KARL MARX.
The more immediate theoretical founder of social democracy, and for many
years its leading representative, was Karl Marx, born in 1818 in Treves
(Trier). The social position of his family in Germany was excellent. His
father, a converted Jew, occupied a high position in the civil service.
Marx studied law at the universities of Bonn and Berlin. In the latter
place he became so much interested in philosophy that he abandoned law.
The philosophy which he adopted was the Hegelian. He intended to become
a professor, but was led into politics and journalism by the apparent
dawn of freedom accompanying the succession of Frederick William IV.
to the Prussian throne in 1840. He soon became editor-in-chief of the
_Rhenish Gazette_ (_Rheinische Zeitung_), which had been founded by
leading liberals, and began to criticise the government with what was
then called unheard-of boldness. But he was so skilful in his expressions
that the special censor of the press, who was sent from Berlin to Cologne
to watch the paper, could find no cause for legal proceedings against
him. Finally, government becoming weary of such attacks, and having
then the power to do so, simply decreed that at the expiration of the
first quarter-year of 1843 the paper should cease to appear.[171] The
interest which Marx had begun to take in matters of government showed him
the necessity of informing himself more fully on subjects of political
economy. He went to Paris, accordingly, after the suppression of the
_Rheinische Zeitung_, to study that science, thinking that France then
afforded better advantages for that purpose. He was, no doubt, right
in this, as the Germans have only lately become great in political
economy. In Paris he continued to wage war with the pen on the Prussian
government, and was banished from France in 1844 by Guizot, to please
Prussia. Going to Brussels, he continued his economic studies, interested
himself in the cause of the laborers, and in his writings at this time
expressed views similar to those which he held at the time of his death.
In 1847, in company with Friedrich Engels, he composed and published
a manifesto of the communistic party, which closed with these words:
“The communists scorn to conceal their views and purposes. They declare
openly that their aims can be attained only by a violent overthrow of
the existing social order. Let the ruling classes tremble before a
communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose except
their chains. They have a world to gain. Proletarians of all lands,
unite!”
The events of 1848 brought Marx to Germany again, where, with his
friends, Engels, Wolff, and the poet Freiligrath, he founded the _New
Rhenish Gazette_ (_Neue Rheinische Zeitung_). For one year this paper
was an able advocate of the cause of the laborers. German democracy and
reaction were alike rejected, and the interest of the laborers was
represented as irreconcilably opposed to that of all other classes. The
paper was suppressed in 1849, and its founders banished from Germany.
Marx lived thereafter in London.
The last issue of the paper contained a spirited farewell poem, by
Freiligrath, promising the reappearance of the journal when its undying
spirit should have triumphed over all its foes. The following is a good
translation:[172]
“FAREWELL OF THE NEW RHENISH GAZETTE.
“Farewell, but not forever farewell!
They cannot kill the spirit, my brother;
In thunder I’ll rise on the field where I fell,
More boldly to fight out another.
When the last of crowns like glass shall break
On the scenes our sorrows have haunted,
And the people its last dread ‘guilty’ shall speak,
By your side you shall find me undaunted.
On Rhine or on Danube, in war and deed,
You shall witness, true to his vow,
On the wrecks of thrones, in the midst of the field,
The rebel who greets you now.”
In London, Marx continued his agitation and literary work
uninterruptedly—the former reaching its climax in the foundation of
the _International_, in 1864; the latter in the appearance of his
most important work, “Das Kapital” (“Capital”), in 1867.[173] It is
a development and continuation of his “Zur Kritik der politischen
Oekonomie”—“A Critique of Political Economy”—published in 1859. Marx
intended, in “Das Kapital,” to present a complete system of political
economy in three volumes, but had published only the first, “On the
Process of Capital Production,” at the time of his death, March 14, 1883.
The delay was due, it is said, to the extraordinary thoroughness with
which he worked. He had, however, practically completed the second volume
and had the third volume well under way before his decease. These two
volumes, treating of the “Circulation of Capital” and “The Forms of the
Entire Process and the History of the Theory,” will be brought out by his
friend, Friedrich Engels. It is further stated that Marx had prepared a
third and improved edition of the first volume, which is now in press.
