[David McLellan] Marx Before Marxism(Bookos.org)

A i JO by David Mcullan

TilE 1"OU~G IIIWiO.l<\SII ASIl g,\IlL )l<\ II.J[

" ... 11.1. o\l ... RX: T il E R ... RL Y TEXTS

MARX BEFORE

MARXISM

DAVID McLELLAN -Unil'erllty of K""t at Ca1!te~b"~!1

MACMJ .Ll .. A N

© DiI\'id McLellan 1970

First publi.lht!rl 19'10 by M"'C~lIl.LAS ... ~n (:n J.TIl

Lifllc &'CX Strut umdoll wc2 mut 0/10 (It nomM!J Ca/t:llittJ allll11[adrol

.IfacmillmJ .... '(}IIt1~ Afric(l (1'Iiblilh£rJ) Ply Ltll J olulIJ/lubur/: 'J'ht! Mt.cmillall Compa.II,lJ qf AU#fllli(l Pt!J Lid MrIbolintt!

'l'ht! MIJcrllillatt Company I!f C,ma.da I.M T"rOlJfo Gill mill Macmilla./J [.ttl Dub/-j"

[>rilltt!(l i/I Orta.t {lritaill b.ll Il. "It. C I. ,I. II. I.: L T n

1.'dillburgh

2133 p7

\

TO A NN IE AND GAllRIELL F..

Contents

I, G l~ n:-' I ANY RF.FOItE 18+8 I. Economir. 2. Soeinl 3. Political

a COnse .... ·lltimn b Political Clltllolidsm c Lil"cTlIlIsm It Ilntlic l,lism t Socialism

-10 , I.ntcllcctunl "The l"rlm:ipler; of 1780 b Hcgel c '111c Hegelinn &hool

2. ClIl LDHOOn AND ADOLESCli.~CE I. Trier 2. Genealogy 3. Man's Parent» ... . School Day.

S. M A RX THE S'I' UDE::-I T I. Poetry in Jk>1lI1 and Berlin 2. Com'crsioo to Hegelianism S. Man's Diucrtation

a. I ntroductory b. Choice of Subjed c. Marx's l'felirnlnnl'Y ~'otel d. Marx's Thesis r:. Not.:!! to the Thesi, J. Co-opcrntiOIl with Bruno Bauer

I.

1

, 6 7 8

on

" " '" 14 16 20

" ., ,. '" " " " .. " " " " " 61

Il9

vii i .Murz ~Jore Mar:ci,m

+. MARX T Ill!, JOU RNA LI ST I . The J/ullUcM Janrbiicnu 2. Thc RMiniuhe J.dllmg

a. The lli~ l,()rical School of Lnll' b. Freedom of the Press c. Debate with thl' Ki;/"iuhe l ei/illig J. The lI/lti"iune Zei/Ilng and C.o,mllUlusm ~. The 1.."111' ngllil\st Thcfu ofnmber j. TIle Dr."llrutlOIl of the "I{)!;clie Wine-Growcr.:; and the

Suppreuhm of the R/u;n;lCke Zei/Ilng

MAHX AND TH E C lllT IQUE OJ.' IIF. GEL'S PHILO SO PHY OF THE STATE I. The FOllodali...,n of the J)eu.I~d,·FrrlllJ;/J,i¥t:k~ J"hrbiiclru O!. 'l1Ic I ntluCrLCC of Feuerhach

(]) Marx llnd IIegel on the State · .... ) Monll"dly lind Democracy ~. ·pun,aucracy

Gj)'l1re Politk.1 Function of ~".I;tate!i - " Thc Possibilities of a GCrman Re\'oluti,)n

MARX AND Til E DEUTSC/J -FIl A IYZOSl SCIlE :lAIIRfJOCHEll

'!J.J 'On thc J cwislL Question' 2. 'Introduction to the Critique of H!':gei', Philosophy of Law'

7. THE ' PARI S MANUSCRIPTS' I . '1lre Preface 2. Alieuah:d Laoour 3. Communism ,~, Hegcl'~ Dlllleetic

a. Preliminnry b. The Young Hcgclians c. Hegel

5, Needs, Production, tlle Dh'!sion of Labour and Money

8 CONCLUSION

(

I. MlLrx's Early Writinw; in Historical l'cn;pec\.i,'e 2. The Young l\I lLrx fual ~'1ature MlLr~[gm

C .. n01l:o ' .OO " ::AL TAIII, IC

SI: I.£CT BIBLIOOKAPIIV

INO£X

" 72

7' 79 82

" 90 '5 9'J

102 1()O2

'07 110

"' II';

"' 126

'29 1M 142

' 62 '62 16.~

180 192 ' 92 '., 195

"" '07

"" !.!14

2!! 1

'" '"

Preface

i\ 1,. ItX' , curly writings hn\'c surrered~ in t~e rew d e.tailed ~tUllies I!noled to them ill English, rrom bcin~ dls~~sse~ III boo~s conIl'IIlI'd tu IIrgue a pnrticu\uf interpretlltlon. lhe aim Oft1L~5 ~k I~ 10 l)1'cscnt i\ l urx's early writings. a8 ne\lll'"l1y us possLbh~, In

t III,il' hislul'iclII context. " I f tbere is IIny merit in the style or thr ~ book , t hIS is .Iue in

1nrI'Cil plld. to Gr"hilm ThonlllS, whose help hn~ been in\'1l1ullble

1I1"llllllllillting.

1.lItlr:crofl, ('/JI/flfllll, A'r/lt 1)rt't'lldJCf 1968

D.r-.1.

GERMANY 1815-J8"18

CH A PTER ONE

Germany before 1848

1. Ecoso)IlC

.1( RMA}'-'· immeili fl tely "ncr the frenc1, Re\'olut1on IVflS an lJmlerde\'cloped country, T he G(>rmali 'destitution' - /I common ('xpreniol1 lit the timc - was l!vident when compllred with F rance, whose economy was pnning frolll agriculture to manufncture, And e\en morc so when compared with EnglAnd, which wn~ "lreMly entering tJle industrial ~tllge. Germany - Hot thi~ time merely n. l{eogrnphieaJ expression commonly used to denot.e a group of IIlItles shnri llgo. eOUlmOn lnnguagcllnd a. common prutmemhcT"llhip of the H oly RomAn Empirc - was still essentinlly a nlflll country with three-quarters of JJer 23 million POPUlfltioll gnining thcir Ji\·ing from the land. What chnrncterised the German ceonomy in tile thirty or so years hctween t.he aefent of ~npoleon lind the revolutioll of 1848 was a TIlpid dcyelopmcnt lO\\'nrds the stntus of nn ind'lslrial power, a deyelopmeIlt nchicycu by the imposition from above of n market eeOIJOm), on u rurnl society.1

In Prussin the old feud(\llnnd structure II'nll d~stroJcd by three reforlJlS; in October 1807, Unron \"om Stein, Frederir.k WiUinltl JlJ"s ~Iiuistcr of Intcru,(l Afrnirs , abolished the prohiuitions on

1 For ~ct'f"I\uIIS of the soc;u-ccouOJu;c background of tho ["H'riod whi~b Arc rulltr tball elln be gi"en he""!lee A. B"'''lm, Ger .. ",ny:.A /'oIftlml HiM.f1I"y (.\Ielhllcn, l,.ondrlU, lOOi) 1'1'. iCl3 If. ; Co. Mann, The .111#0111 rif C~rma"!1 rill~ 1789 (ChRttll & " indus,wndon. 1900) l'P' 1611". i\ wNllI • ...r detllil anU80utul i"tf'rp~laliQIl is gi"en In J. I)roz BIlII P . AYl;Ob~ITY, ·8trud"r~ ... sociule.o; ct CQuronll; id&tlogkluCS en A Ikmaglle pl'l'!re .. olul;Qnnn~;re·, Anno/i, ~t (Feltr;nelJi, ~lib". 1!l6-1) lSi If. l~Qr th" ,,-orking dR!!SeII, ""'" W. Com.e. 'Vorn l'iihel ~\1'" l )rolelar;"l'. I 'u rieljdr"drijl. for So~iaJ_ "lid lI'irl«lwjl"at"J.'clolt. XI.!"

(,," if!>!b~de", 1!)64); J . K"c,.yn5kl,lJi~ h.t.vcder .4 r~e;!er Imt~rdtm h'al,i(,t1i~"'''f (Akademie Veda g-. lkrli,., 1!lm) •• A reliable l..ar.kgroun(1 book i~ ~'. Sc;bnahl!l, /h'ul«Ae (,'ndichl~, lith eil. ( lI ~rdcr, Fr(!iburg, Hl;,l)).

JlfnrJ) ""fore Mnr:r illm

the buyiug flno sclling of lflnd Ilnd Illso sU]lpr('~sed the statlls of the serf, though the peHsnnts still owed cines find services to their lamllords: in 1811 the I'russian l\[ini~ter HardeuLt!rg introduced a furt.her reform by which pUHsants ceded pnrt of their land lo IlI.ndlonls in order to become complete OWIlCrs· nnaliv inlB.21 IIll , -' , Act elll1.hlo;d 1111. peasants to U\IY off any dues still remailling, b(1t at the IIvcrll.ge pncc of twenty.fiye timcs t.heir anlluul vulue. TIle n:Slllt of these rcforms was far-renehing: l'l"ussian ngriculture wus rntionalised and estates !.x!cnmc much larger, the nren of small and middle·sized holdings decreasing by 40 per cent betwcen 1815 and 1848, Ilnd one million heetllres passing into the h!,nd~ of t.he big landowners. Thcse InHer begun t.o exploit Ua~ir estntes ecolloillicnlly, .which luul nevcr been dune hefore, alld inerensingly sharell the Views of thc bourgeoisie on economic dc\·c1opmcnl. The fonnel. serfs, hllving acquired liberty of IIlllrriuge Ilnd dornicile, either stayed on as day labourers on the Inrgc cstates or lIloved to the towns to f01"111 the growing proletariat.

At till! lK:ginning of the nineteenth eelltlll"Y, textil es werc the only mnnufudure tlUlt existed OJ\ n I"rge scnle. This wus f,,,·oured lly th.e ?lockn.de ufthe Continent during the Nupulcunie wnrs, but t.lle hftlng of thc blockade flouded GerlllulI)' with ehe,\jl E1Igl ish goods and u1most ruined what industries thure were. These were {ol·ccd tu moderllise or go out of husiness and touk t.he ncxt fifleell years to recover. Tllere WIlS Il certain imlJl1ll1nce in the c~onom.ic. dcveloplll~nt of the (:;'~rlllan stutes caused by the Nnpoleollic occl1rnhon and the dIfferent laws that. thut t!lltllilc{l . UndouUtedly the leader in industrial development Wt\S Hhinclnnd_ \Vestphalin, the pro\·ince where Mllrx WIlS born, which hnd becn nnncxed by Francc from 1795 to i8H and hflll tIlU~ hnd the benefit of economic, nclmillistrntive lind politicalr •. funl's. ' ""hat had be_ fore becn 108 small states were divilled into four districts feuclnl ol·gan.isation WIIS aholished, !lnd politicnl, juridicnl "";1 nscal equlI.l.ty was estllhlished. T he corporntions alld customs barriers were done RlI"lly with, much could be exporte,\ to France and produccrs werc protected against competition from Ellglllnd. Ex. pnnsinn was 50 grcnt that in 1810 the PI·efect of the nllh!" could plau~ibly claim that it. was the must industriAl regiun in I ~:urope. T extiles touk the lead 1I\ this expansioll. T hey (lid not need much capital investment and IL relldy supply of mn.nuRI labour wns

Gl'rmany brforc 1848

It.-nibble. After lhe lifting of t he continental blocklHle and ellror""d mmlernisll.tioll, linen W(lS abandoned for the more ~(' lI ily

meehllllisnble cotton. Onc further result of the occupation WiI$ a profound 5ympathy fur Fmnee and French idens nmong the popuIt\lion of the Rhineland, who did not welcume ti,e decision in 1 ill 5 of the Congress of Vienna to reattach them to Prllssin, wl,ieh WIlS at that time t1 poor country ruined b)· war. This antipathy "'as only gradually m·ereome hy thc econumic recovery of Prussia in ,\bout 1830.

In Germany as u whole, industrinl production was still sman comrllrcd with FrHllce nnd England but was increasing fnst. The output of the mines went up by 50 per ccnt between 1800 and 1830 :llld doubled between 18[10 lind 1842. !\·retallurgicll.1 output tril,lled hetween 1800 and 1830 "nd the production of consllmption goods \VIlS eighllimes l\S great in the decade 18W-40 as in the decflde 1800-10. But it was 110t unti! eighteen states entered the Zollvcreill (Customs Union) in 18~H thnt very ral'id expansion begun. The de\·eIQpnlent of slenm-rIIflchine production was slow until the midt. lliJ"l .ie~, hci"'~ stili fin)" )"e>"lrs behind J';nglnlld in 1831. The steel firm of [{rurp did not Lcgill its expallsion ulltil about 1835. T ypicul ofthi5 c.."pt\Jl.~io" "'us lhe Lonlll in milwn)"s : the first track ill Germany was l~id in iSH.'} nm] by 18'~7 there were 2,500 kilo· metres. 1mn productioll !llo\~d from UH,OOO Ions in 18fl4 to 170,000 in 1841, the impol·b\tion of colton increased from 187,000 t()IlS in 1836 to 44(i,OOO tons in 1845 IIm\ the llumher of sleuill Illilehil\cs trebled hetween 1837 nnd 18,18.

This e:Xp"J1sioll of industry went lltmd in hflnd with Ii huge d(~mogrnphic increase, wJlich \\'fIS in the region of 50 pel· cent between I H1.5 nnfll8:")5, and which illso profoundly affected the economic and sociul structure of the country. T his increase was W!ncrdly higher in tilC rurn l III·ens of the e~st thnn in the wc~t, partly owing to the relaxation of restrictions on the age of marringc, pnrtly owing to increased cultivlltion of potatoes, which could feed largcr fnmi1i cs. There wnll nbo Ii shnrp rise in the populatioll of the industrial arens of Uhine1nnd-Westpllfllia, the vAllcy of the i\bin, Rnd Snxony, owing to the iinpossibility of limit.i ng tile fumilies of induslrialll'orkers and also, t hough later, to the influx from the ~ur)"()unrling countryside; the chronic umleremplo}'ment in Germany began in ngrieulturnl areas which

Mflr.11 IJrfore Mar;riam

could not support the increase ill populntion, Ilnd tlus surplus was only later t.r-allgferred to the towns. Therc wu~ /llso IlIl immen~e emigml ion to other Eurupean eOllntrics and to America _ 750,000 in the thirty yeaN before HH8.

TIllis the (lAel tild there WIlS a huge expansion of industry Ilt just tills tilllf~ wns pnrtl)' due to pre"ioll~ ngrieulturo.l reforms, the ,lcrnographic explosion ""ll the amount of cheap labour nvallflblc; partly too, those German industries which had survivecllhe shock of fordgn competition were now in Il. jWiliun tn cxpllml; partly, t.he reform of the customs system greatly fflcilitated trade; Ilnd finally, fl-l1Iong the younger generation lhnl started on busine" earecrs in the Ill.id· lhirties, there WaJII a new attitude : this II'US the first ~nert\tion to IUlVe had the benefit uf" tedmieal education, nml the opportunity to trnvel widely ill their 011' 11 (.vuntry and II.brollll. F.mnncipated from trnclitiorlll.l beliefs, t hey wcre in n position to reflli~c the potentialities of the demogrllphic cxplllsion.

2. SOC I AL

This industrial dCl'elopment, enc()urll.b'll(l by the rural edais and lhe rapid incrcase in population and bdngillK with it tht: fnt:tory liS thc unit ofproduclion, nects.!HlTily brought about many changes in the soci,,1 structure. The large laudOll'lIeril who exploite~ their estates according to the lilli'S oft.he mnrkct still kept certnin .fewln] privileges : tllcy wcre e:tempt from properly tUli:, ha,l thClr OWII police and courls fOf petty just.ice, enjoyed ecclesinstical patrmlll.ge und tlominntc~ prolincial pnrlinmenl.9. Tho1lgh not all nobles, they cOlllui.llcd fortul1C! USlll1l1y built up by specull1.timl with the prestige accruing from tradition. Although they tellJ~J to lo~e cOlllrol ovcr t.ht: a~minislration of towns, they still retnmed theIr hillel on the highest puhlic officcs nnd on the Army.

The milldle cll\Sse~ were the real bcncflciurics uf the industrial mo:pansioll; fll.l'oure<.l hy the Napoleonic legislntion, they trllnsfnrl1led thelllselves from large-scule rnerehnnb iuto imlustrialists flnd entrepreneur!!. T here were hllrd limes - parucularly ufter thc Wlll'll of lilJcration - aud the necessity of concentrating on their ecollomic interest pnrtly explnins their I'ery slow develupnH:llt of Il

GcrmCl.llll bifoTC 1848 5

political consciOUSllei;!S. 1\ l~o, unlike the French bourgeoisie befure the revolutiull of 1789, the Of!rmon middle classes were st,rongly picli1;uc, a typical uren being the valley of the Wupper where Engels Wll~ hmught up. H f!re Ole Calvinist spirit "'Ilinwined a rigid sense of hiern rchy and of the duty of increasing God-given wealth for l'lis greater glory. The ~ception IVIIS the Hhenish bourgeoisie wl,o, owing to their ad vllllecd industry aud French influence, began to !lsk for greater repn:selitntiOll in the provincial Parlillmcnt, more freedom of exprcssiolllllld stronger legal gllnrnntces.

M neh lIIorc numerous tlum tIle bourgeoisie were tile arlisan~ ,

IImI their social position was the one 1Il0~t. threlltened by economic de\· c1upmcnt.~. T he gtl'iet rlItuning of the word 'nrtislI!l' was a master crafumall who worked ill Ius own home lAud employed ·(.~)rnpllnions'. III tile originnl organisation of the work the merchant entrll~tc,1 the wholc process of pl'oductiQII tu cnch of his nrt.isnns. Then came the singe of manu(adure, that is, dil'ision ur labour. Sometimcs the tools helunged to the owner of the business and thus the independence of the artislln~ was further dimi lIisllcd. The third stage W9S the introduction of a factory, I.hat is, centralisation nnd mccllllnisntion of procludion. In this process the urtisulls were gradually S(jucczed out of h usinllSS by industry and lost their indcpc"dellce, 5011le Ueeuming dependent on II'holcsaleT$ lind othcn being forceJ into fActories. Previously thc artil8ns iuHI becn protcde(l by re&triclive wrporations, by innumerable customs barriers thruughout Germflny amI by the different currencies in moost stntcs: Prussi,~ had sixty-seven CLlstUHlll barriens and there were seventy-one dilretellt currencies in the 'Vestcrn Plvvi"ce~. During the 18.'308 those artisUlIS II'Ofkillg ill bllilding, mechanics and luxury goods were quite prosperous, as tbe hcginlling of th r. indust.r-ifll c"f'R-llsion gave thel11 a. Illnrket, but soon afterwards its immense progre~s rcmOl'ed the ecollulllic viability of one trad e after Illluthcr. The nUlllhf!r of companions 11'11$ decreasing amI t.here was Il lot of movement, either nhroad or into the fActories. Those left were opposed to the effects of CII pilalism Hnd ill fUl'onr of the l'cslomtion of corpomt iun$. The master artisans were in the snme position as their companions lind were orten evcn more eOllllerl'fltil'e, as they hnd furtllcr to fall socinlly ir deprived uft.heir position. TIllIS throughout most uUlle period the

6 Marx before jVIarxisrn

artisans were in an a mbivalent position ; the suppression of the corporations and the growth orthe towns had given rnany of them a temporary prosperity, but t he advent of industry made them dependent on t he bourgeoisie.

It was, of course, among industrial workers that t here was the most rapid expansion of numbers - a sevenfold increase between 1800 and 1848. This was t he age of the lengthening of the number of hours in the working day and the employment of women and children. Although it is true that it at least gave an opportunity to work to landless peasants and un empl oyed artisans, yet the life of a factory worker did not offer much compensation . \IVages continued to sink: if an index of 100 is taken for 1800, by 1830 this was 86 and by 1848 it was 74, with a minimum of 57 in the crisis year of 1847. And case studies show that most industrial work ers lived at well below subsistence level. Yet these work ers did not yet amount to a class-conscious proletariat. For firstly there ·were not very many of them: in the mid-1840s there were still more artisans than industrial workers in Prussia; secondly, each type of worker tended-still to cling to his professional title, customs and way of working. ~Social questions' were first brought to t he fore by worried sections of the bourgeoisie, and though B ildungsvereine (study circles) began to form among the workers, it was the Germans working abroad who were the most class-conscious.

Although it is true that the real industrial expansion did not take place in Germany until after 1850, that the country was still predominantly rural and that the corporations and Junkers still retained considerable control over society, yet the agricultural reform, t he rapid increase of population, the urban societies dislocated by the new rich and the jobless artisans, the rapid mobility and growing class oppositions afford ed a rich field for the development and propagation of political ideas.

S. P O L ITIC AL

The polit ical ideas in Germany before 1848 did not, of course, correspond with any exactn ess to the socio-economic groups described a bove. 1\10reover, there were no political parties and some

Germany bejore 1848 7

stat es, notably Prussia, did not even have a constitution. Nevertheless, it is possible to group political attitudes into fi ve main streams : conservatism, political Catholicism, liberalism, r adicalism and nascent socialism.1

a. Conscrvat'ism

German conservatism was no mere negative reaction to the growing forces of liberalism and democracy, and thus no movement si mply to restore old powers. It aimed at giving societ y some sort of immanent order. '''' hereas in England the nobility maintained t h eir influence through controlling Parliament and in France they were a more or less clerical remnant, having lost power in 1789, in Germany the conservative nobility were powerful but not organised . They formed no political party and their only formal groupings were in certain pietist movements.

The leaders of the main stream of conservative thought were the brothers Gerlach, the political philosopher St ahl, the theologia"n H engsten berg and the historian Leo. They were uniformly hostile to a ny sort of rationalism and thus not merely anti-liberal and anti-democratic, but also opposed to the sort of absolutism practised by Frederick Willia m III or Joseph of Austria on the grounds t hat it was a rationalist conception of power. They believed that the whole was definitely superior to its parts, looked back with admiration to the Empire ofthe Middle Ages and gave t h eir support to the supra-national Holy Alliance. They laid emphasis on tradition and legitimacy and thus were strong royalists, integrating these conceptions int o a hierarchical and organic outlook stemming from the romantic political philosophers like Muller and Friedrich Schlegel.' They were thus firm supporters of the ~Christian state' and, when in favour of a constitution, wished to see it based on the old estates .

Certain conservatives had a strongly developed social cou-

1 T wo excellent accounts of the German polit ical thought of this period are to be found in E. R. H uber, Deutsche Ve-rfas8wll,gsgeschichte (Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1960) II 324 ff., and in the second half of the article by D)'oz and AY 'fobel'l"Y cited above.

2 On this aspect, see H. Reiss, The Political Th ought of/he German Romantics (Blackwell, Oxford, 1955).

'8 Mar ... before .Mar ... ;s",

science and were among the first to draw attention to social problems and the misery of the poorest classes. l Some inherited this from the sense of responsibility for those under their protection that theil- feudal predecessors had possessed. T'hcse were men such as Victor Aime Huber and Lorenz von Stein, who advocated a ~social monarchy' and called on the king to aid the property-less classes against the property-owners. Frederick William IV was profoundly a/fected by this attitude and worked hard to fo und charitable rel ief organisations . There was also a distinct group of such liberal conservatives as Ranke and Radovitz, whose chief concern was German unity and a certain amount ofl'cpl'csentative government.

b. Political Catholicism

Up to 1837 the political views of Protestants and Catholics were not distingu ishable on confessional grou nds. 1837 was the year of the ~Cologne affai l''' which awakened the political consciousness of Catholics throughout Germany. The new Archbishop of Cologne decided to enforce the hjtherto neglected papal edict on mixed marriages requiring promises from both parents that the children would be brought up as Catholics. Since this was contrary to the Royal Edict of 18:i!5, the king had no alternative but to arrest the arch bishop, who was thus able to appear as a martyr. This focused Catholic opposit ion to the Governmemt until he was released in 1840 when Frederick William IV succeeded to the throne. That the Prussian Government had, in the end, been forced to give in, gave Catholics a sense of triumph and made for a renewal of ultramontane spirit. This Catholic revival was not, as in France and Belgium, a liberal one, for its supporters were anti-democratic and

1 It was a. romantic philosopher, Franz Baader, who, with reference to his native navaria in 1835, seems first to have used the word 'proletariat', and pointed out its significance for society. In an essay entitled Uber das dermalige .Missverhiiltnis der Vermogllosen oder Proletairs zu den Vermligen besitzenden Klassen (1835), he described the law of the accumulation of capital in a. few hands and claimed that neither charity nor police measures nor a constitutional state with citizenship limited to property-holders could help the working classes, who should be given the right to defend their own interests, under the guidance of the Church, by form ing associations.

GermallY before 1848 9

romantic. Believing that the Church was founded by God as an instrument of eternal salvation, they held that in no circumstances should it be subordinate to the state. Thus they appeared to share the liberal thesis of the separation of Church and state and to be in favour of liberty of expression, information and assembly as means of achieving this .

Most politically-minded Catholics were, however, profoundly conservative and wished to see a Christian monarchy in which the Church, free in discipline and teaching, imbued the state with its moral precepts. They did not aim for the restoration of the old secular power of the Church, but wanted public recognition and guarantee of' the posit ion of the Church with a view to her spiritual eff'ectiveness. This involved an official acceptance of Christian marriage as a fundarnental state institution and a condemnation of mixed marriages. Education, too, was held to be the province of the Church, and state education was viewed with suspicion. There was not much unity among Catholics on purely political questions, though most of their active members came from the nobility of south and west Germany and Silesia. To any conception of individual freedom their philosophers Baader and Jurcke opposed an organic philosophy of the state. They we,'e in favollr of representation by estates, and the idea of' the restOl'a~ion of the old empire and its constitution exercised a very strong Influence on them.

The leading group of political Catholics formed around Josef Gorres, who, though in his youth a follower of Kant and an enthusiast for the principles of the French Revolution, became in the thirties chief spokesman for t he Catholic party. He exercised a wide influence through his pamphlets, of which the most widely read was his AthallGsius supporting the Church's position on the ~Cologne aff'ail'\ Other members of his group included Baader, Jarcke and Dollinger, who later became famous for his opposition to the decrees of the Vatican Council. In the R hineland there also arose a mong the bourgeoisie a Catholicism that was politically liberal and did not exclude the principles of the French Revolution. There was, too, a group around Buss and Bishop von Ketteler, who were interested in social questions and advocated a form of~social state'. Both these two latter groups were, however, relatively small.

10 Mm"x before 111arxis1n

c. Liberalism

The desires of the commercial bourgeoisie to have a grcuter say in the decision-making process gave strength to the variolls currents of liberal thought.

Two main parties can be discerned . The ideas of the first, and more conservati ve, whose chief

thinker was Dahlmann, had close affinities with those of the conservative, organic state. For them, the individual was no isolated atom without any necessary connection with his feUDw men . He had the position and function of a free and responsible member of a society. The state was a juridical person, and it was in the state as such that sovereignty resided. These liberals rejected equ ally the idea tbat sovereignty resided in tbe king and the idea that it resided in the people. Indeed, tbey ma intained that only if tb e state were sovereign could the freedom of the individual be guaranteed, a freedom that would be endangered, if not destroyed, by tbe sovereignty of eitber king or people. The power of the state was not, of course, limitless, as it was bounded by a balance of powers and a written constitution. l\1oreover, each person had a double status: his righls aIll] uutiel:i as an individual could not contravene tbe inborn rigbts be possessed as a citizen. The liberalism of England was more of a model here than tbat of France, for tbe English development seemed organic, less artificial, and thus appealed to men witb a historical and evolutionary view of politics. The more conservative German liberals were against a system based on a parliament and advocated a constitutional monarchy wbere power would be divided equally between a bereditary monarch and elected representatives of tbe people. Executive power would be vested in ministers appointed by the king and responsible to, tbough not dependent on, parliament. These ideas were strongest in the north of Germany, being championed by liberal H egelians like Strauss and Rosenkranz, and particularly so in the Rhineland, ·where there was a continuous and successful struggle, led by businessmen like Camphausen and Mevissen, to sa feguard the 'Code Civil' and the principle of the equality of all citizens before tbe law. This struggle kept ali ve in the Rbineland a spirit of a utonomy and dislike of Prussia's religious policies and semi-feudal absolutism. In East Prussia a

Germany bifore 1848 11

section of the aristocracy, impelled by the incapacity of the state bureaucracy to deal with the problems of decreasing markets for ogricultural products and increasing rural misery, gave their support to a liberal movement centred on the town of' l{onigsbcrg, where ](ant had lived and taught. The President of East Prussia, von SchOn, published a pamphlet emphasising that an EstatesGeneral belonged to the fundamental rigbts of every country, and Dr Johann Jflcoby was arraigned on a charge of high treason for publishing a demand that the king grant the constitution he hnd promised.

The other major CUlTcnt of liberal thought laid much more emphasis on the freedom of the individual, and was influenced by t he :French liberals like Benjamin Constant, wbo bad opposed the Bourbon restoration and gained a victory in the July Revolution. This current was orientated towards France and the principles of 1789. The Baden politician Rottcck was typical of these libe ... ls, who were most numerous in the we~t, in states (1ik e Baden) where there was a parliament and open discussion of political issues. They held Rousseau and Montesquieu in high esteem, laid great emphasis on the sovereignty of parliament, and advocated a parliamentary monarchy on the model of t he ·bourgeuis Jflonarchies' of France and Belgium. l

d. Radicalism Whereas liberali sm was a movement witb much support (at least tacit) among large sections of the population, ai ming at something practical and limited - a say in the government of the country - radical ideas were confined to groups of intellectl.1 fl. ls, of which the most prom inent was that of the Young Hegelians. These ideas had little popular influence apart from the poems of Hoffmann \'on Fallersleben, Freiligrath and Herwegh, and such opposition mo\'cments within the Churches as the Protestant L ichtfreullde and the Catholic D eutschkatlwl-izismus. The liberals had no attitude of systematic opposition to government propos s an d set areat store b , ICD'alit . Their aim was to ada t, not to (estroy, the monarchic system, and they~·nph asised the illl-

I Fmthel' on the liberalism of this period, and particularly the part played by the academics, see R H. Thomas, /;iberalism, Katiollalisln and tlw German Intellectuals, ]821- ]847 (Heffel', Cambridge, 1(51 ).

l ~ Jlfar,v before illar.vis",

pOl'tance of uniformity and a lack of secta rianism: RottecJ< and the Baden liberals werc opposed to voting in t heir Parliament and wished all dccisions to be t aken by consensus. The radicals, on the other hand, were a priori revolutionary and accepted very littl e compromjse in thejr advocacy of popular sovereignty, unj versa l s u(frage and even republicani::;l11.

The central idea of th e radicals was that of popular sovereignty, their interpretation of which was obviously inspired by Rousseau's doctrine that the general will was omnipresent and omnipotent. For they held that all state power - executive and judicial as well as legislative - had its origin in the people. H aving nonc of the historical and evolutionary considerations of the liberaJs, they \vere also in favour of a national democracy in a single, indivisible stat e. This carried with it the idea of a republic, and radicals opposed unconditionally any idea of monarchy. Like the liberals, they demand ed elections to a national pArliament, but insisted on there being only one chamber, as the people had only one will. The government would be an executive committee of this parliament and entirely dependent on it. Radicalism rejected any idea of balances and checks, since it considered the only guarantee of freedom to be participation of all citizens in the government of the country. Underlying these ideas was a conception of equality fundamentally different from that of the liberals. Liberals, when they t alked ofthe 'people', did not mean all the individuals in the state, and Rotteck declared himself in no way opposed t o 'the natural and real inequality of political influence according to a man~s different talents, moral weight and wealth' .l The radicals, on the other hand, denied that class inequality could ever be either natural or rational. On the contrary, they considered that inequality of class position should be compensated by equality of political rights and that universal suffrage was fundamental to any just and rational constitution.

This radicalism, which only gradually separated itself from liberalism and did not achieve a complete break until the early ] 840s, first appeared as a force in the manifestations in Germany that followed the July Revolution in France. In 1831 there was a short-lived coup engin eered by radical elements in Gottingen; in 183~ , at a political mlly t o condemn the suppression of Johann

1 Staatsle:lJil .. ·on, ed. Rottcck and Welckcl' (Al tona, 1837) I V 252 f.

Germany before 1848 13

\r\'ith's association for the support of a li'ee press in B ambach in the Palatinate, 30,000 people assembled , many sporting t he black , rcd and gold of the banned Burschenschaften (radical stude~t organisations); and in 1833 there was even an attack on the cIty of Frankfurt.

These manifestations led Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor, t o introduce into the federal Diet in 1832 the six articles r eaffi rmin" that all power was in t he hands of the princes and that

" I . , t parliaments had no power to imped~ t 1e prmces govern men . These art icles reaffirmed the censorship, and further laws forbade political societies and the holding of public meetings except under close observation. The failure of the radicals ' haphazard political demonstrations meant that thereafter opposition inside Germany had to confine itself to lit erary and religious fields. In literature, the tone was set by the ~Young GCl'mant movement; they were strongly influenced by Saint-Simonian i,deas , th~ir ,leader ,~as ~{arl Gutzkov and their most famous wnter HClnnch Heme. In relioion t he radical disciples of Hegel, Karl Marx among them, dev~lop~d an attack on their master's synthes.is. of religion and philosophy. The movement quickly became pO.hilcal an~ some of it s members left Germany and joined the radICal assocIatIOns of German emigrants that had begun to form in France, Belgium and Switzerland soon after lVl etternich's repressive measures. Here socialist ideas were already beginning to spread.

e. Socialism

It was not the working classes in Germany who were at the origin of socialist ideas . Germany was only in the process of becoming an industrialised country, and industrial workers were nowhere near the maj ority of the population. They did not have sufficient organisation and were nostalgic for the past rather tl:an revolu ~ tion(\ry. Socialist ideas were spread by a palty of t~e Intellectual elite, who saw the proletarian masses as a possible Instrument of social renewal.

French utopian socialism began to have an influence inside Germany during the 1830s.2 In Trier itself' (where Ma rx was

1 On lhe movement, see E. ButICl', 7'''e Saint·Simonian Religion in Germany (Cam bridge University Press, ] 026) . 2 Ibid.

[I

14 ]IIIarm beJore Alarmis",

born), Ludwig Gall spread Fou,ierist ideas; but in Bcrlin the poems of Heine and the Jectu res of Gnns gained a wider audience. The i:irst book by a native German communist was Die It.eiUge Geschichte der Mensch!wit (,The Sacrcd History of Mankind), ...t

wntten by }\'loses Hess, who had picked up commurust ideas after running away to Paris from his father's factory in Cologne.l 1'he ~ook was mystical and rneandering,~t contained quite clearly the ldea ,of the pol~l'isation of classes and the imminence of a prC!letanan revolution. A year later a tailor, vVilhelm "\'VeitlinO', active in the expatriate German workers' association in P:z.is and Switzerland, published a booklet entitl ed Die illenschheit wie sie ist und wie sie scin sollte CMankind as it is and as it ought to be').2 It was a messianic work which defended, against the rich and ~owerful of the earth who caused all inequality and injustice, the right of all to education and happiness by means of social equality and justice. But the book which most helped to spread knowledge of soclahsm was Lorenz von Stein's inquiry, Der Socialismus und Kommunismus des lteutigen Frankreichs eThe Socialism and Communism of Present-Day France')? Early in the 1840s.some of the radie_al disciples of Hegel, following Feuer ac1Tshumanist interpretation of Hegel's philosophy, evolved a socialism hased on the idea of man as a ~species-being'.4

4,. INTELLECT UAL

a. Tlte Principles of 1789

Both liberals like Itotteck and also socialists owed a larae <leut to the thinkers of eighteenth-century France - Voltaire~ Diderot,

I On Hess, see the defini t.ive biography by E . SilLernel', Mo;cs fless (E . J. Brill, Leiclen, 1966). On 'T}le Sacred History ', see ibid, PI)' 31 if. j D. McLellan, The Youn9 Hegclians and Tla1·t 111arx (Macmillan, London, 1969) pp. ]37 if. Hess 's book is reprinted in Moscs Hess. Philosophische und socialistische Atifsiitze, cd. A. Cornu (ll1ci W. Monke(Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1961) 1'p.1- 74.

2 On Weitling, see C. 'Vi ttkc, 'The Utopian Communist (Louisiana State University IJress , Baton Houge, 19;)0).

3 For a fuller account of Stein 's ideas, see below, p. 94. 4 A more detailed account of the origil)S of German socialism can be found in

A. Cornu, Karl Marx ct filried1'ich Engels (Pl'csses Universitaires de France, IJaris, 1955) J 23 if., and G. D. 1-1. Cole, A History of Socialist 'l'hou9ht (Macmillan, London, 19li3) J 2L9 fr.

Germany brJore 1848 15

ondillac, Helvetius and Rousseau .l They were essentially rntionalists and had a limitless faith in the power of reason to cxplain and improve the world. In this belief they tempercd the dogmatic rationalism of the classical metaphysicians like Leibniz with the British empiricism of Locke and Hume. Th"-y believed that they were capable of showing that men were by nature good and all equally rational; the cause of human misery was simply ignorance, which resulted partly from unfortunate material circUlllstances, and partly from a deliberate suppression or distort ion of the truth by those in authority, ~ther civil or religious, to whose obvious interest it was to perpetuate the deceptions under which mankind laboured. One of the chief means of destroying this state of affairs was education; another was change in man's environment. Most of the editors of the Encyclopedia shared to some extent the determinist views of the materialist La Mettrie in his notorious book L'Hommemachine. Yet the French material- f ists -put most emphasis on reason, self~C;;nsci;usness andthe power to shape the future as the characteristics that distinguished human beings from animals. They intended to do for social life ~ what men like Kepler and Newton had done for the physical f sciences. Most prominent in this crusade for free and rational inquiry into personal and social issues was Voltaire, whose talents as a propagandist spread the new ideas far and wide. Rousseau, although his ideas were fundamentally different from those of his contemporary radicals, made common cause with them when it was a question of opposition to the ancien regime. His language was altogether more emotional and gave to will a place equal to, if not higher than, reason j often the mystical vagueness of his language added to its attraction, and Rousseau was quoted as a support for incompatible theories: Kant drew from Rousseau a n 1/ individualistic approach to politics, whereas Hegel's disciples II quoted him in favour of a transcendental state.2

1 See Marx's own account of these thinkers in Die Milige Pamilie ('The Holy Family'), reprinted in IC Marx and F. Engels, H'i.~torisch-lC1'iti8che Gesarntausgabe, ed. D. Rjazanov and V. Adoratskij (Berlin, ]927 ff.) I iii 173 ff. (hcl'cafter referred to as MEGA) nnd translated in The Essential Writings of Karl Marx, (MacGibbon & }{ee, London, 1067) pp. 25 ff.

2. For the "jews of the eighteenth-century materia lists and their expression in the }'rench UevoJution, see liingsley Martin, French Liheml Thought in tJ,e

1G

I,. J{(grl

)lclIllwhile in Ge.rmnny, where the French HC\'Qlutioll "'liS greeted with cllthusinsnl, it wILS Knnl n lxl\'l~ all who gll'c these principles tlldr ]lhilOllOphicnl foundnUQII ami curricd further the struggle ngninst dogmatic religion nud the empluu.i~ on the ,· .. Iuc of hurnll" ren~oll already e:ro:.pressed by Httrnry "'riterl such AS l.eMing. KUlll consiclered that humnn reason Will limited La the "'orld or pheno. mena and thnl things ill thcmsdn!'!:l were ouhide its scope. Bul reason \\'1\8 free to discover tin) world of experien~(l nnd its law:!. The moral philOliophy of Knill WH8 IJusro on the Autonomy of the

' indi"iduul conscieuce liS the !OlJrce of ohlignlions, and thUI, ,,111l0ugh he reintroduced God, rr~dUI1l ami immortlllity 118 legitimate hypotheses, bis cmphllsis on the cenultlity of hUllIan rell$O rl wus tile Mille 811. thnt of the J,'rench mnterilliists.

T he discus.sion of the problems of ku,s/\dedge rllisW by Kant Will continued by Fiebte und Schelling{ Fichlc found the fundAmental unity of beillg, ofter whidl all idNlli~u hAnkered, in t he crctltivity oCthe human mind, a crenLj"ity that ineluded the whole of the objective world. Schelling also laid emphasil on the primac.r of spirit and described the progress from nature to spirit which then in it..! turn penetrated nature to such an utecnt thllt, ill n wor!': of IIrt for C)lnmplc, they were both one. In ,u.ldition to th iR search for" single principle from which to l::.xplnin all being, the German ideali5b were abo concerned to reject I\lIy transcendence nud helie"ed thllt the regulative principle of the world was imIntUleut tv it. Thirdly, lbeyj:ollsid,'f('{\ t hat the ideas of development nnd change were fundnmenw.l to an understanding of the worM; and finl\lIy, the): saw contrlldiclioll and opf"O'lition ',II. the source of all ehnngc.

