KARL MARX
"+Ktêma es aei.+"
THUC., i., 22.
Karl Marx was born in Treves in the year 1818, the son of a Jewish
lawyer, who was later baptised into the Christian faith. Intelligence
and general culture were at home in the house of his parents. The
favourite authors of the family were Rousseau and Shakespeare, the
latter of whom was the favourite poet of Karl Marx throughout life. An
element of cosmopolitanism was conspicuous in the household life of
the Marx family. Their closest intercourse was with the family von
Westphalen, the parents of the later Prussian minister--the
half-Scottish, highly cultured Baron Edgar. To this man the young Karl
owed his first introduction to literature, and later to his wife
Jenny.
Karl studied philosophy and history in Bonn, purposing to become a
Prussian professor. By the year 1842 he came to the point of formal
admission as lecturer. But difficulties soon presented themselves; the
young Marx, then allied with Bruno Bauer, was carried away by the
reactionary tendency which at that time swept again over the Prussian
universities, especially over heretical Bonn. As customarily happens
in such cases of aborted career, the young Marx became a journalist.
Soon he emigrated, because in 1844 the Prussian police drove him out
of the land; he fled to Paris, was thrown out again by Guizot on
demand, we suppose, of Prussia; in 1845 he went to Brussels, returning
to Germany during the year 1848; finally after the year 1849 he found
rest in London from the pressure of the police. Here he lived until
his death in the year 1883.
His personality, the characteristics of which were strikingly
developed through the external circumstances of his life, was marked
by extraordinary intellectual activity. He was a pitiless and positive
critic in his very nature. He had an abnormally sharp vision for
psychological and historical continuity, especially where these are
based upon the less noble impulses of mankind. A word of Pierre
Leroux's seems to me as if coined for Marx: "il etait ... fort
pénétrant sur le mauvais côté de la nature humaine." So it was by
nature easy for him to believe in Hegel's teaching that "evil" has
accomplished all the development of mankind. His conception of the
world is expressed in Wallenstein's magnificent words:
"To the bad spirit belongs the earth, not to the good; the good
things that the gods send to us from above are to be held only
in communal possession. Their light gives us joy, yet makes no
man rich; in their kingdom there is no private possession."
What qualified Karl Marx to reach the first rank among the social
philosophers of the nineteenth century, and to obtain next to Hegel
and Darwin the greatest influence upon modern ideas, was the fact that
he united a knowledge of the highest form of the historic philosophy
of his time--Hegel--with a knowledge of the highest form of social
life--that of Western Europe, of France, and especially of England. It
was because he knew how to concentrate, as by a lens, all the rays of
light which had been shed by other thinkers, and because he was able
through his cosmopolitan experience to withdraw attention from the
incidental features of national development, and to concentrate it
upon what is typical in modern social life.
Marx, in common with his friend Friedrich Engels, in a large number of
monographs, the best known of which is _Capital_, has laid the
ground-lines of an amazing system of social philosophy; but this is
not the place for a study of its particular features. What interests
us much more at this time is the Marxian theory of social agitation,
because this is especially what has enabled him to influence
decisively the progress of social development. In no single book of
his is this theory comprehensively presented. Yet we find all the
essential elements of it in the celebrated "Communistic Manifesto" of
Marx and Engels in the year 1847, which was presented as a programme
to the "League of the Righteous" in Brussels; they accepted it and
thus changed themselves into a "League of Communists." The
"Communistic Manifesto" contained the principles of a philosophy of
history, upon which the programme of a party is based. Its leading
thoughts are these:
All history is the story of a struggle between classes; the history
of the present is the story of the struggle between the middle class
and the proletariat. The making of classes results from certain
economic conditions of production and distribution, through which also
social control is determined. "Immanent" forces (the expression does
not occur in the "Communistic Manifesto," but becomes later a
technical term) constantly revolutionise the conditions of production,
and thus of all economic matters. In our time this organic change is
accomplished with especial quickness, because the tremendous forces of
production created by the middle class grow too fast. Thus on the one
side the conditions of existence under the present capitalistic
economy quickly deteriorate; upon the other side the conditions of
existence tend to a social organisation without classes upon a basis
of common production and communal ownership of the means of production
(this formula, also, is not found in the "Communistic Manifesto," in
which merely the abolition of private property is presented; but our
phrase first occurs two years later, in the history of class struggle
in France). This deterioration appears in the crises in which society
feels itself "suddenly thrown back into a condition of momentary
barbarism," and in the emergence of pauperism in which it plainly
appears now
"that the middle class is unfit longer to remain the ruling
class of society and to enforce the life condition of itself as
the ruling law; it is unfit to rule because it is incapable of
securing subsistence to its slave within the terms of his
slavery, because it is compelled to let him sink into a position
in which it must support him instead of being supported by him."