Marx’s book, “Capital,” has been called the Bible of the social
democrats, and it deserves the name. It defends their doctrines with
acuteness of understanding and profundity of learning, and certainly
ranks among the ablest politico-economic treatises ever written. I should
place it on a par with Ricardo’s “Principles of Political Economy and
Taxation.” Much has been said against its style. I think it, at least,
equal to Ricardo’s. It is difficult reading, not because it is poorly
written, but because it is deep. Any one, however, who has had some
training in political economy, and is ordinarily bright, ought not to
find its difficulty insurmountable.
Marx lived a quiet life in London, directing from that point the
movements of the International, corresponding for the _New York Tribune_
for a time, besides writing his books and pamphlets, and enjoying the
society of his friends. His family life was a happy one. His wife was
Jenni von Westphalen, daughter of the Prussian minister of the same
name, who belonged to the celebrated reactionary ministry of which Von
Manteuffel was president. He had four children, of whom two have already
been mentioned as wives of well-known French socialists. The death of a
son in early life was a severe blow to him, and he never recovered from
the death of his wife, in 1881.
About the ability of Marx there is unanimity of opinion. The
philosopher Professor Friedrich A. Lange regarded him as one of the
ablest political economists that ever lived. So conservative a man as
Professor Knies, of Heidelberg, has often spoken in high terms of his
talents and acquisitions; and the well-known _Cologne Gazette_ used
these words in an obituary notice:[174] “He exercised, perhaps, a more
lasting influence on the inner politics of civilized states than any
one of his contemporaries. Political economy, especially in Germany,
knows no writer who has influenced both masses and scholars in a more
decided, thoroughgoing manner than Karl Marx.... He was one of the
sharpest thinkers and readiest dialecticians ever possessed by economic
science.... His ‘Capital’ is classical and indispensable for every one
who wishes to concern himself earnestly with social and economic science.”
Immediately after the death of Marx, meetings were held in all parts of
the United States and elsewhere, as far as the laws would allow it, to
do honor to his memory. One characteristic feature of these meetings was
the vow which was taken in all to spread the works and to disseminate
the ideas of their departed leader. At the mass-meeting in the Cooper
Institute, in New York city, undoubtedly the largest one held, the
following resolutions were read and adopted:
“In common with the workers and the disinherited, with the true
friends of liberty of all countries, we deplore the death of
our great thinker and champion, Karl Marx, as a grievous and
irreparable loss to the cause of labor and freedom.
“We pledge ourselves to keep his name and his works ever in
remembrance, and to do our utmost for the dissemination of the
ideas given by him to the world.
“We promise, in honor of the memory of our great departed, to
dedicate our lives to the cause of which he was a pioneer—the
struggle in which he left so noble a record—and never, at any
moment, to forget his great appeal, ‘Workmen of the world,
unite!’”
Similar resolutions were adopted at the other meetings, in Baltimore,
Chicago, Cleveland, etc.
Marx’s followers boast particularly of two discoveries which he
made—viz., the correct theory of the development of history and his
doctrine of value. While it is not true that these were, by any means,
entirely original with him, no one would dispute that his presentation is
worked out in an original and remarkable manner.
His theory of history is that it is a development, and is shaped at each
period by the economic life of the people, by the manner in which goods
are produced and distributed. He takes, as his starting-point, the fact
that men must eat, drink, wear clothes, and find shelter from rain,
snow, and cold. Art, religion, and science come after the satisfaction
of these elementary wants. The production of wealth by slaves gave form
to the history of the classical world, while that of the Middle Ages
is dominated by serfdom and its accessories. The governing idea of the
present age is capitalistic production—that is to say, concentration
of large masses in factories, running a race with immense machines, and
systematically robbed by their employers. When we take the view that
history is a growth governed by the necessities of production, past
ages do not seem so inhuman as they otherwise do. It has hitherto been
necessary that the vast majority should toil incessantly, while only few
devoted themselves to the pursuit of the higher goods. The processes
of production were so primitive and imperfect that it was physically
impossible for the many to enjoy leisure for cultivating their minds and
bodies. Hence it was that the ancients regarded slavery as necessary and
natural. Plato and Aristotle both considered it a law of nature, just
the same as it has hitherto been supposed that private property in land
and capital was a law of nature; whereas, as already shown by Rodbertus,
they are all only institutions of positive and changeable law. Private
property in the instruments of production can be abolished, as private
property in human beings has been. This abolition could not, however,
take place until society had made such advance in the art of producing
goods that all requisites for human existence and progress could be
produced without requiring the unceasing toil of the vast majority.