Hege\"$ mnjor collt ribution wu to take up these disparnte theme! Rnd unite them into Ii coll1llrehensi"e system) I legt.! \I'M a

KiOItt_J~ Cnoillry,:ln! ed. (I'hoeni:o; !lOUR, London, 100'2); J. L. Tillmon, n~ 0ri~1'" nl1'iJ/QUt6~1(l" Ihmovac!I (Se<:k", &: Wacburg. L(lndon, I!).:;~),

, It iIo obvlol1ily impouible to gi'-II .n '~"'llUlt" account of t he Ide .. or.o «In>]Ju • tblnke. In flO fJIort • ~i"""'. Wb_t i • • imed .t bo>U ii .... ~ry b""f N>l'"l~hl~; tbe ",on: d~t.iled &!iIK'O:tsof l leg.l'. doetrinel< ... m 00 delOit witl, u thfty ~Il'oct tbe deY~IOI)"'.nl or "' •• x', thought. T"o goo<! """"lit book;, In F.ncli.h dealing ... ith IIfgel'. I,biloiol'hy in g.m~ .. I .re .1, S. Findl.y , 1ft7"1'

GermQII!llKjCX't / 8-/8 17

SwulJinn, born in Slullllu /,l ill 1770, t.ho yo/, r t hat K,",t took up his IlwrcuoT$\,ip fit KOnigsberg. lie ~tudiod theology I1 t till! .Uni\'orsity of T libillgen for fi"e yeal'fi, and then beclIHte Il pn"ute tutvr lI'hile ol'oll';ng hi$ ideM in so"orlll long nrlicJes, I\lO~ t of which were only published in 1007, A legacy f'.lIIl.bled him to join Schelling, R frielU! from "i$ ~tudcnt dny$, II.t the Unil'ersity of .Tenn, t hough he soon btgtln to pu.rt compony with SeheUin;,;'! iucas, which he con idered ,'ague anu romautic. This brcuk clune into the open ,,·j1h the uppe,Ir('llce in 1807 of !Tegcl'. tI~t mlljnr publi~hed lI'or!': ILnd hil most in"uentinl, l'llii'lOlIlr"oIogud" Grate. ("r he !'hcnomcnology of5I'irit,). The "iclory of Nllpoleon nt Jelill. ti,e ~nmc ycur ,lcllr;"ed Hegel of hi! living nnd he became hClIdmn~ler of a grllllUlUIr school in Nuremberg, during which period he wrotc llill!econd mnjor work, Wifll:lmhajt dr.r Lcgik (,,5dcllCll of Logic'). In 1816 he obtnined n chnir of ph.ilo,ophy in Heideillcrg, and thcn in 1818 he accepted the ohnir in Berlin, ",here he reIlUlincd until his dcnth in 1851. Whlle ill Berlin, Hegel published his major JIOlilical work, Gruudliuitll drr I'/'UQlopliic del Hc~ht, ('Outlines or the Philosopby of Hight'). The not~ of his ,'l\nOUI

le.c)-urc5 t~,kell by I,il students wore published a fter his dClith. )"The great merit of liege!" ehiIOllolll)y, wrote Engels, 'J,ll' that 'for the fint limit. the t.otality of the Datural. historicl,l.! Ilnd ~piritual n~pects of t he world werc co/1Cei"eo lind represent(l(l ns a l,rOCe$5 of constant trallsformlltion nnd de"e1opmcnt lind all effort was mnde to shol" the orgnnie cha!!ill~r this eroc~'yJ-1 egel stl\rtcd from the helief tllal, III he loitl of tho FruHch HO"olution, 'l1IlLn's e:<istt!lceJJn~ its centre in his head, i.e. in R~n-, under ,,:..ho$e in spit1l~ build~ ul' t1.!! world ofreality',lln his grcnl.est work, the Pktbmme"ologie, ' l.l;gcl..t.ru.co:.:; the de\'clopmeut of !lund or Sllira, rciulrooucing histor;CIlllTlovement into philosophy tU".\ asserting that the humlln mind con ottnin to obsolute !.:nowlc,lge.~

.. Rf"<!.I'Gmill<diGII (,\U." &: Un .. ';", London, 1MB), .nd W. K,,,tmann, ll<:ytt (Ooubltday, Ne" York, 1006). 5te 100 II. )bn::Uie, &0I0Il a.H.1 R«otUI~H (o~r ... rd tJpi"~~ltr 1'..-. N~ .... \"ork, IIUI) and the mo", 8I1ftl),,," AI'I'l'()Ach III .J. l'l.menat.., Man anti ~~III (Lo''S'''''''' 1 •• ;uwh,Il, 19(3) 11 I~'ll If.

1 1'. ~; "t!.J.. '$ocialiom, 1;181''''' .,Ill Sc:ionlifi,,', ~I'rinled ; .. K. I\b.~ .",1 F. F.Jlb"'l., &/trttd II'n"b (M~"', 196'~)" 1Il2.

I G. w. f'. U~i<!l. We.h', (lJ.erlin, 11l3~ 11',) IX HI. • Ou thl.! "ork, _ th.e lran.btioll by Sir Ja n>CI UaiUw, 2",1 ",I. (Allen &.

U",,.;,,, I ... "don, 1\)..10); .~ J. Loo"·I!II~rg. lI"gI:I" PAtllJW'ellologl1 (01'''''

18

He lI rl 'llpl~1 the ue,clol'",cnl of Itumun cOllsciousness, fl"()~it.s ;"llllflC1illle pcrcl'l!lion of till' h(,fC nnd )'" I c of s@lfC<)llsciousncss, tJlIl "litleI'll/lUlling lh!!.-t nlto"~Ill!4n i.<>.A1Jyj[1bc worM nnt} oT.1er his 11"'1\ ncl.ions nccordi ng!y. Following tllis is t he IOll.,;;e of reason ;1.111'1[, llndrrsLl.lIding of tIle renl, n~ith spitiL ~I..!!!..Clln~ of religion find nrl, utt.!!i...ns to absolut,ejwoll-Iedge, the len] lit which mltn recognises in the world the stllgcs of his O"'n renSon. These &ta~CII i"lCJl.d calls 'lIli~, ill $I) far lUi 1h£.JJ!...nl crcnti~ of the IIlmllll mint! ycllhollght of liS inrl~lIdcnt II.nd " 'perial' to the humllll milia. This llolorolute inlo,,'ledgc is uflhe ~l1\e lillie Il sort of ree'lpilol3lion of the human spirit, for ench lIuccllSli\'c stl.gc rctuin$ elements of the pfe,-jolls onc~ III the sume time 1/.8 it gocs beyond them. 'l'Eis movement that suppresses 1111<1 yet oons{:nc~ liege! etllled AujhcbulIK, 11 word tlmt has tltis double sense in Germnn. I regd «Iso talke<l of ' the power of the negative' , thinking t['"t t here \YO, ... Iwa)", n tensioJl beh'~en

nny present !tnte of nffnirll nntl II"h"t it II"n~ h!::£~g. Yor un)' pre~cnt ~tnte of uffnin II"(U il11he process of being negutcd, ehnngl'd into 'OI11cthil1 l; else. T his proees! lI"as what Hegeimeant hy dinlectic. ')

It is worth while looking more closely at Hcgel's ideas on the !tnte IlIH.I 011 rcligion, ns thcliC wero tim li,,]ds where he wns most 6trongly criticiaed l,y his disciplu. According to H egel'! political philosophy, wldch Wtl$ pr1rt of his gcncrnl cffor~ to reconcile philO!ophy with rcnlity, hUJllnu consciousness manifests iUelf ubj ectively ill IIllln"s juridical, moral, $OCial nnd f'Oliticnl institu· tions. These institutions permit 511irit to IIUain to n ful11iherty, and the nUninmenl of this liberty is made pmsible by the social mornlity present in the iUCCC5si"e groups of the fami ly, chi! society lind the sute. The fiunily educates a 111.1111 to morn I nlltonol1\Y, where ... ci,·a society org<lnises the economic, profe ... aional IIml cullurnllife. Only the highC6t le"el or~ocilll orgn"iM. lion _ the Itatc, which lIegd e"liS 'the reality of col)(:rete liberty'is cRpuble of synthe. i!ing pnrticulnr righu a nd \lnj,'eTSJlI rellS011

Courl 1'"blillli"l! Co., I ... Salle, ItL , 1005). The cI-rica1 wm"",,,I,,,.,, ;,. .f . IIn.polite, CkfoUio n 1/ ~!Id" ... tit Ift"M"IIollllIU!IQlJif U I'npril d~ lIogti. ~ ~k. (A"h;', .. , I'ar.,. IOIG) .• '01" ~ l,ritti .. "t i\lRr>:ilit_~;"i~U!ntial~t inter~'"*t"tion, l<>II lrue to I I~d, _ ,\. I~\>j~,·~, IHlrvJudioa <1/" 1<eluTe i f 1I'"!1d (Qallim.rd, i'arll, l!},Ii).

I

(,"mIUlII!J lx/ore 1848 10

into th~ final ~tu.ge of thc c,-olution of objecti"e sr~~it. 'l'hu: ll~ge! rejecl.a t he "iew thnt man is free b)' nnture nnd thllt the hi:ale o,:urtl1il~ this Ilnturnl fr(:(!UOI11. For him the state is the only menu! of mll~ing I1UIU'~ rree<lom real. And OOcuusc Hcgel helie"ed that no philosopher could ,,,ol'e outsiue his own limes nnJ tlms rpjec:ted thooriJing "bout au.trnct idenls, he confiid~n.!,1 thnt the stRte he dcscriOcd ""nS to some extent Illrendy present in f'ru$liin. Ilegel's politicR! philosophy WRs undoubtedly mther .unbimlent: 011 the one haud hc dcs\·riOcd the French Remlution ns" 'glorious fIAII"U' lind throughout his li fe drank a toast 011 the duy that the Bastille fell: on the otber hUl1d many of his pronouncel11t!nts, IWlrticulRrly Illter in life, leruled to 1I more eonse .... ·l\tj,~, not to u.y renetionAry, posi tion.'

Hegel's "iews on l"eligion, which plnyed 1\ centrul role in the forlllntion of his thought, "'ere nlso oJl"Cn to Ulore than one inter. prl'ltatio-n. Religion, togcther with philosor:hy, ""M for him tile highest fOTiIl of ,11nn's 5piritunllife, Hdigion--::" und by this H egel, I who rCllllI.ineu n I'raeti,ing Luthcr,m all his life, mellnt I'rotestlll1t Chri6lionity, which he C()nsidcr~...J the highest I1mI finnl form of religion -wl19 the return of the ,\ hsolute Idell to if:..o!el f. ~rhc content of 1-eligiOll WI\8 the snme us that of philo$opby, though iUl method of IIpprehending WllS different. For whel"ea~ philosophyemploycd conctlpf:..o!, religion used imaginntion. T hese unslliisfactory imRgin. illg5 afrorded only a frllgmentary lind imprecise knowledge of whAt philosophy CQI11preheudcd rntionally. But religion eould be linked to p!li lollophy by mellus. of l' plulo$O~h)' of religion, and Hegel consIdered thAt the pnrtlculfll" dog111nllc contents of the religioull i,,,nginntion were necessary ,tnges in the de"elopment of Absolute Spirit. T he philosophy of religion interpreted at a higher le " ~1 both nAhc r .. ith und criHcnl relUiUn. Thus Hegel rejected the I'ielO" of the eighteenth.century ralionllii.!llA thAt religion did huule. qllfltcly ... hllt only $cience was competent to do; ill lu! eyes, religiol1 (or his I'hil~oJ)llicnl interpretntion or it) fulfillcd lI1an's

• On lbe "",,,,tion or I", ... li"","",1 in ""Iit.io:ol 1It>ge1 rulll' ... ,.., _ i'H A. l'eleo:rnikr. introdu~ti()l) to H~'f l'lJlilicaJ Writinp (Cbren..\an 1' ..... o"ronl. l!leU) and crilk;'m or t'~tc>;rn.lo!osim', j,'WJ.",'~r- (Ma,. 1900). tog.!tlr~r .... th the ",],IIC!I by S. Aviueri a".l ]'clC2)"Mkl, J:,'A"""Afc~ (:-;ov 100.; and M~r 1000),

•

, -, •

11lllrx brforc 11/arxil7l1

llonst1lnt psydlologillal nlle(! to have an image uf llimSlllf and of lhe WQl'I,1 uy ",hidl hll (.-Quld orienlnle himself.!

r.. 'nit IIrgdifUl ScllQtl/. 1&" 1,

I II the yenrs illlUledintdy followi ng lI ebers denth, hi~ school was

,,,,iled ,,,,,I SU1II'CJIle ill the Genna" universitics. Its iulh'enee spl'enl'ling O(lt. from Bedin, wh/lre I-Ie-glll hnd hnd his ch~ir, it Ii"d oulposh in IlI'ery uuh' ~rsily in G ~rllla,,)', ih own philosophicnl club nml its o\\'n pcriodi('lll. T he Prnssian .\Jinister of Culture, Altendein, was f,woUfnLle to l-Icgeliani51l1 and had helped to ,,,j va,,ce lhll RCHdemie c"recrs or Hegdi""s. A colllplete editiun of the master's works WIIS prcpared Ly sCI·cn of !lis pupils. T hese considered that tile pltilOiSophieul uchievClluollt uf I-Iegd \I'll!, ns n whole. c;d","sti,·e. His fulloweNi thus .lid "ut seck tu innuvate in philosoph)'. T hey wel·e content to d<:fend I\nd cllll)orule the principles of th<: master in fields tha t he hnd only tuuched 011.

' I-Ij>gcl" said Gans, one of the sel'lm, ' hilS left behind fI host of gifted people, uut no sueeessor.'z

In time, howovcr, the inevitable differences of opinion begtln to vceur withi" the Hegelian school that were to lend eventually to fI SI)iil belweell Right ,Ind Left ile,,«elillns.J These terms, though th<:y iuuj U Jloliticnl urigin in the l:'r<:IIch Com'entiou, were used exclusively to designate religious attitudes, and indeed $omctiUle~ were quite innpproprinte politically : Gans, for example. who wus Ilertainly regllrded I\!! (In Old Hegelian, wfla Left polit icl\lIy.

Th.., orlhodo1> Hegelian !\·liehclet delieribed the differences hetween the two sides thm: ' the Right of the school held to the SlfJb'lu, U'at 'thc 1'(:]11 is the ratiouul', aml suw nothing iITutionai

, for U~g~"~ dew. on rdigioll. ><l<l Ii. Bartl,. i"rDII' Hau.llrGu to f1itfICloI (S.C.~J. l'~, London, 1~'yJ) pp. ~68 If.; 1'. AS"dd, LiJ J'tfld~ reli(liou ... d« #II"~ llegel (DCI"-I<!o dll ll rouw,.,r, PAtio, W;:.a); A. Chappelle, H~I ct I" ReliyiulJ, 2 vol. ( l 'nri><, I !l6~) i K. 1.Ij,,"ith, · II.S"I Rlld the Chr;"ti. " lIe1igiqll', ill ,\'ulur~. Hit/ory ufld H.i.ltuliaJi~1II (Nurlbw,,;,tcm U, I'. , t;,·a,,,,toll, III., WOO) IIp. 162 If .

• K Gam, l'c~",ilChfC Seh7i!lcn (lleriin. 1934) p. 2~1 . * The r,,,,t !",""'n to ,,'" t1""", ten". ofth" IIcgclinll.dlool wno D_ F. Stroll"'!

in I, i~ -!itl'Cil¥ch7ljle" (rU~i"!:"n. 1!j(j7) III 00. • Cf. C. Mi~helet, ""nllJ;kklun!J!!JCtChkM~ dC7 'leut ll.m dellmhtn l'I,i/W(JpMt

( 1l~r1in, 1813) 1'1'. 316 If.

I,

Crrm(lII!l bcjore 1848 " in the tradition.11 reprcsentlttion of religion . They collSidered thnt lhe llIajor representution of religi .... u, tire trunsceml~ntal PCrliOll

ulity of God, the uniquen<:s! of Christ, the indi,·idulIl immortality of the soul, were purt of its eS$cntil\\ content. T hus thcy uphdd the Hegelian doctrine of the unity uf philosophy lind religiofl. The l .eft I leg<:1ians could not ~d!l\it tilisl)nity ; they beglln to Mk (I\nd here they werejoineu by mUll)' orllmuox Lutl.era lls to whom I\ny lypepf.!:legeJianism WAS abhorrent) whether Hcgd was not really n prmthllat. Questions b"'glln to be asked about the persot\nlity of Go,r,,"d the inllllortn]ity of the soul. Hegel's teoching on these points \\'II! not clear, Ilnd the "erblll trndition of his lectures often Yllrietl . :rhe principle thut the L>:ft lIegeliuns held to W(lS thllt 'the nltiOJud is the rcor.Thus th<: J .eft side of the sch{){ll oppused the !light's optilnism ",ith II pes~imismthnt set Oll t to destroy the dogmas enshrined in religious represent:ltiuns that ",ere now out· dat<:rb '["hes<: rcpres<:ntAtions all hAd to 00 judged by 1\ progressiv<: reOSOIl, not one which, as Hegellmu said, only 'puiuts grey with grey' i!m! thus mHoly rc<:ogniscd \I·hat I\!ready ell i.<; ted . For the mnster had also soid thllt an age coulprchendeu in thought was IIlreuuy in I\(h'ance of its lime, nnd the Left side drew the COn

clusion that the cUlllllrehensiOIl of religion I\lready modifi<:d el"en its cuntent, while its form became a pore m)1h.

This argument came right out into thc open with the publication in 1855 of David Strlluss's Da8 Lebetl h8U ('T he life of Jesus') . Stnluss had studied th<:ology at TuLingen, where he was tAught b)' the rodicol Old T estament critic F. C. Baur, and had Ilome t .... Bnli,) ill tim<: to nttclld the !l,st few of Ilegcl's lectures. Whereas lIegel hud r.onsidered the llisturicity of the Gospels to be cUlllpnmti"ely UllimportOllt tlnd concentrated on inteJ·Jll'(!ting t1",jr sVllll)olill content, Strl\uss Ilonsidered that t he essence of the Christion religion ",as to he found in the Gospel nnrmtivcs, lind he trel\tcd them not as symbols but as myth! translating the profound desires of the people. Strauss thus opposed th<: Hegelian r<:conciliation of phiioSOIJhy an ti religion by mllintllining that dogmu l"Uuld JlVt be reduced to philosoplucl\l eOllcepts without profoundly I\Jtering the content of religion. !-IRving foiled to extraetl\ piCtllf<: of the historilll\l ,Jesus from the Gospel nnrrnti\'e~ Stf!l.lISS cOJ\sidel'e<! thut these J\l\rrntives were expressions of the ~ I essianill ideo present in the primitive Christian communiti/lS,

22

myths never intended to be taken 88 reul historicul nnrrutj\'cs. In the conclusion to hi' book,1 StraliU maintllined thllllhe iden of CiJrislilinily "'8$ Ullllfrl:ctCU oy his Tl.."cnrchcs; tile only difference Wft! lhat lhi~ ideR wu no longer re,'calcd in 8. single individnnl, out in the "'hole species. Whll l the! c\'nngclists had said about the pcnlOli of Chrillt applied tu the whole of humanity: ' i t is not the \\'fI.y of the Idell to ~n1isc itM.1r by spending its ... IJolt richness 011

n single exemplar all/1 refule it to ali otheN, to exprl'.u iU<!if rlJlI~' in thol single ;lId;,';lIulIl, and incompletely in all others. ~o, it likes to spread ill riche. in II. multitude of exemplars that complcnlcnl ench other •... '1:

The pnhliention of Strnuu', hook CAUsed the lTege!i8lll1 to ta'-:e siiles for or agnillst it., with Drono Dauer, lecturer in thwlogy lit Berlin nml soon to IJeeome the most outspoken of the radicllla, lellding the nUnck fmm the n ight. T he dHrerent interpretations to which Hegel's iyslem WItS open were well put hy Engels:

J\5 we lilwe seen, tile doctrine of Hegel, tf_ken lUI II whole, left p!enty of roolll for gj,·iug she!ter to tile most dh-erse practical pnrty views, And in the theoretical Gcrmany of that time, two things IIhove nl! were prnc:tic/l!: religion and politics, \\'hoe'w pillced the chief emphllsis on the I-fegelilln 4!1,tem could be fairl), con.~er\'uti\"e in uoth spl,ern: wlloel'er regarded the dinlcctkfll .. "etJwd "s the ""tin thing could belong to the most extreme oppositioll, both in politic$ lind religion, Hegel himself, despite the fllirly frequ ent outbursts of revolutionary wrath in hi~ work8, !eemed on the whole to be nlore inclined to the COli-

9Cn' .. li,·c lide, Indee .... hi. ~y6h,m had cost him much more ' I" ... ] IUI:!"lItl plugging:' tlmn his method. T OWArdS the end of the thirties, the cleavngc in the Rehool hecllme more and more IIpparent. The len.wing, the 50-callet! Young He6>eliIlIlS, ill their fight with thc pieti$l vrtluilvx .lUd the f~uda1 reactionaries, nbandoned loil loy loit thnt philosophical-genteel reIIen'e in regard to the burning questions of the dlly which up to that tillle had secure<:! stille tolerl!.tion and e,'en protection for their teachiugs,s

It \\"118 quite nntllTnl thllt the cli!cu.uion should Ilt liMIt be n thwl ieal oue • ...!.~ most members vf the Hegelian school were.

• D. V. Sino""". fJG~ £«<11 h,,, (TiIbing-en. 1835-6) " Il!II If. Tbe..., ito a 1r:",,,I>I;o/l by Msrian t:'71I1~ {(i<lo'1e F.1101) (London, 18:.-1).

"'bid. "Mar" alld F.nget., &kt:fI'JJ lI"orL", ,,:\00.

GCTlIUJ.llylN/Qrt! 1848

inleruted ill religion abo,·c ,,111111<1, uS Engels remarked ill the "rticie eitcd nl)O,'e,:\t thllt time ·politiC$ WElS" ,'ery thorny l1e1d'. Yet grrmted the EitalJlishmcllt oftl.e Church in Germuny "ml the clO8e connection I)f'tween religion lind politiC$, it W8S inel'iltlble that A Jllo\'t_ment of reli1{ious criticism \\"oul<1 swiftly beeome ~ell l"ri~et! inlo one of political opposition, It wa~ 1\3 II- member of thi. rapidly chnnging 1I10l'Cinellt thut Karl I\lao; Ii"t began to work oul hi' "iews on philOliophy lind lociety.

CH APTER TWO

Childhood and Adolescence

I. T Rll>u

1\ " 81, 1\1" RX II'ftS bom on 5 ]\lflY 1818 in Trier, Il to\\'n of 12,000 inha hitlml..!l on the banks of the river Moselle and the lluministrnlh'c centre of the i\ loselle region. T rier ,,'us in the southern, ugl'icnlturul pnrt of the Rhinclnnd, a pro"ince which had only recently been reattachecl to Prussift . Jt ilUd " peaceful, rura l setting ,md a n impressivc nrnl)' of bui1clings inJicuting past splendour. UlH.ler the HOlllans the tOW1l had borne the name of Augusta Treyerorulll {\Ud hud beeH the northem capital of the l~:mpjre . TIJCre lI'el'e numerous buildings Jutiug from tl,,)s1) t imes, inclwJing the fnmous l'orta Nigro, in whose shndow the i\ lltr;>; fllmily li",~d, lind Trier clnimed to ll llve more churches than flny other t01l'1I of eom)l"rllblc size, The Prinee-:\rchbishop of Tric~, whose feudnl regime hmlll(len swept n",ny by the French innl5ion in 17940, hud exercised jnrisdiction o"er !\\eb., 'l'oulllud Verdun, "nd hnd .. dorned thll town with numerous convents, nbbep and monasteries . T he eiti~cus of Trier were easy-going people, open "nd tolemnL T he Freneh were..wc.lcomed with eut/tusiusJII "l~_ us ... lsllwlocre. n liberty tree wus~Rnte(l f\lld~n...cl.ub )"as founded, ul.IC£he enlhu~i"~m turned to indifference lUlU hostility u~ the dcmn,als mltde hl' the Napoleonic Will'S inerensed. Prussia, however, soon (lissipated tI'e initial gOOl!<,.m of the Rhinelnnders by thll reactionary rneMnres of the Iioly Al1inn~e nnd un illubility to denl with t.he erj Se~ in wine production, l']lO" which the MOlielle region principally depended. For Trier hltd "ery little industry und its inhnbitonl9 were mainly offieiJds, tmders nnd nrtisnn8, whose (l<;li,.itie5 WeI''' brgel)' UVlllld up with the ,·ineYllflb.

T his hostility to Prms;" incrcased grMUy " fter the l'el'01IlL;o1l of 183{], which mnrked the cnd vf the Holy Alliance, The duly

lIevolutioll ,,]so nwnkenerl in tile Ilhinelnnd ., II"\\'I! of liheralism '''Id s)'llIpothy foJ' Vr(;n<'!, prindples. Pnnll'hlels begll!1 to Ilppcnr demanding autonomy for the Hhineland, nnd tilll l\IOliclle winegrowers sent II lllr~ delegation to the lIambucl l deHluustrollou.1 The nheni~h libenlls, like the othcr Gcrmll.n lihrrnls, were ngaill~t cconomic restrictions o.nd privilege, und in fuvour or eonstilul.inn" l !:,'twcrutl1cnt and freedom of the Press. T his liberHI opposi tiOlt 11'''$ s('Col1i!woy the growing poverty of the !\[oselll! wint)-groll'ers : the priee of "gricullural produce was eonstftntly de~reflsing, find the situation wns mnde WOTse by the customs llnion in 1828 of Pruss;n nnd Hesse, which virtually clvsed the former flS a market for the :\-[O$elle pcnSllnts.

This weak economic situation pro"idcd a reudy ground for the sprend uf suciulist iueus. The doctrines of Suint-Simon gllined disciples at Trier, liS in the rc.~t n(Gcnnuny, so much so thnt the nrchbish0l' "'M !ed to issue an officinl condemnntion of them from the p,lIpit. :\[nre significnnt still, t he teuchings of 'Fourier were nrtively propllgflted in Tder itself by Ludwig Gall, who has been cullc{llhe first German socinlist. Dorn in 1791 of n pcasnntfo.mily, he studied lAw nt Cologne nnd becnme secretnry to the ci ty council in Trier in 1816, nnd in 1818 fUl.lnded there II 'Union to pro,-ide nil GermnnS in poverty will} work, wnges nnd $llfficient lodging find property". :\ yenr ia tcr he emigrnted to Ameriel'. founded ot Bnrrisburg in Pennsylvflilifl fI community modelled on Fourier's pludansteries, lind after its rflpid failure returned tv T rier to p\lblish his experiences. 1n the Illte 1820s Gall continued his -propaganda by highlighting the increasing 60eial problems .,,,d pointing out that bourgeois society could notsutisfy hu,,,,,,, needs to the full beeausc work wus tI'e shwe uf money d11l1 exploited by it, Class opposition wns only necentllnl.e<li IY the growing division in wealth betweeu the haves Ilnd the hllve-nots. 'Thos(l whose pri" ileges depe11ll on wenlth and the working c1nsses arc fl.lndamentolly oppo~c<1 to eflch other and hn"1l contrnry interests; the circumstances of the former impro,'e in precisely the proportion by which those of the \"Uer get worse nud become more prccnriol13 and 111iscrahle.·~

, Sre .ho,·c. 1'. 13. , L. Gol!. Iklr:uc~I",~.q tit , f'iJ"'le,,<:I,~~ .~»nm'ln' ,.-,illk lin g",~h"'lr~lm

J)i.lil/eri~~",jM ( I'rk!r, IKl~) 1" 37.

GlllrS solution, ngllin inspired by Fouri~r, wn~ for the St.1 t~ to set up f(\ctorielQCihown M'" step t~wnrds IlCQll edi\"i!>ed eeQnomy. Since t here would be no exploitntion here, the wages .... o uld be high~r nnd soeini ill, n"me(liecl. I,'roll! this ""ulysis, Gnll did not draw re\'olnlionury idcl" nny more tha n Fourier; he 8imply ",ialled, inside t.h!' frnme"'ork of bou~is s()(>iety, to erode a new nnd 'nirer otgnlliSftliOIl or labour.

!\ot ~urllri.lngly, these locns m~t with the d isappJ'()\'al of the nuliroritiell, nnd in 1832 C"U aft'li n left Trier; he went to PAri., where he met Fourier, fwd thence to Hungary to a:periment with new methods or dislill •• tioll. nut ill 1835 he Wa! back in Trier and continu~d to publish hi. prof'O'lll ls for n rerormof5Ociety. Although the locinJi! t idens gHirred "ery Iiule hol,\ in Tricr ,liberol ideulu .. 1 'Iuil.~ n ],lrge fonowi ng.

It would bc difficult to find nnyone wl,o ]lUd " ,",Uri! ,Jenish Illlcestory thnn Kllr! Mnrx.1 The n ll llle i\h\r:< is a shortened form of i\fordeellui, Illter c1l1lllged t o i\1.'lrkus. H is futher, H einrich i\lnrx, WM born i ll 1782, the third 50n of :'I l eicr Hnle"i i\ lnrx, who bcclll lle rnllbi ill Trier 011 the death of his 'nther-in-IIl'" lind was follo",ed in t his ofliee hy Jus eldest 5Q1\ Samuel, Kurl J\ [orx's linde, ",J,o died in 1827, i\leier II l1 le\'i i\fllrx numbered mllnv rabhis "lUung hi~ IlIlCl!StOr1l, 'I\'ho efUlle odgiulllly from Uohemill; Amillis wire, Chnge, had a ll e,'ell morl! ill ustrious nncestry: she WIiS the <laughter of i\fose, I,won', rllbbi in Trier, whose fnther and grandfilther were ulso Tricr rnbbis. lIis fnther, Joshue Hcschel bmw, \\,AI cho~en rnbbi of Trier ill 1723, cOrrc$pondecJ with the leading .Ie"·is], JI'ersonll[ities of his time, and wns widely know" 115 II f~llrleu fighter in t he enuse of truth. It wall Sftid of him t hat no

• For ,[el.a,,,1 """'Mr<:h on ~b.",,'~ 1f""".1ogy, 1M n. Wach.I";n, '1);"

Abtt.mnnlng ,.on 1II_",,', ;n Ftlllko-ifl i anWninfW Pr<>f~_ D.ciJ Si_d_. 104UJ~flJ""dtrg «('...o l .. ",h~n, 1(t23) 1'1', 2,7 If.; K 1 ....... ill_I.lo~h,' . '.n,ilie lind Stamml)a .. ", ..... " K ... I M.r~·, JIk (1I1Jc/ie, '" (~r[ill. 11124) 300 If., 340 If.; II . 11"I'O ... ih, 'n;" Fo",il ... I,w",..', M""tll.d,iIt /Ill' O.Ir.iclit • .. nil l1'i_n_ ".Anjl d,. J .. dthfUm" usn (F .... nkf"rt. 1020) 487 If.

L

Cllifdlrood WId Ado/CUe/let

importAnt d('Cision WIlS .... ken ill the Jewish world without I,is hn"ing lirjt I.Ieen eon$ulled. H is fAther, Aton L woll', was /llso r'lblli in Trier (Iud then rnovecl to WClithofell ill AI:Wce, where he held the fllbbinnte for lw<.'nty y..."r8. ATOn Lwow's father, ~Iot;t..,.

[.wu"' , e,UIH! 'rom Lemberg ( the German nnme for L,.,ow) in I'ol .. nd, lind numbered Dlnong hi5 n1leelltors i\I eir Knt~nell en

bogen, head of the T Almudic I,igh school in I>ndua during the ~i!(tooll th eentury, lIud Abrnhtr.m HII- I.evi Minz., rabbi in Padu.-, "hose father Iwti len GermAny in th .. middle of lhe lifie .. nlh century owing to persecutions there.

~ot so much is kIlO\l'1I of the ancHtry of Knri 1>. lnrl[·J; moliler, hu t she lIeems to hnve t-n no less steeped in the rnbbinic trnd ition than her hUlba nd, She was Dutch, the daughter of l uac P rcssburg, ra loloi in :\ijmegen. According to E leanor i\ lnrl[, in her grAndmot he r 's family 'the SOliS hnd for centuries been rnUbis'.1 I n n letler to the Dutch sodalisl l'olak, Elennor WN)le; 'It i~ st range thnt Iny "Ither"s semi-Dutcll porelltage should be so little kllown Illy grandmother's family nnme was Preubnrg nnd she belonge.j hy descent to an oM H Uligarinn JewUih falllily. This ftlmily, tiri" en by perseeution to Holland, settled down in thnt country um] became knowlI , as 1 IUIYe said , by the Illune l >rc~~burg _ renily the town from which they CII11Ie,"

Il would he quite mistllkclI to dismiss the i n!!ucnce of this immense tradition on I'; nrl i\ lnr:<. To assert that 'it is illlpouible to $lIy thnt his J cwish v,igiu hud " "y in!!lIen>:e on IIny r~rt of his life" betrays u f .. clle ni! regaM 'or both i\ lnrx', heredity n ll<1lri ~

en" irorullcrrt that even t ire enlightened IItnlosphe,c of l\1un:'. homc ond his rather 's very lOO!Ie IlttAchment to Judaism should not eonclml. For JelfUi!rness , Iloo,'e a ll at that time, WIlS 1I0t lIOlUething thnt it "'JlS easy to slough off. Heine lind lIess, both intimnte fri~nds of ;\101":<, the one II cOII,'ert to Prolel;lll lltism for culturnl reAMlns, t he other a ll Il\Qweo:llltheisl, both re tained thei r Je.dsh self,colI$cioU$uess until the end I)ftheir H,·cs. E \'en i\[arx',

, W. Uebknec:ht. "."r{ .II"r ... :um (JtJlkA/"i# (Nllffmberg, 1S!lG) p.~. I Letttr " f EIN_ 111_"" to Ilemi Polat,31 Oet 1900, qnoted In W. m tlmen_

I.o!ttr. ' E:in n"htk.""I .. K_I,itci ~\tI Mn~' Leben', l nt",ntllil)n(l/ fIeri"" .,. &C/O} llillO,", I (19M).

I II . I', Adalll .. , Kdrl Mo, ... /" AI, J::4rll", Wrll;"1I, ~nd t<1. (F .... nk Ca., London, 11)6.$) I" II . ..

28

younge51 daughter Eh~'\llor, though only half Jewish, prodll imed eonsl..H.ntly lind with 1\ «,rtnin deliltll\. pride al \\"orke~' lIlCl'tings in the East End of Londun : '[ nm " .Jo\\'08ll:1 T he poSit;()u <)r ,/(lIl'S in the Hhillclnnd, where they W~N,i often scapegoats for the nlrll)crs' iucrcasiug II<,J\'crty. wIn calcul(lted to increase l!Ji~ IIClfcon~dolJ~ncss. 1\1though civil cl(unl ily hnd been tlehic"ed under t[,e N'lpoleonic lawl, the inauguration ofthl'; Iloly AIJiIlIlCC IlIId its policy of tile 'Chrisliull state' incYitnbly inmh-c<l an IInli· tic mitiBIlI 011 the double count thllt the JewlI llr()rf!'Ucd all a lien r .. ilh nnd all alien ci tizen811ip - t/"lt of the people or Israel.

B. 1\1",u:'5 I' ARID'TI

lIeinrich Man: mu~l have Ion<J cou~idcr8bl1) influence on his BOil"' Jc ... ,lol'mclll bullt becflll5e of the ,tl'<.lllg patriarchal trodilioll ill J e"ish families a nd al50 beeause of the high es teem in which KMrI MlIrx u.lwuys held his fulhcr. l n Heinrich !'.Ian the Je,,;sh inlicribulCc appenrs in a very 8cculllri5ed and enfeebled form. H I! hod broken e\\rly with his family, from whom he claimed 1.0 hn'"e received nothing. nnd oftcn mentioned to his son the gr~at difficultie!l h<) hAd hud to go through to obtain his evcntu,,1 pmitioll of lawyer to the high court of AppeAl in Trier. He had adopted the ideas of the Enlightenment .. nd was. IIccording to his granddaughter Eleanor, II 'true eight~nth-ceDtury Frenchmnll. lie knew his VoltAire and H.ovueRu hy heart .'!! lIeinrich " Iurx"s religion wu II. shallow ann mornlising dcj,jm; Edgur yon Wcstph,l1en, Kllri Marx"s future hrolhr.r-in-]aw, dcscri hNi Hcinricil i\ llI rx li S u ' Protestant If Ia. l..c,sing".s IIi! outlook 0" lif~ is well summcd up in lhe ndvice he gu\"c to his son; 'A goorl ~upport for 1Il0Tlllity iB'" simple faith in God. You know th"tl tllll thc Inst person to be fi fnnatic. But sooner or latu amlin hn! II ~ftllle<:d ofthu fnith, and there are momenu in li(c when even the mlln who den;.:!s God is o:omptlled ftSlltMt his will to pray to the

, cr. ". Th::nll!\cin, Di. ,,_ Y.-,i/ . X'"I (I\!UI:I) I'" 12~.

1 EI'",,,or Mllr .• , ,";~. (till)!!) p. 6. 1 Quoted ']I O. M.e"dlcu-Hclf"1I and II. l'icoJnLc ... :k)', A'lIrl JIM":, !!~ ,l ed.

(),;urol""",bc Verl.S'!"n~ll!t, Frlnkfurt-am-Main, 1~) p. li.

Childltood and _UcltlUlIU 29

Almigtlty ... en:ryon<) should 5ubmit to what WII8 the faith of ~cwtOJI, Lad: ... a nd Lcibnil.:l

Yet Heinrich Jl.1"Tl< "'uS fur rrom ,1i~1.l1doning hi~ Jcwishness complclt'ly. It hus been !unintnincd that he hud .llim5.cl ~ hapt!s<)d out of cOlwietion, a~ 0 logicnl consequencc of IUd deIstIC hchef$ , which wcre quite widespread in the Geruu,n l>rolc;sta~t C~nrch of hi. time.' But resea.rehl!ll hJ\I'e Ihown tlmt tIns \'Iew III com

pletely misl.1lkcn !lnd that he 1I"lI.1 compell~ to ehoose be.tween his rcligiolllllld his jul..' Until Iill;; , the princlJ?llllJl.w applying to :he JI;WS in the Rhinelaml wnf the N\'poleomc law of 1808, "'Iuch wcnt bftck to some c;\Ot('nt on the decree of the Frcnch National As~cm hly of 17!)1 which gUI'e ,Jews complete cqvnlity. T he COut<)llt of the Napoleollic \"w WIIS solely <)conomic und did not dircctly Alfcct 1leinrich ;\\"r;\O: 1I.1)'ltem of licencc5 for engftging in trnde had ~en instiluted and special ant hority WI1$ re<luired before I.nking uJlmortgag!s. The Ilueition was wlml would hnpren lo l he Jew' when the Rhineland was reattached to the PruUJan crown in 1815. On the occasil.)Jl oC the ... n ll ~ation, Heinrich l\ lan: addresscd a memorandum to von Slick, the GO" crnor-General, entitle<l 'Sollie Hcmark, on the Nupoleonic Decree of 17 March 1808',' in which he "cl)- rupectfully asked tll>!.t thc IIIw5 applying c;\Oclu5h-cly to the ,1 <)wI 1)<) annulled. H ere he 6pel\~S of hit 'fel~ow belic"crs' llild fully identifies him.'lelf with the Je""lsh commumty. T he Go,·ernor-Generlillicem. not to ba\"e replicG.

In IIny ca!iC, the Je~ got the wont of both world,: ill 1818 a decree Will issued keeping t he Napoleonic IftW5 in forcc for an unlimited period . 'I'l\'O ~'enTil earlier the PruSii~n Govcrumcnt had decidc<1 thnt t h ~ Rh.inelHnd loo should be subJcct to the l!lws that hud i.Jccn ill force in P1"1I18in ~i llce 1812 and which, while grunting Jew~ rights clpml to thuse of Christians, Ilc"crlheleu made their holdillg of position~ in the sen'ice of the sta~e dcpendent on t.he king". grnnting II special exccption. The Pr~l c1 cllt of the Pronndill Supreme Court, '"on Selhe, went on 11 Journey through the

'.111:0 ... 1 l (2) 186 . • Stoe. ror enn'l'l~, ~'. ~Icl,ring. 1':arl ,1Ia,..., (Au"ll .t; Unwin, London, 1!lOO)

p. 3; W. Sen>. Ka~1 Jlarz. Seine frrdigl/Hlo Elllt<'Ick~~"!I (lI "!I~, l~) I" 12. 's,,., ,\. Kolle-r, ' lin! ;\] •• ,,' Vate. un(! do. NRpol-..o,";ocLe Au. "al,,\.,&-

1fC9<'1~ G"!:"" die ,luMn, 1Il00', JftArllllch dta /.:ii/llfIf:MII Gtfth'cM,.."..tinl, XIV 111 If.

'Ilcl,rinted ibid., pp. 1 ~'O ft.