But the conditions of the new social order (this thought also is
merely suggested in the "Communistic Manifesto" and only later,
especially by Engels, is it developed) are created by an enormous
increase of the forces of production and by the "communisation of the
processes of production" which goes hand in hand with this
increase--that is, the interweaving and combination of the individual
acts of production, and transition to co-operative methods, etc.
The most important consequence now for our question is this: the
economic revolution finds its spontaneous expression in opposition and
struggle of classes, the "modern social movement"--that is, the
movement of the proletariat is nothing but the organisation of those
elements of society which are called to break the rule of the middle
class and "to conquer the new social forces of production." This they
can accomplish only by "abolishing their own private appropriation as
it has thus far existed and with it the whole idea of private
property"; that is, in place of private possession and private
production to establish communism.
The "communists"--that is, the political party for which the
"Communistic Manifesto" serves as a confession of faith--are only a
part of the warring proletariat; they form that part which is
conscious of the process of development. This party
"distinguishes itself from the other proletarian elements only
in that on the one side it emphasises and enforces in the
different national campaigns of the proletariat the interests of
the proletariat as a whole, and on the other hand in that in the
different stages of development through which the struggle
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie passes, invariably
it represents the interests of the general proletarian
movement."
"The theories of the communists rest in no way upon ideas or
principles which have been discovered by this or that reformer.
They are only general expressions of the actual conditions in an
existing struggle of classes, an agitation which is happening
historically before our very eyes."
The thoughts here expressed, as I have already indicated in several
places in this review, have been later to some extent more precisely
worded, have been to some decree enlarged and developed, have been in
part modified; but the ground-lines of Marx's theory of the social
movement are already revealed in them all. In what now lies their
historic importance? How shall we explain their tremendous power of
conquest? Whence comes their continuance already through a
half-century?--and all this, in spite of the fact that, as I believe,
this theory errs in essential points, and that it can scarcely indeed
sustain itself as a whole!
Before I now attempt to give the answer I must make one thing clear.
What Marx and Engels have left to us as an intellectual inheritance,
whether we consider their writings from 1842, or even only those after
1847, seems at first as if it were a confused mass of varied
thought-material. Only he who looks closely and who takes the trouble
to enter into the spirit of the men can bring the separated lines of
thought into order. Such an one finds that some fundamental ideas run
through the writings of Marx and Engels during the whole period of
their literary activity; also that at different times quite different
lines of thought run across and confuse the system which, as a whole,
is built up upon these great ideas. Most exponents of the Marxian
teaching, especially those representing the middle class, have made
the mistake of not separating the essential from the accidental, and
have as a result not been able to do justice to the historic
significance of these theories. Naturally it is easier to start with
the contradictions and inconsistencies of an author, rather than to
make tedious tracing of what is of lasting worth; it is easy, but not
right, to content oneself with detached and apparent blunders and
mistakes in the teaching of an important thinker, in order to reject
this teaching _in toto_. Marxism, as no other teaching, offers itself
for such treatment; partly because many of his theories awake the
passions of the critic and hence must in advance prevent calm
judgment, partly because in fact, as already said, it presents a most
clumsy confusion of contradictory teachings. This is shown in the fact
that even now, after his thoughts have lived through a half-century,
we must still exert ourselves to get at the real meaning and the deep
importance of his teaching. This is due especially to the
"middle-class" critics of Marx; but it is also because of the members
of his own party. I recall the fact that the fundamental principle of
Marx's economic system--the theory of value--has become an object of
fruitful discussion as lately as two years ago. At that time I
attempted to bring into use this method which I have just specified as
the only true one for such a peculiar formation as the Marxian
teaching; I asked how the parts of Marx's theory which stand in such
opposition to each other could be reconciled, in order to bring out
the sense which so earnest a thinker must surely have laid underneath.