That time has come. It is now easy to produce all the requirements of
civilization and at the same time to leave leisure to each one to make
the most of himself. Aristotle, in defending slavery, uttered words which
sound almost like a prophecy. In his “Politics” (i. 4) he uses this
language: “Every servant is an instrument more valuable than any other
instrument. For if every instrument at command, or from foreknowledge of
its master’s will, could accomplish its special work—if the shuttle thus
should weave and the lyre play of itself—then neither would the architect
want servants nor the master require slaves.” These remarks seem to
contain a dim foreboding of the marvellous invention of machinery which
has taken place in this age, and has substituted iron and steel for bone
and muscle.
A feudal aristocracy was once required to protect and guide industry
and agriculture. The growth of the _bourgeoisie_ in the cities finally
rendered feudalism an antiquated institution, and it had to make way
for the third estate, under whose guidance wealth has increased most
marvellously and laborers have been gathered together and organized. But
the _bourgeoisie_ has fulfilled its mission. It is now but a hinderance
and an obstacle. The repeated crises and the continual concentration of
property in the hands of a few mammoth millionaires prove conclusively
that they are not equal to the task of leadership. The time has arrived
when the _proletariat_, the fourth estate, must take the reins into
its own hands. It is now to play the grand _rôle_ in the history of
the world. “With the continually decreasing number of the magnates of
capitalism, who usurp and monopolize all the advantages of the changed
form of production, there is an accompanying increase in the mass of
misery, of oppression, of bondage, of degradation, of exploitation;
but there also arises a revolt of an increasing class of laborers, who
have been schooled, united, and disciplined by the mechanism of the
capitalistic processes of production. The monopoly of capital becomes a
shackle to the method of production, under and with which it has grown
up. The concentration of the means of production and the association
of laborers reach a point where they are incompatible with their
capitalistic shell. The shell is broken. The death-knell of capitalistic
private property sounds. The expropriateurs are expropriated.”[175] Thus
dawns a new and better era in the history of human development.
The key to Marx’s economic doctrines is his theory of value, with an
exposition of which “Das Kapital” opens. It is based on Ricardo and
Rodbertus, but is developed and defended in an original manner. He
begins by separating value in use from value in exchange. Value in use
is utility, arising from the adaptation of an article to satisfy some
human need. Air, water, sunshine, wheat, potatoes, gold, and diamonds
are examples. It does not necessarily imply exchange value. Many goods
are very useful but not exchangeable, because they are free to all. Such
is the case, usually, with water. On the other hand, no good can have
value in exchange unless it is useful. Men will not give something for
that which satisfies no want or need. Both value in use and value in
exchange are utilities, but, as they differ, there must be some element
in the one which the other does not _per se_ contain. We find what that
is by analyzing the constituent elements of different goods which possess
exchange value. How can we compare them? Only because they contain some
common element. But what is there in common between a horse and a house?
You cannot say that this stick is longer than that sugar is sweet. Yet
you say this house is worth ten times as much as that horse. Materials
are not compared, nor stability with swiftness, nor color with color.
The common element is found alone in human labor. You compare labor
with labor. It requires ten times the amount of average social labor
(_gesellschaftliche Durchschnittsarbeitskraft_) to secure such a house
as it does to put one in possession of such a horse. Labor-time is the
measure which we apply to different commodities in order to compare them.
We mean thereby the ordinary average labor which is required at a given
time in a given society. The average man is taken as a basis, together
with the average advantages of machinery and the arts. This is average
social labor-time. Complicated labor is simply a multiple of simple
labor. One man’s labor, which has required long and careful training, may
count for twice as much as ordinary, simple labor; but the simple labor
is the unit.
This distinction between value in use and value in exchange enables us
to understand how capitalists exploit their laborers. They pay for labor
its exchange value, which depends upon the cost of labor or the standard
of life of the laborer, as we have already seen in our examination of
Rodbertus’s system. What it takes to support a laborer’s family is the
exchange value of all the labor which can be got out of that family.