Rhineland in April 18W 11Ild inten'jewed Heinrich :>.Iarx, who imprei6Cd him itS .ornevne 'of wide knowledge, ,-cry industrious, IIrtieullll.e 111111 thoroughly honest'. As n re~ult he reco'lllllended thlll. ll einriclo Milrx nm! two other Jewil.h officill is he reliiinrd in their l)()IIls, Hullhe I' ruuill-l1 i\linister of .Justi('e, Kir('heisen, WIIS

IIgainst e.'(eeptinll5 IIml I-Ieinrkh i\lllrx "·IlS foreL'tI to change hi, religion to a"oid Oecoming,aa lion Sethc put it, 'breadless'_ He \Villi hnptised some time berore August 18]71 nnd changed his munll from Hc.cbel 10 lIeil1rich,

It ia nolaurpriaing tllllt Heillrich i\lnrx, who admired "oltlt ire ao much, II'8.S collllcct('d with the Rhenish libernl mo'-emcnt, though this connection "'IlS rendcrcd tHubinllcnt by his conslnnt altachment to Prussia IIml iu Go\'cTl\lIIent. lie was II member of the Trier Cttsino Club, n liteNlry society found('d duriug the I"rench !X."(:ulmlion IIml so clllled fruUl iu mceting plnee, the ClIsino ill T rier, n huge huilding contAining tl", u .. ,uicipullibrnry tlnd COncert hull. The li~rlll mo'"emenl gai ne,1 foree tlfter the ,Juty Hel'olutioll ill Frnnee, nnd the Club held n Mnqoct in honour of the Iibern! tlcl'utic~ fro nl Trier who Sllt in the Rhenish Parlinment.. T hl! hIInquet, unique in Pruniu, ,,.,,s Gne of " series heldllUovc nil in SOllthel"1I Germuny as part of 1\ cllmpl\ign for more reprclentative con8titulions. Heinrich 1\lnrx Wn.& onc of the orgunisers of tho Trier lmnquel, find gave u spL'ech which \\"/18

ne"erthe!css of nil extremely modernte nnd Ilefetential lO1\e. The nMrest he got to the deman'tls of the liberals was effusively th llnk. ing F'r~tlerid Wi!linln III , to whose 'mngnnnimity we owe the lirst in~titutions (lr populnr repN!$l'utntiuu',1 Hc ended: 'Let us confidently endslI&>e a IIQPpy future, for it rests in the hnnd~ of 1\

benevolent fllther, IHI equitnble king. His noble hCflrt will alwap nfford a fa,·oUTII.ble reception to the jUdHiable and n:asonable wish .... of his people, 'I SCI'ernl 1'(:,·0[utioI19f)· songs "'ere then sung and II l)Olice report informed the GO\"f~rnment that Heinrich )\[ar3 hAd joined in the ainging. The bunquet caused anger in govern.

I At tbe rqpst .. lio" of lob ~bl~I","'! hap';"" in 162~, "~inri~b :\1"..,. dt"ACribt<l th. clffr:ym~n who b.d I.:Il'li.ocd Lim. " ,.,.Ior ~l Dblendorf, • • ",enolv '" ·dlfloit!t " ....... ~h~ ... So I>l. "aptian' "'''It h",·~ Ottu......J. bero", the ''rot ... t."·t ~ri>b .>f T .ie. ""lOll ""I "I' "II 17 All, 1817.

I Quoted in lIl .... IIcben.Hdttll.nd NlcoJalt:. .. ky, "/1r' JI/1U, p. 10, a Ibid.

ChildhOOl.l (ma Ado/emmet 31

n.e.lll circles, anti thi, li nger ,,"a~ increllSL'tI by " more rauic"l IIlllnifestutionlwo ... eeb litter, 0 11 Ole IlnniveNlnry oflhe founding of the Cttsino Club, when the 'i\lnrseillaisc' WII5 sung nud the TriL'OJour bralltlishcd, The i'russian Go,-ernmc.nt !IC,·erc.ly reprimnnded the JJro"incilll governor and pul the Casino Club under police $uTl-eillance. Heinrich :>.Iarx WM not present at this ~econJ rl\l!.uifestation; he WII. no francophilc and hated Napoleon /lnd what he lermetl his 'mat! ideology'.' lI is profound IIdruiralion for I'ruui/l is evident in his letter to "0" Sack a nd nlso in the lur"iv_ ing [)Ort ion of ,m essay "'ritten on the 'Cologne affair', in ... llieh he defended the right of an nhsoh,te monarch to \rnn$gre511 lIaturnl III,,"s in order to safeguard tl,e sute,! Knowing that J,is son Karl WIIS writing pootry, he e,'en encouraged bi.nl to attempt nn ode which '~hould gloriry Prn~,in and afford an opportuuity of prllising ti,e genius of tile monarch .. patriotic, emotional nnd composed in 1\ Germ(mie manner',i

Of Klltl 1\h,rx', mother compufativcly little is known; there sun·jye sel"crnl [etters written ill n very uugTllrnnHlticai Germun nml ",ithout nny pllnctunt~ountull. T he fAet that her ["Uers to her Untch rdnlhm~ were !llso in Germnn indicates th!lt she probllbly Apoke Yiddish in j.er pnrents' hOlne. Being very closely nttached to he!' own f"mily, she I\lwII)"$ felt somewhat ofn stnlllJ!;cr in Trier. The few iru.1iellliolls that survi,'c portclI)" her 118 1\ ~imrle, un_ cti ucn ted, h~ l"d-wol'king woman, whose horiy.on II'n5 nlmost tot-u.lIy limited to ht',· fllmil), and hornc, rathcr 01'er-tlllxiou3 Ilnd given to Inment~ nnd humourlcS5 mornlisi"g. She WAS the last pel"liOa ill the i\[ltrx family to be UujJt ised. All the children were baptilCd together nt hOllle at a ceremony to which II b.rge number of friend, were i nvited. This took pluee in August 182 l , some six ur IInell yellN /.Iner the fllther', baptism, at II time whell the eldest children were of an 8I{C to ab,rt IK:lmol. At the children'. hnpti.m, the lIluther·s religion was entered as Jewish, with the rider thAt she consented to the baptism of her children, but \\i.!hed to defer her OWII ba.ptism on Aetount of her parents. Her rather died in 1825 lIud she wal buptised the s.ameyear_ Tile delay ill her bIIptism and h('r nttnchmellt to "ewi~h trntlition lead one to sUl'llOSC thnt thi,

'JlJ;(}A r i (~W,i. • ""Printed in Jlf:GA I i (~) 231 If, • ,111;0 .. I i (~) ~~.

,Marx IN/ort: N(lrxi ,m

trlldilion must htn'e had 50me influence on Karl ,\llIrx as a young chilt! . He l1Iu~t hn"e ie"rnt 1\ lot from hi~ lUotller noout his an~tor8 .. nd their religion, lind in spite of the (reluctant) COIl

,'crsioll many Jewish custom! lind altitudes must h(1.\"e sun-i\'oo in the ~ I arx household,

LittJe is known of Kllrl "h.rx's attitude to hj~ 'Ilother, nrun fmm hi~ references to her, when "'riling to hi. father, ai 1111 'angel of a moUler', She liletl until 18G3, but thenl was a ct!.rtain biltlmua eauaed by financial di!putes, though i\larx kept 011

intimllU! ternl8 "·ith his lIlaternnl n'lutil'es in Holland. " 'ith hi, father, on the other hllnd (who died in 1857), '\Inrx W'OlI Oil "ery intimate terms. For his fifty-fil'lh birlhdnJ', his son prcs(!nlet.i him with a volume of his own poem, 'U8 a feeble sign of elerllallo"e', and IIi. sole 'lIni\'ing letter to his rather is full or endearmenls, According to Eleanor ""ITl', J\"ri MIln: nlwa)"s carried "·ith hion t' photograph of his rnther. 'T he face seemed very beautiful to me. The eyes and the forehcnd wel'C like those of his son, but the lower part of his f!l.ee Mound the mouth and chin were more tender, The whole wus of 1\ nlurkedly Jc",i~h type, thougll IItUldsOlHeiy ,Jewish.'l

There were nine children in the Mrorx family, of whom I':art WII. the eldest, ron elder hrother, Morib-J)>!vid, h,wing died soollll.fter birth. Four otllen died young from tIlJxorclllo~is, Heinrich !\Ilirx's income was quite considerable, lIud the year lifter Karl i\1 ... rx's birth the fromily Ulo\'ed into their OWTl houM in the Simeonstr1l5se iu the flllihionable rart of the town, right by the Porta );igra. H ill (laughter Elenn()r ~Ilid that i\larx', nunls hH(1 of'len told her th"t u a child he "'u ... (ctlrful tyrant ,·i4-"-\';5 his sisters; he dro"e them like Ilisown 1,0~e5 up ,md down 5t i\ lark's hill in T rier And, what Will worse, i n~i sted th ... t they ate the 'cakes' that he him.self prepo.ro<.l withciirly hamls from yet dirtier dough. Yet they did not protest nt this trentment, for 'Karl "'ould pay them buck by relnting 8uch mar"el1oul stories'.1

, ElulIOr M.,.x, Die _l'~t (~!.y 18fL1) p. 411. I ~:IN"Ol" Man, f:~in~""'~It ,It K(J~I ,J/(JTZ (ZIlricIo, 19(4) P. ~_'3-

CI,iMlu)()(/ fI/lil _411oJclCc/lCr.

For the fi"1l yean 1830--55 Karl Marx utU!llded the Higl' SehO(lI in T rier.l It had formerly becn a Jesuit ScilO(lI nIH! tllen bore the Tlllme Frederick \\' iIlitUll Jligh SchO(lI. The IHJerll1 spirit or the Enlightenment lu,d been introduce<! into the school by the I'lte I'rinee-Eleetor of 'I Tier, Clement WeneeslOl$, who load IIdoptt,d the principles of hl, fllmous prcd~'!!!!lor Febroniu$ Rnd tried 1.0 rc~:o"dle fnith lind reason froUlR KRntian stantil'oQiut. In order to tomh:!.t the igllornnC(' oflhe clergy he t urned the school into ... sort of minor I(!minAry, It lank to a \·ery low levtlunder the "'Tench occupAtion, but wns roorgflnised alter the anneX-alion of tIle fihinc!t\nd ItI1(I contained several "ery gifted teachen.1 The chief illlluellct!. in the II-Chool WII~ ill hendlllnsh:r, Hugo " 'yttenbuch, J{tll'! ' s history telleher lind II friend of the Marx f!llllily. He hnd lUnde a f'lvournble impreMion on Goethe as 'an IIdept of the }\nnt.!tm philosophy? and took pnrt in the founding of the Ca5iuo Club. ,\fter the llnmhnch demonstrlltion, Wyttenbneh ,,"ro. pnt under l)Olice ouser\'ntion lind the SdlOOl was scllfched: ropie. ()fthe Hllmbneh speechos amlllnti.go,·ernmcnt sntire were (oulIll in the pupil.' 11059cssion. As R rC!! ult uf the Cnsino nfl'nir.in 185'~ . ]\ 111') !\lnr)l;'5 fourth year at the sehool, t he IIlll.thcmntlcs tencher ,,"II! IIccused of Il\roterilllis!ll Rnd II theism, and the Hebrew teltehrr of Im"ing joined in the revolutionllry songli' \\"yllenbllch him5eifwIII tIJ reatencd with dismissal, but in the cnd a retletionnry 00 hellUlllalter, Loehr8, wnl appui llteil to eoullternd the pre,·alenl. libl::rnli5m. Kurl i\!nrx's tlUituile here can be g"uged by the t'OlIlI'illiut .. ddrtllsed to him by his r .. ther lhnl Knrlllnd another pupil had mnde themseh'e! coMpicuous by delibcrntely omilling lo ~fty good-bye to l .oehn when they len the school.· ,

}\mong Kllrl )Iarx '5 fellow pupils, fou r,nnhs were Cnlhohe, IIn tl most were of lower mid(lle·c1llss origin, the IOns of fo.rmen "Illl

, ~'1)r IIJ(lN detail tim" eln be ~ iu!n:, ~ Cornu, "',,rI ,1f"TZ fl Priodritlt 1-:"'!I'(I, ,0\ If,

I cr, C. Grutnberf. A,.di~ fiT tii~ Gut/,idu du SD,:ia{i".w. unll d~ A .... U~wglmJ (HI~) 1'1" 23!l r.

0 .1 . (loelbe, l)j~ CU'''1i'JIM !It. Fm~A"";~b~:; Oct 11ffl . • cr. JII~()A 1 i (2) 180.

J/llrJl brio", ,Ifllr,ri~",

n rt;~nns. Kurl; ~ su;! l til h,,, r hccn rcnred. by hill fellow pupils 'f(lr the ense ,!'itl! which he compQ$ed snliriclil \'crses and Inmpoonl ngninst hi. enemies'.1 In II Ictter to Enge15 much later, he 6poke dispnrllgingly of the 'dcn!t'nt'llIl1.nd II.ge' of the 'country bumpkins who "-CI'I! prep:triug U'I!IIl'Ci>'CIl for the Catholic scminnry find for the most pfl rt Ii,ed on Jli pcndin',t .\Inrx mnde no Inosting friend· $lii l" among hit rdlow pupil", t/{ough nmollg them wns his future hrother· in-I .. w, Edgfl r ,on Weli tphnlen. whom Edgar·. aiater Jcnny de.crilxd a. 'the idol of my ehlhlh()()(.l nmJ youth'. lie IlIlcr proved {til unsldble chllrtleter with ' ·"guely communist ideal 'Uld ernigrKled twice to T exns, though !\olnrx 1I1WII)'5 rdained nil {lfreclion ror him.

The (\clldemie le\'cl of the pupils was not high lind hair of them fniled thei r finnl eXllmillfttion. Intellectuqllv, Kllrl i\llIrx \l'llS II g()()(l 1I"erllge; he WIU onl! of the youngest in his cllI~$, whose nverngl! IIge, ",h('n thl!l' left thl! school , wn~ "roum] twenty. The .cllool put most emphasis on 11Ingllllge:s, /Inri ~ [ flrx'S Ln.tin nnd Greek 'er;;e wert! g<XK1, h i.ll ileliginn AIlti~fnctory, his French nwl ~htth('lI!l\ ti('. wcnk /I nti his History, strangely, wcnkcst of 1111.3

T ile cnrlicet sur\'iv in~ document. in Marx's hlmd nrc the three cu ays he wrute fur his A bUllr, the Gernmn school· lelw ing exnminn, tion. The euny in Lnt,in on the Emperor Augn~to~ is of no importllnce. The oue 0 11 Religion. however, /l1I(] the one for Germnn composition !holl' more imli,·id lllllity. Bolh arc filled with ilienlislII lind I\n enthu~i"sm for the dc\ elopml!nt of one's penon· nlity 1,0 Ilu' full by nvoiding extHior Il<'Jwer IIml glory aud working wilh self·'aeritice for the good of humnnit y AS n ,.,·hole. T he theme of the religious ('len)' wn5 '1\ demonllrlltion, nccoruing to 5t John'S Gospel, dUljlter 15, \ erset , . H , of lhe retlSOIl, nlltore, neeelllity lind efr(:Cu or the IIni(')n of belie\'en ",ith Christ·.4 ~[ lIrx Ixgin$ by !!/lyi ng thnt hi9lory, 'the great tCllcher of mankind', showe u.that, from nntiquily onw",rd5, hum",n nl\ture hM nlwllYII tried to rruse ilBel f to II highl!! morality. 'TLos the history of mankind teaches

, ~;lNoor Mn.l in 1>. IIj.uno\,. A'~rl.lI~ rY"; .. /k.!w 'WC'. (lloooo ... , 1Mi) I" 21.

• i.ettfr "r 17 &" 1878. JII:rM III iv 4T80 • 8ft <:. G",cnb(,rg, 'M~n;.li< Ahiluriomt" JlPcli~jllr die G~«ltidl. dtl

"~" .. iali,,,,~, ""d k, Jlrbtlterb ...... w"!l, ~ , (I!l"~) 42 1 tr. • F;~t pu bli.I.",,1 in .\lIWA I I (2) 171 If.; ..,printed in A·~rl. M~r .. .- T~e :<,.

Jlt(hode .",d '''''';iIt, ... 1. O. IliU,,'."n (11(1,,·,,1)11, Ibmbur;, IlIOO) T'T" I I ft'.

Child/woo IIllJ Adw.lctl!CC

us til(l l\ceeui ty of union with Christ. Abo when we consid~ r the histor) of in,li,-idu"l~, lind the {\llture of man, WI'. iuunediatcly ~cc n spark of lhe dh'illc ill his breast, and enthusiu~ n. for the good, " stri\'i llg after knowll!tlge, " o t."ire for truth.'! Al though these ntltornl instinct, nre countered by sinful desir~, the union of belie.-I!n "'ilh Chrill ('An o\crcome these lind "ft'ord " 'hnppinen whieh the f.picu relln ill his simple philosophy alld the more profound thinker in lhe furthest depths of knowledge seek in ,."in, wllieh only one bou",l ullconditionally /lnd childlike to Christ. find t hrough him 10 God, clln know, lind which mllkCll for a finer IlIId more ele\'dted life:! The l!S$8.y is written with con· !idcrfllJle pathos IInt1 rather sugary piet):, but hM II bdsically r" tionA\ rlruclure, e~plninins how the ad,oent of Christinnity is necr.:!isury for the full mor,,1 de\'elopment of hnmlmity. i\i!lrx hilS n .. ery distil lit anti colourlen deistic conception of God, Rkin to th"t of hil f(l.lhf'r, a nd thll.t of the Pnstor Josef Kupper who 8''''e r('ligiollR in~truc1ioll li t the scll()Q1. Kiipper was also in ('hnrge of the slHlI lI I'rotesl9.nt p.l rish in T rier lind a fril!nd of Heinrich ~[nrx. lie WIlS pnrticulllrly interest ed in ethicl\l tJUes tiOll6, lind his npprond{ to religion, strollgly influenced hy Knnt, held tll!l t it WQS lhe hest menll$ of I!duclIting HIe!! to a 'true hU{\{l\nity'. KlIpper hn~ed hie teaching ou the person of Jesus nnd on the BiLII!, lind n\'oi tlc tl a ny Bcc1urinn;sm, being strongly influenced by TlitiolUllis l d cmcut3.' ~I"rx 's esfill~- is "ery much in thl! style of his t eucher, who l)rllised it, though he nbo comlllentl!(l, withjustificntion, t hat ' lhe eM~n('e or the unio,\ in question is not delllt 1I'ith .. nd till! r,'II!iQJl ror it onl\' dClIlt with from Olll! aspect."

Thtl Gcrmnu 'composition, entitled 'Reflections of II Young '[nll on the Choiel! uf a Career" ~hoW'll m(')re originnlity.- :>.h.rx'_ them .. was thnt , though mllll's choice of n career could not I)I!

I .!It.-a .... ' i (!!) I i I. I.IOXIA ,i (2) IH· I ~''''1W (In KIiT'pel', _ .se"., "·,,,1 Mu,;r , Seine jrmi~~ £"l<rl,*"'''1,

pp. 13f. • JJf:G.-I , ; (!) 171 . • H ""t p"W"hed in .IIEG,I , ; (2) \(;.I If. Reprint",1 ill K~.t Man;, Frd ....

lk'r{IIc", ... 1, II .. J. !.lei .. , .I\d 1'0 1·"rth(C(ltto.SIIlttgRrt.. 1(02) , 1 tr.: Tf}tl. % ..

Jitl.lIoil<J ""'" l'nt,nl. 1'1" 7 If. T"I\"""",I in W,iliRgf (If 1M I' .... .., Jlo,y Oil l'AU-pl>1I uti &ritlll, ... 1. \.. ~:alt;)11 and K. r.",Id~ t (Doubkd'r, Nr. ... l'Mk • 19(7) 1' 1" 3~ If, (bf,~.n~r ..,(e ...... 1 t;)~. E3~l<m ,00 Ou.ldu).

c?ll1pl<!tely '~ruitrury, ycl it U'M this freedOIl] that tl iglinguished hun from nrmnals. Onc should /lut be cllrried away by IImbition or qUi?k enUlusiasm; w!ml, WIIS impo~ant lI'a$ to takc the oppor, tumty olTerf!d of workmg In the $Cr,'ICe of hUmAnit\' wllile Il,'oiding !,eing ~"rried "wny l>y .bslrlld trulh~, 'I'he essay cnded lIith 1111 unpasslOned jlrofeuion of faitll in lhe ",due of a life sacrificed for the b'ood of mAnldntl,

In theme and 8tructure, thc cssay ill much the snme 1\$ those of Marx's r~llolV pupils, Its underlying ideas lire tho;;e of the hu~uU\i8t ideal of the (if'crman Enlightennlcnt and ela$$iCIII period - the full development of the indhidual !lml the (ull d~,'e1o~menl of tll~ community of IImnkind being irrterdependeul.' 1 here ,s no tr~ec III Marx'. elllAy of II trnn.scendentaJ God; the words God, nl\ture nnd creation Rrc interchangeable nnd the I'ro<:ess of history is An immllnent one, i\ lllrx begins his essay:

Nalurf! hns 1IS8igneti to tllC IInimal the sphere ofHs aeti"ity and the IInimnl ncta CAlmly within it, not tilril'iug beyond not 'enn surmising Uni t t~ere i~ Another, To mall, too, the deity gllve" .II:~ lI crnl gool, to unprm'l!. man kind and himself, uut left it to !um to, seek thn mClln9 by which he must "Uain this gool, left ,t to hun to choose the position in society which is most appro, priate and from which he can best cle~'lIte huth himself !\nd loei{Jty.

Thii choice i$" greal privilcge m'er other creAtures uut at the SlI ,ne time lin aet which CIln destroy "11m's entire life ddcllt all his plllllS, lind mAke Ilim unhappy.1 '

T o en'ry,~on there hlld been allotted his oll'n purpose in life, R I'llrpolle Indll~At/'d by the '50ft bUl true' interior ,'oice of the heArt. It Wil.l ea.y to be deluded by nml>ition And II. desire for ~Iory. oW dose nttention "'''llleeen-ary to ~ wlUlt one wa~ relliJy I,Ul'<l for, O"t"e 11. 11 rlldors hAd been cuuUy considered, then the cliosell CAreer sh?uJd bc e~gerly pl1l;mcd, 'But we cannot Ulll'flYS choose the l'ocAtion to whIch 'II'e behe,'c \I'e lin: called, Our so.::iRI reltltioll!, to some cxtent, h~\\'e already begun to (orlll before we

I ~'or @!nking I ..... tlet~ loe\_-..en :\Ia",'. u.r and Ro<,-..u 's £",I/t He tbe debi!M Mnlmcnl"-r i" ro, iliUm""", ,Va'.., I<Nfl 1I~(~;lIroI'5~"" "t.l:ogll.n~I ... !t, F .. "krurW.l1\.,\laln, llloo) pr,:I.'I fr,

o .VMGA I i (~) 16-1, ~: •• Ion "",I (;",1,1.1, 1'1'. 3.l r,

CAildhood alld Adolm:ellce

nrc in •• position to determiue them,'1 T his sentence hns been hnilcll ns the first germ vr i\I llfX'$ later theory of hi&loriCllI l"aterilll~Ul,1 Lcwin Dorsch goes 11.8 rar as to M,y that ' It is notl,ing le,g t h"n hi~tur;o.:!lllUuteriAli$m that Wilkes in that short flCntellee nnd opens its eyes for the first time, It i~ a light whose brightllClS!l grell' from yenr to yenr until tinally it shone with II hlindiug brightncu." 1I0wc"er, that huumn Aeth'ity is continuully limited lIy the llreiLructurcd en"ironnlcnt is an idea nlleast II.S old All the Eulightenml"nt lind the Encyclopedists. It would inde~-d be surprising ir e,en the gcrm or hi!torical materialism had already been jlro5ent in the mimi uf A se\'cnl....,n-year.old schoolboy, I t would be a mistake _ to be al'oided here as abo later - to think thllt, in his early II'riting;l • .\Iarx wu.s raising questions to which he would Inter prodUC(l IUlS\\'Crs, T o consider the young :\Iurx's development ns n progre;s towards II delinite goal is to misunderstand its \'IIriou, stnges by viewing theil ' solely in terms of whl\t t hey led up to; l\ IAI'1I i8 'not yet' thi:! and only shows 'nl1ticipatioIlS' or that, In nny CAse. the subsequent sentenccs, with their mcntion of physical or menllll dcficiencies, show that Marx here mercly nWl\ns thul ,yhen ehooting a carcer one should consider one'~ circum.tllnee~.

!\lurx then gocs on to recommend that a cllreer be chosen that confeNl a3 much worth tiS po5sible on a man by permitting hilll to IIttaiu II pr»ition thAt is 'hMcd on ideas of wh~e truth we lire C{1mpietely cOln-inced, II'hich off'e!"!! the largc$t field to work for mankind and Approach the universal gon! for which e,'ery position i.s only A mtaN: pcrfed;on',1

This ideA of jtCfft.'(:tibilily is what should abo,'e 11.11 dr-cide ti,e choice of 1\ ea.reer, IIIlwn)"s bearing in mind that

Tile ,'ocp.tions which do nollAke hold or life but del\l, rather, with alra:t ruct t ruths arc thc most dallgel'()us for the youth whose principles flft) nut yet crY5talliscd, whose cOIl~iction is not "ct finn IIIId unshakeable, though ut the SlIme tune they been; to he the lUQ8t lofty 0111':$ wl,en t~y luwe IAkcn root tleep

I JI EGA r I (~) 166, tA.ton ."'\ (ju.ldat, " , 3i , I~, rO.e"'''I'''', Mehring, It'a,/ .Va, ... , ". 0; Comu, Karl iIIarro( J.'riNricA

J.·~.,I fH, • t:, r .... "iu,Uol"I\:h, '1-",. j"nge )[;tTX', D~ Glockt, xu (Ik.Un, 1D'.!4) I~, • ,11 ~;GA , i (~) 100, .:.11011 and O"d,lal, 1,,:111,

38 J/(Jr.lllxjOTt lUlu.dlm

in 1l"e breul.oml when we can l\llcrilke life aud fill slri" ing for the ,dellS wh,eJ, I,old ~\\'ay in tlll!"l, '

llere, too, commenlnlors h1ll'C t ried to lliscoI"cr a forcrullller of J\J,,~x's l~t~r illen of ,the 'unity of tlHwry (Int! Pl'l'U;UCe'. ' Once agAIn, tillS 1.$ to "/loti lUlu M llrx'$ cUlty much Iliore th"l1 is tilere. All that il l 'lrx 6uyS iM thot the sort of prof cui on UUl t (h!IlJs with nbstracl ideas should be IIpproached with ~~d .. l circumspeetion, f~ 'lhey CAn 1l1nke hllppy who is cIlIJ«I to them i hut they .Icltroy hUll '~ho, ~k,etI HU!n1 o\·e~hurriedlJ. without reJIL'Clion, oheyillg the Illoment . 1 he problem .5 above all II practical one Ilnd not Itt nil polled in t('trUI of theories. Whll! i~ noteworthy !Jere is Mllrl:" habit of th inking in opposites which he )1UI'III I\;8 to ti ,cil" furthest col1~,e(luence$. while lIt the $ame ti lllu tryillg to comprehend them as nllrerent f .. ccls of Q totlliity,

, 'f~e essay cnds with u purlile pass-lige n:wco.Jing Q pure, you thful UiClllislu:

I l i$t~ry calls 1I10l5(! U~e greatcst men who ennoble themseln:. by worklllg for the UUII'CrMl. Experience prlli5(!;l 11.5 lhe mo,t hllPpy the '}Ile "'h? made the 1l,lost people hAPPY, HeligiOll itself ~eacI H'~ thut thll"deal for WblCh we ftre 11 11 striving 5l1erHk~d Itself for hUllIllIllty, IIlId who would dure to destroy such u statement?

'''hen we hnve chosen the vocation ill which we can contribute most to I,ll"manil)" burdens canllot hend us bc<:lIme they nre only, s~cr~hccs for all. Thel~ ,,-'" experience no men.gre, limited, ~golistlc JO)', but 0111' happmess i:J(,longs to millions, our deeJli III·e on qUietly but eternally clreclj,'c, Alld glowing tellrs of lIoule men will full on Our IIshe~,.

T he CSM.y was Illarkl!d uy \Yyl.leIl Laeil, who q ualified it as -fairl): gOUtI' lInd praised ]\ 111rx for Leiug rich in idcn.s and \l'dl orgalllsed, !hough hc crjti~iS('d."·it~1 ju&liticlltion ) I UTX'i 'exngb~rated dcslre for rare lind 1I1la.glllutJ\"e expressioIl5'.' 'l'hislovc of

I MEGA I i (2) 166 r.; Ulloa &11<1 Guddal , pp,:Ja r, I cr. Com'" K"rl J/",r, H Friedric/l t·ngtI" I 64· G, ~I~ltd" K,ul J/q,r,'

E"hnd.:/~ng .., ... rnWwti<mIJrelt n..:Iit6ol.Tdtet> 2'u,,"' A'o"''''~''i;CII liN OIl (iIerJin, 190(1) p. 26, ' ,

~ MEG.'I, i (2) 10';; ~:a,tun and r. uJJat,1" ()!), • Ibid. • NEG,' I j (~) 167,

CJ.ildliood and Adclucmce

eJ[ce8si,'e inlllgt'ry nml the pl!nehant for poetry that Marx dis_ played in the following yenn are due in large pnrt t o the inlluen~ of n.u'On "all \\'e~lrholcn. a rdend of the L\ltlrx (limily !lnd Kll rl 1\ ltlrx 's future ruther_in_lnw. lTe was twell'e yem'll older tlUIlI Hcinr ieh J'ofarx. Bor" i" 1770 of nil Il ristocnl tic fllUlily, hi~ fll ther, Philip ,on W~8tl'h"I'~II, hllli been Chief of Staff to the Duke of Bruns.rick during the Se,·en YeA" W'H nnd rcnuercu so grea t II sen ice to the enuse of Prussia and England t hnt he wu ennohloo by George rn of England. lie had married 1111 lI ristocno.tic Sco~_ womAn, .jeanie \\"i$lul.rt, who WIU the niece of th l! b'l'ncrnl commanding the British troops and II deseendnnt nf the Dukes of " rgyll. T hns l heir son, 1-OIIi9 "on 'Vestphalen, hAd an origin ,'cry differcnt from that of most I'russino officials. He w~leomed thc Nnjlolconie reforms in his nnti,'C Brunswick, a nd W/iS _cntto Trie r ill ] 8] G uy the P russian :\linist er J-1 ardcnbtrg as govcrnment ad'·;!f!r with special reference to judiciul matten. Here he CAme into contact .... ith Heinrich :'olarx, who in 1819 bought t he house next door t o the "on Westpll.ftlclu, Daren von Westphalen bad four children by a tin t JllIlrriage, of whom the eldest, Ferdinand, Ill!\de a rapid career and WIlS Prussian l\'liu is tcr of lhe luterior from 1 850 to 1855 in Manteuffel's reflctionary Cabinet , Of the three children hy this second nlllrringe, ,Jenny WM the intimate friend of Sophie Man: anu bceame engaged to Karl in the eummer of 18SG, flnd Edgar was in the ItUne class ns Karl at the High SchooJ.1

Oaron ,·on Westphalen Will an extremely cultil'ded man. spoke F.ngli.h &I 1\"ell a8 he .poke German, read Latin 111111 Grcek "'ithout uny <1iflicu!ly and f'lIrlieularly liked romantic poetry, Eleanor l\I llrx wrote t hat Baron ,·on Westphalen 'tilled Kllrl Mnrx ... ith I!nthusiasm for the rOIll/llllk school nml, while hia father rl!ad \'oltllirc nnd Hacine with him, t he n ilrO', rl!ll<l hilll Humer a nd Shl\ke.peare, who renulined !.i. favourite tlllthol'll all his Iife'.1 The Baron ,Jemte,\ much of his time to the young L\!lI rx, and the two went for intel1ectu!\1 "·lIlks through the 'wonderfully picturesque hilll and ... oods' of the neighbourhood. As well as being II man of ell lhlre, tl,e Baron \1'11.5 kccn on progressive political ide ... -.!! nd intcreltcd !\Jarxin the peTlonalit.y-nnci 'I'ork o("S,iin;-.S-i,::!!!!!: MaT)(

I 0" lhe rAmil)' in general, "'-'" 1". ;>'I~hri"g, 'I)i~ "~n We.llplIAI011 ' , j)i, "roe 7£1t, ~ (16(l1 -~) 46111" .

I Jo;, : .. Iarx, 'l""ttd in ' Karl M~u', Di~ It~lIe 7.rit (~hr 1883) V- 441,

oI{I JIlar;1) lNfore Mar;e;lm

continued to he so grAteful for the fricmlship of the Huron tlmt in 1841 he dcdicntcd hil doctorol thcsi~ to I,im ill II. ll)Qst c{fusi,'c .wlnner :

Fnrgh'e me, my de, .. r (atherly frie nd, (or pr.-racing 1m unimportll~ l, broch ure ,With 111I1I1I1Il so beloved 1I~ YU1.n;; but I Dill too IIllpnticnt to IlWllIlllonoll,cr opportunity of giving you II. $lIIali p~r of my '.0'"(" 1\Iay nil "'ho htll'c doti:bts of the power of the ~JlJtL t l'lll'c, hke mYlelf, the gom\ fQl'tulic to '\Ihnire IlII old mo ., who h,,~ kept his youthful illlpl1l~es nnd who, with wise cllthusi /lsm for the truth, wclcome~ nil projl;re5S. F IlT from rel/"el\ting I~ro~ tl,e renctionary ghosts nml the often dflrk ~ky of our I.UIU ..... JO~ llll~·e 1l11l'l1)" l>ccn aMI!, inspired oy It profound nlld bl]~nlllg Lucuhsrn, to perccil·e. behind the "cil, that hid/'! it, th/'! s~rJne lhlll burns lit the heart of thia world, You, nlV fntl,,:!rl)' frlc~)(I, ~ll.\'e nlll'lIYs been for me t he 1i~iug proof that i~leniisul i~ no IllUSion, but the true renlity, '

'JI~;UA , I (!) 7; TUlt:m J/rlAlAiJ uM /,),.u'I,. I l~,

CHAPTER THHF.E

~ [arx the Student

1. T'OV.TJlY IX Boxx AXD U r., L I!i"

T UI!! interest "nd enthusillsm for rOlllllntiei5m that Uaron "on Westphllien hilt! Aroused in J\[,trx ,n.s incN:asro by the year that loll spent lit the Uuilersily of Bmw, In Ol.l1:ol>cr 183.'> i\llln( lefl Trier Rlld sailed down the i\ loselle to begin his studies in IRW at Bonn, the intellectual centre of the Rhineltmd. The town it.ulf WIIS SUllIll, scnrcely lllrger t han T rier, but the uTli,'ersity II'j\b all important one with more than 700 students. i\!"rx ellrried with him the high hopes of hi! fother, who expected grent thinK'! from the most pl'omisillg of his children" ' I wllnt yon to become', he wrote soon After hia 8On's arri-'II I, 'wh .. l 1 might perllllp$ ha"e \Iecome had 1 been born under luch f"vom'"ble lIuspices, You can either fulfil or destroy my grtfltest hopes.'l Thus clicouToged, i\illu, IJegtlnby working .-ery hnrd and put his llI.rnedowli for nine lectures (which he subsequently reduced to s.ix on h1.5 father's ud\'ice) nnd, according to his end-or- term report, attended them nil with eTithusilt!m and keellnttenlion" lIy UlC l>cginning of 1836 he w"s ill from merwork .. nd ill the summer term reduced his lecture commitment to four, which he followed will, milch leli~ enthusiasm, ,H the 5tlllle time he took 1\ morc nctivc Imrt in the socillllife of the IInh-eNity, became President of the AMOCiation ofStudcnu from T rier .llId was el'cn imprisoned for II. day by ti,e IIuil'craity R.lIlhorities for '(Iisturiling the peace of the nighl wtth urunken noise'.' In August 1800 he was .tightly "'oundeu abol'e the left eye in 1\ Il lIel with a }'Ollllg Pru5!inn aristocrat, l\Jo.rx WIIS

u\so once denoullced to the police for CArrying forbidden wenpoll~, but the subsC(luent ill,-ettigation petered out, "nd ""hen he left

, In:c.A. I; (2) luG. " l \;j~ . 191,

1

I I

j

Donn Ilt t he ('nil of the year Ills ecrii6eate Baid he ,n.8 not conneeted with allY suspect politienl orgtlnisulioll .

Wild oet:lIpied most of l\I,lr:.'s intellectual energy dnring this yellr ut Huun wa. poetry. li e joined a poeu' duu where members' eOlllpositioll5 were renu uloud Rml eritici~ed, T his club prooouly 11I1t1 politiCJl1 uml('riones; Among iu memhers were Karl Griln , who eolltlbord~ "-ith "loses l ien and was one of lhe founders of T rue Soe:ialism, and F, C, ikrnAp, ,.,.ho Ider edited , 'onrlirll

('Forwards'), the rndieal newSpape:r ",f tile German workers in Pnris. Half the leetu~1i tlutt :\ tarx attended were on nrlistic sub. jecu; the illtelledunl elimnte ot Bonn WII$ romantic, being domi. noted by Schelling anu Schlegel, ",hose lectures on Homer and Properti,,! were nnlOllg Marx'lI f"'ourite six,

I [einrieh :\tau at lirst approvcd of his 50n'. inlere6t ill poetry wh.ich, he ,aid, plea8Cd him Ue~ter thaa the tavern. But on being asked to !war the C09t of the publication of some of til(' poems, he Ildvised him to wAit" little: 'A poel must then dRYS know t hat he IUI8 wmething ~ound to offer if he wunb to appear in puUlie .. , , r lVould be vcry 80rry to see you "ppcnr in puvlie as II minor poet." In general, t he letters of lI ~jnri~h i\ lurx welcome the !wwiJdcring variety of hi& 80u'a j)ropo!itions: he npproved of n Jllan to eelil u review fi nd e"en for his 80n to 1JU8y hi mself with drnmntie critjci~l1l . At the sallie t ime, howe"er, the lllllt:n of holh h i~ j)lIrt:llts are full of bitter cOlllpl"illl.s of thei r 8011', lack of affection for his family a l!u hi$ extremely disord~recl $tyle of li,·ing.

In nny case, IIeillric;:.l . :'otllrx \\"119 so little sllti.fied wi t h his SOIl'S progress in Monn thllt he decided to trAnsfer hill! to the Uni'-ersity of Herlin. I lere, though he S""C up the 'wild rnmpaging' of l.\(tn", lie continued to wri te poetry, nil the more ardcntly as he hnd become secretly eogllged to Jenny "00 Westphalen $hort.ly befor<: his depurlul"() for Duuu in 18::J6.

WIH!I\ I !crt you lhe lITOte a ye8r IlIler to his (allier] II nell' "-orld IUI<1 just opened for me, the world of lo,'~, at first a love that Wal frenzied ... ·itb yearning nnd void o( hope, Even t he journey to Derlin, which otherwise "'ould hl\\'1! extr(:mely delighted me, "-ould h,u'l! incited me to contemplnt e natur(:, "'ould have inllllmed me. ",i t h t1K'joy of living, len me cold. It even depressed me profoundly, for the rvcu 1 lIlW lfere no rougher, no hnrsher,

1 MUM , j (2) 169.

than I.hc fccliugs vf my svul; the hig t:ilieJ WCL'e nolmol"() live/.f llu,n my bloocl; the lIlblC$ in the inns were not more o\'erl"d~n, t he fotx.l nol moril indige. tihle th:1.Il were the contcnls of my imllgil.ation; lInd, lo conclnde, nrt was not so beautiful n, ,lenny.'

J\ s SOOIl all he ..:ot to Bcrlin he ("('!Iurltmtly made a few n~CCSSllry \'i!iu and lliell completely isolnted himself in order to immerse himself ill science and nrt. Lyrie poetry "\I'l'lll his fint ooneem; Ilt ll!A!t, All he himself IJUt i t, it wns 'the most agreeahle And most oU,ioU$'.1 The poems thatl'\ [nn wrote while he ,,'><8 in Uolln flnel those writle.n during the autumn of 1836 in Herlin hal'l! 1I0t sun'h-ed, T hese Illtter compri~ed three ,'olume:s entitled 'Book of l .ovc, J>m1.iL J And 2' nnd ' llook ofSon!p', nil three being dedieated to J enny ,'on Westphalen, ,\ ec::ord ing t o :'olehring, thdl! poem~, with Ollfl exception, were Il ll lo,'e lyrics ",nd romantic hnll1\d.i ' lie hnd hnd the 0P I)()riunit~, of re,ldinn them before they wI're linnlly lolt "'nd j udged them 'f~rrnles~ in ;very sense of the word',l .They were full of ,nomes, .irens. son"'5 to stlln nud hold kmghts,

o .• '4 'rollllllltie in tone without the magic proper t.o rOLIIllntlcLslI' . T hey "'en:-, SAid i\ lnn:,

ill necoL'(lnnce with my posi tion Il nd wholc previous dC"elopmcnt, purely idco.1i$tie. A rCllLote beyond, such uS my lo\,(!, became my lIeu"en, lily ... ~, Eyerything grew "~guc, and 1111 thn t is \'''~uc Incks boundAries. Onslaughts ng,uns t t.hc, present, brond nna .hApclcu expressions of unnntuml fcehn.g~ (.'01\ .

druct ea purely out of the blue, th~ complete, oPI>?sltlon of what is and whAt ought to be, rhetoT1c~1 reHedlOliS lII~t~all of poetic thuughts 1Jul p,('rhAp.'I Ilbo a ema,m warmth of senl"meut nncl " struggle for movement chllfllcten .'le ti ll the pocm5 II I t he first three volnml':ll I sent to Jelln)" T he whole horizon of 1\

longing ,,·Mch SC'1'11 no rrontienl "ssumccl lII(llIY fornls lind frllAtTAted my e/rort. to write "'ith poetic oonciseue$$.'

The only poems thalsur,;n! nre those written d.uring lhe lint half of I8!J7, together \lith frugment5 of 8. drorunlie f,mttuy nnd

1 ,IIF.GA , L (~) ~14; ~:a!tOTl ~WJ Gud<Ja t. p. 4 1. I JO."(h~ ,i (2) ~14; ~:""tollT and GoodM, ", 41. • • ', Md.ri,,!!'. introdu<;tiQII to ,1 .... "~mlil~"'rjICM" .\'«Ai<UI N~ II"", JJnT.~,

FrWrid, EII!!'I. mid F,,"";wud I",.-Jf~ (St"ttg~rl, 1(00) t $ . 'Ibid. • JIA'(;,I t i (2) 21,1 t.; taton and r.udd~t, PI', 41 r.

., Mar.7: br:(nrr Jlar,rim!