At that time the aged Engels could bear witness that I had about "hit
the right mark," but that he could not endorse all that I had
"introduced" into the Marxian teaching. Other critics thought at the
time that nothing more would be heard of Marx's teaching concerning
value. Perhaps they are right; but if Marx's _Theory of Value_ is a
scientific work, it can be such only in my interpretation.
I have thus spoken in order to show you how I stand concerning Marx's
theory of the social movement. I make most earnest effort to separate
it from all extraneous matter, to comprehend it in its essential
points, and so to present these essentials in such way that they shall
be consistent with reality. At the same time I emphasise the spirit of
Marx's theories, and only hope that it is truly the soul of Marx, and
not of myself, "in which the times reflect themselves."
I shall attempt to speak later concerning what I look upon as
confusing "non-essentials" of the theory; I speak now of what I think
to be the historically important essence--the +ktêma es aei+--of
Marx's theory of the social movement.
First and before all, it is a scientific accomplishment of the first
order to give prominence to the historic conception of the social
movement and the inner relationship of the "economic," "social," and
"political" manifestations and precedents. Marx applies the evolution
idea to the social movement. Other conspicuous men have tried to
consider socialism and the social movement as in the flow of historic
life--I think, for example, of Lorenz von Stein, that writer who,
perhaps, has most influenced Marx. But no one has so clearly,
illuminatively, effectively shown these historical relations. That
political revolutions and agitations are fundamentally great
displacements of social classes is a truth enunciated before the time
of Marx; but no one has ever presented it in so impressive a way. He
takes economic revolutions as his starting-point, in order to explain
the creation and the conflict of social classes; and in _Misère_
(175), before the "Communistic Manifesto," he had already said: "il
n'y a jamais de mouvement politique qui ne soit social en même temps."
But therewith--and it is this that is of importance to us--is the
proletariat brought to full self-consciousness and taught to know
itself in its historic relations. Out of this historic conception
arises, for Marx and for the proletariat, with certainty the main
points of the programme and the tactics of the social movement. They
are only "a general expression of actual relations in an existing
struggle of classes," as the "Communistic Manifesto" has expressed it
somewhat vaguely. To state it more exactly, the theory of Marx affirms
the identification of that which unconsciously and instinctively had
arisen as a proletarian idea with that which is actually observable as
the result of economic development. As to tactical management,
however, the idea was decisive that revolutions could not be forced,
but were the outgrowth of specific economic antecedents; while class
strife in both its forms--the political, of which the "Communistic
Manifesto" speaks chiefly, and the economic, for which in _Misère_
Marx breaks a lance--is recognised as the instrument which the
proletariat must use in order to protect its interests during the
process of economic transformation. Thus he formulates that which
every intelligent proletarian movement must recognise as its
fundamental principles. Socialism as a goal, struggle between classes
as the way towards it, cease to be merely personal opinions, and are
understood as necessary.
This elementary conception, that these two main pillars of the modern
social movement are not merely arbitrary creations, but are
unavoidable products of the historic development, is even to-day so
little accepted that it is worth our while to spend a little time upon
it.
First, it must be noticed that in all the writing's of Marx and
Engels, whose "Anti-Duehring" always constitutes a necessary
complement to all the theories of Marx, there is no proof of the
asserted "necessity" of the social movement which fully satisfies the
demands of our day as to scientific method. It is known that Marx
stands upon the Hegelian dialectic, out of date now. What we demand is
a psychological founding of social happening, and for this Marx cares
little.
Now it seems to me easy to fill this gap. I shall attempt it so far as
the limitations of time allow.
Why must the ideal of every proletarian movement be necessarily a
democratic collectivism--that is, the communisation of the means of
production? It seems to me that the following considerations contain
the answer to the question.