Let us suppose that a laborer requires each day goods whose value is
denoted by A, each week in addition thereto goods denoted by B, besides
quarterly needs which are satisfied by goods whose value is C. Then his
support for each day will require the value of
365 A + 52 B + 4 C[176]
------------------
365.
Now, if it requires six hours to produce these goods, the laborer is
producing surplus value if he labors more than that time. This the
capitalist requires him to do, as he has hired his entire labor power.
Under these circumstances, the laborer who works twelve hours a day for
his employer is paid for six hours’ work, while he is robbed of the
product of the other six hours’ labor. The capitalist is able to do this
because he possesses the means of production. The laborer would gladly
work without recourse to the capitalist, but he has not the means, the
instruments with which to produce. He must accede to the terms of the
capitalist or starve. The capitalist goes on the market and finds there
the commodity, labor, for which he pays its value in exchange, as for any
other commodity. But value in use does not depend upon value in exchange.
The value in use of labor to the capitalist is all that he can squeeze
out of it. The capitalist pockets the surplus value, and it becomes
capital, enabling him to continue and enlarge his process of exploitation.
Let the line,
_a----b----c_,
represent the labor of twelve hours, _b_ dividing it into two equal
parts; _a----b_ is necessary labor; _b----c_ is unpaid labor productive
of surplus value. It is the capitalist’s interest to extend _b----c_ as
much as possible, as that governs his accumulations. Hence, the efforts
of employers to increase the length of a day’s labor; hence, the efforts
of employees to shorten _a--------c_, as they thereby diminish the amount
of unpaid labor, of whose value they are robbed.
This enables us to comprehend the significance of Marx’s definition of
capital, which is as follows: “A negro is a negro. In certain relations
he becomes a slave. A cotton-spinning-machine is a machine for spinning
cotton. It becomes capital only in certain relations. Capital is a
social relation existing in the processes of production. It is an
historical relation. The means of production are not capital when they
are the property of the immediate producer. They become capital only
under conditions, in which they serve at the same time as the means of
exploiting and ruling the laborer.... The foundation of the capitalistic
method of production is to be found in that theft which deprived the
masses of their rights in the soil, in the earth, the common heritage of
all.”[177] That is to say, Marx limits the name capital to economic goods
in the hands of employers.
The capitalist buys the commodity labor (_l_), for money (_m_), and
sells its product for more money (_m_+). The formula of capitalistic
production is therefore _m_-_l_-_m_+. In the socialistic state, the +,
surplus value, vanishes. The entire product belongs to the producer. If
he exchanges it for other products by means of money which must be based
on labor-time—labor-time money—the formula will be _c_-_m_-_c_. Money
becomes simply a medium of exchanging commodities (_c_) of equal value.
The only source, then, of obtaining the fruits of labor will be—labor,
physical or mental, but always labor of some kind or another. Idlers will
disappear from the earth. The race of parasites will become extinct.
One of Marx’s most important doctrines is his theory of crises. During
prosperous times manufacturers employ all the men, women, and children
who will work. The laboring classes prosper, marriage is encouraged,
and population increases. Suddenly there comes a commercial crisis.
The greater part of the laborers are thrown out of employment, and are
maintained by society at large; that is, the general public has to bear
the burden of keeping the laborers—the manufacturer’s tools—for their
employer until he may need them again. These laborers without work
constitute an army of reserve forces for the manufacturer. When times
begin to improve, he again gradually resumes business, and becomes more
prosperous. The laborer’s wages have previously been reduced on account
of hard times, and the manufacturer is not obliged to raise them, as
there is a whole army in waiting, glad to take work at any price. “If a
surplus labor population is a necessary result of the accumulation or the
development of wealth on a capitalistic basis, this surplus population is
in turn a lever of capitalistic accumulation. It forms an always ready,
industrial reserve army which belongs as absolutely to capital as if it
had been at the expense of raising it.... Surplus capital presses forward
with frenzy into all established branches of production, whose market
suddenly widens, and into new ones, as railroads, etc., the need of which
springs from this development. In all such cases must large masses of
men suddenly, and without loss to the leaders of production in other
places, be ready to be employed at the important point. These masses are
furnished by the surplus population.”[178]