... comic no'·cl. "Inr:( tried to puhlish some of liles!;! 1)(ICIllS nrHl !;Cut them to ~\delbcrl \"011 CIUl.IlIiSllO, editor of the (llIlIual OcuucnCf .1lusc/lailm","t:h. Lut Ule issue had alrend), gone to prL'SS. The only two poems CI'cr to IIJl~nr in print in i\1"t):'~

lifetime wcre puoli~hed in the Berlin A '!.eIllIC"'''' "~nlldl YOllllg Hegdinn joumfol, in J,ultlllry l8·n. T ilt gCllcrlt1 tonc of 1111 these ~m5 reflected the prt!" Ai ling climate in Honn lind II.lso the It~1urn "'lIr)[ attended during his Ilrst term in Berlin, where lle heard Snvigny lind St.d'fen! g-i,'c a romantic illtcrpretnlion of tILe philOllophy or h\w, Ilis model~ nrc I [eine, Goethe and Schiller, and they COlllftin all the well-known themew of Gerllllln romllntidsm, with t.he 6ception of potiticnl re!lction Ilnll nlltion. nlism. '-Inns Kohn 1106 "'ell R"'lIm~rl up the Nnlnntic We/tall . ,chauuIIC ..

The rom~ntic inUh·iduai ... regarded himsel( not a, Il repffl . 5cntll.tive o(universlli order bllliu Iluniquc heing ,cllid dcmnnded complete rreedom, in life and work, ror his creatil"e genius. Al the same time the rom~ntics, (or ~Il their Tel'olt Ilgninst society, did not aceept the tilAnic loneliness of the Storm lind Stress. They IOIl,6to:ld (or II community of like· minded indil"idUllls who would live n full life according to their innermost emotions /lnt! conl"ictioll9. 'rhe complexity and ~nguish of their search for thi~ community was heightened by their unuerl)ing subjecti,·illm. The unique indi'iduRI 100lged for a full grntifiCfltion of all his desireB nlld yet fclt the lIecu for (ulfilment in the mirnclc of II t rue iUlTtllonious union in which "11 the conflicting opposites of li(e would be recondled.1

"'Jurs's pocms nre full ortrllgic 10l"e amI talk of humnn destiny a~ the piny thing of mysterious forr-es . There is the f"miliar suojectivi$111 lIud extreme ('xoltotion of the personality of the I'rentil·C artist isolnted from the re$t o( society. ' \A n result of his 10l"e (or .Ienny,

With cliwllin I will throw my gauntlet Full in the race o( the world, ,\ nd see the collapse of thil; pigmy b";ant WllOse fall will not $tiHe my ardour.

, II. Kobn, n t .Vind trf (;"""'II~!I (l'ola(",jJJ~", I..,ndlln, H)(\,,) I'. :.(/.

.Ifar;c aU) Studult

Then I will wandcr godlike lI"d I"ic lorioui Through thc ruins of the wo~1d And, gi"iug 1Il~' .. ·, ... ds un acti ,'e force , I will feel e(lunllo the crealor.1

'~5

Ot her poems ui$plllY II longi"g for 50meth.ing in~nite .Ilmlalo,·c of death Ii /11. !\o'·alls, while dill otheN conSIst cnti~ly Ula ri re .. '" world of myt:tical imagination. 1'0 the IIcstlletic idealism of these po£llll! was lidded II series oftypicllliy rOllllllltic:: iro.n~cal attucks Oil

'Philistine'S', people like doctors lind mathcmallclI\lLS, wh~ fol . lowed utilitllrian profeHions based on an ordered lind ra.tional approach to problems. To help him in his composition, l\ l anc: h~ri copied out large estrncU frol Ll Lessing's ulok,OOll, S~lger" Er~lIl, nud Winckc1mnnn', If j'/(]T!J of .·Irt. ~ r llrx' llI10lt of IHllklllJol: excCIllts frolll aU the books he ,;,n., r~ading (~n? sometimu adding comments of his o"'n) stayed "'Ith hLm 1111 hiS hfe, and th06C nou:· books tlUll remain fornl a valuable guide to the de\'eiopment of IllS th(lught.2 He also wrotc It few ehnpters of a comic u(ll·el, ScorpioJl (lIld Feliz in the Ityle of Sterne lind then gll"c thllt up to composC the :/irst ~cene of Ouiallem, II contemporary comic thriller whOllC hero Will a fceble copy of the Llgeing Fnusl. Finully thcre wu lin intcl"Cdiug 5erics of epigrfllllS rm Hegel, ... hom i\-iur): ncellses or being IIrr(lb'lln t lind oUscure. In the first epigrnlll, he sap:

BCe9.l1se my medilntions have dhlco"er<:d the highest of things /lnd "Iso the depthi, .

I am al ~rude as II god nnd clonk mysel f In dnrknc~~ 118 he docs, In my long regearches nnd journeys on the. WII"Y sp.a of t hought, I found the word lind remain firmly nttllched to my filld.~

The ~econ,1 epigmm has the $nme themc opening:

I teach words thnt nrc mi){eti up in It de,·i\ish nuo c1ll\otic L1Ie~s.·

The m()$t iuteresting is the IMt cpigra.m:

Kant and Fichte likc to whirl into hell,'en A1II I senrch there for n di$lnut land, Whilc m~· only aim i4 to underatnnd completely What - 1 founu in UIC street.' , JIEr;,. I ; (~) 00. • • • S,.., M. nul .... l, ' I~~ C~hie .. (r~h"I"" de K~rl Marx (111-10· \110,)3), Inlcr.

n~lI"n"t Hed.", of .,*",.,,/ fli>t"'"N (111,;7) . • » .... 0,11 ; (2) 4 .. L ,VI-:(I,. ,i (~) 12. " Ihid .

'fhe point of this cpigr:am is totnlly misunderstood if it is taken Lu l>e i\'~!lrx him.seU 61>:~~ing.1 As inlhe former epihtro lllS, it is I-Il'gel wl~o IS ~pcul(lllg, critiCIsM by i\fnrx, tI,e lu bjecti"e f()llIantic, for !.Icing too ntt8ch~ to day-to.t1ay rcnlity, The whole tenor of 1\1111')[" poems md:1!lI this an ob"iuu$ criticism of Hegel, lind it was n COIllUlon one IImoug l'(m"Ultic writers,

rn genernl, l\Iarx's lirsl contllct lI'ith the Ilnhen;ity urought tLbo~,t II great chu"g'" in the views he J)/ld c.'Ipressed in his s('hwile1\,'~ng l'sw-y. No. longer II'n8 he illspircd hy the U,ought of the scn',l'C of h.umlllllty and conccrned to Jit himself into II. place where ]'e IJlIght best be able to $il.crifice himself for this noble !dcal: his poems of 1837, on the contrary, re"eal a cult of tIle Isolatfld geni~s and nil introl·erted (:ollcern {or the buiiJing of his own personality apart from the retll of humanity.

I,t i~ fortunntcly I'e,!, l'lI~y to follol\' M!\rx's e,'olutiou during his hrst .y~ar Ilt the UIlII'Crslty of Bcrlin, for he dcscribed it in great deulIl,n "letter t~ his futher written in No'"ernbcr 18S7 (the only letter to have Sun',,"eo:l from I\Inrx'$ student d6vs).2 In thi~ letter from which quotations hn'·e alrendy hecn maile: he recounted th~ cou~ of his id~as Ilnd critidsed them (rom M ne,,'IY-II'on Ilegelian 5tan.Jpornt. Poetry, e,·cn during his first year at Uerlin, wns not Mnl'.'l 5 only concern. Ilc .. Iso relld widely in jurisprudencc u?d f~lt compelled to 'struggle ,,·ith philo~phy·. T he two "·ere, in Ius rmnd, clOSely connected nnd he tried tl,l work out II. philosophy oflnw, J Ie prcfaced t1ri~ with n lIIeLAplrysiMI inlroduction Ilnd the :':hole gre.", to a ..-urk of thr?e hunclred puge5 hefore he ga'"e it UI). I hc pnrticular prohlem winch Ire was unnble to overcome in the metnphY$icnl intrwuction w.u the cQnflict between \\'hn l is a nd

) 'I'l,j~ ill th ... ;'11~'1)~t8tion of, for <l>'~"'l'lc, w. Johlliton, 'Mar;,<·~ "c,- of 1836-,', JONmm <if the IIiltor,l <if 111«1, (Apr 1001) 2GI; al;JO of .t. I(alllcnh, 1'~ }.~IM~ F"u"d~ ;"". of JI .. ,....I'". (ltOlltiedgt, I.o"<lon, 1002) p. 20, .,,,1 of S. A~tntn, TIot! &cUd "lid l'fIIUieai HlH<ghl qf ,,'art JI,.,.z {(4.lIIbtidgo V, I'. , Ifl(8) P. A.

I ~·il1lt i,,,J,iisbeo.l, with an ;'ll1Od~dion by lUi dallghl~ • • :leano. in m~"""" 1.eil, ;'<VI (18!li)" 11". '

.Mar;rllte Sit/dOlt 47

what uught to be, '" conflict peculiar to jJealisUl, lind this gll."e rise to the fQIlQwing hopelessly inaeeumte cllluilleation, "'il"1lt of all, wha~ I gratuitously chrutcned 'metal)loy~iC!l or Ill"'· - that is, I,rinciples. reflcctions, Jelcrminnli"c concepb - wal .el'e~d {rom nllnclualln\\' and from allY "dunl forlll of I",,', as in lIrc writing of Fichle, Qllly in my ease in " more modern Ilnd Icn t uootll.utful f,i$hiQn'\ It Wll~ precisely tlris gap bctwl'<.:l1 whnt is and what ought lo b~ Hmt r,lnrx comidererl to hlll'c hCCI! hridf,'Ctl by thc Hegelian philo,~ophy, 1'I 1:l rx'lI &ecQnd objection to the mel,aphysicill system he had l'01l5tructed I\'n.'l iu '1lllltl,elllAtical dog",,,tism', lIe~ i\1"n repeah IIegd'~ polemic against Illllthematics oontaiuoo in the prernce to his Plili"omtllologie, ,,·hcre TIegel contrllSu mathemAtical truth unfa\'ou.il.bly ,nth historiCAl truth: 'The process uf IIIl1thcm"tie,,1 truth noel 1I0t belong to that ,,·hieh is its object, but is nn actil'ity thut remuins edemnl to ill! matter:' According to )1,,1'.'1, the ~ple11l. or Kllnl nut! Fichte, l~bo were t he inspiration for his own ideu lit this time, were open to this objection; they were nootrnct syst.cms thnt, like geometry, JlIIued from nxi(lll1l to conclusion!. In contrllSt, 'in the concrete expression of the living worl!ll,lf thought - tU in I,I"" tire stllte, nature, philo~ophy liS !I whole - t he object ibelf must be studied in its del'elQpment; there must be no arbitrary classifications; the rationllle of the tl,iug itself must be disclosed in all its contradictoriness and find its unity in ibelr,' Marx then outlines the complicated ,thtma of his philosophy ofln\\' that comprises the second part of his trellti!e, The IllII;n rcruIOn rOT his dissntisfadioll with thi~ ellI5Iiillcation 6«1111 to hllve been that he did not think, in the J-Iegelilln nUlnner, (If the concept as mediatur between form nnd content and thus his elMsifi ... lltion I\'Il! empty - ft de~k, as he put it, intQ whose drnwers he later poured sIIud.

' ''hen he got as n'r Il$ the di!c1lS~ion of priv"te l1rulerinllllw, 1,1' realised thllt his enterpri5e was mistllken;

I SUII' the falbciou!Rcn of the whule, which in i15 fundnmcntfl l uhrmn borders Ull the J\ l\lllilltl, thollgh differing wholly from Kant in mattcrs Qf detail. Once more I renlised thllt I could IIQt make Illy wny without philo!o]lh)'. lIence I WIlS once agllin Ilble,

'JlJo."GIi ,i (2) :! IO; P..~t"n ."'\ G",ldat . r~ ~Z, I IItgtl, W t'I'","" \l ;)~; I .. n!h~ in Kft ufnlann,I/"!JtI. p, 418. • JlJ.:GJI , I (2) ~I~; £alton .".j Guddal.I'. 4:J.

with good conscience, to throw myself into the !lrl\1~ of philosophy, and I ",rot,e a rIO)"' basic mellll,hyaical S)1il CIH _ Upon its completion ! WII3 OIlCC og"iu <.vn.trainW to recogniMl its futility nlld that of nil m.v l,re,-io(1.!1 ende.woun.!

T hi, uroug bt l'h r)[ to the end or hi, lil"lit $ctll e!l tcr and he sou.'llit refuge from Ms philosophiclli prohlem, in writing t.he poetry di,cnued IIOOvc:

At the end or the ~eme~tcr, l one<! more sought the dnnce of the muses Ilnd the Ulusic or t he Mtyrs. ,\iI'Cn,iy in the lnst pages r sent you, ideali~11I playil its part in the form of forccd humour (Scorpion an(I Feliz ) and in an unsucC(!Ssful drnmatic fnntat~(Ouulllcm), until at lcngth it tuku an <)ntircJy different rlirccti<)11 nnd changes into pure rormal art, for the Ulost PIIrt without nny stimulating objeets aud without IIny linly IIIm·cment. of idcll.s,t

But thi! activity. ",hile revcaling whnt poetry could he, nt the sa me time mlloe it imponible for l\b,rx to continue : 'T hese hut poems nrc the only ones in ",hiell ludd~nly, a8 if I.ry tIle 1\-4,-e of n mngiciau', wand - it I"lIS ,hattering at the beginning - the renlm of pnre poetry flashed open before me like n dis tant fllcry pnlnce, nnd all my crentions collllp.!led into nothing." Kot surprisingly, this period of intenl e in te.limunl acti,-ity in sen!rnl fiel ds, often involving hi$ working through the night, ended in II. perioo of severe i1In~. Hill !loctor achl$ed a ehllnge of scene nnd )!nrx weut to the ,-mage of Stralol" jost outside Berlin_ Here his "iews IInderwent tI big chJ\nge: 'n CUl'lIlUl had fnllen, my huly of holies hnd heen shattered, nud !Jew gotb had to be found. Selling out from idealism - whidl , let me 611y in pusing, I 1\I'Id cuU\pnreo to 'Illd nouri~hed with that of Knnt and J'ichte - I hit upon sccking the !dCll in the rcnl iutlf. If formerly the gods hnll dwelt /lbo'-e the world, tlrey had now become its centn::." Previously r·legel's conceptull.I rntionalisrn had llten rejected by 1\I1Irx, the fullower of Knnt and Fichte, the romantic !uhjectivist who considrre<l tire highest being to he sepnrate from carthly reality_ Now, J'OI,-m·er, it begnn to Item u though thc Idea WIIS immn!Jent iiI the renl. 'I had

'JIKOA , I (2) ~17 f ; Eliton . ".1 Ou,lda!_". 4~ . 'JlEGA , ; (2) ~111; t:..!on ~nd Ou,ld. l, 1'. 46_ ' 1001._ "bid.

.11",.1' the StUdeNt

re"d frugment& of Hegel'$ phiJ050phy lind .JH"~ fQI.U1d its grotesque crllggy mclU<Jy unpleasing. I wishcd to (h,'e mto the ocean once ugain but with tile defi n.ite iute,ltioll of discovcring onr rn~ntn l llature to he just liS dcter lnincd. eOllcl'clc, a nd tirmly e.stabh!hed as our plrpie,.l _ ~IO longer to yra<.~isc t he urt of fenclllg but to brin\!: p ure renrls Into the sunlight. .

III order to clurifv llis lI,iml [\[IIT'" hegan tu wntc - 1\ procedure he Imd adopted i.lCfore and would IIdopt IIIJ'I ny time~ later_ Hc

r<){luced 11. twellty. ruur puge diologuc entitled 'Cleunlhes, or the ~tnrtillg i'uiul u.nd Necessnry Progress of 1' 1~ i!(>Sophr For lhi~ purpoic he acquainted hillll(!U_with Illltut .. I ICU~ll~.lUslQl'~· fl nd.1I study of the \lurks ufSchelling. The ill/luence.o_fthe \rI tter IS pllllll in ~ 1 (l r.x·i(leBcription of the dialogue ~I$ ~uJ\ltJllg_art nnd 5eU,nCl) nnd comprising a -phiiosophical-dia lect iclIl diICUS!lIOI: of the Godhead mAnifested ruI II eonr,eptl'cr u , (16 Hdigion, n~ Nature, an~l .. s History'. T his di.alogue ended with i\b,rx-! com erslOll ~ HegelUlnbm: ' n}y IMt sent ence WIlS t he begiuning of the Uc~el"Ul ,ys.telll. and t11i~ task __ . this darling child of minc, nurtured \II llIoonJlgI:t; benn lIle like It fabehearted tiren into the eiu1ches. of the tnem.Y . 'fhu$ ;" !lI rx had gone through U,e same e'-0111110n sa eia5.sL.eal Genunn philMophy itsel f: frum li: llul llnd Ficht'.Uhrnugh Schelhng

to H ':gf'1. _... r. T his procell of gi.-ing up Ius romnnbc IIl e"h.'lll~ nnd tie I\-~nug

himself ovcr to 'the enemy' \\'I'ISlln extremely radical and plllllful one for l\18n:_1 He des<:ribea its inllnooi.r.te result3 11..'1 foUuwa;

Beea\l5e of JIll" ,·c!(ntioll, , ",,19 for severnl days quite un.nble to t hink . Like ~' lunlLtic 1 rnn around in the garde~l Ucslde ~he Spree's dirty Willer '"·hieh washcs the 60ul ami dilute' tell - I cven wenl \lut ilullting with my II06t and then 1"eturnedlootfoot t o Berlin wishing 10 elllbmcc e'-cry loafer nt the street com;rIL _ .. !)eclLuse of the futility of Illy lost IlIbolln;, from con5un~ng vcxntion !,t hllving to llIake an i(lol ofa view I detes t , I fcelsLck_

Hi~ cO/l\·ersioll to Hcgel lfllll completed firstly by Il thoro~lgh_ rcndillg of ll egel: whi le sick he -.sot_ to. kno,"" H egel f~ol\l ?c~U1r1ll\g to

, together with most of IllS dISCiples _ Secondl), he JOLlled a sort - . ~ of lI egelinn discus, ion group; 'through 5O,'ernl mcctmgs \\"I I

')11-:(;>1 r i (2) 2111 r.; t;""lon and GuJdat, VV· ~6 f. • )IIWA , i (!') 2Hl; ~:a.lnn _00 Oud,I~I, p. -4;_ • cr. JlIWA ,i (2) 210, ustOIl _ud Cuddal., ]1_ 4;.

•

'''' Marx INflffc !llarxitm

fdew.1s in StrfllulV J hecIIlllc II lUt.!lUUcr OCR Dh~t " CI b I' o "" on; u 10 \\'ucll

some JIlslructors .1n« Ill)' most int imlltc fe,' I' " I' n t u ,~lJ( HI D crlll Dr , !,' en erg. belong. I II tiis(;ussiolu uU"'Y II confliNingopilliol: WilS

,meed, lUll] r \VIIS more lIud more chnined I" II I 'I I' . v II) Cllrrent world

p II OSOJIly from IV/uch I hnd thou .... ht 10 escillV.· T I ' I ' • I I · ~(' c- ..... llSCuvmet

rcgu III' y III II ell,.., III UHl }'rllllzOsj~che Stm's I I d ' k' 1'._' ~ C 'JIlC wus a 1(II,d_

1"'11 llIg IIIl( uvlslCrOllS COIllPIlUy. Adolf Ruten]"''' 'I ' I 1'1 ...... g, \\ \om "IITX

men IOns lere, WIIS "geo<>r."pl,)' tellcher lI'hn I I ' I • ' . <;> u IIIC OrH"::C Y sp<:ut

50me tUlle In PflSOll us 1\ lllcmlJer of the BIiNCh .' .~ d I I , ""fuWJ! (\11 who reg" ar y wrote or the Humburg l,cwslmpc\' '1' I L n ItI J WI II r rgrap,. cllt"r.k_

1I(.t. len ICy werc both lut!'.I' on thc staff r II R' " Z '/ 'I ° lC 1I(;/lIllckc ~CI illig, j aTX came to rll"'ord ButenL. rg , '

A I <;> "'" S a mcre clphcr not Icr IHcm~r of the <:luh II'''S Knrl Fried' h , -_ . ' 'I I TIC \oppen a 1I15tor)' ea':leratll oculschoolwho,,","sllllel'tobet:oll t' I

• 'pc t tl ' ' . ' J I'. all He ' U QW edged x .r ~ll. IC GrlglllS of Buddhisl1l; l\IufX mcntions Ilim in

udlJurahon lJl the preface to h.is doetornl thesis I T I I d ' I' I inthelb B B . Jeealng l'<lt c u was runo uuer, II'llolllld been lecturiftg , II I 0 U . '1 . .. III leo ogyut

Ie unl\'crsl y Since l &'H and wa$ to be lIlarx's I t r' d' 1I t , . I'. oses r:U::1I or II'. !lex our yellrs, He was Ilt that time a disciplc of II II'

JIc"elinn 111 I . k b Ie or " .. "o~ " ' UT If:l11e 1'., ut soon A.Ilpcnred uS spok f, . rAdical Young l-Iegeliulls.! csmnn 01' the

lI Inrx 11'115 undvubtedly a lso strongly illilllenced by EJ d GallS, Professor of Law at Hedin Uni l'ersit\. wh"'" I I Ull

l'

tt 1'1 I .' v~ .... eeuIT'S Hl II cn, c( morc regu nrl)' t luln 1111)' o th~, G ' J ' I" ~r. ' ""S \\'",~ a baptised eu, n lberal Hegehlln, who c1abo,."tc!] the lUa'I-,', ' , ' II f Id f' . ~ ~ l'ICllS 11l Ie

IC so JUTlSprwJence nnd h.istor)·. lIe WIIS a bn'll,' I I I It I I I ' lIn ce urerand

" rae e( very n"g'-' nllUlcnces. ProgreM w,' h' , t I I I ~ IS lin em·or(· he \'cry lllUC J up proved of the l'-rellch Ilel'olution of18S0 d j catoo nn J::llg:lish style of lllonilr<:hr III! llPllrccinle I 1"1 n . " "0-. , 1<: llnpO!-

, 0" l'vI'llen,!If'!) «f;1,,-~ ,i.lJ)' I J. I lirsch {)til!.""" d I,: , . V,;Ia~"Stl.lt, ~·rankfnft-.m_~'nin, IQw') JlI'. If) B;. <l"l/if~' (I::urol'~lb<')'~

On Urull" Jlnucr.""l G·i\!prer'Din ,\nn" d r-im vor"'Arn)jcL~" P""'''o!oic,,' " ." • • '.",,.,, " _ ,~, "If Jlo ,"",I'en lla~ihJi,m\u,

, ... , '!r .J'" ... ,I'·I·I(Wl:l)'l'n 'k11 ~I!ldt<klc eMit/eII/ulI! im I'Qrmarz (Jenu l!)ni)' S' U k p~ ,. am' 0, 'Ja. tlld oJ, (Ann Arbor, " lieLig,'" IfI(;2) " C C . -'1)00, I In lIegdlo ,lior,r, deJJ'~" toKieu.., (111-11 - 18,13)' Oioru:'ie c...~' .",ro, ""'I\{oner (I I., f')Q!lQG~ (I'J I""") r. ' " CO "" a . Iwoj11l Italiano I orence, "''''; ' . A. "nn den Ik-rgh I'an ~'y8jJlgA 'Di~ 'flit' k . ' II."",. in llonn· . .4.IIN(1/i, 1!JC.:l (,\ Ii];,,, 100,;) . II ~luke I'h~l$ cot 1'o" liNn,) (~;t".t Klett Verlag, Stllt!g ... t, 100:;/: " lcJ":Ua,;' Tilt 1- ,I_pAis, der Tol I\arl AJar;);. ' O''''!} Ilf!Jrlta", 01,,1

Mllr.!: the 81m/tilt 51

t"ncc of soci"l qUi:Stion.~ Il.nrl sympathised with the SaintSimoniuns, who~e idells I,e puLliciscd in II book tlHlt IIppc/lfed in 1800,

T he S"inl-Simoninns [wrole Guns] hl",r right.ly nhsen,,,,!1 t h" t slll\"ery hn~ not r1iMppeurcd lind that, el'en if it hilS Lecn formally I\bolishc<l , it IlcI'crlhcless really exists in 1\ most nhsoJuttl IlUllmer. Just us once milstcr nnd ~la\"e wcre vpposed to each other, and then Inter pntrici"l1 lind plclocilln, then so,ereign and \'as~ul, sv ure oppo~ed loJny the mall who is idle lind the lllllll who wvrh. One has ollly to I'isi l the factories to ~ee hundrcds of emnrinted lind miserable men and women who ~ueri/ic~ their he"lth for the scrl{ce lind prv/it of II. single man "nd cxehnnge nU the pleasures of life for n mcngre pittn",:c. Is it not pure slnl'er), to ellploit II1<H1 like n llenst lly nllowing hi", only the freedom tv die ofhu Jlger~ Is it 'lot possihle to nwnken in these misernble proletol.rillns n mOfnl conscience llnd lead them tv luke a" >!clil"e p"rt in thl! work t hnt nt present they c;{eeute ol.utomAtically~ T he I'iew thllt t he swtc should prol'ide [<."II" the needs of the most numerous null poore~t d uss is onl: uf the nlO$t profound of our time . ... Future history will 5pcak more th"" once of the struggle of the proletarians against t he middle classes. T he i\Hddle Ages po~sessed a sucinl orgulli~a tio1l of work in its corporations. T he corporntions (IrQ destroyed lI"d cannot ~ re-estublislv..·.l. Dut hM not work, now liberol.led, escaped from the dcspotisnl of the corporation And ahsolute dominatiun of lhe mllster to filII under that of the fact.oryowner? Is there no mean! of remedying thi~ ~ituation? Yes, t here is : tile free corporation, sociaiiSlltivn.l

Although lIlllny of these ideus were to reoppco.r in ", I(lr" 's wrilings, they had litt.le in fl uencc upon hilll for the present. He WIIS

~till thinking of 1\ Inll' curC(!r : he proposed 10 his f"ther t il,, !., Oil fiuish illg his studies in Berlin. he would go on to the pro"incial Appeal court "t lI l llnslcr. From there he pJallllCd to ~collle all assistant judge nnd el'cntually get a uni\'ersity professorship. lIe also mentiun~ in passing a pin" to edit d r<:view of IICstilctics, sayillg thnt llnmo Bnuer nnd Rutenberg had 1I1,.e",1y oLt"iucd t he co_op<."r:tlion of 'a ll the aesthetic notables of t.he Hegelian school' .

, .1':. (;~nij. IIQcl.:bl;ck~ ~"f l',.,.~~»"n ",ul Zv#,lntfe (llertin, 18,16) 1'1' . !)fJ If f urther on GHn$, 5CIl 11 . H~i6o;"cr, f;dua,d. (;~1I8. Hill ~~" im I'ormii,: ('fIl.Liug.:m, I~) . ,

Mar:l) brfore Mflr.:ri ,,,,

Heinrich i\["rx'~ re,,', to lhj~ "~It, dOd " , " h' r I not lst"c up the p II osop l(~nl ([Hes lion.s .uised· it collsi",. "" r -" 1 . 1$ bo' . "re 0 renc",,,,, rom-p flln n lit 11I~ Mm'. lnek of onler, neglect of hi~ fllll1il' nml ~trll:·lIgnnce. A filtal iIIncSii OI'crtook him $(IOn uft~r\\'anls ;':'0 he ., lcd HI l'.[arch 1838. nl'ttr which i\I !l.rx~ linh with his fa I ') . II'CIUIMl yery tenllOus. I II )

. As ~ wholc,lhis lcltcr debi!s Marx'" conn:l'Ilion to the pre"ail mg pl1Llo!SUIJ~Y 0: th~ cluy. nut it doefi Tlot oonLlin any criticism of ~cgl'l,o~ iU,y lIIu,cation (,If Mar.fa future inte.llectual dc\'clopmcnt

II)' C Jlun thllt -' [«n's conceptions "" " d . . Are .... en. y .ere 110 "uce IS to reil Into the It!xt Idtlll for which Illihis tilile there is no evidence.

3. i\IAIX'. D '5$K1TATIOX

n. / IIlrOOuc{tJr!/

I ~ the yeur lifter writing this Jetter to his ruther, Marl{ noolluoneu a .most nil fO~lIlul tenc.hing lit the unil'ersity and conccntrAl u ~;s ow~', rending ,Iud dlscussious with his intimates in the Do:to~:

~~. 1 he only leeture$ thnt he did aUend were 011 philosophical 9U ~cct.s, and his notebooks for the next two years were fll de ll exce .. pls .frorn Hegel, Aristotle, SpilloUl.Lc.ib~~ . H" n)(l /lIn; .K:~t' Mea~wlllic. the necessity of earning IllS living W8.' becornin mor~ r:reu mg; IllS futher. while he lived, nrgoo Karl to IIII' the f~undllho~s ,of Ii. cureer thll.t would 50Qn allow him to lllalT): his ' all eI of ~I gl r~\, HIS 1110tl,er took "p the Mme theme: she complninedgUllit • Ie ~stl'I I!~le n fllHlily o!!$piscd her, a ud Jenm' herself WIlS

IlIcrcMmgly. til n~ cnse in her OWII family. A II U,;se flictOf5 led I\I \l.u to brmg III~ ~tudil!fl to nn end b)' the ~n .,' r lloctornl tl esi th" , . lp0;>61 Ion 0 "

: • I 5 a Ie loped would enable him to obtain A ullJ"erslty teaching poIILl

1"~is tlleSi5, IJegun towards the end of 1838 and sub ',t d ' Apnll""1. . . . 1111 e In vr. Uf\1\'esl""nmootllpletestnte and ,','h ' r. tl '- , , e Ill8.Jorsou.r<;<: or Ie .. now edge ur l\Ip.rx·~ ideu in lhis ""ri~" ., " '"

, ,

"

,," . , __ ....... Ie Jlre ItIlmnn'

110 t'll or Ie I/::!.lS, lIT1tlcn during 1SS' 00" " r ' ' I k h' • A' S 0 se,"en exercise ;HX). S \V Id.I.MIITX entitled ' 1':l'icurenll ]'hilosophy' and' whOl!e

I ~ ..... n ... ""8"'" of the lb.·.. l\J b' .. . "",I 1..-1'" \... "to. """ e nll(;" M a,tro<iucl",,, tl> ,\brx, E" .... I~ "'" "/Ulln, r ~ I " ..,-

Marx the Sludtrll

content goe& f'lr Ucyond that of the thesis, denling with auch suh. jedll ,,~ tIle rdation between EpicureAnism and Stuici.snl, the concept of the Mgt in Greek philosophy, the "i<lwa of Socrnles lind l 'll\to on religion 1I11d the prosped.ll of po~t" lIcgcli"u philo-101,hy. T he theai. iudf, entitled 'T he l)ifference betwI!Cn t he Democritelll\ nml the EpicureAn Philosophies of Nature', ~n' aisle<! uf A CriticiSlll or those who had equated the ]1/1.\unll philO5Ophies of \)eUlocritu, Illid Epicun,s a nd a c .. tnlogue of ti,e llilferences between t hese phil050phies. T here. WA61\1\ flppo:ndil< on 1'llltJ\rch'a criticism of Epicuru5 .. nd two len!,tthy IIOtes 011 Hegel amI Sehelliug.1

b. Choice oj Su/drct

~ l nrx'8 interest in Epicurus 6eemlto have been stimulu.teJ hy du.cuss;ons with hi~ fellow Young Hegeliuns. It i, worth while pointing out thnt since Marx "'u.s not a direct .Iisciple of lIegel, hj~ ):l1owle<lg~ of Hegel's rloctrincs WaS ulw(l.),. acquired through, or a~compl\nied by, the commelltaries of his disciples. II i, first BeZ"illue 8ltldy of Hegel Will undertaken .. t the slime time ns thAt of 'most of his disci ples'. J\,ld it WIlS in discussions a t the Doctors' Club that Mur;.: 'was more and more ~hllined to the current \forldllhilosopl.y', T he Y oung Hegelians, following Fichte, were ill the COline of renflirlning the primllcy of t he suhjective Ol"er substance ami fdt II. profound sylllpnthy for the post-Aristotelians. The reason WitS twofold: after the 'totnl yhi.\!!aophy' of Hegel the Young Hegeli,m~ felt themselves in the SaHlI' position lOS the

I Th_ a .... U ",priated in JU:GA, i ( I) 1 ft". The theoill has oo..n ,..,.edltoed (though ,d ,bout the prelimiolary !>Oteo) in 1\. Man, Oil J)rjJ.t,..-Ji,,,,"lalWn. oed. G. :l lcnde. (J ell', I9IU).1"1KI MEGA tut is fullr ,..,prodllco:d III K. Mat., Tt,rlc.:t< JI<fJoD#k lind ha.rl •. etl. Hi llrn.o.nn I. The ... is.\o.o all l talian t .........

1 •• 1on by ,\ . Sabbetti. &JIl4fo""a::lolle tkI.....uri/!JintM oIorim (Floren.,., 1002"). Thtn! ere toro book-length ,I"""'.io"" of Man;'~ tJoe.;": R.l:!annwald, J(", .. z ulld dit JI,./ib (Bucl, IIMj)i lliUlUaa, ,}I", .. ¥ nd lltfld· IIM"I d~""""'" or th' philooool,h""lullfttl.n contained;n II. l'opitl, ht:r ~"Ifrt-..bt~ Jftfta (1I~1. lM3); M. "Friedrlo:.b. l'IoUlIf'fI1IItie .. nd {jkQ __ ie bri", jvngtft JI~ .. 1t

(1I6Un. 1000): M. d.1 I' ..... U din/,mea i~ lI",rz (L:at~ru, &,i. 1~) pp. !3 •. '11..., ... ;" .bo "..,f,,1 m.ltri.ol in Cornu. I{,,;I J("rZ d P,;tdricA "."~/,, I 1; 9 11".; C. \l"fttkt"h"i.o", 1.4 l'ltilliU if {", migloN d'"pm J{", .. I .1JIJrz (f'.U.F., I'nm, 1963) .. p. 00 If.

" Mur.r kf~e .lIQT.l'ilm

Greeks fl ftcr Aristotle; I!I!comlly, they thought th"t the l'ost. Aristotelian philosophics containCII t1H~ eucntial r-lcmcnts of 1Il00lcrn thought: they had luid the philosuphicltl founJll tioos of t he llonilln J.:mpirc, had profOUllllly influenced carly Christian momJity Jl mt .. 1&0 contllined rllliullut isl trnits uf the eighteenthcClllury E nlighlcu tllcnl. T wo in p .. rticuh, r of ;\ ll\r£5 friends in the DoctoNl' Club hnd ~turliecl thi~ period: Brull(,) Ba uer, who hilt! rcccnll)' mo,-cd frol\, orthodux I - I cgelil\ni~m to ,111 ilLcreAsingly !'ndieal outlook, viewed post-Ari!lotcli~n philosophy flS th~ ~pirilul\1 hnsis of CArly Chri8tinnity. He thought tbllt the indio "idualistic phil~pl)(:n, following on the break-up or tile citusicn] world lind ih ohjective socinl tici, hnd prepll red the wily for Christianity. In ChriJtiAni ly. however, Ulall " 'Ii$ the ohjed of It God he himself had erented nnd thus it feU helow the l{l\'el of Ilumnn eonsciollsneu attained by the IItheistic,llellenistie thinkers "'lh their ~trict 5cpnrution of philosophy nnd religion. Karl ]"ricdrich Kuppcn, t(lO, in hi. book Priedrich dtT GT0I6e N"'/6dne lVidtT6achtT (, Frederick the Grell t and hit Opponents'), which WIIS detlicnted t,o :'>'lul"J[, !llnde connections between the hellcnistic thinkeI"$, athei3rll and the Enlighlell lllent. His book was a eulogy of Frederick William ]I a nd the principles of the E nlightenment. Klippen mainlllined thttt the king" greahlCS!l urne from combin· ing the culture of Epicureanism, Stoic del'otion to the common good and Sceptic tolertlllC(l nnd lack of J oglllll.

Marx'. presellllltioll of hi. the6ia is along similKr lines. He wrote in the prefllce t hat the thesis 'should be CQlIsidered as only the preliminnryto a iarg<:-r"'o rk in whkh l IlmIl describe ill deta il thecyde ofEpieu(cu.n, Stoieal\d Sceptic philosophies in their relulionship to the whole ofG~k speculation·.1 Hegel, :\l lIn said, had hy and large correctly described the generul characteristics of these sy5 te rn~:

Hut the Kdmirahly bl"Ofld lnd hold pilln of hi. histury of philosophy which relllly gave birth to I.he history ofp hiJoaophy tiS (\ suhjeet, IUtide it impossible to enter into detail.: nlld also llis conception of what hc called 'speculuti\"tl pllr excellence' prevented this giunt of n thinker fronl recogniSing the great importance orthese Iystems for tile history of Greek philOlll'pl,y 111111 the Greek mind ill gencrnl. These sptern~ ure the key to tht troe history of Greek philosophy.'

, JflW.! , ; (I) 9. • Ihid.

Mar~ tlu; Slut/(H/ 55

In 1I,e opening paragr .. ph~ of his thes.is i\I IITlI eillbon, te~ on, wh{ he Ihi"ks these writ~T!I hold tile key to the ~listory of ~NlC )hi ll'so 11 ' :md to th t eontt'mpornry philOlloplllc>l1 scene. 1 hc~e I ,hilosoP h~rs "rtl "Il l t he origin of the Homlln ethos, the furrn 1Il

:,.h[ch ~reccc !lIlJ:nlllC Romc·. They tire '50 fnll of,ch.ura~~er, s~ t tl and essential that the motll'rIl wor d llile UIUS

concen rn eo: . t· M eontioue$ 'II. accord them full citi~1l right&' . 'II It no ' 11'llIrx. I· f"Pl't relllllrkahle Of!<:UrN!llce that .. fter the totol p II OSop II~ 0 II 0

nod Aridotle !leW systems slioultl .. rise that do nol dcpCII~ O il

these philoso~hies, 5)"1telll. that arc 50 rich in spirit, ~ut yell. 1a~c reCOllrlie to t he ¥implest of schools - the natul"IlI pluloso.p lies .In lh 'sics lInd the Socrnlic school in ethics?'l l n short, ,\'\ nr:>; 8 ~hOlce ~r~ub' ecl WllS d(!$tinedto throw light on the ~1I~elJlpornT) po$tI-Icgd?an silu (t tion in philosophy ~Y the e~flmmabon ofn parallel period in the history uf G reek pllliosophy.

c. J1I1Ir£6 I'rrU",ill(1r!l Notu

T he most illtCf(:stilig pOS!Age in t hese oot..., ~s one \\"llc'~ :'>Iuu denls with the philosophical climate rOllow1~g on the \\or.ld. philosophy of Hegel. Philosophy hilS now IIW\'ed a t a turlllng

point: Just as there nrc not/ol points in phil050phy thnt in th~.msel\"ei

• ' $ to concretion form Il.batrnet principlO::S into II. tota Ity, ant ~:l:S interrupt (\ 'sl raight. line ~"O.ntinuution, so there ~ro. n;$~ moments when phi l050ph~' lurn~ ,ts eyes l? the utern". nor. ( . lS"o Ion r reflectively but like II. practical peNoll. It SpillS : . gc, 1 th . ·IJ Just liS Prumctheus, hnvlIlg 8lolo1ll mtn,uCll \\"ll1 C "01 .. .. ' I tl

l.... to huild ho~s II.n,1 setl e on ,e fire. from hel\\"en, ""S,n8 . I II ,

c"r~h , t"thphiluS~:;~'t l~~~f,f e~c~~:.I~.~lft~l: \ ;~~:~i::" p'~;I'~~ ngalOs . e (lPr~ . sophy.1

T his Rlld lhe p ... ssage lha~ folio,,·, a re among the ou)St obscure

th(l~ i\!nrx. ey~r wrolc, 1)(lrtly becn use they arc ooly .personll~ n:t~; lind 1)ll rll), becnu!c i\!unt: Will prohAbly not surco~ hIS o:n tog 11m! ~r<'kc ,·cry mct"phoricnlly. A ' nodlll pomt' e.re.wu 1\

, ., 1 tl 'l fused inlO nil interlockiug whulc the pnllc' plc~ of pUOWPIY , I ,lJf:GA ,; (1) 14. " ' hid . 131; Ea8\O" ,,,,,I GuJJnl, I"~ r,~.

.J.lIq,rx !Hjarr. i lfflr.r i .flll

the philowphiu preccding it. This ended It stage in the de,elopmenl of II philosophy and, white slIllIming up the pre"ious steady Jlrog~sioll, ootll]>E'.Hcd futurc thol,lght to strike out in II. fresh direction, In tllis cal~, philo.qophy ~gllll n ' pradiCJlJ OIo,'crnelit', ~rinning 'intriguC:5 with the world' , IIcl'j! , d;,co\'t'ting that the world II"IIS ill the proee88 of changing, it eHterc.1 into eolJi5;on with it , " Inr)! goes on tv dcscrilJ.e this process of orro~ition between philooophy {Ind thc world, o.\' oullining the po:!ition of philOiophy Ilt the time ur Hegl!!'. death:

A~ phi losophy hAS dosed ihelf into II eOlnpletc. total 1I"0rid _ the outline of this totality b in ge 'lcrfll conditioned by its de,'elopment, the bn.sis of the forlll which re,'erses itself in a practi.:fll relationship to nclunlity - the totlllity of the worlt! is implieiUy spli t, Ilml this split is cl ril'en to I!Xtremes because spiritunl existence has Occome free, enriched to unh·ersulity. Thc hellrt Ocat has implicitly becomt in a concrete '~ay the chnractcristie of the w]\O!e organiSlIl , The diremption of the world is IIO t cllllll\l while il.8 sides lire totalitic~, Hence, the world is I(;[f·clivided II' oppo!led to II tota l philO!ophy, one in il.8clr.t

l'ut ""ore simply, this lIIelln! tlmt with Ilegel philolophy bas. by its '·ery co""pletcl1c5! lind uni.-.:'-rsn. lity, beeomt unTeal /lud oppD$cd to the worlcl "'hich continuts to Oc divided. 'rhus philosophy itself lJecamt split:

The mal1ifestation or tbe actil ity of this philosophy i5 thcreby 111$0 split lind contradictory; illl objectivc unin.l'3ality cc'eru 1,0 5ubjccth'e fOTIIIS of indh·idulI.l con5Ciousnel~ ill which it lives, COllllnon [UlI'pM will sound untler UIlY hAnd; ncolinn hurpe, ',>Dly whcn tlill stol'm strikea them. But one mu"t nol Ict one5('lr be mi~led by the slorm l lilit rollows 1\ b'l"C4lllorldphilusop!I,.'