The modern social movement strives after that which is represented by
the battle-cry, "The emancipation of the proletariat." But this has
two phases, an ideal and a material. Ideally a social class can
consider itself as "emancipated" only when it as a class is
economically and politically dominant or at least independent; the
proletariat, that now finds itself in economic dependence upon
capital, can only become "emancipated" by throwing off this
connection. Perhaps we can conceive of the proletariat as using
employers as agents to carry on the work of production. But even then
the management will be no longer in the hands of the employers as
to-day, but of the proletariat as master of the situation. So long as
this supremacy is not reached in any such form, there can be no
thought of an "emancipation" of a class. Nor can we speak of this
"emancipation" in a material sense, so long as those conditions obtain
which to-day, from a class standpoint, are looked upon as marking a
social inferiority and are derived from the capitalistic social
system. If the proletariat sets an aim clearly before itself, this
goal can only be, from the class standpoint, the overthrow of this
capitalistic order. Now this overthrow is possible in either of two
ways. Either operations on a large scale, which have replaced the
earlier and smaller methods of production, can be so reconstituted as
that large interlocal and international production shall be again
narrowed and localised--in which case the overthrow of the
capitalistic order will be simply a retrogression to the
"middle-class" system. Or this present order can be conquered in such
a way that the existing forms of production on a large scale shall be
retained--then the results will be socialism. There is no third
possibility. If the proletariat does not vanquish capitalism by a
return to the smaller forms of operation, it can accomplish this only
by putting a socialistic organisation in place of the capitalistic.
And further: the proletariat can attach itself only to the latter
method, because its whole existence is interwoven with the system of
production on a large scale; it is indeed only the shadow of the
system, it exists only where this system rules. Therefore we can say
that socialism as the aim of the social movement arises fundamentally
and necessarily out of the economic situation of the proletariat. The
whole demonstration falls to the ground in a moment, wherever a
tendency to the development of proletarian production on a large scale
does not exist in economic life.
What I would here show, let me say again, is the necessity of the
ideal; but this must not be confused with the certainty of its
realisation. In order to prove this, it would be necessary to present
other considerations, which lie far from our subject. Thus, whether
any such realisation of the ideal is scientifically possible seems to
be doubtful. For this would not be proved even if it should be
demonstrated that what the proletariat desires and strives for has
been provided in the course of social development. I shall have
opportunity later to draw attention to this, that the conception of
socialism as a need of nature, and thus "necessarily" to be realised,
does not rest upon clear thought.
What we must now hold fast as the result of our investigation is this,
and it is a true Marxian thought, that social ideals are only
utopianism so long as they are merely evolved in the head of the
theorist. They obtain reality only when they are united to actual
economic conditions, when they arise out of these conditions. The
possibility of realising the good and beautiful is enclosed within the
sheath of economic necessity. This covering, created out of
capitalistic and proletarian conditions and historic economic
circumstances, is of such a nature that the ideal of proletarian
exertion can only lie in the direction of a socialistic order of
society.
But why must the way towards the realisation of this aim lie through
class strife? To this we answer in brief: modern society presents
itself to us as an artificial medley of numerous social classes--that
is, of certain groups of persons whose homogeneity arises out of
their attachment to specific forms or spheres of economic life. We
distinguish the "junker," as representative of feudal agrarianism,
from the bourgeoisie, the representatives of capital; we distinguish
the "middle class," the representatives of local production and
distribution, from the modern wage-worker or the proletariat, etc.
Each one of these groups of economic interests has its special
adherents in the professional classes of society among the officials,
scholars, artists, who stand outside the economic life, but who unite
themselves by birth or position to one or another of the social
classes.
This attachment to a social class works decisively in two directions.
It implants in the mind of each individual member of a class the
conception of the world and life characteristic of that group of men
whose thoughts and feelings tend to become identical through the
uniformity of the external circumstances that control them; similarity
of aspiration and ideal is created. Further, this attachment
accomplishes a positive control over the individual in the maintenance
of that which is represented by the class--its social position as
truly as its material interests; it creates what we may call class
interest.
