Материал: Karl Marx_ A Biography ( PDFDrive )

45 2

K A R L M A R X : A B I O G R A P H Y

to reintroduce into the party 'dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but which have now become obsolete verbal rubbish'.69 He did not find very revolutionary the opening declaration that the proceeds of labour belonged to society as a whole since it was a proposition that had 'at all times been made use of by the champions of the state of society prevailing at any given time'.70 Further, he criticised the programme for not attacking landowners along with capitalists. Talk about 'fair distribution' and 'equal rights' was vague; proposals that the workers should receive the 'undiminished proceeds of their labour' showed a complete disregard for necessary expenditure on capital replacement, administration of social services, poor relief, etc. In terms of the future communist society the phrase 'proceeds of labour' was meaningless, for

within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as litde does the labour expended on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labour.71

Marx then offered a description of the distribution of the social product in the first stage of communist society 'as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges'.72 In this society the individual producer would receive a certificate from society that he had furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with this certificate he would draw from the social stock of means of consumption the cost of the equivalent amount of labour. The same amount of

labour which he had given to society in one form he would receive back in another.73

Of course, Marx continued, this equality was, in effect, unequal. Measurement was made with an equal standard - that of labour: whereas men's capacities, family situations, etc., were not the same and thus inequality would arise.

But [continued Marx in a famous passage] these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordi-

nation of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundandy - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!74

Marx summed up his criticism of this section of the programme by saying:

Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democracy) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?75

Marx's second basic criticism was of the section where the programme called for a 'free state' and 'the abolition of the wage system together with the iron law of wages'. Marx replied that wages were not the value of labour, but the value of labour power. This fact made it clear that

the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this gratis labour by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labour power, etc.; that, consequendy, the system of wage-labour is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labour, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.76

The programme's solution to the problem was as misguided as its formulation: it proposed state-aided workers' co-operatives instead of the revolutionary transformation of society.

Turning to the proposal for a 'free state' Marx roundly declared that this could not be an aim of workers worthy of the name 'socialist'. Marx put the question: 'What transformation will the state undergo in c ommunist society? What social functions will remain in existence that are analogous to present functions of the state?' He did not answer this question specifically, but said: 'Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.''''''

In fact, the programme contained, according to Marx, nothing but the 'old familiar democratic litany' - universal suffrage, direct legislation,

popular rights, a people's militia, etc., many of which had already been achieved in progressive bourgeois republics.

In spite of his threats, Marx did not dissociate himself from the programme; and Engels' assertion that a split in the new party was absolutely certain proved quite mistaken. Bismarck's growing opposition to the socialists made the Lassalleans' policy of co-operation with the state more and more implausible, and the Eisenachers soon gained the upper hand. As the industrialisation of Germany increased at a gigantic rate, the new Social Democratic Workers' Party polled an ever larger number of votes. Nevertheless Marx was still far from happy with the policies of his colleagues and disciples. As even Bebel - whom Marx and Engels regarded as the only completely reliable member of the Party - commented: 'It

was no easy matter to arrive at an understanding with the two old men in London.'78

Although Marx was keen to have a theoretical journal in which to expose 'the absolute ignorance of professors and lecturers'79 he could not welcome the appearance in August 1877 Die Zukunft, a theoretical fortnightly designed to supplement the Party's newspaper Vorwiirts. It was financed by Karl Hochberg, the rich son of a Frankfurt bookmaker who had the best of intentions but, as Marx said, 'I do not give a damn for intentions.'80 He refused to write for the journal and felt more than justified when he read the phrases about justice and the phantasies of the future communist society that were reminiscent of the 'true socialism' of the 1840s. The result of 'bringing a bourgeois into the party'81 had not been a success. Marx summed up his general opinion of the situation in Germany as follows:

. . . A rotten spirit is making itself felt in our Party in Germany, not so much among the masses as among the leaders (upper-class and 'workers'). The compromise with the Lassalleans has led to a compromise with other halfway elements too: in Berlin (like Most) with Duhring and his 'admirers', but also with a whole gang of half-mature students and super-wise diplomaed doctors who want to give socialism a 'higher, idealistic' orientation, that is to say, to replace its materialistic basis (which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it) by modern mythology with its goddesses of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Dr Hochberg, who publishes Die Zukunft, is a representative of this tendency and has 'bought his way' into the Party - with the 'noblest' intentions, I assume, but I do not give a damn for 'intentions'. Anything more miserable than his programme of Die Zukunft has seldom seen the light of day with more 'modest presumption'.