Anyone, " 1M'>: continul!d, wl,o did not understand this ncces4l.UY development hnd to deny the JKmibility of continuing to philosophise After such 1\ totlll system: to such a mnn thc fll'pearanee of ZCIIO 0 ,' F.picllrus tlftcr sllch " thinker !\~ Aristotlp, would lJC incolliprehclisilole.

, ,I/H(;A , i (I) 132; ~:'><to" an~ G",I,I~t. 1'. r,~. • NHGA, i (I) 1~~; KuL.-IU "ntl (;"d,IAt, pp. l'i~ f.

J{ar.~ the SIIIIit", 57

\\'hal IVIU nectled WllS >l fumlnmentai chtu,ge of uiro.:.-ction:

I" ~l1ch times fcurrul souls tnkl! thc re"CI1lC point of "'.cwtl° f Villillill eomm~"ucr~. Tiley belie'e they flrl' nhle to repair Ie 1 b I··-, .. ~;"" ,._,-- by dis ..... l"$R.I. hl· a ""ace t realy tanmge J t ....... - ' '" v . ..... , , - , ' - I

." I .--" . while Themi$tocl~, when At lens ,,'II ! t Irent· .. , ,rca h,:"'" , • I ' 't r. ened with de"al tation, p~raunded the AthclI"'Il~ to on,e I o~ goocl nwl found a lIew Athcns 011 the ~cn, on unvtller element.

"'An: gt>M on to slIy that in such II. pl!riod t\\'O llitc.mntil'e5 prl'Scnt lhclll~ch' es: either to imitflte f~bly what litIS gone Ocforc or to undertnke II. telllly ftllulll lllcntni uphel\\'al :

Furthe rmore we lIlUst not fOrgi!t that the time following $uch entll~trophcs'is au iTOIl one, happy if the oo.Ule~ of~r;ta"$ IIln.rk lhcm l'lmcnt(.J.,ie if the tilllc is likc the lil.me~y hmplng centurlel of gr;Rt epoch. of IIrt, busied with CJ'l5ting III lI'a;o;, pla.ter a,~d copper that which on~ leapt from t,he ~ITAran marblc as dItl P"Uns Athenll from Zen.', hend. Tltan-~Ikc, howe,·cr,.nre thl' lime! that folloll' nn implicit ly total plll los~phy ~nt! 11:$ .eu? jed;"/)' forml of developmcnt, (or thc dU"Cmptlon - lLa un.'t) - l!

tremendous. T huI, R.;une CJ'lme aner the Stoic, Sceptic, nn~1 E icurean I)hilosophies. They art unhappy find iron" for lhelr !J dend nnd the new gotldells still hUI ilnll1t~hlltely the ~nr~ ~;~'II of f~te. of pure light or pure dll:rklles.s. She IliCks l he <illy'l coloill'!l. T he kernel of thil '.In~/lPPIll~ ~ that tl~e IKIU~ of the timc, thc spiritu(ll Monus, In Itself 9atl(lt~d tlnd.l(leull) forllled in nil nspccu, cnu reeogu;"e no actuality wl~,ch hil.I alrcady develolICd without it. The happy eleUle~lt ,In s~ch U"hllppiaess, then, is thc , ubj~eti,-e form, the ~nodahty In Wh.'C~1 philosophy lIS $ulojl!eti ,·c Con$ClOlisness rel~tc. \~self to nctuailt) .

1'111.15, for eXllmple, the I~pic\lre"" , StOIC philosophy \\'~s the lll'pp~· fortulle or its t.ime. Similnrl" the hawk·moth seeks thc Inmpiight of pri"acy ,vhen the lun illl.5 set,-

" Inrx linishea this lengthy note by p<.'in ting out IIgai," t lmt aftcr n tolul philosophy the ncw direction tnken is determined by the chArnda of that philosol)il)' ;

The other n!pcet, mol'O important for the his,torinJi of I'hi1~. I . 's thc fnet thllt this rc"Cl'lln l of tho plulosophere., tilcIT

:~:I;': ~talllintioll in IIl!Sh '\1Id blood, i~ distinguished by the I Nf;(J ,1 ,i (I) 132; Eft.I,," nll'\ Gwlll~l, [I, W. • JfI:OA, i (2) i3~ r,; ~:n~Lon nn.1 Gu~~~I, 1', !i3 .

•

\

,ill

chnr(l.clcristic which nn illIJllicitly tolttl (l.nd concrete phil060phr bcnrslike (\ hirthmark, , , , lIul it iR important, philosophicAlly ~peakillg, to .tress I.his Mpcet &inec from the spcd/ie c!.!lracler (If this re'('l'Snl dedllelion~ cu.11 be made M to the illlll1l1lH'nt ,1et.erl1lin"tiQII nml world-I,istorical d",rnl'ter of the cOllrse (If l'llilowphy. Wh"t formerly "ppearl .. 1 M " ... 0\,1.11 is 1\0\1' dHerminntenes~; il"plicitl,r cxi.1.ing "<!guti"it." lun become neg-ntion. J lere we ollller\'e, M it wcre, the currieul"m ,:iull of II philru;ol>hy fo.,,,,l$cd to the subjecti"e IKlint, just Ill! one CUll conclude n h~I'()'t lif!! slory from t.he wily he aie<l.'

~larx'8 lllnguage i ll this note, though oftell "i,iu, i. "cry obscure. Thl'! genernl utmosphere of crisis that pervtldes it was common toall the Yotlng I l cg~liuns, lJegelltimselfhnd rUll\ouncec!:

~t 'it is somethi llg not c!i/licult to lee lhot our lime is Il lime of Lirth 'l lind trnnsitioll to a ne .. period. The spirit hAS broken with whnt

wa, hitherto the world of iu existence Ilud illlagiMtion, nnd is Anol,lt to submergc nil this in thc past; it is At 1\'ork giving ibelfa lIew forlll:! Druno Baucr, with whom :-'lAa kept up 1\ constAut correspondcnce ",llile he 'H.S composing his tJle~i5, wl'ote in 1840, 'The cot/lStrophe "ill be terrillie And must be great. I would o.l lIIost SAy thAt ;t will be greater Rnd more horrihle thAI\ t.hnt which heralded Christianity's entrance on the wor!.1 $CCIlC. "

d. Jilarx', TJ,uiJ

In Ule prdace to IIi5 tiles;, }.Iarx briefly outlines previouR, mistAken iulerprclatioll8 of .Ep;cllrus·s philo.~ophy filul mcntion! the insu/licicncy of Heger. treatment of the period. lIe then justifies his 011'11 inclusion or R critieil;m (If I'lutarch'3l!.lhtck 011 .Epieurus's atheism, !Iud Mills il PiletH' ill prnise of the suprcuulcy of philosophy O\'er nil othcr disdplines, And in particlllnr on~r theology. To pro,'e his point, :\11I1';t quutcs Hm"e:

'Tis certainly n kind of indignity to philosophy, wl'Ol!e &ovcl'eign Authority ought evcryll'licre to be Acknowlcdgetl, to oblige her on el'ery ueCAsion tu ",,,ke 1Ilw\ogies for l,er co"clusiuns, And justify herself to e,'cry pnrticula r art "nd &cience, which n\ll~' be olfended at her, T his puts olle in mind of n king

'N~;GA T i (2) 1:la: 1';',lon and GuJ,l~I, p. ;'H. ' 11"/;0:1, II'trh " 10, • Jl1>OA , j (:!') :!-IIII".

Jlu.r tl,e Sludcllt ,9 "rraign'c\ for high t~Il.so1T "b'Uin~t his ~ubjectl.l

'1'1, \1$ :\Inr:c Ill"ku his own th .. Youlig ll egelian criticism ?f the nuuter's recondli"tion of philosophy Dnd religiun. He contillues '

As long nS U Bingle d'-Ofl of blood rube!! in her world_conqueri Tlg '''ld tut .. lI), free hcnrt. philosophy will .ooutinuully shout ~t h~r

t.s the c~' of Epicurul: 'I",p,ety dues not conSUlt III oppollell " h' ".' I II, c.iestruyin" tho ~s of the crowu Lut fnt or rn nscnvmg n " .!!.><Is the ltlMs of the crowd.' . '" I'hilO1!opllY make. JlO ~crel or it. 'I'll;. proci.ITUs.liOIl of I'ronoethem: ' I ll Olle word - I ha te al! b'O,h I ~ her u'VIl profca,;ioll her OWI1 slogan ngflinst 1111 gods uf hell\'en alld ellrt~l who tlo ~IOt recognise mAn's self-co"lICio~5nc.ss. liS the hlghelll .lhillity. There shall be nune other beSide It.

~1'\TlI thought th"t it WRS charAeleristic of the l)()l!jt:Ari~totcli"n I 'Iowphies thflt ill thenl 'All demcntl of self_colJsciOUlilJeu ...

]I U r II "I,d' 3 This 'self_co"sciollsnefl' WM the central IIro II y reprt~" 1 ' d B eOllcept of the philO!lophy tlll,t the Young Hegt'lian~, nil rUIlO BRuer il1 rartieulnr, were e1nborating. Hegel, too, ".ud referr:d to the post_Aristotelian period 118 t~At of selr.co." SCLOU81l.ess, hut his radical di~eiplco> took it out oflta. c":efull~ ClI'CUnlSCni.>e? COli· t t Illd lI\ade it intu lUI absolute prmcLl,le, }oor them, mall s sclfex I, ., 'AI~ "'" continuall,. alld rculises thAt forees it I!AU coliselOusuess uCh "r- 11 •

thought 5epaT1lte from i!..$elf _ ~ligioll for ellnmple - ~re re~ ~ Ita

I' '!'I'''o the tAsk of self_conseiousllcss "nd Ita prmclpill O'\' II crcn 101\. " d well n, philowphiCIII criticism, is to txpo.!le ",II the f~ces "n ide:thnt stand opposed to tlle free tleyeloplllclIl of thIS humllll $e1f·coll~ciouSIlC1lS .i , .

T I.u: enthllsiAS!U for the phil~ol,hy of sel£·conselousJ\~ IS TcBe<:ted in the body uCthe thc5il; where Marx unf~,'oura~ly COIItrt\sta the n",<,hnni5tic detcrmin i~1Il of Demoefltus With t1,.e Epicurean ethic of liberty.- Delllocntlls, a nath'e of I\bdc~ III

• J//o.·(jA ,i (I) 10; Ihe 'I"otali')n'! fro'" 11,,,,,e'. ~I~ of Ifurnlt~ _'nt",.." ell L s.-Ih,··lliggo (O. ford. (800) r. :!ow. Ihid.IO.

~ Ibid • 14 • cr. lIq;'\'l, n'fri,v. " l:tl 11". ~ Sea i"I';, •• ticul .. on iLi •• C. CtM. ' lI"?no lIa"cr ~ I. flioeofil .d~II' I\lto

O(:i,,""( UH 1-184.1)', Giorll"I~C,.;t1C11 ,It/lit ~ ,/Ol(Ifia 1I1t/I"na, ,(IOOO) , McLellJn, TM )-$~ .. g Il1plill". "",d Karl JI",.,. rr· ol8l£. ' . '

.. :\IAn'. 1>r<..f'erenCII _rnl II> "- arrl",d ot .... 1"')' hy oo"'l~ .. n~ tb.· .. 1 .. -0 NlOtJ"",tivu ",,:) ... I I'hilQ .... I'J'; .... ; 3~ l'J,l100!0l'hc", And "~t,, .... 1 tlClentlllt.li, l)cr"l}~.itM is by raT the more I'",rolund .. ",I .. rgin.u tllilllr.er.

"

00

:1'I'r'~c~., "'rote a l the ~nd of tile finh century ~.c., and !mnmecl up. III hU thll:(>ry of aloms lIud the ,oid, till! pnl\-;OUl; t ... o hundred yCflNJ of Gr~" physica l specuilltion. E]JiC1JtuS taught more thall II century later in lUI Athens I1Inrked by the gencr ... ] .'loeitll chaos of, tll,e JlOIit-Ale~nndrine f'poch lind WitS eoncero«i to supply prult:JpleB (or the conduct of ind;"idunls,! "IIITX begins hiSltccollnt o,f ,the rclKtion~hip of the two philosophers "ill, II paradox; hplcuru8 held IlII "'ppeutlillces to be oLjecti"cly real but !It the 8nmc time, since he wished to conserve freedom of the \\-i ll, denied thut the world WII S govern~'(\ by illlillutuble hjW8 nnd thus ill faet seemed to decry the objecth'e rcality of nature. Democritus, on the other hand, "'Il~ ,-cry 8ccptienlnDou i the rea.lity of appearance, hut ye t held the world to be W;l\'croed by ne~ity. From thil! l\laTX eallclud~, righUy, that }~pieuru8 '$ phy~ics was r('aJJy only "psrt orl~s moral pllilosophy. He did not merely eapy Demoerilus', pliY'I<:fI, 11.5 WaJI eaullnonly thougllt, but illtrodueed the idea or spontaneity into the movement of the atoms, and to Democri. t U5'S "'orld of inanimale lIature nlled loy mechankal lu,ws lIe added a worM of animnte nnture in which the humnn will operated. !\h rx t hus pr('fers the ,·1e""$ of Epicuru8 ror two realons : fi.l~tly. his ~lllphasi~ on the absolute flutonolllY of the humAn 8pmt has freed men froln 1111 superstitiom of trun. .cendent objects; secondly, the emphBiis on 'free individunl !elrC<l 1I6ciousnC!lS' shows one way of going beyoud the System of a 'total phiiosoplIY'.

It was above all this liberating napeet. of Epieuru! that 'larx admired. A few ycan Inter in the German ldeolagy he ~1Iec1 Epkorus 'the ge~,uine ra~ieally enlightened mind of antiquity',1 lind referred to hlnl orten In Ilis Inter writings in simillir term!. 1\ eQl~nterpart to this entliusinam for ,Epicurus is tlte Rppendix wlllch attacks 1'Iutarcll Rnd psrlicullirly hi~ t;:entise entitled 'it is !!~1~6ihle to live ~,appily?y (olluwing the T'rinciple~ o( Epieurus'.I Rklllg each of I lulard,,, arguments separately, i\'iflrx demon.

, 8fl~ f"rther B. Farrington, 7'Joe f(, iih (!j' Hp/<urur (\rcid~nfcld & Nie<l!iI<'IlI, Lon~u", 1(07) 1'1'. 7 f .

1 ,111,'0,,( , Y 122.

. '?hilapI",nll i:< dOO8 not ""n'h'" \",t ca" be "",n""tnoctod frUQ] th" p ..... JIIIl1l1a.,. Mh'!!! _ JlEf)A I i, p. xui: I). nau"'garter, . 'Ol.ocr den "~rlor.!" gtfl~ul>len" A.m.", ZU K".I Marx' Doklord'-rtalinn'. in Chr" .... ,t .. ,,~~u Soril}/og;' (J::ibo.lrrnam', I'ottda"', 1{/.111).

J/ur:z: tllt StudelLl 6 1

stmtM that the UPI)()f!ite oondusion follows. i\llIn: asserts thut belief in godt rc~ulu from (I('tilching human \';I:.t.I¢~ from til!';r proper ~ut.j('el- man - and attachin.& thcm to.Jullllu;;ary subject. SimilarlJ, illllnOril.!ity orIlle soul ~duces itself to the indh1dull.liL layjng clAim to the unh·er$al. All this iii pluinly h'~ I)ire<.l ily the first publications of Pl'uerhllch who, nil eMly 8S l as!), had hegun to criticise Ilege\'8 diulectic from a liUiiillilist point of view. :'oJ"r" ,levotes mue]. ~p"ce to e)(posing tllC fallacies of Plutllrch'~ criticisms of J;~Jl i el1 rus, ~ince he considered 1)]ut'\Tch to 00 lypicnl of the att,,~k on philosophy from!!. theologicnl poi nt of view. He wfote in the pfl!.("ee: ' We have added a~ 1111 appendix a criticism of the polemic of Plutarch against :Epicuru$'s theology. The rouson for tili. i. that thit polemic is not 11.11 oolated phenomenon, hut represents II "'hole tmdition: it e)(preSiet perrectly the attitude of the theological mind to philosophy:'

e. Notu to the Thui,

Th e idell of tile 0pp0lI.itioll between theology lind religion is the mldn theme or nn extended note thnt Mno: added tu hili. thellili at the end of 18-1-1. It Wll~ directed prillllLrily agllinat Schelling, whu huu just been sUTlul\onc(1 to Berlin by }o'rederick William IV in order to 'rool out the dragon.seed of Hegelianism'.: In his leeturCil, entitled 'l'he Phil~oJlh!l qf Ilroelalion, Schelling drew It dis tinetion between a ncgatin~, purely rnlionlll ph;!OIlophy anti jI. po4itive one whose real content ia the c,'o\ution of the divine ill history Ilnd liS

it is reoortle<i in the "afiou5 lIlythologies and religion. of n,snkind. Schelling's lectures were ac:companied by much publicity and ~.! first attracted wide attention: .Eugels,. KierkegllllrrllLnd BlL kunl!, ""ere fill present at his inaugurfll lec tu~ . The reaction of the Hegelianl WQI .trong find j\'!Rrx's not least : hi. tcehnique here was to C<lntrnst whllt Schelli ng was then saying "'ill! his enrlier writings. There nrc often clements in the writings of the Young H~gcliiln5 lhll.l ~eem to go back beyond Hegel uml in pAl'liculRr to Fiehle'll idells on mot n's dil\lecticnl sclr·creo.tion: Koppen WIl5 R declared disdple of Fichte, Illld IJotl, Bruno Unuer .. ml Hess

, .IfFoG,11 L ( I) 10. t .·nod~rick William IV to UUIIHO, in Chr. I1)fl Run;oen, ..cUI w;~"' n,;~/t~

(Le;~, 1800) II 133.

Mar,c bifor~ Jlfar . ..,j'm

il~corporflted Jlich ~enll c.leltleuUi ill to their thoughLI )llIrx begins hl~ nole by quotmg three pA.unges from the early works of Schelling that have II dose nmnily with Pichle!

" 'Mk TCllSOn, howen'r,;$ lI.ot rell~OIl which know~ no oujecth'e God, hut wanUi t.o recogmse one. III general He~r Schelli .i" wOIiM ~ "'ella~viaed to n..'C,,1I hi. first writinSs' [-'ur instanc:' he ")"8 III the piece on the Self A$ the princLllle of philO$ophy! 'J( we AUUlne, for I':xllrnple, thlll itl $0 far flil God dc.fined /U

object il the renl bnsis of our nn.lll~, thl':n Gotl himself enters the aphere of our knoll ledge a~ object lind hence CIlnnot be the IIllimat~ poillt for U8 un .... hich tlli~ e.ntirl! sphere depends.' And we rt! lrund Il l':rr SeheUlIIg of the concluding 6entcnt"e of his IC.lter mentioned II~"C: 'It ill time to acqullint the lie'" hu rr\l\lIily With frct'tlolll ofmllld lind no longer W!crnte its crying "bout its Inst rl':ltrictions.'lfit wa. alTClld y t ime in ".D. 1795, ho"' aoout thl! yetl r 1&11 ?I

i\Iurx then goel on to claim thAt Hegel im'erted the trutlitionll l proof$ for the (lxi!t(lnce of God lind thereby refutcc! them. \Vherells trnditiollul t heology Mid : 'Slice contingency truly /l.Xlsts, God exists" I legel turned thi~ illl.o: 'Since N ntingency J oes not exis t, God or the Aosolute dOe8.' i'.lurx tI,en posed /I dilemrnll; the first ponibili ty ,,"Aa tlutt the proof$ for the existem.·e of God \Vere tnutologie~, like t.lre ontologicfll nrgument which i\brx stlltu in the form: 'WhAt J eonC('ive tor rnysclfll5 nctllft l is An aetufll COIIcer~ioll f?r n"e.'S In tl,at euse.llny gods would hu,"" nil equal N!lIhty. Klint s fnmous refutation of tire ontological proof by cOIllJlllring one hundred imftghrnry pound notes with one hundred r~~ one.8 11'11$ ."0~ to the point; i? fllct, p.o.'lK"r money 'ra~ very slIlIIl/tr to behef III god •. If you Imported pllper money inlo ' I

country wheN! it WIIS 1101 reeoglli5ed then it9 "alue "'ould be pur~ly i.nuginaU\'e. 'If someone hat! taken II Wendish god to ti,e AnCient Gr«kJ, he would l'II"e fooml proof for the lion-existence of

, .For.n aMOUnt of the ori«in~olll~nciolm thot fa!", fmpbal'is Oil th"l:Ontri. butlOn or Fkhlt , _ II . G ... udy, ,.-",1 Jiau:: TAe }.·ooIMti"" of .;, T/tottgAI (LltwrellCe ~ Willhart, l..nndon, 11167) .

• MEGA . I (1) 110; Ea~ton .nd Gudd.I, p. (;.1 .

• :\lanc cit ... thi~ In II .. cfaAllcal, rw>t In it. IIcgo·li ... , form. 1I i8 IIOlm .. nl "o.d~", oa """",,lure: _ W.ebnhcinl, / ... fbllllt~ lit I~ rWigion Ii'"prl# Kad Marx, I" 101.

.J1JOTJJ Ihe Student

lhis god, i)CCA1J51l thi5 god did not e;(ist ror the Greek». W~lnt A eertlli" co(.utry is for forc.igu gods, tire couII'-r)' of rell.SOIi Iii fur God nllogdher _ !laruely," pillee II'h~rc God no longer ~~i~h. l

The lit-eon,l r~ihility willi that 'the proofs for the eluslenee of God IIU nothing but proof$ for the existence. of the e~scntilllly huuHlri sc!f-CQrlsciousne55 lind logical e'l"plicAtions ofil. Take the ont.olO!.iC/lI IIrp;ulllent. What existence is innnediRte in being thougl7t? Self,consdousneu.-I i\lnrli claims thAt. in this s~"se nil proof_ for the existence of GOO IIU p~fg for his ll~n .. ex.l5lenc:e. For (l. 1'lIlid proof would Ira,e. to run: -:'mce nature I~ IIn~rft:Cl, God exisl.l: DUlllr.is wOIl1cllllllount to saying that non.rationnlity constituted God'~ ellistence.

:l lanl finished his note uith iUi drange mixture of IlOst· Il egclinn phil~ophy and the simple rationalism of the Eilligh~cnment by quoting two more I)MSflges from the early Schelling: ·," hen you pre·suppose thc idcll ornn ohjcc~\'e Go?, how can ),011

~ llClik of 11I\\"9 which r('oeOI1 produces froPI Itself, 51nee Autonomy clln be IIltrihuted ollly to nn flb~olute free heing?'

' It is A crime IIgllinst hUlllanity, to concenl principles which Are gcnemllyeommunicaLle.'3 .

The second iUlportAnt note a ppended to the t heSIS trIkes up t he t.hem es nlrendy treAted ill the pIIS$lIge in the preli luillury nolC5 on the futurc of philosophy nfter Hegel's total system. In the !ir~t 5ection ofthi! note, :llnu ueals with the. common chArge of llcgel s lru\"iZlI,t ' l·omproll1i.scd- with reliction. 'In regard to Hegel .. . it il oul of mere ignorance th(l.t hi.s disciples explain tillS or lhllt ilctcrminutiou of his Iystem by IIc<:onullod"tjoll alld the like or, in a word, morlllly. T hey forgt!t thul a "cry d,ort lilllC ago they enlhu$ill~tkllll\, udhered to 411Il~PCC\.ll of IllS one·sidOOIlCSll: clear e.\;dc.n/le of ti,is frtel i5 fouud in thei r 011"11 writings."" !\ltLfll derend! Hegel h~' cim"ing II distinction bet ween the inner mimI or the philowpher and the exterior fonn in whic.h he e,;preucs him~elr:

I t is eonelli\"tlbie Hint a philosopher CQmmib this ?r lhllt Ilppllrent 1/011 Icqllilur out of this or that nccommotb.tlon. Il e

I J/l:{i,1 , i (I) (11: ~:...wn .nd Gud,IAt, 1'. 65 . • JI/.;OA • i (1) (1\; ~;.!!IO" ~OJ. (luddat, 1'1" II<; r. • JlI:OA , i (\) 11\: 1::1011011 _00 (iud,!.I, I" 00. • .IIEGA , i (I) 6:1; &.oston and (iuddal, 1'.110.

" himself mny Ix: conscious of it. llut he is not conscious that tht' ]J()I,;bilily of tJlis (1 l/pnTent RccommOOlltiou is rooled in the jll lldequacy or his principle or in il..8 iuadequutc formuilllion. Hl'ncc, if" phiJosoplil'r 11M IlccOllllnodat ed himself, hi" disciples hn'c to c1plllin (rom hi.t jnner ClI!lentill] consciouSness ""h.at (or him h .... 1 the form ornll etolenc ooll!l(!iollsneM. Tn this \flly wlmt Rpp!!lI.n liS l)rogt'cU of COlilciou6 n """ is progress of knowledge f1' well. It is nol Lbul the particulllr coII.$Ciousnen of the philolopher i, ~\l5~ct; rnlilcr, his eMCllti .. l fori" of cOliscionsneu is colllllrnd.ed, misC(1 to " particular form .. nd mC(l liing. a nd I'll the HOle lime s "PI"r~ded.l

T !.is distinction hct ... «n an esoteric lind I\n exoteric Hegel Iras common among the Y nung lIegeliaus.J Bruno Baner e' "en went so (ur 11.11 to claim that the real m~$lIge of 1Iegt'1 "'liS 'atheism, republietlni~m Ilml re,·olution'.1 Sim.illlriy. ~ I arx wished to uae Hegelian principles to interpret lIegel.

"'arx now tUfn, again to the problem of porl. Hegcliun philosophy I\nd of ",hilt he eolls 'the t ransition froUi discipline to freedom':

It i. a psychological Inw tlH\l the theoretical mind. lun·ing become frM in iudf, turns into practiclI I energy. Emerging 115

will from Alllenlhes' 61mdow world, it turns uguin5t worldly actunlity which exi~ls out.l!ide it. ... T he practice of philosophy, howtwcr, i:i iuelf theorclicnl. It is criticism which lIleuurcs indh'idual cxi,tence flg/liu5t essence, particular nctu~dity IIgain.st the idell . But thi, din:'!ct rell.lis'ltion of philosoph,- is hunlcncd with cOlltrluJictions in iiJI innermO!ll el!$Cnee, lind this cssence mftnifest.s itsdf in IIjJI)enrllnce find puts its stamp thefOOll.t

T his is l\Iarx'~ first mention or lo.i3 notion of IJrn.l"i4 th llt WIIS to become so ctntra l to hi.l later thought. T he concept had been nriginated by A !lsuBt \·on Cil!!;z.kowski, a Poli!h C()unt who hut! i tudied philosophy ill Berlin under the orUu)(lo:o; Hegelian

' J/J:CA , ; (I) &.I; ~Ioo .IId Gudd.t, p. 61. I n. {«:fl. rfG,tittl, Is B.IO"" Ban."., Die i'OIIlIIM. JujQ"9'l~~ Gmeltl Qt..r

Ifl'gd J..., AUe/Me" ,,"d AII/irirllt." (LclJlf.ig. 111-11), "'I,ru,ted;1I K. LO ... it", Die lltgtl-::J,e Unh (StuUgart, W6:!).

I IlA"~r, 0)1', dl., p. ~~. • J{f:GA , ; (I) 64; t :ai<lon .00 Cudd.!, pp. (;\ f.

1\1 ichclet.\ (,ier;-.dwlu Jd hnd nl!iO visited I'arisand "t:(]Il!1intcd him· lieU with SQ(!ialist ideM, ami in 1838 he published 11 ~m~!1 book, " roitl/omel,tI 1:ur /li'IQtiMOplii~ (, Prolegomena ,to II SClcn~ of Il i~to'1"), U,at WnS to prm'Po aeminalllllloug t he ' oung I:I ~-elll' n i. For Cieszkowlki Wilt the til"!ltlo tnlk 5erio"sly of a trllllS./ tlOll from thoughllo fiction. The main theme of hi ~ book W>lS lhfll.wherefU Ilegel had only dealt with the prCllent and the ptlst, plll lOSQp~y shoultlllo,,· nelll with the future: in much the wille Wi\)" ~ Cuvler recon,{n,cled the whole aninll,1 from fI ~ingle tooth, so philosophy .houM attempt to build the fu ture. This philosophy or the future hi\d to be orientated towards society and would thus become

practiCRI: . . l'hilOBOphy hfls therefore to resign itself to becolrung malllly flpplitrl phllolophy; nnd j~tll8 the poetry of flrt becomn trans· formed into the Jlrose of thought, so phjlos~phy m.ult deilCend r""lll the heights of the<Jry into pf(J;&i4. Prll~elll pll.l losophy, or, more \Iccurn tely, the phi[os?~hy of pra;t"14 (whus" col;crctc impact on life nnn social condItIOns amounts to the empln}ment of both within I'OnCTete Adi\'ity) - this is t.he fl1tl1r~ fllte of pl ,ilosophy in generfl\. . .. JU5t as thought.lllld r~H.eC,ti~~1 over· ellmil the bc(Iu;tl·urls, so the dectl /\11d SOCIal lIetl"lt) I<lll now ow'rcome philosophy.~

T his notion of Il trllmitiull to ~ philosophy of flr- tion inap iret.! nUlny of t he Young iIcgelialls, pnrtieularly i\[os~ He!;./;, lind w.rn: even

seel iI,- Brullo RAuer in nn idcnlist forlll. Bauer wall wntUlg to ~ [nrx ~t the beginning of 1841: 'T heory is now ~he . $tronge~t IJra.l:isAnd we cllnnot SII)' ill "dvance to what e . ."dent ,t 11"111 beeome prnctical. .~ .

).[IIMC nnw de>elops t he pRMIlge on the relatIon .~twecn philOlOphy Rnd the world ali he had ~n it when wnting the preliminary note'. He sees two sides to tilt! problem: 11.$ regnnb 1 he obj<!Cth" &idc, the realia.'l.tion of philosophy, he MY8:

'\'hile phiiOlOphy, I!.S "ill, t urns toward the II.pp"'~nt. II"nrld, the .ptchl is reduced to An abstract totality, thlll IS, It bec~me, 1 For • romm~"U.ry on M. rx·a ~41io .. that la)'1l I"'l"'l ~'" llh"".- 0."

c;....,. ........ ·ilkr . lntluwce. _ R. lAuth, ' f..i.u~_ .~Ia~~ IRnIr. .•• .ur d", Gt'""""'" <I.,.. M~"''''r.b"" Wclu"""ba",,,,g'. ()rk~lGJ ... CIon.t ... n" l'tri4Jlcrr,Jlx"

(I\mn •• I~) 300 If. . .,..,0\ ". • A. ~on Cie .. ko...,ki. 1'1·,w.!J''''~Ml ::lIr lliot~rillfil'l!le (I!.e,l"" 1"''''J 1'· ~. I ,V .... OA I i (~) 2M! •

L

one !!ide orthe world fficin):, fLTlotl,l!r. I ts relntion to the world is n:f1(!xh·c. ElllhuSin~ lic in itll Ori,·e to realise itself, it enters into tension with everything elJle. The inner seJr·contentle,]ne$1 !!nd roundedrH!" b broken down. The former illner light i.>c<-Qrnes 1\ consun,ing Il lIme turning (julw/lrd. The eOJ1~equen<:c, hence, is that the world ·s becoming philO!lophieal iii at the Mme time J)hilo!lOphy· .. I)(:coming worldly, thllt i13 rl'nliStltion i~ lit Ihl! sltmn time it! loss, thllt whnt it combl\u uuuidl! is ib own inner .Iereet, thilljust in thi» combat philO!l0llhy itsel( fulb into the rn ult, which it eombnts in itt opponent, lI.ud thnl it trRlUlccmls these fllull.8 (jnly by fnlling vidim to th<:m. Whll. leH'r oppo~u it find wh .. t pbilO!lophy co'llbn1l il alwlI)"'1I the ,·ery !lame U,ing RlI

phil~phy, only with revcrsed factors,'

I nteresting here is the theme of the diMppelltnncc of pllilO!lOphy. Cieszko"-ski 11.11<1 already called Beg,.,!". system 'the iJol'giuning of the el,,1 of phi!osophy'~ /lnd these idcus or !\Inrx ure limilnr to his Inter ideu on the ' .. boli!ion or philO!lophy by the prolel..or.rir.tt·,~

There is nlso, :\Inrx "'),1, a ~ubjedh'e side t.o the problem, T his is;

the relation or the pllilO!lophieo.l ~y$tem which il actualised to ih inlellccllUl l $upporters nnd to the individulll selr· conscious_ neS!lCS in which its progress bccOIU\:~ manifest. Tltl) minds of these pllilosophers oc<:opy a position of medifttioll between, ann opposition to, phi losophy and t.he world. T heir !iberl\tion or the world from non-philosophy is al the slime time their own liberll tion from the philosophy which fettered it as a definite system.'

T he post-Hegelian !lituntion rc\'eal.t two oPl!o15ing parties. The lint, the liberal pnrty, udheres to the concept And to philoSl)ph~-; the second, tlmt of positi"e philosophy, adheres 1.0 the Iwn· contept, to the element of reality.

The net;,'ity or the former [SlIp i\lnrx] is criticism ; henet, pr()Cistly the turning outwnrcl of philosophy. T he Ret of tit,., Intter is the attempt to philosophise, thll! the turning inW(lru or philosophy_ It grasps tim dcfiC'iency n, immoncut to philosophy,

• J/EGA , i (I) 84 r.; t;qton ...... 1 (;ud,I.o.I, 1'_ 62. t Cio-hk" ... ki, I~NONld :""~ IIflfl)ri()t(JpM,", I'. 101. • s..... bIIlo,,', !'p. 148 ft'. • .IJf.·GA I i ( I) 0:.; tMton and Gud.!." r. 6~.

JI!(lrx tit, Stll(lrnt G7

"hile. the former concei"e~ it n~ fI. Ilefieicne)' of tho world to be llIuue I)bilosophiclii. }:nch of theS<! purties docs eJll\etly wh,.,t the other WillIts to do nn,] what esch olle itsel f d(>(!!l not want to do ; hut the forlllcr, wilh its iuner conlmdictio", is COlISciou~ ill generlll of principlc und (lim. In the $ccond Ilppea~ IlCrvenlity. )10 to 'pellk, insanily ns such. In contcnt OI.ly the "ber ... 1 pnfty nlukes rCfi il'rogreSll, hl'eouse it is the IlIIrty of thc eooeept while positivc I'hi!osoph~· is cnpable 0.1 lI.c~ie'-ing n~erdy demnnds um.! tendencies whose form contmdlct.l! Its mennmg,i

Both these parties ure within the Hegclian school an,] it i~ nol difficult to Ice thllt ;\ 11In:'1 S)'mp"lhics lie .. -itl, the liberal pnrly. T he · f>06i lj,·e philosophers" who SCCII' to be the 8allle as the 'fcllrfuI10ui,' wbom ;\1 1ln: criticillM in the pouullel pu.S!lUgc in the p~li",inury notcl, lire the centrc of tlll~ Hegclilill scllool, men like ;\(irhclet nnd Cic~'lko\\"ski, who coneenlrnte simply 011 trying to better philosophy. Tile liberal or critienl school is thAt group of Young Hegt:liRns influenced hy Bruno nauer,

:\[lIn IInishes with a sumrl)ary of the procesii that he I,as been describing: 'WhAL ~Ilf!m s t(j be, Ilrst of 1\11, philosophy" wrong r~lntion 1.0 Rnd diremption with tht world, tUfll1 secon,]ly into a diremption of the indh·idual philosophical sclf_consciOllsncS!I in it4elf'"It! linall), "J'pi.""n "s philO!lophy'1 edcrllll.l sepn.ration and <I",."lity, liS two opposed philolophicolllirections,"

i\la~JI" rlOClOtil! LhCliis and the notes thut nccompuny it Are typical of the intdleetullilltmo!phere in which he composed it. ;\[a ny of thl' I hemes thlll :'rlau. was l1\lt:t to cl .. borate ill " unique nlUlll~cr occur here for thC' tiNt time _ in pllrliculur the notion of prn.TiJ And of Ihe IlhoHtion of philosophy - but they ocrur in a fOtll, COII'IIIOIi to !\[arJlllntl his eOllle"'pomtic~. Mo r:>: WIIS !lot orrly roll~crned with writing his tllcsis during these yellN; the utller projects he WIIS cngu.gcd in similarl)"' reflect tIle V Tmg I I"'S.eli~ climate and the discussions in the Docturs' Club. I· ere Marx WIIS

nor only oil"the reeeidll(t end-:l-rr;-frienilnr~n wrote to "illl thlll until :\rarx lett Herlin, he hud hltd 'no idea of Ill)' own, lhut I hud, 60 to Speiik, thought nut for myself'3l1.nd RI!de,] hi~ opinion thnt IllJIny or the idclls in ]Jnuer's CS! lIy 'The Christian Stute"

I .1JIW.A I i (I) M; E""ton . ~d (;~lld.\t,I'. 63. • .IIEGA • i ( I ) 0:. C. j t: ... 10111 alMI O"ddRI, p. 03. • .IIF.OA I ; (~') 2'::'7.

GS

wl,ich",1IS the linlt Young II cgr liulI CS6U)' to urnlV p<lliticul consequI:IlCCS froUl the critici~n) ofrcJigioll. o riginated in " IlIrx. Thc~c wcr~ mo,'~ !;cllcrnl1y ~ne ... ivtd in the spirit of the pref,u .. -e to tl'e the~.I5: IhTed oppoMtion !Jctwcen philOllophy nnd religion. In carly 1s.J() ,\ I.fI ~x wnll thinking or ... 'riling 1\ I'hilc4ophy of lldigion nnd IIlso ~r gn "'l{ K, cour:!e oflcclur~ III nann a Uncki"g I1crmelll, 1\ c..~11011l' .tl,oologuUl who 111\11 tricn to reoondle religion alld Kantutn pllllOliOphy, II project which he du;cus8ed at len!!th with Brullo BAuer. II! he did all his r1nns at this time. Bauer, : '!Jo Iliul k?OWh lIegel pcr:wually. was oul)' ~lo"'ly converted to the Le.n wing or the IIcgehlln. lind only really millie up his mind .... ell on in 1~. ' By the 6Uflllllcr of 1840 :Mllr lC luul finished 8. book on the subJect II IitI SCll,t the ~nnlluseript to Bruno BUller ,,-ill! a con~ring letter to 1\ publl!her, TI le hook "'&I not published, hO"'e\"cr, a nd Unucr, wrote ,to ,Mnn: concerning the c(wcring leHer; 'Perhnps yOll nught wri te m such terms to your walherwomlln but not to Iluhlislu:r from whom you IIrll asking II f",'our."2 At t'he same tim: :\ 1 1\~x hn~t t!IC ~? ell o~ writing n fnree entitled File/ltr J"apuJa"J ngillns.t ," : J; Fueh~r' hook Oie Idte der Gottllcit (,T he Idea or t he D mlllty), I\. plnlosOllhieul nUcmpl. to justify theism,3 !\i nr'l: wllS 11180 preoccupied with lOgiCAl problems nnd ~'i6hed t o de"ote II wQrk to dinlC{:tic; he took extensive notes on :\ristotle nnd discussed tile quest.ion in letters to l!llIler . He ~Iso wished in this ;~ntext, to "Titll 1\ crilieiSIl) of tile coutempornry phiiosopher 1 rcuddeuLI.lTg and demonstrnte thnt AristoUe WIIS di .. lcelicnl wllerens 'l'rendelenhurg won only tOrlllIli. nll~'('r .wn~ 'nelu."~hile. pr~uillg hi,,) h"rd to finish his 'du p;'!

c~llIn llutlJon ,,,,,I JOin hIm III Bonn. In April 18'H l\Iarx sent oW 1115 thl!!li~ to lhe philosophiclll (acuity 8t t he Uni\'ersit\' of Jenll :lnd he 1"88 grnnled the ticl!\:ree ill uWeIlliu ,>cry soon ,;fterwllrds: The whole uUilir ,,'ns mnnngctl by Wolff, Profe$!lor of l .iler8ture there, 11 friend of lIeinrich Heine I1l1d n il acquailll.llnce of :\lane, who had prooo.Liy informed him ofthe sitUAtion imide tbe taculty .. t Jenll.'