Everywhere and spontaneously there is developed a distinction between
classes, and class interest is involved in this. The upholding of this
class interest leads throughout to class opposition. Not always does
the upholding of a class standard involve necessarily collision with
the interests of other classes; at times an identity of interests
arises; but this harmony never lasts. The interest of the "junker"
must at a certain point come into conflict with that of the burgher,
that of the capitalist with that of the proletariat, that of the
hand-worker and tradesman with that of the large capitalist; for each
class strives naturally for itself, and by that very fact excludes
other interests. Then comes to pass the saying:
"Where one goes ahead, others go back;
Who would not be driven must drive;
So strife ensues and the strongest wins."
It is here that differences of opinion may emerge: but must this
really come to "strife" and "warfare"? May we not hope that, through
love of mankind, or sympathy, or interest in the welfare of the whole,
or some such noble motive, each class will freely divest itself of
such of its privileges as stand in the way of others? I have already
had occasion in another place to express my opinion on this
point--that I look upon such well-intentioned judgment of average
human nature as in contradiction with actual life. I have referred to
the fact that conclusive proof for or against such a conception cannot
be presented; that the final ground of decision rests in the depths of
personal conviction on the part of the individual. But what offers
some proof for the justification of the realistic opinion presented by
me is the circumstance that history has as yet given no example of a
free divestment of class privilege; at least I will say that every
instance claimed as such may easily be invalidated. On the other side
we have innumerable instances in history where such reform has been
begun by well-meaning friends of humanity, theorists, only to be
shattered soon on the _rocher de bronze_ of the strong self-interest
of the threatened dominant class. They eagerly hold up before us
unbelievers the night of the 4th of August, 1789, and they forget the
hundred burning castles in France. They remind us of the Prussian
agrarian reforms, and forget not only the French Revolution but also
the Declaration of 1816. They remind us--but why add illustrations?
Let such men prove authentically a single case in history in which a
social class has against its own interests and out of altruistic
motives made an essential concession. Certainly there have been
conspicuous individuals who have done this; why not? We see this
daily. But a whole class--never! If this is so, then the word of the
great realist must be true, that "only strength conquers." So we find
as the conclusion of our thought, first a difference of classes, then
class interests, then class opposition, finally class strife. It is
thus that Marx would have developed his theory of class strife, and
easily, if he had chosen to proceed upon a psychological foundation.
As we now turn to this theory itself and its significance for the
social movement we are obliged, I think, to concede that the entrance
of Karl Marx was a decisive turning-point in this agitation, because
through him it was based upon a fundamentally changed conception of
history and humanity. This change is occasioned by the fact that, in
place of an idealistic, or rather partisan, way of looking at things,
a realistic vision obtains, and thus for the social movement the idea
of "revolution" passes into the thought of "evolution." The spirit of
the nineteenth century supplants the spirit of the preceding
centuries. You remember how I sought to make clear to you the essence
of this spirit in connection with the teachings of the utopists; if I
may be allowed to refer to it again, it is that idealistic conception
of man and life,[1] cherished now only by the scholars, that faith in
humanity as good by nature, that belief that men so long as they are
not led astray by the mistake or malice of individual bad men will
live in the most affectionate peace with their brethren; it is that
belief in a "natural order" of the past and future--that rock-fast
confidence that only explanation and exhortation are needed in order
to bring men out of this vale of tears to the happy islands of the
blest. This is that faith in the power of eternal love which through
its own force shall overcome the bad, and help the good to victory.
This it was that, though the leaders were not conscious of it, really
lay at the bottom of all political and social agitation until the
middle of our century; this it is that, in my opinion, as I have
already said, still slumbers in the lap of anarchism, even to-day as
an instinct. This fundamental tendency is now directly reversed; the
belief in a humanity good by nature gives place to the conviction that
man is of himself ruled by no noble motives, that he carries within
himself the _bête humaine_ even in all culture and in spite of all
"advance." Hence the conclusion: that a man, in order to accomplish
anything in the world, must before all call upon "interest"--a normal
and material instinct. For it is the most important conclusion for the
fate of the social movement, that now "interest" rules in the world;
that where anything is to be done, or a class, like the proletariat,
is to be emancipated, a man needs some weapon stronger than the theory
of "eternal love" against the interest of the capitalist class, and
must present force against force, might armed by "interest." At the
end of all thought upon this matter lies this consideration, which
leads not only to the theory, but as well to the practice, of class
strife. Combat is the solution of the difficulty for this hard and
unlovely proletarian generation which has grown up since the middle of
our century; not peace, not reconciliation, not a general
brotherhood--but battle. That this strife is no longer open warfare,
like street riot, does not alter the fact that it is really strife.
