist production produced their inevitable conflicts and antagonisms:

from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself


68 Karl Marx, 1844-1849 Slfwl

pvicHng needs, after the present relation between capital and labour has been abolished (Oeuvres 1:50).

In September the monthly Westphalisches Dampfboo| published a chapter taken from the unpublished German. .Ideology and devoted to Karl Griin’s book, Die soziale Bewegung in Frank- reich und Belgien (1845). Marx criticised Grim for plagiarising Hess and other socialist thinkers and for, consciously or unconsciously, falsifying the authors he presumed to explain in his book, Marx depicted Grun as vain and boastful* priding himself on being Proudhon's teacher and critical of Cabet's narrowmindedness. In fact Grun had ‘read as little of the Saint-Simonians as of Saint-Simon himself', namely nothing, and was most inaccurate when copying from the works he did read on Saint- Simon and his followers (MEW 3:492!.). Marx had little esteem for Grun for employing the ‘empty ideological phrases ff German philosophy’, while imagining himself superior to the ‘superficial French’ socialists who examined the real circumstances g>| man’s material existence (MEW 4:492f.).

In an article against the communism of the Rheinischer Beobachtcr, published anonymously in the DBrZ on September 12, Marx exposed the fraud of a government socialism propagated by Prussia in the interests of the proletariat, and of income tax as a measure which would necessarily lead to communism. He ridiculed the Beobachter’s proposal to offer the people |panem et religionem’ in place of ‘panem et circenses’, ignoring the fact ‘that the proletariat expects no one’s help but its own’ (MEW 4:194). The people, and especially the communists among them, are aware that ‘the liberal bourgeoisie 1$ only pursuitigjjts own interest, that one cannot rely on its sympathy for the masses’ (MEW 4:193). The proletariat never thelei^Supportedi * the bourgeois struggle for liberalism in political representation, knowing that bourgeois freedoms would help it in turn to gain recognition and strength as a political party,vReligion, by contrast, had never served the interests of the proletariat Christianity, in particular, preached the necessity of dass domination and appeased the oppressed masses with promises of heavenly recompense and with clarity. It justified worldly crime instead of looking for the roots of crime and misery fn actual sodal circumstances. While Christianity taught him to be cowardly- humble, meek, ‘the proletarian who refuses to be treated li^e


scum needs his courage, his self-respect, his pride and his sense of independence gven m_ore than he needs his bread' (MEW 4:100pm

In October and November the DBrZ published in instalments an article by Marx entitled ‘The Moralising Critique and the Criticising Moralising A Contribution to German Cultural History. Against Carl Heinzen.' Again, Marx espoused the cause of the proletariat, in its struggle to wrest political power from the bourgeoisie. The first need of the proletariat was unification. To this end the liberal bourgeoisie granted a number of concessions which facilitated the political organisation of the proletariat as a class. While the proletarians were willing to support the cause of the bourgeois revolution as a precondition for their own revolution ‘not for an instant can they consider it to be their final goal’ (MEW 4:352)- In preparing its social upheaval, the working class ‘must first produce the material conditions of a new society’ (MEW 4: 338) and neither good will nor purely intellectual effort can spare it this task.

At the beginning of August the Correspondence Committee in Brussels was reorganised into a branch of the newly founded Communist League. This group, which also assumed the League's regional directorate in Belgium, elected Marx president of the local organisation and member of the directorate. Later in the month Marx founded with Engels the Brussels German Working Men's Society, an open and public organisation under the control of the secret Communist League, which served as its recruiting organ. Marx participated—as a liberal democrat—in a Free Trade Congress held in Brussels September 16-18. Although he had prepared a speech on protective tariffs, free trade and the working dass, he was refused the opportunity to speak. He consequently later elaborated the speech into an article published in the Brussels newspaper Atelier democratique (Sept. 29) and translated into English for publication in The Northern Star (Oct. 9). Marx dedared himself in favour of free trade in the interests of the working dass which wanted a betterment of its condition and not a continuation of the status quo. Free trade would expand the territory where the laws of capitalist production produced their inevitable conflicts and antagonisms:

from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where ^stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself


70 Karl Marx, 1844-1849

eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians (MEGA 6:431). I

Marx was obliged to leave Brussels for a short time at the end of September. He travelled to Holland where he again engaged in discussion with his mother’s relatives on the matter of his paternal inheritance. In his absence the Association democratique was founded in an effort to turn the ‘miserable little working men’s union’ into an association which would rival the Fraternal Democrats in scale and size. Engels was elected vice-president pending Marx’s return, for the group held Marx to be the only person able to represent the German democrats in Brussels.

Engels, who returned to Paris in mid-October, was invited by the directorate of the local League organisation to prepare a ‘catechism’ containing the basic tenets of the communist programme. He composed thereupon a series of 25 questions and answers which he entitled ‘Principles of Communism', explaining to Marx that he thought of it more as a manifesto than a catechism ‘since it has to deal more or less with history, the old form is not at all suitable’ (Nov. 23-24). The ‘Principles’ treated the history of the industrial working class, differentiated this class from all others, present and past, and recounted how the development of social antagonisms between classes leads to crises which will eventually erupt in revolution. This revolution ‘will take place in all civilised countries at the same time, i.e. at least in England, America, France and Germany, and will develop according to the degree of the given country’s industrial advancement, its wealth and productive forces’ (MEW 4:374)- He insisted, further, on the evolutionary nature of this revolution which would have nothing in common with conspiracies which are ‘not only useless, but also harmful’. Revolutions cannot be made arbitrarily, Engels stated, ‘but they have always been, everywhere and at every time, the necessary