.\laTz the Sludrllt

f. Co op cf(llicm :cit" /{TUllO IJauer

As soon 1\1 his thesis Wfl8 accepted l\lnrx went to Trier for n little lime IlIId thell ill July 184-1 he joined Bruno Dauer in Uonn, where t he increasing dillieultiCl of his fricnd $('(!moo to bejeopardi.sing hoth their dw.llcel1 of fl uni, enity caner. ~'or u..uer "'115 cngnged in wfiliug his KritiJ..' tin' S!f1lOptilur (,Crilici$n'\ of the Synoptic Gospels). R work which denied the historicity of Chrislnlld port rayed the G~pdl a, the mythiclI l in"clltions of their i\uthOJ'!l. The b 'o had planned since l\larch of the samc year to found a re"ie"" t!.ntitled A tll/tistle _4. rehitlCl, which "'ould take RlI its found .. -tion Bauer'. Gosl>el eriticism.l Certainly :'obrx's tlthei~m was of lin extromely militflnt kind. R ugcwrotetoa friend: ' Bruno Dlluer, "lIrl :'o[nrx, Christiansun !lnd Feurbach ure forming a nuw

Jlo"/IlG" e alld mtlking tlthcislII t hui r slog"n. God, religion, immortality Ill'(! CIl!t down from their thrones and mnll i~ produhlled God:' And Gcorg Jung, n prosperous young Cologne lawyer IlIld ~upporter of the ra.dic81mo\'ement, wrote to R uge: ' If :'o ilmc, il rnno Bnllcr and Fcuerhnch IlSsociate to found n. theological-pllil080phicd review, Hod would do well to surround himsulfwiti l 1111 his angels and indulge in ~el f'lJity, for thc~.., t hree " .ill certn.i!}ly drive him out of his heayen. , .. For i\larx, at li lly

rute, the Chriatinn religion i$ on~ of the most immorul there is:3 T hese plum cnmc to nothing, howeyer, und instead Blluer puhlUlled in November ",hilt IIppenred to be an arch_c()nscT\'n.ti\'c pietist u.Ullek on I legel, entitled Die p{)latm~ dt..r jUlIg,WI (;eTid!I, Ilk,. /Jegel den A thei,/en I.wd If IItichri,ten ('The T rump ot the I.u t Judgcment 0" I-Iegel t.he Atheist allli Ant i-CIU'ist'), 'I'hi! IlnonynlOu3 t ract \\'1\5 dc~ig[Je<1 to sho"', under the co,"er of attacking !-Icgel, that l,,~ ... >13 rnally lin II t heist re"olutioll!lry, Marx IIIllY ... ell hAye collaborated with &lIer in writing 'T he T rump', And it "-as tllOught by !lOme to Lc their joint work, In any Ctl5e they both intemled to produce a ~ulI':l which "'11. to be II':lltitied Ihgn, /JM, gegCII die nligio,~ Wild d!rulliche K lln,/ IlIId uin~ AUjf6l1lllg alla pOIiliUffl St(J(JtlgUd;t;C

• cr. JU,:()A , ; (~) I~~, • ,\. K"I(~, Hri<f~*,llIwd TagdJldllt r, ~~1. I'. r-;"..,.u..h (lw-rlin, lllOO) l:=all.

• ,lIt·G.'" I i (2) WI r,

70

(' IIeg!))', UntTed of HeHgiouf lind Chrislitlll Art /lnd his J:kstruclion of nil the La"', of the State,). i\[nn therefore bo!glln to rend u series of bool.:$ on urt nnd religion. Druno Ibller Iv,,) lilliJhed his purt in ])ecelU~r l SH, but he lltlCl to publish it witholll i\[UTX', ~'Qntribution, for in ,)>I""{,ry 1842: 0 (11"011 \"on \\\'l!tpimicl1 fell seriously ill nnll tlie\1 in i\ larch. 'I'he$c C\'cnts setm also to h,,,'c preveutcd ,\I,\rx', pInus for the publiention of his thesis. [,'or Ilt the ",Id of 1841 he wrotc a new preface in which he Mlid:

The treatise that I /l11l now olTeringto the pul>lic is nn old work nnd should luH'c found iUi pl'I!;" ill Il generuJ n~"(!o"nt of the Epicurelw, Stoic IIIlII SC<!pticui philosophies. Dut no\\' 1)()litical a nd philOS()phicll.i QCcupstion. of It totlllly different chllrtlctcr .10 not 1111011' lile to cm'i~ completing this. Only now i10J1 the time nrrivcd for the undcrst nnlling of the sptems of the EpicureHus, Stoics !lnu Sceptics. T hey nrc tlu: philO$oplH:rs of self-consciousness.'

i\ ]IITX returned to T riedn JlIlluary and $wyed there until ,\ priJ , though IH,\ did mllke a spednl journcy to Bonn, in the eompany of Mos!!!! lieu , to henr Unuer lecture. :\lnI'X neq,rthcleu wanted to publish the rt!!!ulh of his studies in co-opemtion lI;th B~,ucr alltl wrote to Huge in i\lnreh 1842 : ' It 8Cel11S to me thllt the article on CI,ristian IIrt. which has noll' lw.come II work on religion "nd art considered espe<;:u..lly with refltl'ence to Christian art, must be t.·tuuplct ely rewritten.'1 In Allril i\brx wrote thllt his study hud '"II11O$t MIiUULCd t he proportions ora u()()k3, but in J uly he hlld to gil'e up t he idea coml,lctely. E"en nt thit carly IIgo (he was only t wenty-three)and I.Iefore he hnd publi5i.oo IInything, ) IaI'X mnde a ,·cry strong ilDpres~i()n on hi~ conlemporurie5. Engcls rCJ.lortc{1 ",hilt he hltd heurd from his fclloll' Young i-legdill1l8 in A comic ,100m on the liedin philooophen:

But ... ho "dvAnee. here rull of impctUOiiity? It i~ 11. dArk for m from Tricr, an Unlcll8hed !1I0Ilster, willi self-ussured step he hammen the ground with hi' heels /l nd miset his "rill. in full fury to heaven 115 though Ill: wished to seize the celestial " /lult lind lower it to cart!.. In rllge he continulllly dcals with his redoubtable fist, ttl if" thOU!Ilnd {levilJ were gripping his hnir.'

1 J/J;;(JA I i (2) 3.."7. • I bi,1, 2i:} r.

• I bi,l . 2j] r . • l~iJ. 2fXj f.

71

Georg J ung snid of Mll rx ul thi:! time: ' j\ lthough ~ de"i! of" revoluti()n"ry, Dr 1\lftI')[ is one of the most IlCuet.ratulg mmds I know," And Moscs Hcs~, n man of gcncrou~ enthu~illsm , dCllcribed \\Inn: to hia fril'.nd Auerbach M

the grcntest, perhnps the only, genuine rhilosophcr now alive, 11'110 " 'i11 soon ... nUrnel. lhe eycs ornll licrnllmy . ... Dr Mllrx . .. will gi'·c meclicsul religion nml politiC!! ll.LeiI' tolJp d~ grliu. H e combines the Jee pe!ii l philosophical lICl'lOUSIH'!lS "'Ith the m<l6l b iting wit . IUlUJo(iml Rousseau, Voltaire, Holbadl, Lessing, Heine, ulld Il cgel fU$ed into one person - I say fused nol judaposed _ (Illd you hflve Dr i\lnrx.~

:\larx, hO'«"eYer, hnd no outlet ror hi$ \.nlentl: Druno Dauer W/lS dlsmisscd from his teaclling post lit thc cntl or Mareh 1842 litHl )Ial"J[ had to give up all hope of a uni"ersity Cllreer. He soon bes"n to become increasingly ellgaged in directly poliliell.l Slruggle! by me",ns of journlllism.

I I~id . :w~. • M. lI n;:;" lffi,jlCl't:'II.wI, f.d.l'!ilhf,mt1' (M<>ut<>n. TIle lbl!"~, \9.J1l) 1'. 00.

C H A P TE R F a U ll

Marx the Journalist

I . 'f II g IIl/m/tht JahrbfichtT

l\I" lX "' interest in journfllism WIIS first tlrou~ed by Arnold Hug", editor of the I/(llIilche JflhrbrlcJH~r, the leading periodicfll of the Young I lcgcHrma. T hi. WIIS II. natural career for :<.lIIrx; t he Young I-Iegclinns were very joumn1idica1iy_miuded and ", .. n"ged 10 write a totol of 20,000 PAKIl!I in their ">l riou, reviews.l R uge eame fro m north Prussill, and hnd !tudied philosophy at Halle Uni,'er lity ",hllTe he h,td become It tlIc lI10er of the ]JUrlcI'CIIJcI,uftClI /lnd Wtl~ 5uu,equcntly impri~OIu~1 for six years. On his release he began lecturing on PInto 'It lIalle, und uecame a convert t o Hegelianism. On Oeing refused tI chll ir owing t o hi§ unorthodox "iews, he re~igned from the. IIni-'enity and de"oted himsel( entirely to the editordlip of the Halli8che .Jahrbli"her. For t hi!! he Wll8 Rlhni rubly ,uited : he. WIlS a man of independent me,UlS, and Although no very originll l mind him.elf, he wrote quickly nnd well and had a very \\iol! rnnge of contaclfi.1

The JJnllm:JuJ Jnhrbiidtr begnll appearing in 18S8. During the fiNt fel\' month. it WI\I far from rMlical (e\'en religious conlief\"I1-the8 like lIeillrici, Leo eontributed) and ... as mainly devoted to artistic or liter~ry .ubjuu. Howe"er, it soon beg~1l to de rend Str1\U$l ~lIld froo crilici~'n or religion, discuuionJ! ... hieh ClIme to A head o\"er the 'Cologne Affllir',' when Leo openly accused the Young Hegelirms or p~ching atJu:iam. Altbough during the

I See .-. &hl.,,·~, 'Die J "'nghc:rebdll,I'",bJi1inik", in OM WoU 1111 GNdtI"lc (1960).

"SH rurtbe. W.l\·~)u,r, M~"'4 R~41lp111jliJrn ... 4 poo/ili«w ScAriflllldk. ([[~id~n~, (1133).

I See .ho,·e, p. 8.

endy yenrs the contributions to the l/lIili4ChtJ JII"rbiichiJr hlld in gcnerul IIppelilcd to an enlightened PrulISian »tate, Ly 1840 directly political articles were beginning to follow 011 the I"f"ligio"A ones, II log.e implicit in the notion of the 'Chri3tiilll state'. As a result the Jahrltrlcher were banned in P ruS.'\ia in June 1841 I'lnd mO"ed to Drettleu, where they appeared under lhe title 1)iJlI.l/clll! JaArbrlcner.l During 1840 the Berlin Young I-Iegelinn! had begun to contribute, And by the middle or l 84-1 Bruno Bauer had become tt regulAr linter. :>oran had been introduced quite efirly on to Huge by KOPI>en, himself II. frequeulcontributor; in Februnry 181!i!: he wrote hi. liNt artide And ~e"l it lo Ruge ,,"iU, a co"cring letter offering tQ re lic'" books and put all hi:! energies at the ser"ice of the [)eulu!re Jahrblicn«.' :<' [an's articles hU"e n marked .tyle that recurs in nil hi~ suh!!cquent IITiting:s. H is mdiclll and uncompromising disposition, his lo\'e of polaristl tioll, hb method of dell!ing .. ith opponents" \"io1l'1 by rttllldw ad o.bl1lrJII1IL all ied him to wriU! very antithetieally. Slvgtlu, cl imax, Anaphora, paralielislI1, anlithesis nnd chi"smus (pArticularly the last t .. o) ure all employed by l\jp,rx to exeess.

:-'hr:O;'5 first tlrticle. dealt with the new censorship instruction iUllCd by Frederiek William rv in December 1841. On the fAll of Napoleon a free I're!t had Ueen promised to the Germans, but reaction soon set in: in October 1819, a51l rC!ull oCtha Carbbad uecisione, a cen50uhip edk1. was issued tlll1t was intended to l<\.8t five Jears but in efreet pro"cd ""ueh more durllble. The censorship WfU VI'.',)" strict and even ne\\'~pRpel'S, if t hey dealt with religion or politiel, were subject t.o control by the Mini5tries of Foreign ,\fraira" Interior and Culture. This eell~orship ""as slight ly ,..,laxed after the July He"olution in FTflllce, but t'russ.ian new~papel"ll lell\le.d to renmin onl,. pale rcHcct ions of go"ermnent opinion. \\'ith the death of Frederick William III , there were widCliprelld hopes that ,,11 this would change. And indllCd the new king was lilt! n~ry op~itc of hi, rather. He shAred with the bourgcoi! ie a hatred of regimented burco.uertley : his ideal Wo.$ II pnterllll.li~t

I '-or lh .. or~i"" and policy of lhe H/flli~ Jd"Mlc.w-, _ H. Knmehll i, '1) .. reorol"lionINliolk!ltlisehe t:nlwil!kln"8" ill d~n 1t.lliMc:bcn J.hrbl\cbem· C""p"bt;"b.,II')aIJ. tbelio, Munich. 1!lO;J); McI .... It~n, rM ~·tIIMg IftgdlJJ""". ,J K~rl .I(",.~, t)p. II 11".

• cr. ' ]'"u"r \0 1I\1~', J/lJ,'QA I i (~) 266 f.

7. ;llarz bifore Mar ... ;"m

50dety in ",i.[ch the GcrnlAn fleOl)lc "cleu tho rule uf his (""lil". So !'e ll~r~cd ,,:it\ lh~ uvurgeoisic's c1nim to the right to Il~pre~s ~helr 0pHllons !U I nriUlIllcnt And the Pres-s, flUt.! IlI'e" I!Inphnsised III the cen30r$hip instruction 'the "alile Of,Mld nl!Cd for, frunk A/UI

'

loyal pulJlidty'. Sin~, hOll"llver, what the bourgeoisie "'lUlled to clIlUpnign (or wns not fl Mnlllhtically paternll.1ist8oci~h R collision was inevitable. -'

;\hrx,'. I.rtide was devuted to pointing out the u'nbiguous 01141 contr~l,hctory clmructcr of the royllJ t~xt. The king wAS no\\' ordermg the censors to lI.l)ply ICSll strictly the edict of 1819, In i\larx'~ ,iew, then, either the een.\On had !)een acting illegally for the past twenty-two YCfll"$, or the objective mistakc3 of an institution wcro pcrlulp:! to be blamed on indiddual!l 30 thnt n 6clIlbhlllce of illlpro"cmcll t "'lIS "chic"ed without the realit\'. 'It i. this kind of pscudo-libcfali!lnl that is a pt to mllke cOllc'~ssiolls under l,re5Ulre and t hnt so' .. ::rifices penlOll1 to "'ailltuin the insti~ut~oll, the t?Ols, tile ouject. 'rhe nlt.clllioll or II supuflcial public 1$ thus dh·erted. External e.xllspcration is turned into eXASperfllion against l.erlOn •. ' Vith A ehllnge of personnel one ciai,"!! to lul\'C A chllnge in sublltance." T he instruction slLiu tlw.t 'cemol"~hir ~I"dlnot impede "lIy ~erious And unprejudiced pUr1wit of the t~ulb: Spino:&ll, among others, wal quoted to demonstrute the roohshness of trying to .etlimits to truth: r!f"rum indc.J: Illi tl f~lli. The oilly cri terion of truth propo~ by lhe king's instruc_ t'on was the censor"s tellIperflment. 'f"urthC':rmore, t rut!. is unh·(':J"" sal. It doc. 1I0t belong to me, it helongs to all; it possC&!e5 lIle, 1 do IIUt l'U!l!Il~! it. A style is my property, my spi ritual indi,·idunlity. J.e AI!Jle, c'ul rftom~II .. lndeedJ 'I~h(llllw permillime to write, (.I,uy I a m sll~po5(!d to ""~'te III a style dIfferent frOIll my own. I may.how the proilito of my mind, but 1 mun lil""$t show the prel!cribed miell. 'I :'olan", main point here i5 thnt thc ne .. · instruct.ion does nolmeet the lil1i l re(luiremcnt uf "ny \11'" - thnt of being precise. . i\ l lIr~ goe, on t~ nUlillb.in that the instruetiOIl actually InC':rI!MI!S tho:! OppressIOn of the old Illw. 'Ie bases this concl\l~iol1 (.III the twill Jlrinciples thnl religion, i>lling irratiounl, is esscntilll1y

I 'Con,rutnli 011 tl. .. I .... I ... ~ I'J"\IlIiIlou C~~lf' IHl'lr"ctio,,·. "U.vA • ; (I) 152 ; . :"'ton and (; uddftl, I" &.1. -

• 'C?'''lIIcnll! "'". Ll,u iA~1 1'n,;o,.l.n C<!n .. :,,'II,jl' I"Vlrllc1io,,', JfHG" , i (I) 1M i h,ultoll ~"d Guddat, I'. 75.

JII".T tftr .!mmm!in 7,j

ineompnUhlc with t.he stnt.f~ nnll thllt thcn~ is no 'gllncrtl l" f(.lflll of Cll ri~ti'Ulitr, ulily dIllJUmilialion&. Ti,e 5t"tC, ncc(.Il"tling t(l :'olnr~, should be founded on 'free rca50n' nml he admiTCII t.he TJ.tion" l i~11I

(.If the 1 819 edict:

nnliounlisII' 6t.i1l pre'-lI.iled in 1819 amI g(!lIerally viewed religion liS the so"eaned religion IIccorrling to reason. This tntionn1i~tic \1ewpoint is IIlaO t he viewpoint of the Censor.!hi]) Edict which, however, ia 10 illogical us to hike un irreligious point of"iew while it lIill'S to protect religion. It is oontmdictory to the fuuuumelltal principles of religion to separate thO!!e principles fronl its posith'e content and specific quality, for e"ery religion belie"e! it is different from othtr ilhl!ory religions hy '1rllle of it! particillar nature, nnd i8 the trUIl religion by virtue of its specific qUlIlity.1

The old edict did not mention Christianity At nil, whereas the new edict forhnde at tacks on Chrbtiallity lind tlml upheld the Jlrincipl(! oCtne Chria.tillfl 5tate: ' Nothing will 00 tolerated which opposes Christian religion in general or a particulAr doctrine ill 1\

fr;,·oI01I1; "nd ho~ll1c mllnner" nml wllnt UII tu uppOSil 'the fllm.ticlIl injection of religioUJ convictiuns into pulitic8 nnd the cnsuillg intellectual conf\lsion'.2 'fhe first of these principles made II. non_ sense or any form of criticism, fur the critic Will in"oh'ed in the follo .. -ing dilelUma;

Only that part of an attack is rril"olo\ls which in"olve! particulAr surfAce nspect..'! without hcing profound and serious enough to get to the !uhstnnce. The very move l'gainst uny purtkulur tbing is frivolous. As a. n nllack on Christian religion in ilol rundunu:ulills ;$ forbidden, only u. fri\"oioul IIUllck is possihlll. In re"cne til(! atlnck 01> the r"",lnmenial pri.wil'les or religion, on ib suhstlI","e nnd upon pllrtjeulara in au fnr tiS they 'Ire mAnifestations of thnt suh5tance is n hostile nttnck. Relihtio ll ctln be attacked only in 1\ hostile or frivoloul wily; thert!. is HIl

third wI1Y,3

"Ctlmmenl. tin lhO! 1 ..... lest Pro65ion Ctn«l .. hil' In.trncUon·. ilff:GA , i ( I) 1.'>11; ~:.....ton and (h,dd.l, 1" 75.

t 'Commcnts 0" Ihe ""tM J'ru'll!lan CfllMln;l,il' I ... trucll.o,,·, JlII(JA, i (I) 1G8: ElUton and C"ddat, ftft. 7$ f_

'·C,.,n""cntJ! 0>1 llie I M~I""t P,m,.inn C~I~<o",b i l' In. tn ,cllo,, '. JJI-."GA II (I) IW r. : I~,,>to" ",,,I (l",I,I"t, 1" 70.

7(l

'I'h/! ~eeond princil)le implie\1 n notion of the state thHt WII S

(."Omplclely c:ontmdidory (lnC' l one ndmitwl diO"ercllt rOrillS of Christinnity:

Wlmt dOCl:l fUlu,ticnl injedion of religious convictions into polities !1lo!l\n ? It me.u]s Umt specific religious rom'ielion! clm tI~termine I.h~ ~l.Itto! "uti tI" .. t the particulnr nflture o( relif,oion CAn bl!oome the norm o( the tiLAte. 'I'h/! old Censorship Edict could riglltly oppose this confusion, (or it left the pnrlicuinr religion nnd it. .pecilic conll!!nt to criticism. The old J~lict ",119 based on the 1I11nllow nml lIuperficinl rationfllism you despise. In hUing thl!! slRlc 011 {\lith lind Christinnity and wllllting II Christifln stfltl!!, hoI\' C(tll YOII cxpect ceruorship to pre,·ent this intl!!lIl!!ctunl con(usion?l

1I 10r/!O\'cr, hnlfthe poplll ll tion must lind such n stllte inimicnl: 'Jr your stnte il only l'roteatltnt, it becomes for thc Catholic a church to "hieh he duet not helong, which hc mU5t rcjcct II.B heuticnl, nnd whosc cuence I,,;: lindll obnoxiolls. The reverse would be true if the Itnte were Cl\tholic.'~ And Iillnlly i\ lurx gil'e! this ud"ice to those wllo wish to fll sc rcligiofl nfld politics:

You ~Ilould (orhid tlml reliboiull bc drnwn into polities _ but you do not wilnt to do t hll l hecnuse yOIl u·ish to hnse the stnte ~JI {tlith ruther thnn on free TeIlSO)I,· with religion constituting ror you the general Stlllction o{ the positive. Or YOII should ~rmitthe rnnnlicul injcctiou of religion into politics. Heligion might be politically netll'e in its own way, but you do not want that eithl!!r, For religion is to support s('cuJar mntlf.!r:s witilllut the laUer's heing subject to rll!ligion, Once religion is drawn i" to politk"J, it i.M.'COml!!s an insu/fernbll'., indeed all incligious presumption to "'"llt to determine on secular groUIlJ~ how religioll lu,e to operltte within politics. If one slliet; nne .. ill , religion (rom r..JigiO/lity, one must ~oivl!! religion \.hI!! decis;"e "oice in nil mlltter5. Or do you l)II!rhllp!l understand by uligion the cult of your own 8o\'ereignty and go,·erllrlleutnl wisdom ~s

1 'Comm.ntll on tho IAlest Pru!llian CM\iIOr,d,ip I"""ruction', JlEGA • i (I) I!,f!; F .. ~tI)" a'MI ( l uddll, 1>1'. ;6 r.

• 'Cw","~/l~ II" the ~Itft l'n...,jln CAMOl'"h it, I n~tn ... liOO1', JH:r.A , i ( I) 100; .:.,111'1 ."d n .. ddat.l" 77,

• 'tll"'ment.o on t.htI r..teo~ I',u!toion Cen~I'il' ' ''illn'ction·, ,Vf;OA I I (I) HI(l; E:..,tlln . nol GU,IdRI, 1'1" i7 f.

77

In tht 8amt wily as he defended the Slnte n~ being oulJiide ~he jurisdidion o(religion, so 1I1nr:o: defends th/) Autonomy of morality, ... hich the c/)nsol'!hip "'i6hed to ,·inJicule for itself. 'T he ~pecifi . " lilly Christill llio!gislfltor Cflnnol recognisl!! mornlity a.B a ll indepen. dent Iphere $Il ncWicd in itself, (or he deri,·Cli the inner unj,'ersnl cssence or morality (rom religion:' But i\fnrx, (ollowiug the 1':nlight clllUl!! nt !lnd Feuerbach, belieVe! thnt morality is indepen. dent of uligion, flutonomou5 And cstublished on unil'e~ally true ethical principles :

i\lorlllity recogtliscs only its own ULli.·ersal and mtiannl religi,on, .md religion only its own pnrticular and ~itive Illornl.,ty, I~o llowing the Instruction, censorship will hll\·~ to rl!!pu~ ls.te ftuch intellect",,1 heroes o( mon,lity A~ Knnt, rlchte, Spmozn ror heing irreligious nnd threatening discipline, mornls And oul"'Ard loynlty, All of thl!!se moralists procl!!e<i from prineil)led or~ition between morAlity and rll!ligion, heC8U!re mornlity, they claim, is b"acd on th/) !lutonomy, ,,,,d religion on th/) h/)terOnOtllY of tI,e human 6pirit,' Mnrx devotes the second half of his article to til/) Pl,unge in the

instruction tl1"t forhll.de thl!! censoring of opi nion~ hccn"~1\ t hc:y r.onnicted with government policy 'so long ns their (orm is decent nnd their tendency well·intentioncd', ;\I ntl< f1uds this pnssnge in denr contr"dictioll to the tnlditional legol prineiple t.hll.t Il.ct.! Il.nd not intentions must he punished: 'Tendentious laws, laws without objective norm~, aTe In'''s of terrorism, such as t hose created hy Hohe~pierrc becnu~e of eml!!rgl!!ncies in the state a nd by R OlJlu JI

cmperor'S UcCIiUSC of the rottcnneSll of the sb"". Lt."·s th" .. IIIl1ke the sentiment o( the "'eling person the main criterion, nnd not the "d fUI such, fire nothing but positi,·c $Ilncliona of lawll!!unll!U." Thi! sort of legitlation could only breed suspicion lind servc to .lidde the st ... tc ill5teuJ uf uniting it - which was "l~urd, (or the abo.te "'lIS universnl lIlId could /lot mllke parliSll.u 18"·s:

.\ law like that is not" IIlw o( the alate for the citi~nry, bul" Ill"" of 1\ party again3t Ilnother part)'. The tendentious 1!l1I'

.. 'Com""'nl."" t be; !...atU! Pruto!!;'n CeIl'JO!'\<hip IlI'Iln](:I;II"" MEGA, i (I) Hll; t: ... lon ano! Guo!o!al, p, 78.

I C"""",,nl8 on the T.ottsl Pn,g.;i:o.n Cemo:>n;hip I".truetin,,', .VJ:GA • I (1) 161; .;qton and G".ldRI, I'. 7t1·

I 'Comrow::nt< on t he 1 .... 1""1 r'nu.,;'n C~,,;oo""]'il' I",t.uctio,,', MP-O'! , i (I) 16~; .: ... 1"" ~ ",I G"d.bt. p. i I},

78

clincel~ the ('qllnlity of the .;itizcn6 before the lu.,." Il ,hidC!l mther than unites; nnd "II dh·iding J>lWS ure reacLion"ry. It is not It I.,",: it ill! pth,jlcge. [n II Il /'lllie",] ~w.te the ,-ie'" of the Mllte is lu lxmlinnted to itll members, even if they oppo~ an Org.OI ' uf tI,e SUIt\" or the government. But II $ocicly in which one orgnn thinks of judf \I.lI the only, exclusive pouessQr of retllon Alld mOffl lity on the state le,-d, a gn'"crumclIl that in ]lrinl"iple opposes the people allrl asaum~ that their sub,'ersiv!! IIUitmle is Ilniv(,1'SJl1 lind norm",], the c,-iI collllciencc of II fadion - sud. It government im'clils tl!.ndentious 1"""3, laws of revenge, ngninst Ull aUitude exi!ting only in the membeT$ of the gOlcrnmcnt thcm9('h·c!. Su!'h 111'1'11 lire based on n lack or eh"'ffictcr lind Oil nn uncthiclI l nnd materialistic "ie\~ of the stllte,l

T he .t/lte', !en'unla wcre lurned into spiCli /lnd distrust "-115 bound to he rife - 10 who could ~ surpriSl'd if the eensors were themSl!lves (listrusted? T he I/lw /15 it stood necessitated tJlI~jr loeing ulu\'I!Mia1 geniuses, like Chinue Imrcnucrnts. '.-\11 objccth'c norms hnve been nlmndoned; the per5011lll relationship is left ; Mid t he censor'. tact may be cnlled /I gunrunlee. Whnt cIOn the cenAor viv]" tc, t hcu? T net. n .. t tHc lIessnC~5 i;; no crime. ' Vhnt i$ threntened for the writer? Ilis existence. \\"h/l t stnte c,'er m!lde tho existence of on entire profession dependent upon the t nct of individual olliciuis1'"

A mn~tcrpieee of Iwlcmkul cxcgt!sis, Mun's liMit poli tical article BllOWS lhe grellt pam phleteering t alent in thl! style of BO('rne that he excrci!l-ed 1111 through his life. T he article is illtnwsigcntly lil>er/l l IIml "im~ at unnmsking the pseudolihcn.1ilull of the cl!nsorship instruction, Marx ~ con.$idcrably inspired by the Trot/olu# of Spinor.n, whO$(! I/I$t chllptcr hnd " titlt bused on thl! <Iur.slioll from T aci t us ... ·iUI which " Iarx lini.i.hes I,i. nrti("le: Nor(l It1IIporlim/tUciI6#, ubi quoe r:tlil #tntire et quae #i"ntia#diCt:re lic".~ ]. Inrx had oc"\'l1 reading SJlino;u! \"Cry thoroughly during the Insl half of liHl find copied out many pa~/lges on

"Comcncuw On lb,. Lalon' l'ro.l3n C~llBONhip Indn>clion', JlEGA I j (I) IO~ r.: Rulon .nd ('uddAI, p, 80.

• 'COIn_nit "" H,~ I",!""ll' .. ",..-i.on C8' ..... ~hiV L .. tl"lldion', .I11:;OA , i (I) 17~; ~~n ftnd Gud,1.!, 1" 01.

• '·Ino.... f!)rtuIlAlc ti",", a",,...,.. in "'lIkb ,-<111 nil tbink ,,"""t )"<lU .. i"h _nd tilly ... hal Y<lU think:

79

how IHi~ery b'enerntes illusion, ho ... rdigioll wn"cs to console and can be exploited politically.) T he article Wf!.3 ton !\luch for tl ~e cen~or Hlld thus could lIot be publi$hcd in lt ugc'~ J nlrrbiicha, It appeared in I"cbrunry 1843 in S .... iberlalld in ,4nckdola," collection of !Irticle~ .uprl'ued by lhe censorship olld ~sucd in hook form by nuge,

2. 'I' ll" Rheinude ZCitll~

a. 1 '''e llil/Of"icai &hool 0/ LA:;>

])llring the fil"5t months of 1842 "Ian: continned 1m studir.s 011 art nnd relig ion. in Apri l he promi8ed iluge four pieee$ oC"'ork: the first on religious art, the result of the uborti"e "'ork he had dOlle for thc second half of ])auer', l'w(1.llne; t he ~cond on the roIlUUlti~' the third on the philosophicnl nlnnifesto of the Historicnl Sch~l of Law; t he fourth on t he positive plulo8opher\l, purlieu, lnrly Schelling, on the lines of ~is doctora l t hesis.! .

Onh' the t hird of th~c proJecb, ho"'e"er, was to uppear III

prlnt. \\rritten ill April 1842! thi$ llrti~l~ was occR5i~ned by the rl ppointment or Karl "on Savlgn}" as l\lulistcr of J ust lce, w~1O WIl!

expected to introdur.c into t~e legnl s): st~n~ t~e romll ntlc li nd rr.nctiolla ry idM! of t he new klng. T hus It IS IIldlrcct ly nn ,.,Uuek on the institutions ofthe Pru~sirln 'Christian state', The HistoricAl School of Law had just published 1\ manifes to in hOllour of t hcir falluder Gustav H ub'o (17(;4...18-14). Adhering to II complete empiricism, lIugo dcn;cll a ny rational content to po~t i ~al ,aud Irgnl inst itution8. Ilegel, too, had attacked Hugo Ilnd hiS disciples in the introduction to his Philo#uphy of R ight. but it wa6 Kant, 'the Ger mAn theorist af the French Re"olulion? ""horn Marx opJlOlcd to HUb'U' :\hlrll: refuted Hugo's daim to he I!. disciple of Kant:

In culling I lerr Hugo /I child of the eighteenth century, we art e\"en proceeding in lIerr lI ugo's spirit, 81 he himseJr testifiel: he identifiCll llimselt III a disciple of Knnt nod ealb his ruttlln,1 • See further, Wacbnboim, La l"aillile Ik {IJ mi~f1II rfaprh JI'IJr/ JlorS",

PI'. IIW.II", • cr .. 1..e;It~t 1<1 Rug..' • • 11;:011 I I (2) ::rH, • " I'hllOiCOl'hical "buir""t<l <Jf tboo 11;"101";., .. 1 School or La .. ', MF.GA I , (1)

2';'1; .:...ton Ru(1 GuddAI. p. 100.

80

lllw 'III offshoot or Kunti'ln philosophy. At thu point we take up ]';$ i\llInir~to.

lIugo Illi~interpr~ts the mllster I\ .. nl ill w.yiug that $illce we (, (lI~not kno~' ",hilt 15 ~r~e, we COIlI NJ.ucnUy let P>:ISS III entirely ml,(~ whut 1$ Iflllru!:! Ir It Irluely exilu. H ugo is II sceptic COIl_ cerfllll,Q; the ne<:1"5snT)' CII$(!I1Ctl of lhingll so thllt he elln be another r1::. T. 1\.] l-IoHinnnn CQul't!rniug their contingent IIppe~r,,~ce. ~n no wily dOC8 he leek to prove thnt wllttl j, p-usltLVC II ratIonal; he docl! seek to prOI'\.\ that whnt is positi,'c is .not rational. Witl, s('] r-s'Lti~ ticd industry he pulls togcth~r ?\')(~cnc~ from all corners uf the world to pro,"c tlmt positive ~nslltubons such 11.$ propt:rty, the stllte, Illllrdugc, etc., nre not lIl{ormcd by lilly ra.tion.,IIH:cessity, thnt they e'-en conlrndict r~llson, /lud that a t bell (1)0 o .. n bicker about thcm pro .. nd COII. i

III fact Hugo was an $b$olute Iceplie lind thus had no enterion of judgement. Against this l>Otiition :\Iarx employs II. ralion .. lism based on Spinol.ll. .. nd KlIllt, both of whom refused to confuse the po6iti\"(l with the rational: 'Hugo desecratu e,-erything tlu!.t it ,,,cretl to lawfnl, monll, politil;ltl man. He !mallhes wh .. t is SAcred so thnt he can revere it as 1111 historical relic; he \'ioll\lc$ it before tI.le oy\:9 or rellson so thn.t he Clln Iliter honour it before the eyes of hl~tory: lit the sallie time he al80 wanb to lmnoll r llistorical eye • ." In short, the I-li~torical Sohool of u..w had only aile principle - ·the III"· of arbitrllI")' ro"·cr'.l Alth~ugh i\1~rx is rightly pcssimirlie !toout the long.term effC('u

of the IIlstnu:lion on the censorship, it did ha'·e the $hort.t~ml1 effect. of per~litting considerable liberty of (,lCprCS$ion during 1842, the yellr which IllIlrked the height of the Young Hegelinn mon!. ment. T he leading manifcstation orlhis fldiCIII elCprCl>6ion was the Rhri"i#cllIl ZeitulIg ('"lthenith Gazetle'). The sub·title of the pllper wus ~Fo: l'olitiC!, Commerce Klid Industry', and its objl.'Ct ut the I~glllnmg WIIS to Ilefcnd the iutercst. of the n""'crOUI HhcnUt. middle elliS!. It "'os III first rcgllrded fo'·ourably~· the

I '"fh" 1 'loi!QOOI'l!;~ ... 1 :Manit""l" oftb" IIinorlcal School of Law', ,Vt:O..t r i (I) ~,,2: . :",Ion ~"d Guddal, PI'. 07 f.

• 'Tbe P)'lloIophj~al M~n;fL-tih, OhM m'IMi/:allkbool of La ... · MJ;OA, i (I) ~~~; .:,.Ion and Guddal. p_ 00. '

• 'The l'hi"-I,I,kal .\I .. "if""I""fwe 11 ;"1o...,.IScloool of [ ...... JlE(;,1 r i (I) Ull; ~:"I"n.nd Guddel. ['. 1Q,i. ,

Marx /h~ JouTlwli# 8 1

I'russian Govcrnment, "·ho 56"· it l\S l possible eounterllRlllnee to the Kii/"i#che Xci/ling ('Cologne Gnrette'), lin ultrllmonlane find

IInti-Prussillll (lRp!'r, which lit dUll linle hlld Q mOllopoly ill the Hhinclllud .. \Ircady in 1840 ... (lRp!'r with UrI.' tiUe llh&ini#chc JlII{;tmcinc Zeitu"K ('"Gc.ncrlll Ilhenish GuzeUe') lUl(l been founded by R group who colllidcNld thlt the Kol"i#ch~ I'.citultg did not Rdequiltcly c!cfelld tlleir sociul und economic iHtcrc8t~. When it WitS evident thllt this paper would soon I)()conl(> hnnknlpt, (;rorg .l ll11g lind ~ lo~e$ lieu pcrsu(,dcd ICliding rich liberals of tho Hlrinelund, including Call1phansen, i\ levissen And OpJll!nhcim, to form a company which bought out the Rhei"i4(h~ Alfgt:mtj"t

Zcit""g (in order to avoid having to renegotiate II t ..... lIeesa.ioll) j,ml Nlpublishl.J it from 1 In.nutlry 1842 under the titlc Rheini#d~ Zdtllng.1

-' loses Hess had laken tire lending part in the founding of the ,,"per and had hoped in COIl3e<I'JenCc for the editorship, but the men who supplied the flnnnt':illl oocking were not keen on I'(l,·olution. Their chief !lim was to enmpAib>Tl for mellSures thlt would hell' theclCpAn!ion of industry And commerce, such lI$ au cxtl)n. sioll of the ~ustOtllS uuion, IIceell)raled fllilm:,-)' eonstru('tion lind rl)dll~ecl [lOlItal dlllrges. So t hl) ~hAr~ho1ders chosl) as ctlitor the protectionist ()COnomist Fredcriek List and, when hI) "'U8 force~1 to decline for health NlliOlla, Hoeffken, editor of the ~hl{;,burg" I'.dtung Rud II follower of List. I-less had to SWll llow his pride /tnd Reeepted a post III suh·editor with $peeial refercnct' to fNlIlce. Renard, Oppenheim Rnd J ung were appointed diNleton. Sinre Oppenheim anti particularly Jllng had been C()nv('.rted by I1 t'5S to Young llegelinn rndiclI.li.lIl, n .plit soon de' e!opl..J bo.:twcen them I1ml Hocffken: he refused to lccept Ilfticl~ from the BcrHu Young "egeliall~ lnd WM dril"(!u into resiguing on 18 JllUlIllry, Ilechlring himself 'no IIdert of neo· J-Iegeliani8m'.Z

Hoetf.ken was replaced by Itutenberg, brother·i n·IAw of Bruno Daller, who had recently been rli&min~d from his tr:""hing post for

• On 11"1 m~i"i""h~ 7.t"U~.9' _ ill l>8.rticu).u II. '-On;jj:, Vlf l/M'~',d~ Zejl~ng ",m 18d-lJ in U,.". J-:intllll~1lg ,,-ur Kullllrpolilik tk. l'rtu..ucht n Slaait. (Mamtcr. IO~i) : R""I"/Ilfu IJri'f~ lI"d Ak/.t~ ","r O"""AidI2 du f'/IIW."1.(,, ~Ing 18J4-J8MJ, ed. lI atl><-'tl <F..$'eo. 1()19). For M"r~·.l'arl, tift It. I'u".!. A·ar/ J/arz." m. "pp~nli<Ulli, 11> I'''';'i~. (1..0",[,,11, I!)~e).

• BI."i.""~ JJ"'f~ ud A11tn, 00. 1I.'IieIl,' 315.

s, holding unol1.l.odo.~ ol'illions. I Ie wns 5upport~t1 uy Kurl )Inn:, who hlld taken port in tlillCutisiona on the organiSll tion of the paper since ScpllllUUer ort.he previons yellT. T he nppointlllcnl of Hulen berg mndr lhe '\llthorit;cs so nn:dou~ n~ to the trnticncy of the IlO.JX'T tlu.t ill! supp~ion """' ~ugge5ted by the «Illml Government. Uu!. Ule I'n'6I.Icnl of the Hhinel"nd pl'(lI'int'C fen red thnt this \\,0\11,[ 111IIk(: 1\ bad imprclsion "lid only prOllli$cd closer supervision. j\[nrx [II .• J ulrcad)' been asked in Jto.n"ttry loy B:lUcr why he ilill not write for the RlltillilCht ZcilulIg, .tllel in :\[arcll, I'rtl!scd by Jung, he p"tasidc the work he WII~ doing for Huge IIml decided to devote II. ser;c5 of IIrlides to thO'! debutes of the Rhelli~h l'arli,uncnt lIlI\l had held 1\ long scu ion ill I) i)UI'Jdorf in mid-1Sil.

b. Frudol1l Qf tlw PUll

Pro"incia!"'p'arlillmenu IUItI heen promised to the GernllU\5 on the r.'tll of NHpoleon, llna though thele proposals had been modifie(1 lifter the Cllrlsbad decl3ions, Ulese parlillmcll ts hnd functioned quite well in &outll Germany, largely because: the princes "'ishcd to IllllY them off' again~t the rellctioDliry central Go,·('rnmcnt.1 In T'ru$llill, eight provincial pllrlil11llenl' were ~et up but their scope wus extremely limited: t he Government decided when to 611l1l1lH)U them and ho .... long they would IlIst, and they .... eT(! under the prC$idcncy of II bt()\'crnment ollicilll: proceeding. were secret II lI d

their powers were only IId,·isor),. Qut of 5M \'OtC$ in ull eight JlIIrlitlHlCllls, the ariatocraey provided 278, the repcelentali,'es of the c;li('$ 182 """d the fnrmeI'$ 12·J. Sinl'e II two·third~ majority was necCSllnry to puss II resolution r.nd the uri6tOCrtlCY I\lwllp hnd 1l10rc thlln one·third of the "oll'tl, nothing could be ilone "iillOut t heir agreo:!lUent. Under Frederick WilIilllll I II the parliament hail nJel only fh'e time!! in se:"entecll yenn, but on his ACCCIlSiol\ ill 18-1-1 Frederick Willium IV summoned the )'IIIrlilll1lcnts wilh the inten· tion of injecting some life into thcm and having U}em ('()·opernte

'\ ,,';th his JlIItewlllisl go'erillnent. In onJer to achiel'e this he decreed th'lt thu)' should meet cvery two ye,'lrs, puhlish th('ir proceedings and ell'ct standing advisory committees. T he prospect ofthc~e reforma nrou~ed public interest in politics, nnd tlus interest

'cr. F. Mebril\J, .utroo.iuction to "brx, "ng..h! .11<1 ... _IIe, .\'acMt»., ' mI!".