Out of this is to come a generation of men qualified to live and work
in an order of society higher than the present capitalistic order.
It is this that I call the realistic conception of the social
movement; and there is no doubt that it is the outcome of that Marxian
theory of the world and society which I have just attempted to sketch.
Only thus could the social-political realism, which heretofore has
been proclaimed in a limited way, now arise as the principle of the
whole social movement.
It is this social-political realism which gives the finishing stroke
to all utopism and revolutionism. The insurrectionists in Lyons and
the Chartist revolutionaries were both utopists--for they shed their
blood and yet only strengthened the reaction. The Putschists,
Clubists, and Blanquists were utopists, who through conspiracies and
street riots would through all time control economic development. Not
less utopian were those "geniuses" who offered exchange banks or the
_Organisation du travail_ or such remedies. Utopists also were those
who believed in the power of all kinds of schemes. Finally, utopists
were all those kindly souls who hoped to allay and overcome the
sufferings of the proletariat by an appeal to the good hearts of the
friends of humanity. Karl Marx has succeeded in freeing us from the
use of empty phrases in the sphere of social politics.
Let us now in closing recapitulate the points wherein I see the
historic significance of Marx's teaching for the social movement. Marx
points out as its _object_ the communisation of the means of
production, as its _way_ the struggle between classes; he erects these
two as the main pillars upon which the whole structure must be built.
He secured for these principles general acceptance; and he succeeded
in this without preventing the development of national and other
peculiarities. In placing the social movement in the flow of historic
development he brings it theoretically into harmony with the objective
and subjective factors of history, he bases it upon actual conditions
of economic life and of human endowment, he shows its economic and
psychological features.
Thus I look at Marx, when I attempt to fathom the spirit of his
teaching; this is the deep meaning of Marxism.
There is no doubt that, according to the common idea, Marx and Engels,
who must always be named with him, appear in a light essentially
different from that which I have attempted to show to you. In general
these men have been looked upon, not only as different from what I
have stated, but as in a bad sense the very opposite of social
realists; namely, as the father and the guardian of the worst kind of
revolutionary thought. And who would not apparently be justified in
this belief, reading the writings of both these men? He reads of
clanking chains which must be broken, of revolutions towards which man
tends, of bloody battle and death and assassination. How does the
matter really lie?
Marx himself once said, _Moi je ne suis pas Marxiste_, but he gave to
these words a meaning different from the ordinary one, as I also do
when I say that Marx and Engels have not always shown themselves
consistent Marxists either in theory or in practice.
Doubtless there are inconsistencies in theory, contradictions of the
fundamental thoughts, discrepancies which can have only one
source--that is, an overwhelming revolutionary passion which obscures
a vision otherwise so clear.
For example, I think of their unreasonable belief in what they call
the "fall" of humanity through the introduction of the principle of
private property, from which as they say history, and as well the
forces of history, take their start; the astonished hearer asks
himself, What impelled man to the introduction of this principle? I
think, also, of the hypothesis of a strifeless condition of humanity
after the introduction of socialism--and the like. Here, and
throughout, the old dreams of a Paradise lost and regained, of a happy
condition of humanity originally, come as a disturbing element into
their new world of thought.