The workers themselves, when, like Herr Most & Co., they give up work and become professional literary men, always breed 'theoretical'

mischief and are always ready to join muddleheads from the allegedly 'learned' caste. Utopian socialism, especially, which for decades we have been clearing out of the German workers' heads with so much effort and labour - their freedom from it having made them theoretically (and therefore also practically) superior to the French and English - Utopian socialism, playing with fantastic pictures of the future structure of society, is again spreading like wildfire, and in a much more futile form, not only compared with the great French and English Utopians, but even with - Weitling. It is natural that utopianism, which before the era of materialistically critical socialism concealed the latter within itself in embryo, can now, coming belatedly, only be silly, stale, and reactionary from the roots up... ,82

The Social-Democratic Workers' Party set up at the Gotha Congress certainly embraced many different sorts of socialism: Johannes Most advocated something very near anarchism, 'philanthropic' socialists were legion, and Dtihring's decentralised and highly egalitarian communes were very attractive to the Eisenach wing of the Party. Dtihring's struggle to overcome the difficulties caused by the disability of his blindness together with his outspoken radicalism in the face of university authority gave him a popularity in Berlin (where he taught) that only later would be tarnished by developing megalomania and violent anti-semitism. In general, Diihring considered his attack on Marx to be 'from the left' and criticised what he called Marx's Hegelian scholasticism, his economic determinism, his dependence on Ricardo and the vagueness of his ideas 011 the future communist society. Nevertheless, in spite of his witty characterisation of Marx as an 'old Young Hegelian', he rated him very high and held his works in considerable esteem. In 1877 the Party Congress almost passed a resolution to stop the publication of Engels' anti-Dtihring articles. Johannes Most proposed the resolution, declaring that Engels' articles were 'without interest for the majority of readers of VorwUrts'.m Uebel managed to carry a compromise resolution that they be published m a scientific supplement. In view of the 'demoralisation of the Party' caused by Liebknecht's opening the door to all comers, Marx welcomed the anti-socialist laws passed by Bismarck in October 1878. In the summer two attempts on the life of Wilhelm I had naturally infuriated Marx84 as they at once gave Bismarck the excuse to ban all Social-Democratic organisations, meetings and publications, a ban that was to be maintained lor twelve years.

Marx's displeasure at the situation in Germany centred once again around a new publication. In August 1879 there appeared the first number of a Jahrbuch edited by three exiles in Zurich: the same Hochberg who had started Die Zukunft, Karl Schramm (a Social-Democratic journalist),

and Eduard Bernstein, the future exponent of Revisionism and a recent convert from the ideas of Diihring to those of Marx. T h e Party obviously needed a rallying point: Johannes Most had begun to issue the anarchist Die Freiheit-, and Karl Hirsch, a socialist journalist living in Paris, had started a new paper called Die Laterne, published in Brussels. Hirsch was persuaded to take up the editorship of the proposed Jahrbuch, preparation of which was left to the three in Zurich: the first issue, however, contained such a quietist and reformist attitude that Marx and Engels felt bound to protest. What angered them also was the hostile attitude of the Zurich editors to Hirsch for having attacked in his paper a Social-Democrat named Kayser, who had voted in favour of protecting the German iron industry. Kayser had in fact consulted his colleagues beforehand and secured their permission to vote as he did. Marx, however, dismissed this manoeuvring as so much 'parliamentary cretinism'.85

In a long letter sent to Bebel, Liebknecht and other Party leaders, Marx and Engels summed up their grievances. T h e y rejected the Zurich group's view that the working class was incapable of emancipating itself, that reform alone should be the aim of the Party, and that its programme should be postponed. This sort of attitude, they said, reminded them of 1848; and such men were

the representatives of the petty bourgeoisie .. . full of anxiety that the proletariat, under the pressure of its revolutionary position, may 'go too far'. Instead of determined political opposition, general mediation; instead of struggle against government and bourgeoisie, an attempt to win over and persuade them; instead of defiant resistance to ill-treat- ment from above, humble submission and confession that the punishment was deserved. Historically necessary conflicts are all interpreted as misunderstandings, and all discussion ends with the assurance that after all we are all agreed on the main point.86

It was of course necessary that the proletariat should be reinforced by bourgeois converts. But these had first of all to be able to make a valuable contribution to the proletarian cause and had secondly to abandon completely their petit-bourgeois prejudices. Marx and Engels ended:

As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one road open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class-struggle as the immediate driving power of history, and in particular the class-struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is, therefore, impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class-struggle from the movement. When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battlecry: The emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves. We cannot therefore co-operate with people