Jll/lr:r tflc Jouruali81

w"s incren.se,] by the publication in HHI of II ptllllphiet entitled ' Four Questions AU""'('rcd by nil East I'ru~sinn·. illt Author ,,'(.s .loI1llll11 ,Jncohy, 1I doctor ill KOnigslX!rg, t],e city of Knnt !llul centre of E/l!t l'ruMhlll Iiberulisnl, I\ml its thesis wns thnt the p.eol'ie had a right to the ('onstitution promised t.he", hack in 1815. 'J'hCl5e w('rc not the 60rt of ,iews tlmt the Go,'ermuellt wi~hed 10 fO!lter und J"coby found himself on t ri,,\ for lJ"Cf\&on.

The imm('dinte oeellsiOIl for ;..!nrlli'S Urlid", wastheappurtlnce ill h'le :'I lnrch in the official J'uuuiuht Allgemdne SlIl(Itl.ZeiJ.ulIg (. L'ru8sil!n Genen.\ Slnte G"ZI'ltc') of Ilrtic1cs cmlll llCrltiug on the tlclllltcs of the PnriinmCllt 'in order to enlighten the public COli' ceruing lhe true intentiolls of the Gm'ermnclll'" Mnr)t originally concci"cJ II 6CriC~ of flve nrtic1Cl1 on the dellllte~, of which the on\! written in ellrl)' }\ prilnnd entilltd 'Debates ou the l~'reedolll of the Preu lind Oil the Puhlication of lhe I'urlinmentnry I' roceWillgl' "'ou to be the lim: the other four were to ded with the ('..ologue ,'fl'toir, the hll" s Oil theft of wood, on polI<:hing 'lll<\ 'the renlly ('arthy question in ull its .. itnl extent, the dh'ision of land'.' Howe""!T, only this article on the freedom of the I'n.'Sii nnd the nrticle on then of wood were publ~IJed.

-'Jnrx begius his IIrticle "ill. whllt he describe! liS n 'fri"olo\J~ intro<iuctioll'\1 mocking the ' ('()nfeuioll5' of the oflicilll pu!,cr lind conclude! that ' the publieation oflh", {»,rlillmentnl'Y proe«dinb'll will only become true ,,·hen they are trentetilis 'public fnels" lhllt is, when they become uJ(ltten; for the I'rl'S~ .' I\ llIrx denls lint with the opp()nents of 1\ free PT6II. Whnt atru('k him v~l'y forcibly 1\"lIe that the indh'idufll SI)¢l\kers did not lpellk in their O1\'n right, hut n~ rcprcsentnth'cs of dllues: 'The ,"'butes 011 lhe Pr('ss show UI

tbe ~pecificlIl!y class spirit at ils dc!trest , shl\rpe3t and fullest. Thi, ill H peci.ally true or the opposition to a free 17ea& ••. the intlividulll illlcrl'S t of the ]lllrticulllr c1n~s "lid the n.atllrlllnllrr()wIllimled'lcss of its chnrnct('r Are cruddy ,uul "eeklessly 1l]l\,lIl't!lll

:lIIrl nt the !lillie li,ue show their teelh." Mllr); then lfIkes the representnlh'c or each d a" ill order,

beginning with the princes, whose representlltive nrgued thnt the

, Q>lelte<L;1l MEGA c; ( I) I" .. Ivi. I ' • ...,Hertel RIl!"," JU;(I A , i (~) ~;D. I .VJ>GA,' I (~) 2H. "l)C!»!U (Ill th~ Fn.oNo,,, (or tJ.u I'rtlIfS', ,tlt'-C;.t J i (I) 11\.1 IF.

M{Jr~ brforr, Marxi'lII

,units vf the Ct.w"",n Prcss W('tc due tv the cen~orship ",lrich "'Il ~

justified hy ,irtue of thc lIuthority ' hilt impo.;ed it. JII England it \\'11$, nccon]ing to t he "' n,e sl~llkcr. only tNlullion lhnt kcpt the Pres, hnrmlcSIl, a ",] in Hullund and SlI'itzerlnnd the l)re~~ \1'11 3 very ,lelri,ncll lnl to the life of I. he nut ion. 1\l llrx refutes these urgurnenh nnd a.$llerts thut the I'rcu is merely the expr~iun of II Ilt:Ople's 0"-11 spiri t :

Whll.t thcll is the sl'cllker'$ compillint I,!;:uiust 11. frce Press? That the f'\\Ilts ufn people ure 'It t he Mme ti'lle the (<lulu ofi ls Pren, thllt its " reM is the frnnk IIdmiuion lind public for", of the people'. histori('.a l spirit. He hill! sho .. 'n that c\cry people e"pres8<!. illl spirit in i16 Press. Shull the philosophically .... l"cllted spirit of the ( ;ermllflS nol ou"'in what in the 6pcakcr's o\\'n Ildmission ex.i~u Ilmong the Swiss, whose horizon (loes not exlcnd beyond the IInimal ?1

T he represenbti \"e of the nolrility discu~scd the question of whether the proeccding$ ~hould l>c published or nut. :'-lar" IIskcd in reply whether thc Parliament belonged to the pro"inee or the pro"incc to the ]'ftrlill llumt, nnd "hether the pro"inee was to he in any wily conscious of its representatiou. It was uQt @urprising that SlH;h men had no conccption of llnh·enttl frcedo,,,

Oec&u!e they wish to Rckno \\'I\!l.lb'C r~dom not ItS the nlltn rll l endQ"'rnent of the llni"crsalligllt of rea50n, hut "s the .upernaturnl b.;ft of R pArticularly fortunate stcllAr constellation. They lreat freedom only us the indi viliunl property of certain persons nnd elnsse.land arc cOIl'cqucntly compellcd to subsume gencml 1"('1I1101l lind freedom nnder WIC ,,·IIYII·nrd opinions lind day droorn. of 'logically ordered ~ysleJUs·. In order to SAve the particulrLrity of pri\'i!CJ;,~, they proscribe gcnernl freedom of human natllre.~

:'-I:l.r" goes 011 to eritieise the feudlll romnnticislll of tl'e l1'gime:

Since the rcaisitll lltion of these .'(cnt!cmen in the modern stlltc does not ilL the leAst correspond to the id(:n lhllllhey im'ent for themsel\'e.I, since they li\'c in a world 'ituntcd beyond the rell l world :l.ml, COtlsc'lucnl ly, imaginlltion takC$ the pillce of hl!J\d lind henrt, t heir l)rnclic,,1 tli~,"tilfllction oblige& llie lJl lo t unl

, 'I '"bat .... 0" I.lt~ l'rl!CiloUl of th~ Pr<:Ii>!·, iJ//:·O.t , j (I) HI t. ' I bid. 100

11farx the JOflrnulilt

to theory, n theory of the hc),ond. thlll j$, to rel igion. This religion, ho"·e'·er, IIlXJuircs in thdr hllnds A polelllklli hi lte rlleu impregnllted ... ith I)()litieul tendencies .. nrl heCO,ll(!S. in II. more or len conscious r,15hioll, ",erely n ~/lcrcd cloak Ihllt hides flspirlltions both very prOrlille nud nlso highly imnginlltivc. T his then L, ... hut ... ·c notiee in our sl~ukcr: to jlNlcti<:al needs I,e opJlOlW!s a mystico-reilgioul theory stemming from his imagina_ tioll ... to whllt is hUlllanly rat ional he opposcs sacred cntitie!l, superior to man. I

This implicit cri ticism of the PrUSlinn monllrchy, in which Mllrx uses the langungc of SpinOZll nnd Feucrbnch, no longer criticise.l relib';on III irratiOIlIlI , hut liS the i11l1sory beyond of II reality that the belie\'cr i~ powerlen to transform. T here are the beginnings here of II. theory of e\"l15ioll nnd Ilrojcction that Mll rx IlIter devel<)p<.·d into Il full thcory of ideology.

T Ill! repruentnti\'eof the nobility gOllllon t(lll rgue thnt meUllre imperfect nnd will be corrupted by n bAd Press. Murx replie.l th(l t e,'en if e,·erything is imperfect tliis iii no argument ngninst II free Press for it is imponible to slIy thllt a free Prt'5$ is had and a cemored Prus;s good. ("deed, the essence of a free Prc" .... as 'the e5scnce of freedom, lU I essence thnt is full of ehllrader, rationlll nnu ethical'" wherelll ccnso~hip was just the opposite. 'The el;$Cnee of lIIan', :'-Iarx claims, 'consists so much in freedom, that even ib opponenu ndmit t\$ lIIuch." The nobleman then tries to contrfu t pre\·enti .. e censorship favourably wilh a preventive l)ress Inw and thus gin 's J',!(lrx an opportullity of pninting n piel,ure of what part.ll'lws should plllY in the Blllte. ' A Press law is a true IIIII' because it i. the l>011ilive existence of freedom. It treats rreedoln M the normal condi tion of the Press .... " !\l ilT" gtJu on to urn ... coudusions a bou t the n"ture of Illw in b'imernl : 'Luws l'lre not rules tlllll repress freedom any more t han tile IIIII' of gra"ity il a r ule t hat reptC$st1 mO"ement ... la1\"'ll lite rllther positive lights, gcnernl norm$, in which freedom has obtAined [III impcrsoJlftI, theoretiCAl exi5tt!ll«l that i8 inclcpendent of (Illy

arbitra ry indhidunl. l ts Inw book is!l. people's bible of freedom." In this case ill"l1~ non.l{'n!IC to speak of preventive In"",,, for true 1,,"'8 could not pre"enl the adiviliel of ,nlln, but wcre 'the inner,

1 ' J)~b.o.tel en the F....edem ct lb. P reiII<', MF:O.t 1 j (I) lIiO. t Ibid. 2(l,j. • I bid. 206. • ibid. 209. • Ibid. :!OOf.

vjUtI 1:\11'$ or hllllllln nctivity, the conscious mirror of human Iife'.1

Mal"X dtlea not 1I"lI$le mud, space on the reprl!llentnlh'e or the cities, .. ho UI<.mght 1\ froe l"reu ""ould be a bad influence (lnd citcd the elln ,uple of France which hnd both (I free Pren and a tu rbulent political BitUfltion. Marx uH,kes fun of the timidity or tl,e spcnker, more bouTBcoi8 than cilo!}!:IJ, ~)ing that it represenb the incleci_ sion or Ilis duss rought between a desire for independence and II fear of change.

Among the defemlera of t.he idcn of 1\ free l're$s, i\!ncx takes i3$1t1l with the apenker who clflirned that fI frcc 1' reu \\'/u t he con· comitant of free trade. ?111m: ngrees UUlt free trade, fr~ property, free Prcu lind 110 on lire 1111 'type!! of one find the I1Ime ~pecies, freedom without qualificnlion'.- But tllll existence of a free Preu Rhould not be nmde condi1.ionlll on lhe existence of free trade: it wn8 justified in itself lind no t IU a mere IIppelldbc. :-"or was it Il mere profllll!lion 1I000ng othcr!!: snyone wl,o c')Ilsidered writing from an exclusively professionsl point of "iew de.er\,OO CCn50tIhip. The only speaker. that 1\ lan: lIppro\'cd of were lhe represenl..nth"C$ of the farmers, who alone !howcd some historical $en,e. T hey clnimctl that t he humlln 'pirit must be free to (lel'elop /t nu freely slum, its experiences. 1\ lIlrll'8 finnl conclusion \\'115 that t he provineinl Pllrlillment, in passing judgement flgllinst II free Preu, hsd pa,51!(1 judgement all ituif.

T hill Ilrticle gained 1\lnrll II high repuUttion IImong ilis fellow rndienls. ,lung "'!"(Jte to him 'your tu-tide on the freedom of thc l'ress is superb'.' and nud~ WTote 'your commentnr)' in the paper on the rrccllorn ofUle Press is marvellous. It is certainly the best lhllt htt~ becn "Titlen on the .ubjecl.'1 In MAy ~larx followed it up with tht;! Iccond artide in his scries on the prOl'ineial Parlia_ ment Wllich llllri been debating the 'Col()gnt' afTair', but t he nrtide WII! suppreued by tl,e censorship. The ouly indication as to its contents is gh'en in a letter Marx wrote to n uge concerning tile flriiele~ ' I nemonstrol(!d in it that the ddenders or tho state Imd adopted for their defence a point of "iew pccllli.u to the Church. while inversely lhe men of the Clmrch IIdopted a posi tion

• '()ebo.IOII on lho! F"",odGl n ,ot Ih" I'rea', J'F:G-" , I ( I ) 210.

2 Ibid. 221. ' l loid. , ; (2) 2j6. • Ibid. 2; 6.

87

peculiar to the titnte:' i\ IMx lIdded thnt he luuJ hoped to b"tlin somo C"tholie renders through" p!Cudo.defence of the nrch· lHshop.

c. f)dmtc with ilM ' A'iillliuhll ZeillJllg'

By .June 184!l the rodienltone of the Iihe jlJj8Clre Xdtll11g promkr.d its large rinl, the Kij/lIischc Z~i/u"g, into l1l.unching all .!tUck on ills 'di~scmin"lion or philosophical .. nd religious vicws by nleons of newspapers'.' i\lany of the art icles in the Rhdlli8Ch~ Zdtun;; were written by Youllg Ih:gclinns and the gencrul tOile of the pnpcf lI'a! Against Schelling. sympathetic to nuge'~ Dt:IJ/«he Juhrbficher, hud no good word Cor the 'Christian stille' and elll l)llluised t he !)ppo~ition of philO$ophy '.11111 religion. In the eyCll <If the Jlulhori · tic, 'T he I(heilJi.chc Zciltltlg uppeaNi to be fnl orgnn Qr Young llegelian propagAnda. JII!t 88 in politics it uphold. French rnlionnlist ideM, so in religion it openly adopts the "thdlm of t he l:/o.lIilche Jo.1vbliclur, maintaining that contemporary philosopby ,1lOuld replace ChriStia. l)ity:J The C:U$tence in Berii)) of a radical dub of Young Hcgeliall$ culling thcm~c1ve~ Die FrcicI4 (thc frec men) hud recently been brouglolto publie uttentiQIl by un ltrlicle in the K~lIig,bcr,icr XCi/NI'C, the leading Elt9t PrLl$Sian new~pnper. It WIl! this publicity that led K"r1 l-1ermes, editor of the KMnUche Zri/lillg, to sHack his rh'lll, though previou5ly the t\\'o pllpel"!l hltd studiously n"oided r('ferring to each oth~r. H('rmes took exception t(J the 'odiou. IIttllck, 011 the Chris tian religion' IIml ('lIlled on the Go\'ernmcnt to enforce the ccnsOTllhip regulation: ~eientilic ~s('llrch "'It, olle thing, nttncks 011 religion, ,,·hich wa~ the founda· t ion of the date, quile anoth('r. i\lnrl('s nelll t\.rticle con! is\..s ill a critic .. 1 COIUUlent"ry 011 Hcrlllcs' editorin\. He hegins loy u~ing his recent reading on primitil'e religion~ to refute I lermes ' argu.nent3 condoning fctishism which, according to i\luTX. wal simply 1\

religion of !eJlsusl desire. I !errnes then asserU that the high point or" people's politieallife coincides with Ulegreatest dCleiopmelltof

, ' I)eba t", 011 tb~ FrtlCdom of the J'rn!!l!', .VI-:OA , ! (2) 2;7. • ' Tb~ L.. ,Jing Article of tLa K.u"iKAc y,.j/HRY', ,VEGA, i (I) Z:13; IkoLou

..,,1 G .. dd~t. !). 11 J. • RIIci,.,«toe 1J~'ife ,,~d Ali/tN , c:<l. l1a~,,; ' \l3'.l. • See J/Ea. ! 1 i (~) II;; ror detaiL! .

88

their rcligiull Ilud t1ml IIOJiticll1 dccu.lcncc .. Iso ill\"ul\'cs rclil,:iolls decadence. Mo.\")( 1~1i(l\'(!~ tlmt the rC\'CT$1! is true:

If "'iLlI the decline of "ncient alAte!; thdr religions disappeflr, tJli~ needs no further ellplRnlltioll I le<:lHUiC the -true N'cligion' of the lIucienLB wItS the cult or 'their nstionalitr; of thcir "statc", It Wil l /lot. the decline of the ancient religions thnt brought the dowllfnll Qf the /lncient SWtC5 but the decline of t1u~ ancient states thnt brought the dO'O'1tfal\ofthe old religious.'

Ilermes goes on to Rsscrt thnt the bc$t result of scientific inquiry 11I1(1 1h1l8 fll r sen 'oo only to conlirm the myt.hs of the Christio.n religion. In thfll CfI~, \\In rx r<!plicd, it was odd th ... t religion shouM nel!tl police protection ,md odder still thllllllJ ptlsl philosoplucs without exception should, fllonc ti llIe or .. not her, ha ' ·c ~n M:cused or apoltAI)" hy theologiAns. I t WII.8 only possible to prc~erve h ... r mony between reueou uud rcligion by calling unscientilic 11,1)),

thing thnt contradicted dogma. Hut whereas religions chllnged froru coull try to l"Uuntry, rcason WIIS univcrsal. 'Is there no universal hUllm ll nllture j ust liS there i~ a uni'·er~al nature of pillullr IlI1<I hcn-·cnly bodies? Phi losoph)' Il~ks wlrllt i~ true, not "'hal is Kccepled IU such, Iyhat is lrut! for It!! ,,,cn, nol \\"I1I\t is true for indivitl"nls : i1$ metllphy~i('nl truths do not recognise thl! boundaries or poiiti(,lIl geogrnphy." i\llIrx also rer\lt~s Hermes' clni", HUll "ll Europe'll! 6L1tes nTIl oosed on Chri6tian religion by quoting the French constitution !lnd the Pruuian chil code. lie thelllet\vC1 I lcrllle! IIJIJ turns to tile gencrlli topic of whether there ~"ould IIIl philusollhical , l i.1clls~iull of rdib,;on in the new~papenr. II. question which he IInswers by 1\ IIi~cu5!ion of the rdlltiollsl,i p of philosophy to tile world in terms th l\t r l!C>l.lI t he more "ltiltrnct trClltlllcnl of til ... SlIme qUl'&tion in hi6 doctoral thesis :

Since en~ry l!etlUilie I'hiloo.0I'I,)' ;Ii llll! ~ piritual quin tcsscliCC of ill time, the lirHc musl come when philosophy eOlllllli into contact and /!lulu,,1 reaction wi t h the .,elual ,,·orld nol only internally by its content, hut "Iso externllily through it.s Itl'llCIIrlUlce. T hen philosophy CCItSei to be It specific sys tem

""l"1Ho I.Ndi,.g Mlide of It.. I"f/~I«.t l'?/I"II1" JJfXJA I i (I) ~'31'; ~:"'ton .>WI (;"dd.I, 1'1'. 11 f> r.

• 'The 1 ...... ,,1;"11" ArtkJj, (lr Ih" 1.·;;1,.;«100 " .. 0'1''''9· . oVA·("L , i (I) 23{l; ~;'.Ion •• cd C"dd.l, 1'1' . liS r.

• 1If1rx t ile JOl/rlllrlilt 6 •

cOIllI)jlTcd "ilh olher ~pccific ~yrlc",s, illX!<'oml'.s IlhiJOIiophy ill ~'CI,,!rulI'OIllJlllred with thc world, it Vccomes the philowl'hy of the present world. T he fur"u\litie~ which Htte.;t lh"t philosop"y hll~ I\chieveU tl,is imp(lri..tlnee, that it is the Ihing soul of" <:ullurc, that J)J,UOiOphy b becoming worl.lly rom] ti,e world philo.opll icll l, h", e been the Mme nt "II times . ... I'hilosollhy is introduced into the world hy the yelling or its enemics who hetNl\' lhti .. internal inrection I.Iy their noisy call for help l\gllinrl thl' billu of ideu.1

T he IIrgliment 1I5111l11y took place on rcligi()us IlLllttel"$

becnusc the puUiic, to ... hieh the opponents of philt;lllOphy IIlso helong, ean toudl the ideal ~pherc or philo.ophy only with its ideal CL'f:lers _ "uti tile fieM of religious ideas is the only one in "",,)fIe \"llluc the public belie,.es almO$t 115 much 1\5 it belic\'cs in t.l,e sptem of materilll Willits _ II ml finally because relil"rion (,lL rril'lJ on II polemic nut It!l;ainst a speci li(' system of philUliophy hut flgllins t philo!lOl'lty of t he spcdtic systems in generaJ.l

i\ ] (t t l( considered that recent discussions of the Illtest philOllophy in the newspnpcrs hAd bcen superficial in t he extremc und had cOII'l'lcLc.ly fniled to convey the truc spirit of philosophy:

l'hilo$llphy 8pcuks differently "hout rdibrious 'HIJ pl,i1osophielll sl1ujeets .... Y 1/11 ~Jlell k wi thout having studied them, it spe!lk~ lifter study, You Ilppelll to passion, it appenl! to r~Mon. '~Oll cuue, it leachcs. You plVluisOJ hen,·en nnd earth, It promISes nothing hut truth. You demnnd r .. ith in your faith, it denllirH~8 nul fllith in its rc~\dllr but the tut of doubt. You nlurm, It cnlm~.'

l\ loreOlCI", philosophy had cvery right to ('()mment on politielll IIlruil"j for, Vcing the "i~dolll or t.he world, it 'has more rigl,t to conccrn illclr "ith the orJer of the world, with the stale, th"n the ",i9<1oll ' uf Ule other ,,·orl(l, religioll·.~ rn fact, ollly Chris tUUllty mnde 1\ very .hntp ,]j~tinction bet..·CCIi Church alIt! $tate; llnd the

I 'T\>o I_ding Artiorlc of the 1>'(,I~il<C~ l'~itulIg·, ,\lI.;QA • i (I) ~~3i ulton mn.\ r.udd.t, pp. 12~ r.

• "1>11 1 ..... ,lit'8 Arlit .. of the AVI~i«~ l';it"",', JUXIA , i (I) ~..a ; ~: ... to" And <: "d,I.I' I'. I:!3.

• 'Tile Le"dinr Artid" oftb~ 1>'(,1,,;.-100 1At""!1·, JlF.r;A • i (I) ~·14 r.; ~;."'o .. .nd (;"dd ftl. Pi" I~~ r.

• "The r .. ,,,ling .... rtirle of the A·lilni,..100 "A:iluug". JlH(; ,\ • i (I) 216; Ea.I"" .."d (;",ld .. t, I'. 126.

90 l lfnr.11 ix'forc ilfrlr,rilm

I'I'USSi:Ul ~tllte wns only.~ hybrid, HO genuine rcligivl)S $tutc ",hid, \\'ould ),,,,,c to Uc tliL'OCratic, lik('! 11)7.!1ntiulll. The whQIc irratiunnlity of the concept of to. 'ChrisliUIl state' could Ue ~\ltllmed up by the fullQwing ,likmll!U:

l~ithcr lhe Chri~tilln stale COITc8poncls to the concept of the slillc ,,~ Hill IlctUIlJiMuUII of rntiouill freedom '''IU then lIothingelse ,:1111 he demanded for it to oe Christilln'thall that it be fationHl; t.hen it sulticcs to develop Ule stille from rell~on in hUIl'lIlr\ rebtioJls, " I,flsk philosophy tu::complishes. Or, the state of rilltonu] freedom CllllJlot be developed out of Christianity; ~e.n YOLl will yourselves conce,].:: thnt thi~ tlcvclopnu!lIt docs not he m the tendency of Christianity, since Christillnity does not Wlll,t II Imcl ~tllte ~Uld uny ~tnte is a I",d stll te which is not tlle uttualiSlltion of rl\tionn I 'freedom,'

'\!nrx {illishes Ilis nrticle witll (In outline of the ideul stnte Ilccording to Illodern phihlliophy, i,e, Hegel nnd after:

\Vhile the earlier philo,~ophers of StAte L (lW derin!d the stnte from ilri,'cs of ambitiou "ud gregariousness, or from reason_ though llot rCllson in ~ociety but rllther in the individulIl_ Ihe more idelll and profound view or modern phil060phy deri,'es it rrnm the idell. of the whole. It considers the state n~ the grcnt orgnnisill in which legAl, ethical and political freedom htlS to be flcluaJised .. lid i~ which the individual citizen simply obeys Ihe nnturnl IIIW8 or his own re,15on, humnu reason, in lh t: hws orthe Sill" !, Sopienli $(1/,1

Finllll» i\lurx w{>Icomcs the idel' of the clash of purties, flnothel' fll"ouT,te YO\lI1g lIegelian topic; '\\'ithn"t pllrties thcre is no development, without dil'ision, 110 progrcss.'l

d, The 'NI,ci"iletie ZdWllg' ami Communism

T his "rtide led the Go,'ern ment to tighten its eontrol o,'er the Ilh'-illi8t'h(. Zeitlll!g ant! ~ l lI rs wrote to Huge ; 'You nce.1 lin inflexiLle t'!Mcity to milk!' (I pllJ'.;r like the W ld/dsc/lt Zeilllllg

, "11,,, Le. t!'''g Arlicle of th" "·/lI~i,."", Z.iJUI'!", J/f;(;A , i {Il 2,Ulj Ea,ton anti Gudd3t, I" 1211,

• 'The I.(wling Arlicle (If tl", "-i;"o/lC~« Z,'iWII!/, Mf;(;A , ; (I) 2~n; Easton "",1 Gmhl nt, I" 1:JO,

• "1'1 .. , 1",.,liog ,'rlide of the !\o'/"i.chr y~it''''!I', JUX;A , ; (1) %Qj l-:~>I"n an,1 (;,,~dal, [I , 1:10.

Il/flr,r the ,fourlUdi"l 91

IIppear in spite of lt11 the obslflc1cs.'1 i\larx ",u.s I1 lso hlll'ing probl elll~ with his fumil)', III tile Slime Idler, "Title') in July, he $.I),S thnt ~in .:" A pril he hll ~ only heen nhIe to work for four ",,,ch, ant! e,'en then 1I0t without interruption, " Mlher i:w;re"vement, foilow;ng dose on the dMth of Bllron 1'011 Wcstphillen in e(.rly l\Iareb, compelled him to ~t,, }' in Trier fur ~ix wCI! k~, nnd the difficuIt.ies cllused by his family compelled hilll to li"e in I'ery strnilened cirelllllstances,Z In 6pi te of nil this , !\lllrx wos being drAwn more and more into the org!Ulisutioll of the RfIl~iniJclll ZcilulIg, owing HluinIy to the totu! i)lcompetenl':C of HlitclliJ.erg, of whom i\larx Ilcdnrcd himself I1shamed for 11II\'ing 5uggestcd hill! ror the job. Simultaneously \~ith his closer iJwolvemcnt lI'ilh the pllper elune U,e aigns of i\lllrx's growing disr.greement with /Iis fortner Herlin collcngues. They had formed thcmsch'es into a d"b known as Die FrciclI, which was a continuntloll of the old Doctors' Club. T he Frei",. Were" grnu JI of young wrilcrs who, disgusted with the sen'ile attitude of the Berliners, lived a style of life who~e lIim was in JUany respects simply epa/er 1~1 /x;urgeoiJ, They Sfl'Cnt a lot ofthcir t i,"c in curb! lim} even begged in the streets when short of money. T he intransigence of their opposition to !!!Iluhlished doctrines, (lntl pnrticulal'1y to religion, was causing public concern , T heir members included !\las Stirner, who had published atheist II rticles in the Rllrillilcne Z citUlIg, as n prelude to his ~upremely nnarcho-indi"idualistic book Dcr £i.lzigc um! lei" Eigcntum ('The Ego and His Own'); Edgar BI,Ucr, whose fefl'cnt attacks 011

nny sort of liberal politienl compromise were taken up hy B;'I.kunin; and Engcb, wlto "'us the {\\Ithor of ~e"ernl polemi<:ll "w.in~t Schelling And liherali~m, The flrtide in the KOl!iglbrrgrr Zeitu"g tllllt .Ire", public attention to this group of allarchil;t intellectuals described Ihe progrllmme of the Frdcn a5 'the fu ndumenlfll conviction of modem philo~op"Y: lir~tlr. thllt II!! supposed re,clutions dllimed by positj'"e rdi~,'ion lire fablcs; sceo]l(lly, that the human spirit ulone is eapnble of instructlllg us correctly "bout su pernatural objects; finnll),. the tfllnsfercn~"il \If this cOllvidiun frOIll the limited sphere of science in to the wider areas of life ond its eonfirmlltion there.'3

"'

" I .o!:tt~T to Hus"', J/ROA ,i (2) ~7i, 'ibid, • q uo)!cd in n, I'rutz, l ... l,n Jah re (Loli!,zig, 10,:,0)) " 100.

M,tr!':, llOw(:'cr, \\'''5 I\g"ill~t lhc~ public declaratioU5 of ernfl.llcip'ttioll, which Kemed to him to be nwre exhibitionislll. Morron;,r, Oec,wS() the 11l,rilliIChe ZriluIIg ""Il.'l nssO("il1tcd with the Young I Icb'eHJlu$, he fcuretl timl I [ernIe, might hfl gi,en" further opportunity of lIunr:king the piI[I{'r. ;\ [lIrx ".11$ "'riling for /, hlt~in('.M pnpe,. in the nhindllll(i where industry wa~ relatit'ely (ie' eloped, wherells the "'rdeN "'err: philosophising in Berlin where thert) \t'''' liUle indunry and the atmosphere wal dominated by the go\·ernuu!ll l lmruuucllI.cy, Therefure Marx "·IlS in fll'-OUf uf lupporling thc Uuu~ui~ie in thc ,tru8Bic for iilJcrnl reform lind "guin8t uncoluprollJisiug criticism. i\loreo,-er, it was on ;\I"n,;"~ .. d,-ice that the publisher of the Rlrci',i8clle ZtilllNg, Renard, lultl promised the President of the Ithinelalld to ill)" Ielis cmphllsis in I.he fulure Oil religious subjects.1

T he attitude of th~ FrcicN rRised t.he qUr:stiOll of whnt the eclitorinl principle, uf the Rlltj"i8d,r Z ritU1!g uught to 1Jc, Accordingly, nt the cnd of J\ugust " ' lint wrote to Oppenheim, whole "o;ee WitS decish·e iJl determining policy, ,·iMu\llly spelling out hie o,,'n propotale for the pRper, ehonld the editorehip he clltrllsl.r:d t.o him, He wrole:

If you ngree, ij\:nd me the '\rticlc [by Edgnr Dauer] on the jllflc-milieu 60 tlutt I cun rc,-iow it. This quc~tiQn must be di5-cussed dispassionutely. Gencrulund thcorcticnl cODsidcrntions on the constitution of the date are more suitable for iellTnecl re,·ie"'~ Ihlll\ fnr n~wBpnpen . T hc true theory must be expanded lind cle\"eloped in rellltion to concrete fnets and the cxisting ltate of lIiflli". Thr:rdore strikillg .. m attitude ngll;nst the prc5ellt pillars of st.ut~ coulJ only result in II tightening of the ccnsof!.hip nnd even in the ,uppr~ion of the pa.per _ . in any cnse we nre nllno)inir ala'llc numher, I~rhap!! e'·en the majorit~·, or liberals ellg"gW in rolitiCIII nctivity "'ho ha'·e llMumed the thankless lind {>Ilinf"l tnk of collquering lillerty step by ~lr.p within limiu imposed by the CoII~titutjulI, while we, comfortnbly CllllctlllCed in nbslrllct theory, point out their colltradiclions to them, It is true thnt the author of the articles 0/1 the j",'t milieu in,·il.es us to criticise, buL (1) we All kno,," how the Go'-ernmeul rcplies tu fuch pru\"(JClltion ~: (2) it is nol s"fficieut to 1I1H1(!rl.nkc" crili'luIl . .. the true question i! to kno,,' whet.hu onl') h,,~ dl05cn lin al'proprintc field. :-ie"'spapers only lend

'(Y. JlI>O~ I ; (2) 2.1:1111".

lhems.ch·cs to discuSJ!ion of these (Iuesljons when they h,\\"c be<-omc que!tions that do'lIlly concern the st<lte, prllcticlil qnetition~, J r.nusider it alnolutcly indl$pcn.'l>\bJe lIl>I.t the Hhti"ifrht Ztill/lI1: should not IJc directerl hy its contributors but nn the contrary thllt ilshouid direct Ihem.. Article5like thl"lle "fror!1 nn c!':C(!lient opportunity of ~howing the contributors th,. line of fiction to follow. An isolated writer cl1nnot, like a lle,,"spaper. IlIl' e Ii synoptic .. ie'" of the sitUAtion.'

In mid October, 115 R remit oftb., leUer, i\larx, ,,-ho IlIId II lrelluy effectj,'el,. been funning thr: J)Aper for sollie month" wns nU1l11l

editor_in_chi .. f. Iii. firsl tuk WIIS to IIn~lI-er necusotioll5 of communism brought

l\J{nin~t the Rhri"iuhe Zeitullg by the Aug8burgrr Allgr:mtilttl ZeitUJlC, IlrolNlhiy inspired by HodTkell, one-time editor of thll Ir!.ei"ifde ZeitIJ"g, who hlld IIlrtlJldy .. Uacked thc Ilnej"i,r:lle %r:iIUIIC in i\ Jnrch for printing lIn nrticle hy Bruno Dlluer.t Tile bOliis for the Accusntion wa! tha t in September the 1ihei"iICA~

%tilulI;J had te"ic"·cd two Mtides on housing Ami communist form! of governmcnt, .11",1 also that in October it had reported A confercnt·c ut Strasoourg \\"h~r~ followcrs of l"onrier had J) ll t forwurd their ideM. All these items came from Hess. In hi! reply, ;\{lIrx critidscs thc Angsburg pnpcr for trying to neglect whllt waa lin imJlOrtnnt i55ue, but denied till, t lllr: Hhri"i,che Zeit.mc hud nny sympnthy with communism:

T he Untinjuke ZeiIIJ"!;' whir:h cnnnot e\"ell concede lheoretir:al rCl\ lity to communistir: ideas in thei r present form, and can even ll'l1s wish or consider pos~ible their practical realisntion. will ."bmit these idell! to thorough criticism. If thc .. IIJg,blU"gtr wanted and could .. ciJie,·c more than dick phrusu. the .. Iug.burgct would sec that writings liuch a5 those by Leroux. Consider .. "t, ami nUuvc 1111 proudhon's pe.llrlraling work, can be criticised only aftcr Ivng nnd deep study, not through luperiicio.l nnd J1II.S$iug 1I0tioJ\$.'

But thesc notions had to be taken $Criou.!y, (or idea$ were ,·ery powerful:

Ilecaule ofthi. disagreement, we hn'-c to tnke Stich theoreticnl • ' t.,net 10 Oppe,,,,",lm', ,IfROA I i (2) 280. • cr, IIIo,sniotk RrUfe una ~kl"', ed, lIa~n. ,3~ "Com'nu"i>!m .nd the A"9'"rf'tO" ~1I~a, 7.eilu"g', ,V I:(;~ , i (2) 2M;

.~"Ion .nd Gudcld, I'I'. 13·1 r.

Marer brJore Mar.ri.tm

works nlllh(llllor(l tlCriously, We Ur(l firmly con';nccd that it is not thc prncticnl effort bu i. ruther the theoretical explication of communist ideft' which is t hll r(lnl dnnger. DllllgerOU$ practical nttelllllu, even thO!le on n Inrgl' s<:lIle, <:n" I>e IInswered with cnn non, hut idens won lIy our intelligence, embodied in Our outlook, nml forged in our (.'onleienee, nre ehnillti from wilid, " 'C

cannot lenr ourse\n" away .. 'ithout hTf'-nking our heari.!l; they IIrt UeIllOIl$ "'C e,m un-reume oilly by ijubulitting to them,l

This reply reAecled the geroernl policy of the Rlteilluche ZeiIUNC, which «rtainly trenle« po,'erty ItS n socill l lind not merely n politiCllI question, hut which did not see the proletariat III 1\ new soci..t dan !Jut on1y ns the innocent "ictim of bad eeonomi<: otgAui!!J\t ion,'

Allhougl. $OCililislil nnd comrnuni~m (Ule terl1\$ were generally used intercl",ngenhly in G<:rmnny nl I his time) had e.x.isted as doctrine in Germllny since at lent tile early 18305,3 it 'filS in 1842 thllt they firat nttrA<:ted widespreAd Athmtioll. 'r his "'as pAri ly t hrough lI.l oBCB Hen, who cOllverted both Engels and Bakunin to communism and pll bli~hed milch covert com lllunistie pro()llgllndA. in the flh duucno Zcillmg, ami pllrl1y through Lorcnz "on Stein's hook, S01!Iitllbmull urt(l KummU>lfll"IlII du heu'ig~" Frallkreich# ('Socifllislll !lull COUllllunislll in Contemporary France'). This W/IS

nn in"l!iIligfltion into the , prClI,d of French $odll,lism fl tHong Germ RIl immigrAnt workers in I'uris, which had been commissioned by the Prussilln GO\'ernrnent lind which, though the author WAS far rrom sympnthetie to socinlists, helped enormously to sprelld i"rorma tion lind even generllte enthl1!in!m.' T he climate of opinion in Cologne Wlla II lso fll,vouroble to t he reeeption or socialiat ideu : the Ilhenish libtr .. b (unlike the i\1{\nch~ter

"nriely) were "ery soc:ially minded nml considered that the ~tate 1 'Co"""m,"'" and the A~5'''''"~ AlIg.mrin. 7Aitllng', JlEGA 1 i (\) 263;

Eoolton allll Gudd.t, p. 136. • &. ti..::;nig, Di. /lMjn;.cA~ kil,,~g, Pp. 72 If. oSee abovc, tiP, 13 f, • For ." .«nunt ot8t~u'l book d.imh,g that it lnln il:lportant ma"""ee

on Man', et>lI«pUon otthe proletariat, _ R. Tu~k~., PAU_P~N tuld.JlgIA;,. "T~rl Marl (Canlhridg~, \001) 1'1". I I~ fI'.!lee 1",10", PI" If,(; r" 0" thi" ~ie .... 00 ~tein bilMl'lf, _ K. :'I lengelherg, ' I..,rtu~ ~O" Slt iu . nd bi;, Contribnlion to l1 ;"IOI'ical SuciolOtf.l'·, h,m'lI/ W'IN Hln~ ~ lrItfI,. XII (1961); .nd J. Wmo, 'j)ilI.\eo:tical J d~ ... llih'.lId Ib" Work of l..or.!nl ,'On Stein', I nltrMl;olllll Rt~ieu> ~f Socillllli#for~, "/1 (1003) .

1

Marx/he Jounwlut 95

hnd rnr- rellrhing ullties to\\'llrds s<ldety. "fe"i:;scn, for CXAlnpl.c, had i.oeen ,cry strud: when "i~jting Englnnd by the dC(:l'eu~e In

"'nges, nnel hntliJoe(.'(Junl con,·erte.! to 5llillt·5iUlouinnisnl ~hlring 11 . thY ill l'n ril. In t he olliees of the llhe'niJIl:lte Zeit"",;: !lOCUlI {Iucs, tiol\.s were regull\rly oiseuued at the mel'ltings.or ~ group (f?unded by :' I OSI'ls Hess) ,,·hi<:h 11'115 effeclively the ethlonal eumnll tt~e of the pnper , Its members IIlso included Jung, nnd the future communisls Karl d'Estcr nntl Anneke. It met monthly, pllpcn were ruJ, lind II ducuuion followed a"'(Jllg tI,e memberll, who did not neee5$$rity I lmre the ISUme politica l ,ie"'point but were nil interested in IOCiRI (IUl'lStiollS, i\ lll rx joined tlus grou£lll'hen he ItIO\' w to Cologlle in October.'

r. T ht I.nUl agllill" Tltr;ft, qf Timber

1\ !thOllgh the meeting! of th is group increased "fan's i?t~rest ill locial queltion!l, he was flU Cro'u beillg n convert to 50cmllSlu. ,In his Ji n;t impurtunt "rt ide tl$ editor(the Courth in the planned serles of tll'e dellli ng' with th\l dchAtes in the Hhelli5h Purii(lment), he u£lprouehe! !ocilllism, but d~el not entirely IIccept ,il. A m?"e strinb'Cllt In", ",A9 proposed III regllrd to theft! of tm.lher. 1 he guthering of deMI wood hAd traditionally been unre5 tncted, but the ~enrcitielli tau~eu oy the ngrnrian crises of the 18205 lind the gro",ing mllds of industry led to leg:l! controls. The situlltiuu h~d become unmllTlagcllble: !h·e·sixths or all proseelltio~s in t:ruuUl deult wilh ,\"(>(>(1, "nd the proportion WIIS e\'en hIgher 1" thO) Hhiuel.llld.' 50 il WM now being proposed that the keel>er \.K! the !ole arhiter of all alleged offence And tlmt he alune tll~ aSJC!i!I t~e tI,IIUOges, . \ 5 the IlIIid $Cf\'snt oCthe Il\lld~wne, ~nd .Imhle to dll' mi$!!nl , the beper Wll.3 nllturally not nn l m~rtil\l !1~Ure, Moreo\'er, the Inuuo,,'ner not only got tompen$&bon for hI! wood, but pocbted the eTl.l!uing line, , .