With both these men it was in life as in theory. Here also appears the
old revolutionary Adam every moment and plays tricks with them. Since
the year 1845 they have not ceased to dream of revolution, and indeed
fierce revolution; repeatedly have they announced the outbreak as
near. This could be only the outcome of an unrealistic judgment of the
situation, of a mistaken conception of the political, economic, and
social conditions; thus it was an error of judgment as to the time,
if not a contradiction of their supreme principle that "revolutions
are not made." Psychologically these contradictory phenomena are
easily to be explained. Both Marx and Engels have never ceased with
intelligence and calm judgment to present that realism which we have
seen as the essence of their view of life. But you must not forget
that they have conceived their teachings under the roar of
revolutionary battles; that they were themselves of those fitful and
fiery souls who, like the "world squirrel,"[2] go assiduously from
place to place in order to set Europe on fire. Think of the mass of
malice and hatred that must have accumulated within these exiles, who
experienced through life nothing but derision, scorn, suspicion, and
persecution from their powerful opponents! Imagine what a superhuman
self-discipline and control was needed to prevent them from petty and
vindictive attacks upon the hated opponents at every opportunity. As
this deeply rooted passion arose in these revolutionary heroes, as
rage almost strangled them, their logic flew out of the window and old
revolutionary fury broke out and overwhelmed them. But that I am right
in characterising Marxism as a social-political realism you see
clearly from the many and fundamental declarations and acknowledgments
of its founders, which come to us out of all periods of their lives.
And indeed there is always a declared opposition to general
revolutionism, to "Putschism," as they assert their standpoint. The
strife with the party of Willich-Schapper in the year 1850, the battle
with Bakunin in the "International,"--concerning which I have yet to
speak,--the declarations against the anarchists, the discussion with
Duehring, the disowning of the "Jungen,"--all tends in the end to help
to victory the evolutionary principle in the social movement. It is
easy to explain how the true conviction came to expression on these
occasions.
The last word of Marxism, which also contains a _résumé_ of its
teaching; is a writing by Engels, published shortly before his death;
the introduction to the _Struggle of Classes in France_. It is an
epilogue to his own life's drama, a confession, the last words of
warning which the dying man cries to the contesting proletariat. Here
the clear, logical position, as I think it is demanded by the
conception of history held by that school, finally comes to distinct
expression. This introduction shows perhaps best and most quickly how
at the end Engels and Marx understood the social movement. Some of the
most significant passages may here find place:
"History has proved wrong us and all who thought similarly (sc.
expecting the victory of the proletariat in the near future of
the year 1843). It has made clear that the condition of economic
development upon the Continent at that time was far from ripe
for an abolishment of capitalistic production; it has proved
this through the economic development which since 1848 has
seized upon the whole continent and has made a home for the
great industries in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and lately
Russia, has made out of Germany an industrial country of the
first rank--all upon a capitalistic basis, which in the year
1848 was but little developed. To-day the great international
army of socialists is resistlessly stepping forward, is daily
growing in number, discipline, intelligence, and assurance of
victory. As to-day this mighty army of the proletariat has not
as yet reached the goal, as it is far from accomplishing the
victory by one great stroke, but must slowly press forward in
hard persistent struggle from position to position, this proves
once for all how impossible it was in the year 1848 to
accomplish the social overturning through a simple unexpected
attack.... The time of surprise, of carrying through a
revolution by a small minority at the head of ignorant masses,
is passed. For a complete overthrow of the social organisation
the masses themselves must be concerned, they must understand
what they do, why they take part. The history of the last fifty
years has taught this to us. But through this teaching the
masses are learning what is to be done, and that long and
patient work is needed, and that it is just this work which we
now urge forward with such success that our opponents are
brought to confusion. The irony of history turns everything
upside down. We, 'revolutionaries,' succeed far better by means
legal than illegal and destructive. The party of order, as it
calls itself, goes to pieces through the very conditions created
by itself. It cries out confusedly with Odelon Barrot--_la
légalité nous tue_ (conformity to the law kills us); while we,
with this legality, develop round muscles and red cheeks and
seem destined for eternal life."
What comes to expression in these words is merely a confession
of--Marxism.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[1] In what follows I reproduce some passages out of my book
concerning Friedrich Engels (Berlin, 1895).
[2] In German mythology the world is represented as a great tree, with
its roots in Niefelheim, and its branches in Asgard. Wotan
communicates with the world by a "welten eichhoernchen," a "world
squirrel," which runs up and down the tree. (Translator.)