:'>tan: l.IiKu~$ thC$c IitlestiOll5 rro'" t\ legal tlnd pohbC/lI st.-ndpoint, I\'ithout lIluch soc;"\ "nel hiiloricRI ~ct8i!, 8ml cI~i "'$ thal the ,tnte slloulo.l defeno.l customary !1Il\" ngalllst the rapuc.ty or the rieh. For IIOme thing:!! ('auld Tle"er become tho: pri"'lte property of

I ~ ,I. I I.n..en, (;,"100 <'(I" J/m.ot~ (B.,rli", Hloo) I eG-l fI'. • ~ II. Stein, ' Karl Mux mod de. nhei,,~b~. l'a ... po:rU;"",~', Ja1trl",c~ tk,

UJ~;"'M" (loc:~icl>l.IJCI't;"{' ~IV (1032) 13 1.

00

nn individulI l without injustiCil; moreo,'c r, 'if cI"cry ,,;ollltion or ])ruPCrty, without difiti nt.'tion or more precise determina.tion, is culled theft, ;$ 1I0t nil prl"lIte l,roP'crty theft ? Do I nol, "l' my pri" tl. te pn>pcrty. deprh'c noOl.locr per6"" ufthilo pr"pcrtyi' Du I not thus dC$troy his right to prolM.! rty?'! :'oll.r:>: her/" USC$ the Inng,,"ge IIf Proudhon, hut not his 51lirit. ror he confioea himself to llridly legnl grounds. ]tl ex goes on to claim thai t he principle or clMIi interest ClIIlnot form the h1l8;5 of the stllte, for daiScs represented pri\,lIte interests lUlU thus the slnle becnO\c 'the instrument uf private property contrll!'y to the principl<:$ of rcnsoo Ilnd justicc-',While it is I_Mlc th!!! there lUll clement. of i\lnrx's later theory urthe lilate!l~ all instrument of elliS! dominAtion here, in this art.idl:! he is only C'(lneerueuwith the state as I\n orSRlI iMtion lind with the righb of ·the lowellmftu oHhe properly_ !es.~-.2

When bIking of the ~IJPI'lernentary line payable to the landowner ,,-hose 11'<;>0<1 hilS been gllthered, Mane: Sl!xcral times u~t'"s the term ' slirplus n.lue·, 1\ centrAl concept in hiB later eoonornic writings.3

Finll!!y, ],lna declares that 'any !ystem of the repre!ell tation of the particular interest •... gh-es pride of plate to an unethical, unMmprel,enuing ami inl;ensiti,'c nbstrnction from a limited material and A limited con~ciou~ne~s th ... t is $lu ,'i~hly subject to it." Thil i3 II hrief rormul lition of the [den of reilication: men's !ociai n:\IItiond,ip!! become ' fetishes ' - dead things that "",[nb-in " secret dominlltion O\'cr li"ing mcn; the natlln'l l reilltion!hips of domination "nd poslelllion li re re"cnlcti , lind mall is determined by thnber, bcclluS(! timber is a eommodity that is merely "u ol~p.cLified expression of lIOCio-politieal reI8tion~ h.ip6. )'I&rlt main· ta in. thll t this cJehunumisation is II dircd. conseque.nee of th~ 'ld"lce gh'un hy tile J'rtuuuche SlaaIA-Zdlu"l:f to lu.wgi\"ers: ' that, whe.n mAking a law 800l1l wood :lIId timl>er, they lire to thi"k oilly or wood fi nd timber, nnd are not to try to soh-e each ,,", ten nl problem in 1\ [W)lilical "'l'IY - that is, in connection with the whole complex or civic ,.....II~on i ng l'I nd ch-ic morality'.' ).Iurx conc1udea hi8 article hy eO'~lpuriJig lUI independent obSllnllr's

1 'l~bAle on TbeI"I.i ofTimbtr", JfEGA I ; (1) 269 f. I I~ . ~72. I Ibid. 200 t. • Ibid. OO-f. • Ibid, 30-1. SOle r" .t~r 1'- L<; .. it lo, ' ''I .. ,,', iklf_Rlie!lal i<.>n ill the

Eorl)' Wril;"", of Marx', &>dnl II'.,...I"(!~ (HIS'I) l'I" ~ 1l /1"., .... 1'rI"loo hi l.o ... itlo, ,YtUurt, I/i,UJry alld &i.t."titJ/i"" \'V. tJJ 11".

.1/arx ti,e J our/lflli,1I

i"'pf'"CSllion thAt w<;>O<\ Wal th r IlhineJ'lIulun!' feti!h. with the belief of the Cuoon liI,,'nge' lhnt goh.! wus the fetISh of the f'pfiniards.1 .., .

This urt ide ilIust rntes i\I"rx'~ growlI'g ",tc re~t III 8 (><;10 -

economic Nl.lHties. As he hi"'$Clf wrote lil.t~r: ' In the yell f 1842--3, .u Edi tor of the Nllejll iuhe Zeit""l:f, I "";J~ri~,,(...,tl ror t1,~ first time the emhArrltAlment or hlll"ing to take part in discuuions on ~n.o.:alled Ulflterilli interests, The proceedings of the Hhcnish PArli"menl on the.th of \\"<;>0<1, ele. .. pro" ided tbe lirilt occaliion for occupying myself with the cconomie questions.It Engels, t oo, &aid lat('r thllt he luul 'nlwayij henrel from "Ina, l hllt it wus prcci~e1y through L-onccutrating on the lit\\" of theft9 of wood uuu the situution of the Moselle wine-growers, that he "'IIS led fronl pure polities to economic rdntionshipa And so to lO('ill.li5m'.'

T he circulation of the Rhd"i,eh6 Z cit""IJ IHItI beeu vcry llIooest tit SS5 copies (only" hnth of tlmt of t he K61,ri,eht ~dlulIl:f); it wus more tlulIl doubled wit bin ... month of i\la,.,;'s tl>klng o"cr the editonhi JI. The paper's growing success, together with iu criticism of the Hhenish Parliament, 50 Ilnnoyed the Government that the Presitlent of the produce wrote in Novemher to tl,e :'[inister ofthe Interior that he in tended to prosecute the au thor of tl,e arlide on thdt of 1\'nod. Relation. had Mlldy been strllined h)" the puhlication in t he lllui,ci,ehe Z,UUllg in October of u secret go"crnn'ent projeet to reform the di,.orce law, thc fi rst of Frederick \\'miuen I r'! measureS to ' chri.tiunise' the Inw. Th<l RAd"i,elre Ztiicmg follo "'w up this e:<liOSlirc "'ith three critical "rUde., the third or which (in enid_ Decemher) WItA by " Inn. lie Ilgrccd ll,,,t the presculiuw WI\~ too intlhidulllistio.: lind did not tAke into account the 'cthica l suh,tance- of rnllrriage in family and childr en. T he law sti.ll 'thinks ouly of t WQ iudh-iliuul, lI ud rorgets

1 'Oehoteon t~ Ti,d"t~ "fTimht-r', JfR()A 1 i (1):'10-1. Thuonwl't <)/"'fcti. h ·. 'I',i\c (,'0"""0" tn "' .r~·~ e •• ly wriltnr, "-'CUl'IIl" c..pll<ll, p •• lic" lorly iA the 11,.,.1 ~t1on on tbe feti~htjUl of oommoditieo!. ~'or • oo"'par;~11 of tb~ \,..0

OOlltCl'lI<, _ ]tuth·.:,.. Scb"I~, ·G_hlcbt.e unci Icloolo~ Srf.le Ml ~I Karl "'arx', in 11" ..... ,,"" I\";r'·/idbi/ tI# JlM"~II: }'m ... rifl for II. P/a,p(r (GuUilllJl'n, 11M;) .

• K. M".~, · l'l"(!f.~e 10 A ("rlHq"~ of l'Qlitic.l v.~01lQ'''y ', ;1] ~hrx-J::ngel~, .~t<:/Nt lI"orh . r 361 f.

- 1--"11,,, to n . l1 .... b". , Ii ~m· ]89:., qm,le.t in Stein, "I" cil .• p. , ...,...

-

.11t1r.z brfor~ .1lar.ti",.

thl,! rUlIli!y',L iJul lUl cuuld IIUt wc!come the Hell' proposlll, fur it trellted Ul"rrirogc not:'lS nil ethical, but II~ 1\ religious in~ l.itution 111111 thuil .lit! nut recogni~e ib 5CCular IlRture,

Uy the end o( Noyem!)(!r t.he brenk bct.""een ) Inrx IInc! his former colleague! in Berlin WlI, eOllll'iete, i\lntters l!nme to 1\ head witll tllC \i~it of It "Ke '11lfl lhc l}()(!t I-If.rll'cgl.to Berliu, where thcy wiihcd to in"ite tiLe PrriCIl to eo operllte in the founding ora uew unh·cNity. n uge (who " 'M 1l 1 "'lIy~ II bit or II l'uritan) and IIcrwcp;h werc re\oltt'tl by the liccntiousne~, lind extrll'·IIj.:llnl idcll! or the Herliners, f\ec:ording to R llge, Bruno Bllller, for CMllll'lc, 'pre, tended to make lUe swallow the ,nost grotesque thing8 _ e.g. thllt the state nnd religion mll~t be suppressl;lll in tl'I)0l)' , anti also Ilroperty lIml fami ly, ",ithout oothcrinjr to knoll' whflt "'ould replace them, the Cl!scntiai thing being to destroy nerything',: On 25 No"emUer i\larx Ilu,de his position dcnr t.o everyone hy ]!ul..liill,; Ilg '1 eOI'rf:~ponr1enr.r. from Derlin who~c c~~cn l;.tl points werc taken from a letter (;ent hy lIerwcgh 10 the Nh~iotuc"e Z dlllng,3 The break was thus finlllllnd ~ l arxju;;tilieU his action "S (olloll's in a lettcr ,cnt a few da~'81"ter to Huge:

You know thnt e"cr)' dny the censorshir muti"'tc! our pllper 80 much thal it llns dimeulty illllppellriug, This hns ohligllfl me to ~uppreu qwwutie!i of nrtiele5 hy the } 'rd .. ". I .. llowed tll)"5C.Jf to lOnnul flS l1Iany as the censor, i\leyen lind Co, lent 118 heaps or scrnwls pregnant with world rtwolutiOlllL a nd empty ol thought, written in n slovenly ~tyle and !1In-oured with ~OIlHl ntheism and r,onl1lllLni~nl (which these ~elltlemcn h.n-c nenr ~hltlietl) .. , . I declared thllt 1 consillcret.l the smuggling of «lnullunist aud socialist itll'll5 into ea$unl theatre rt,ie"'~ wu unsuitAble, indcctl inllllorlll, lind tl \"I':ry .1i/ferent anti more fnndament"l trcntment of eonllllUni!!Il wu requirefl if it "'lIS

j,(oi"!l: tu be disclissefl nt nIl. T thp. lL nsked thnt. religion be criticisC(llllore I.hroLlgh a criticism orthe political sitl",lion,t h~n lhllt thO) politic .. 1 si tuation he criticised tJlrough religion, For I his "pprOlt.eh i. more suited to the "'(Inner of a flPwsllIlpcr .. 1It1 the education orthe public, hecause religion h!l.s flO content or iu own nud ih'es not from hen\'cn hut from earth, nnd ra!l~ of

"0" II l'tVl~1 Din"'" Law'. ,10;004 I ; (I) 31 7; t :."(llI and (; ,,,lrId, 1".13!.I.

• It,,,,,,, BriqltW:br/, Old, N~rrt;"b, , :!9'l. • Itet>rint .. t in HArM/lltk IMif • .. ltd o4~lr", ed, Ib .. ~". , 33~ If.

Jfnr,r: /I,e .Iourowiid

ihelr with the t!i.;lLoiutiuJJ vf the [lIvel'ted rculity wlJOsc lhe.OL·Y it i~,l

f '1'Ioe Dati/li/ iOlI qf lloe J/o.c1le IVi"e,GrOll'erl am) lloe 8u/'/"(I' ,ioll qf tile' Ulld"iulie Zritllllg'

In ,IIUlIUlr)' IS'13, l\iu.rx published Il piece or resenrch un poverty tlllIt "-II! to be his last suhstantinll'<JJJtribution to the liMi"i,~Ioe :r.eit,mg, The l\lotclle wine,{nrmeTl! ha(1 Buffered gredly from C(')mpetition an.cr the eilliblishmcnt of lhe Zolllll:reili . Already the .ubject of considernble public olllcry. t hei r impoverishment prolnpted n report in ~ovember 184!l from tl Uliei"ucll, Zcitllllg c:orrnJlOndenl whOILC nceur",,)' was at once qUC!llioncd by ,'on Schuper, the Prtsident or the Ilhinebud I'rovin~. Judging the "orr-e!IKludent'$ rel)ly Iln6I1li&factory, l\!"rlC prefl"red lo !uh, still1linte the reJlort hinl~elf. He plrlulled IL ~p.ries of five artide~. In the el'ent, only three were written anu only two were PtJbli~hed before the HIoei"ilClI~ Z ei/ullg w8..$ bnnned. Comprising a mo.55 of detail tojujtify his correspondent's fI~scrtiolli, the two published arti(;l ~s lI'ere lllrgely instrumental, in i\llIr,(s "iew, in the .uppres, SiOll of the paper. T he conditionB in the ;'\(O$clle "tI!!ey were due to ohjceti\'ely determined relationships:

In the in\"e.tigdion of pulitieftl eonditionl one ill too CtlSily t empted to overlook the ohjecth'e Mture o( the relntionships aud tu explain everything from the will of the person ncting. There Il re relationshi ps, howe\'r.r, which determine the ~etions of privfLte p<!r50lls as well Ri th05e Qf indi"idunl ~uthoritiC3. find which Are liS independent liS lire the lIloyemenb in ureathing. Taking this objecth'e slnndpoint from the Olll!tet, one .. ill not I)resuppolle 1\11 exdush'cly good or had will on either 6idc, " nUlI!r, one will ou,;enc rela t ionship.'! in which only pCr\!ons "ppenr to act ill fi.."t,'

'1'" remedy tilese relations, M:'I rl( maintnins, open public t.lebnte is nec6sal)': ''1'0 r~he the t.lifficulty. the Administration and the ndministercd ooth need n t hiNI clement , whkh i6 poli tknl without being ofliciallllld bll reaucrutic, {t il clement which nt t he 8altle time

1 'i..ett<!t to IlUJre', ,\l~;GA ,; (2)!lt.j r . • 'On the 1);,1""" of tlte MUlOi:lle. \l"i_l" arr"~ ... ', ..v1:QA , i (I) 300; E ... wn

.nd r,,,dd.l, 1'1" III f.

100 Marx fNJore Marxi~1n

re llrC3e.n13 the citizen wilhcml h(~ing <li~cUy illn)h"e..l in priwltc illtcrtslt. This re~oJ\ing denl""t COllll)O$cd of f\ poJitiCIII mind \lud " ch ie henrt is " rree j're5II:'

~ I Ar)( mllst Illrel\dy hnve hni! the impression that the d f\ys or t he l{heilli~dre 7.r.itullg' wen numbered. On 24 ~cemoor, t he lirJt annivers!lTY of the! relflxed ccnsonlhip, the uipziaer Allaemeine ' r • • Zritlmg. 0111,' () the llIod imporlant liocra! ncw"papen , publi!hetl n leUer fWIIl lIerwegh protesling agAinst the filet lhd t\ news-1)!Iller he lUlu hoped tu ... ,li1 (rom ZOricil hud l>o.~n (""wdden ill I'ru"i('l. In re illy, lIerwegh 11·4. eXJW!lJed (rom PrussiA /lnd the l~iJl;r;jgcr .'If/gemelm: Z ciJl'"g was suppressed; on S J anuary 1843, under prell$ure (rom Frederick William I V, the Saxon Government l;uppreised Ule })tulrdc JII",b~chcr; 111111 on 21 J lIllullry the Couneil of Ministers presided o\'er by t he king dedded to su pprMs the Rlitillitchc Zeil,mK. ;\Inrx wrote to Rug<:: :

Severnl pnrticulnr reasons 111m! combined to bring a bout the ~UP~reU\.on of our pllper: our increase in circuilltion, my J\! ~ t1f1cll t!on of tJ~e. ~rosel re cnrresl.wllden.t which inculpll ted lughly-plncl'd ]1UlltICHIIlS, uur ohstHlIICY Hl not. llluning t.he l)\)r~ O~1 ... ho j'l fol"ln?d li S of tl~e dj"orce I" ... project, the COII\'0<:,,1.1011 of the I'llrlulIlLelLts winch we would be "hie to inilucnce, nnd finn.lly ,""~ criticism of the supl'res.;ioll of the l ,eipz;gu Allgc>tlc Il'C lClttmg nntl Deul4chc .Iahrbiichu."

Thtl ullte picked for the finlll issue of the paper Wl!.li Sl :\[ lIreh, hut the ('ensorship WIIS 50 intolernble thnt l\l llrx preferred to resign on 1'7 i\loreh.

During the Illst. few m.mths, MlLr.'!: hnd certainl\' been the tll nin force IHohind tILe pIIJ:M:'r. By the end of D~'«mlHo; its circuilltion I'nd JUouuted to 3,liOO. On 18 "I nrd, the eensor, Saint-l'aul, wrot.e: " I'odn)' the w;nd hilI cJlIlnged. Y I:Iiterdny thc mlln who 11'8.$

the .rpirulU rutor, t he aoul of t he whole enterprise, rooglled delinithdy ... , I am well content and tOOIl)" I hDn~ given to the cl'nsorahip ae/l r«.ly /I qUArter of the l ime that it uaunlly look'.' i.\larx"i lie'", wen: cerlainly ~lrongly lldd, for Saint-Paul wrole t hnt ' Man: would die for his views, of whose truth he ia absolutely

• '0 .. tho, I)i.t~ of tbe ;\1....,[1$ Wjlle-~·.rmt ... ·, Jlf:GA , j {I} 3i3; E"'''lo;m and (;",ldftt, 1'1" Ur. r .

• ' LeUer to lI ulf'i", JU:O, t , i {!} 21L.'J . • Rhti~IItAt IIrltfe und .~~1t11, <:-<.1. Halltell, .4!16.

Jf(l(J.' tllr. J ourllalul 101

coul"im:ed.'1 I.lIrgely be<:ause hi! "iews were in transition, but partly becnuse the C$$Cncc of n good polcmicu.t is to he edect.ic, it is inlJlO6Sible to form ... lI)"itenlUlic idea of i\lnrx'~ opinions during the yenr he ~pel\t in journnliam. Some h,we mllintained, for e ~ftmple, tJlIIt M"T"l< $hows iLill15elf hero Q.$ .. Iready prucli .. nl1y free from ifegdian inHueuCD.' A[though it is true tllnt l\I lIfX I" ... many upreuiona aud lines of IlTguLUelll t hAt are akin to Spino .... nnd Kant, Mllr .... JlC' ertheless in geneml declare~ hirn&eIr a di.ILciple of HegeJ.l T he following p8.$$Rge, with which l\!lIrx ends a &hort article on the 1 :~tatCfi Committees in rrussia, puhlil he<l in the Ilheiuilche 7.ri llmg iLL Ikcember 1842, is extremely Ilcge:lilln:

In a lrue state there is no landed properly, L10 indus try, no material stu ff thllt in their cnlmcity II! rl\W elemenu C\L n negotiate an Agreement with the state. There <lfe only ~ piritUlII po wers, li nd it i8 only in their ch-ic resurrection, in their poli tiea[ rebirth, thnt nntnral powers are l"I. pnble of influencing the atAte. T he ~tllte IlC T\'ndcs the whole of nature with spiritul.I lIen'ea nn t! lit eneh point it necessarily appeal"\! thn! whnt domiuntes is not the mnttcr but. the form, nol nnture without the stnle but tile nll ture or the ~tate, not the uufr"e object hut fl"\::" h'lLlInnit)",·

To ).llIrx, the tlecision to 511pprCS~ the Rlw,"i3d", 7.cilulig clime M n rc[ell~e: 'T he GO\'erJUHclIt" he Mid, 'ha\'e g.,·en me b .. ek my liuer ty'-' >\hhough he WI\! still writing, he WII$ eertain thllt his futu re Iny nbrol\d : ' In Germllny I Cllnnot slArt un nnything frc~h; here you Are obliged to rlL I~iry your~elr.'" Ilia ded~ion to cluigrnte witH Itlready tnkell: his oilly remllining qU Clltions were when Ilnd whe!"e,

1 In:QA , i (~ 1(;1. • 1·.rtil~,1Arl)' M, Ilube[. A'arl Jlau. £"". d~ bi"!1",pA~ ;tlldf->dudk (P. ri.l.

IO~7) PI" :U .... ~'or all .tto,mt of t~ utk"'" t..b.tt 1iI...- tlwo inJI ~~ of .·.un....,lo.1Ite W. Sch,,/fenh.,..,.., F~ ... ~J dt'r ju,.,e JlaT;r (Be. lin, 111M) 1'1" Z71f.

's..,., the P"-JIl quoted .bo,-e. p. 00. • 'On U>e E"I.LCl! Co",,,,it~ in l'rtlQu.-, JlEG.~ 1; (I) 33,;, I ' l~lttr 10 It"ge', JiEGA ,i (2)~ .

• 1 bioi •

I t ,.

Marx and the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the State

1. 1'111'. FO U );OATIOS OP Til E DeutlCh.Frn. .. ::.iNilche Jllh,h.cltu

T It II: deeisioll or t he ]'russi"" G()\'(~rnmcnt to suppress tile lihef"] Press resulted in a oompJeh .plit in the YoungJ-Icftelillll mo,·e· menlo T hose in Derlill, led by Dru llo n alle-f, tended more lUlU more to ~is.socill.te t hcmgeh·es from politiCKi ndiun. T hey hlld imllgincd theIr mflnen~e to bf! sneh lhllt the suppression oftheir views "'QuM lead .tu !l. strong protest IImong t he liberlll bourgeoisie. When ~oUllng of the sort hnppcncd, they t'(l nfined Ulcmsel\'es incl'ea.~~ugJy t~ n pur~lr inl.cUcctulI1 criticism thllt renounced ail hope of unmcdHlte pohllcnl lllHucnce. Tho reaction of the group IITOlin d

.Huge WflS diffe rent: they wj'/led to continue the political struggle III fin ~"en more prflclicfll llI!lnuer, ~illce the~' still thought "CI'Y

Illuch III terms of 1\ jotJrJlul, tht·ir lirst iuea WR8 to base t hemselves on Jul ius Frochel's pnhlishing hou$e in ZOrich, FrN!bel "'JlS I\.

I'rofc&$or of :\'Iiueralogy lit Zoricl l' who had started his h usiness at the end or 1841 in order to publish the poem~ or llerwegh, 'Ie also puLllilteu '" rcvie"', edited oy HeNegh, tha t looked for a moment like '" sUr:<:eUor to the Deutulle J ahrblichl7, but with 1' l erweg~l:s rn.nishmeut from Zurieh in i\ lareh 1843 an obvious gap Wl:l1l ,,",,,lUlS to be filled, Huge WIIS 1111 t he more II ttrnct.cd t o ZOI'it-h ns it "'liS, together ,,·ith PAris, the rIIain centre of G("fl1J1I1I

exp."ltria.tel. both workers Ilnd inbJlectulli!. Since the eoe! of HW2 Prochd hnd .Iedicnled him$f.'lf fnll · lime to t he editorship of n paper tlUlt appell.red twice weekly nne! had ndopted nn inc~lU· Lngly oJ.emocmtic tOile. ",ith cuutriuutious from He5~ , En~15 nnu Bnlwmn, Hnb>fl"1 c"olution "'M similnr: his last nrticle in the Deli/se!.e Jo!.rbliclrcr, elltitk-d 'Autonitique of Liberalism·, reo

J/(!r.f) (IIId CritiqUt nf Ilrgr.l'1 PM/wop"y qf Stale "'" jcctcdliocrllli8111 in f" ,'our of n delUocmlic humnnism tlmt lI'ould be re"li~lI through the "mil lice of French nn,l German int.cllec· tuuis,

T hus it wus IIIlt.urll.l that a rc,·jew should Ue starlet! combining t he theory or the Deutsche J/I!.rbiirlotr with the more Vrtldic,,1 idell.~ or thc R !'rinjlr.he Zeilrmg. Huge hud a grellt admiTlltion fur i\ lnn: and wrole to his brother, Ludwig Kuge, ill Jllnuary 1&1-3: 'Marx has gl'f!llt intelli~,.ellce. He is "cry worried llbout hif futuTC all tl particularly hi~ immediate future. Thus the ~'Qlltillunlion of the J/lhrblichn- with hi! lIuistancc ;$ $Omething quite nntll rtll: ' ;\1111')['1 positiuI' wns indeed ...... orrying one; he IlIId been engaged fOt" St,'en yCllI'$ "nd "ished to get married; yet he was out or II joil lind "'Il! refu!e.1 nI l help hy !.is fflm ily. lie wrote to Huge ill ]\[nrch ]84:3:

As soon n, we hn"e $igned UH! contrllct, I will go to Krcllznaeh and gill married. Without IIny romanticism, I c/ln te ll you thllt I om head o,'cr I,eels in lo,'e lind it is II! serious uS Ctl.n be, 1 ha"e [>fIen "eng(lgeJ for more tl",,, seven yean (lud my fiancee hal heen in\'oh,ed on my behalf in the toughest of Itruggles that have ruined her henlth. These IUlve been in pll rt against her pietis t and ari'to~ratic relntiolls, for whom the Lord in Heaven .\0(1 the L ord in \jerl in aro the objects of an equrt l W!neriltion, nnd in part "S<linst my own (amily into whom eertA.i n rndica l~ nlld ol her $11"01"11 enemies II/we in!inuateu the ll1 gelve!I. fIor yellrH, my liunc<!e nnd I have h!!lm fighti llg morc use leu and eXIllUl9ting battles t hnn mnny other persuns three times as 01rla~ liS who ate for ew!r talking of their 'experience', II word prtrticularly dear to our part islln:i of thejlUu-milit:u."

I n JUlie II friend of his ("ther's obtained for ?> hux an im'itatiun to cnter the 8er\'ice of the l'nlssian state - an invittllion he ;1lImedilltely refu&ed,~ T hus Marx wtlS pn.rticularly re<:epti,'c to the ri"nl imitatiolU of Huge lind Ilertl'egh: the fint to stnrl np fl new \'cl'lIion of the Deuuclu: Jahrbilcher, the second to be joint editor or I lerwegh'. already existing journal.

Marx decided in famur of Ruge.\He was hoperul or a re\'olulion

, Itu~. 8ri~/I«CAIfl, ed, Konlkb. , 200. 1'1 .. 11., to lI uge', Jlf.r:A II (2):107 . I cr. An:.l ujTI~ d~ QacAidol. <It. &l::i"li"n". uutl .Itr ArlH'iltr......,.~Il,9, ~

(11)2,1) 64.

lO-~

in Gerlllllny, lind in l\llIreh HH3 wrole to this effect from I lolLwd "'I,ere he ,..11$ ,'biting hi~ mother', rdlltions, 'rhis re,·o]utioll Mua bc!ic\"cd to II/! gunnll1tecd oy the bllckwllrdness of GerllllOuy. 'A s1upload of fools" he wrote, 'Inight (Inn in the wind for quile II.

lime, lnlt it IIoult! m~t it. doom for tile ,-cry rCllson thnt the fools do not ho:oJif"'e this. T his doo'll Js the in;pending revolution:1 Ruge, ilowe'er, wus JX'ssimistic, He 'aw no prospect ",hute,·cr of n 1)OIi tir.ll i revolution, The 'eternul fiubmi8;Siw!-ness' orthe Germalls Illude it im])()Ssible: 'Our nation hll.S no ruture, so what is the use 0.' 01.'( lummons to iU'2 i\l lI r~ WI\5 definitely against simply ~vnt1l1U1llg the J)""lIde Jahrbicltrr, 'E"cll if the JuhrbfU;lu:r wcre on~ agll.in permi,tted, All we could fu!-hieve would t..e u pale imitation of thc latc re\lew lind that is 110 longer lIuBlcicnt:' So they decided to gi,·e prncticlll expreaaion to the idea of the Frullco-Gcrnu.n co-or-:rntion thtlt I~t! iJ.een ~uggesled b), most of the Young I ~ egl'.lllInl. nt some time or other during the previous t wo yctlrs . .I·or the. lIInue"e~ of Fr,ellch thought mtlde the radical! ,-ery lIl~e rnn lion, lllly- nlllliletl, III cOl1trl\st to the liberals, whor'll the Crlsel of t Ie 1&109 forced into II IlllrroW lIa tiontllism. i\Jarx wilt ,'cry enthusilUtic: 'FCQnco-Germlln IInll!lls - Ihllt would t..e Il I'~i"ciplc, '"~ c'·ent of inlllOrtlll1ce, nn undcrtllkillg t hnt tills one With elltIIU$1119111." Froebel Ilgreed to publish 1\ review uf this ehllrMWr,nnd prcpnmtioll bcgllll. In :\IIIY, !\IllrxlIllIl Proche! wellt to "isi t Ruge in Drestl e l1; tile three of them decided on StriUhnnrg Ilt Ihe city of publiclllion. HOII'e,'er, Prochel rail into difficulties ",ith the ZlIrich authorities: books by WeiUing nnd Uruno Onutr thflt he hnd puhlished were cOllfis.cllted, tint! Froehel hilll~clfwul CUII<lcmllcd to Ilrison for h.'o mouths. This mellnt that t he all llal, could not apP,cllT before the end of tile yetlr nt the carliest,

Mll rx,mellnwhile 5etlled in nreuznllch where JellllJ mil Westphalen I,,·w \\"ith ber lIlother, Slid ~tired into his study to undertAke extenah'e hiitoriclli re ... d i ng.~\ lie rClltllined in 'Kreumacb until Augual, Inllrrying Jenny in June. In a tetter to Ruge,

l' I..,It~ 10 n U!fe', ;10;0), ,j ( I) U 7; E.ston and Glldd.l, I' . ~' • ' Letter 10 M.n', ",,.:OA , i ( I) ,~,

I ' 1...,1t.". 10 Itup', MF:O)' , ; oo;JO'j, • Ibid_ • cr. Ii:, M.,x, 'I',..,r.oo to _Ct,I;'lu"O( I'ulitic .. l t;.,onomr', in M •• x- Eng.!li!,

&knfti. W-wh . 002,

105

written in ,\1 11)' 'Il ld hi tI" pllblishct! in the DCu/lCh_FrlmziJtilr/,e JIII,,/ilic/,u, he "n .. ly~ed the 'Philistine' Germnn regime tit length, " r6gime thot it WM I!SSI!ntiol to shttke olf once ,,,,d for "II: ' I.et the t!ent! bury their nead and lIl(lUrn them, T o be tI.e fint 1I.Iuong \.h(' Ih-illg to enter into lIew life, on the othcr hund, is cnvin.hlo. Thi8 iJ to hI' our lot. ' I i\lnt): WitS ",Irelldy be-,;;il1ni ng to en"ill-ll),>C t he IlOQihility of re,·olution Il$ consisting ill lin U11iIt'H.-e or'thillker~ '

and 'sull"eren':_1

The aystem of imluslry 8 11d co.llmerte, ofproJM!rty lind exploitation or l1Iell, howcHr, lenos mucb more rnpidl)' to tI rupture ,,·ithin the present society thon the inere"s.c of the 1'0pulRlion. T hc old &y,tCIU cunnot heal this ropture bet::llu$e it doci not 11t~1I1 II"d erente li t all; it merely exists lind enjoys iuelf, The m.:is tcllcC of II suffering mllilkiud tllllt thinks, Ilnd of a thinking l1 ulllkin<IJ thot is suppressed , must neeCSSllrily become UII

~ltI\JIb(.i I\nd indigestible for the pnssi"e animal kingdonl of J' hi listi nilm, which is thougbtlessly enjoying itself, It i, up to lIB to exposc the old world to ful! Ih.ylight and to shllpt the new " long p", ith·c linCll. T he Illore time t he c,·cllt$ltllow for think ing mcn to reflect, nnd for ~ulfcring men to rlllly, the better will Ile the product to he born which the pre~cnt cl\rric~ in ih \\om b.!1

It \\'U5 cleM tlUil the Deuluh-Frrmz.&i8Cht: J(lIIrbiich cr woult! 1le II political rC"iew. T hus it WIlS lillle lo eOlnc to t er ills wi th Il cgel'~ politic,,1 "iews tl nd in ~rticular "ith h i ~ Rcthl8phil06opldt:, ,\11 disciplcs had sooner or litter to do this when it hecame quite clcllr t hat the Prunillll Government showed no p05liihility of ~omil\g Ilcger s 'rntiouul 8tllte', ).ian' hltd hlld the idea fornt leRst It year. In !\larch UH!! he wrole to Huge : 'Another article thllt I nlao inlcnt! for the /Jl!utlche JuhrbiicluT is II cri tique of t he part or lI egcr~ n"tur"l right "iocrI'. he tIIlks or thc L"OlIslitutinn. T he el.;entit.l P"rt or it is the critique of constitutionlll, mOllRreh)" a oo!\arIi , contradictory und unjustifillble institutiorr:, 111'. went on to SIt)' th8t the "elide \\11.1 finished lind only wanted rewriting, Six :, months Illlcr he wns still lalking IIl>out publishing it in thl! R Mi!li«ht: Zrit/mg .• The critique or Hegel'! politiC!! thllt i\llIrx

"I..,H~r to nu~',NI;~,111 (I) 661; ~~ton and Gudd.t, I'·~· • ' I ... U~r 10 nuga', .IIJWA I i $; r.; F ...... lon ,ul<l Gu,ldat, 1'1'. 210 t, •• Ll:1I~r to n "",,', JlI:X,A I i (2) ~, • 1 l>~I , :!!IO.

lOG

cllloornted ill tlu' ~ix months he S~l1 t at J\rcu~lll\ch' is much richer tlinn tile purely iogicui-politic:ui tlI'prO>lch of the prc,-jolls yell r. lIIiln)' yf.nr~ lilter, in !.he pre(nee to his Crititpt( rif J>olitirol f£Q"OfIl!J, ;\ Inrx wrow;

T h ... fir!t work "'hich I undertook for the liolutioll of t.he doubts whkh nUllil ... d ",(, Will II cr;licu l fe,-j.,,,,- of the Hcgclill.n philo-~ophy of Inw ... '[M)· i nl'~ljgation led to tbe result that legnl reilltion. ,u well Il8 (ofml of stllte nre to be grasped neither from lhernseh'c' nor (rom the so-cnUM genHnl development of the l'UII,t!.!' mimi. but mOler iu .. ,'c their roots in the rnutcrial cOII.lilion, of life, ti,e ~ tltll total vf "'hich lIegel, following the cxnnll'ic uf the f;"glishmcn IIIU.I Frendlnu:n of the eighteellth century, combine. under the lUlille of 'd"il wciety', lh'l t,

I howen:r, the l!.Mtomyof c:i"ilsocicty is to be sought in politicl!.1 ecoUoUl~~

Although thi, Jlccouut i. too .i n'pti tied, his expericnce with ti,e Hheillische Zeilullf:: !tnd the rejection of liberal politic3 by Heine lind the sociali3h, including lielS, enl!.bled ~ I arx's critique of I-Iegel to take thut much more account of socio-ecuno,uic fllctor! .

"1'e",." "",,,iptoeeno. to hn"e 1.>cen fini~hw il, J ulr-,\ ug~'IIBJ3,RC<XIn.ljl1g to V. llj ... nov (I"tr'od\lcllon to MF)A , i (I) I'l" \xxxiv r.). ,,·1'0 0:0,,"1'"_ ~i ",ilar pa""'gllO in th '''R"''ffCriJ.t and in Mo",'. notebook •. Thi, dating uf l],o ",allu"""'!'t "a~ been '1"4!>!\",,,<!d I.)' ~;. I..., .. ·./tcr. ' Z II' Sr"lemalik de. ;\lan. 1IC1,~n Stub- und (:_ll<eh.ft~l~h",', ..4...,hi~ ft~ S/I.:;a/lduo"""Aafi und &!::k!JfHJ/itlk LXVIII tH~ If .. • '11\ by S. I.olld.lout, "-~rl.V"T:X-, ~ Fr~h6:~TijI~" (lilUltgA"., 19M) p. 2(1, on h'o ground~, (,,.,,11)" t l,,, letter to Huge "ritt~" in Mo....,], !I!~ 2 .• nullinl! 10 ." .1111000t Iini.l>ed critique of H~r. natural right; ......." .. 11)" the(a"t that Mar ... 10.01 "" tlnI~. hu!ied .. he ........ ithfamily n".tte .... 10 ..-rite anything J(> 1"",.1'Id det.11N in II, .. _,n",,,,,,- of 18-1.3. Th .. -=ond poinl .. qllit .. unaec!eplahle: m.nioge if. 08 often. atimulll.ll to ... ..,.k 08. hindrant-r. AI r..". the lirst point. in lhe !'Am" letter M.", .t~btd 0100 articJe,:, that U"ge "tI~\'f' ren:h....d .•• \wing '.10100 fim.hed'. M.", ... u .I..-.ys IIK1r8 ,..,.<ly togi~e08II1"~ than to rull\l them. II;' te,~rk! ill lhe I"""""" to ha. Cril~ tIf l 'rlliliffJ1 £ftI"""'!f,.~ ,",ll .~ ;nl'l1"llll e,·Id~n.,., I'oint """'du.; .... lr to 18-13. The Il1061 tluol oo"~II,,, ... i.t i. thai e!emenborl.re";oui.rticJ... mar ho,-o ~n "lied.

I K.rI M."" 'I'ref"Ke 10 . Critique of !'olilka! }:COnomy', &kdM !l'm-h, ' 362.

.11ar;e 111111 Critique rlf lIr-gct, l'ltil(}lI>J'''!J nf SIIIIr. 107

2. T UII I SF1.t;I':XCK OF F I':URRJI"ell

There "-11 ' ,wother fnctor, too, thllt enaoled !'.[urx to adopt n new l>oint of "i",,'; Feuerb .. c1,·i 'Prciimiunr), T he!!e8 for n n ero.",. or I'hilo.ophy'l These had been p"hlished in _Ind·(/ota, 1\ collection of CIIsnye originally inten,d;d for the J~r.utschr. .Iu.hrb.llthcr~ but rejected. by the een60rship1-Thi! hook, edited by Huge til SWIb-er-illlid nnd pub1i8hed ill Februluy 1843. "'liS the I,ut plnce where Young H~elill"ti "ppcnred together in print u a ooherent gro~lp~;.. H ulso marked the Il"IItenhed of n 1II0vement thnt WII.! eellsmg to be t1toolugicltl loud hAd not yet l>ecotne politic,,!. Jo'euerhll.ch prd-e1\ terl hi~ 'T hescs' ru 1\ .. vnlin"nt~on or .hi! &,r-IIC( of CIori.I'" ,wi/!J. H e wisherl to apply to specull,lll'e philosophy thO! np~rol\cl l l'e hlld 1I1ren,Iy used with reg"rd to religion: tI,e'~logy IUIII. slJlllI?l been completely (lestroyed; it had \I. J"st r>lbo.nal ~ulwl\rk lU l-I egel'l!- philosophy, ... hich \\"IIS ns great" lIIyslJficlltlOlI .as (,,'y theology. 'Since TleS.,1'5 dialectic stnrted >l:lIl ended ... ~th tI'e intinite, the finite, ~: . nllln, \l"H~ uuly /I. phAse III the e"oh, t ,on of Ii 8u perh u ll11lll spi ril Q'he enenee of theology is the tran~celHl ~lI~ (lTld elterioriscd essence of 111111\; the euence of Hegel s logIC IB, trnl\seemlent thought , e:o;terioriseJ human thought. '.\. !Jut philosophy should not stnrl from God or the Absolute, nor en.n f,?111 being I\S preciicllte of the A bsolutc; philosophy had to begll~ With 1-. the fi ni te, the pllrlieu!tu, t he real, nnd IIcknowledge the pnmllcy of the senses. !Since tllis Ilpprolleh had nee.n l'io.llccred hy tl~e Freneh, the t roe philosopher would \'""e to be of'Gnllo-Gi'rmllnic bloatl'.' Ilcgel's I'hilO3Ophy \1"1\3 the Inst refuge of theology all(~ ns ~ud, hnd to be nbolishetl. T his would come aoout from R reah!R- \ tiOIl tlu,t 'the true reiatr.;:,ship of thought to being il this: bci llg I i! the suhject, thought the predicnte. T ltougllt arises from heing- I heing doe! not IIn!e from thoughL":: ""'"'\ . . .

~ I f!.rx read Feuerlxleh's 'The~es' inune<iLnteiy nner plIbltClltlon .wd "ToteJln enthusi"stic lcUer to UUb<e, who had sent hj'na CQPY: 'The ollIy point in 1-"eucrbnch'8 "phoris lIIlI that does not &IIt.isr)' me is thnt he 6;"I'B t.oo mud. importll'lce to nllturl' "lid too httle to

I L. F~,,~,bach, " ~14r1>l'fJIog/«l>er Jlet"""i."' .... .lWYI",ItIl. !k~rifltN (rnnkr"rt, 100;') I fH. I Ibid., p. !)5.

J

j

\

106

politics. Yet ~'" "lIiunce with po1itie~ nlfor(b tile oul), menus for <:ontCtnllOrliry philooolihy to Uecomu u tru tli. Hut whAt hnpf"Hlned in t h" $ixt('cnt h century, when the ~tntl' luul follower!! ,,~ cIIUI\l ~ilistie II~ tl,use of Nature, will nQ doubt Vc repented: ' "'01' i\ i IlTlI,

the wily nhelld Iny through politics, but /I pulltil-!; which qU!:litiu,,~d current COJJ~"Cpti(;"l.$ of the relfllionship of the state to 80cielrClt wllS Fcucrhnch·6lh~P.:II th!,l~f'flhletl :\fan: to opcrntCl hi$ prtrticuiar ,c,'eml of Hegel's uialec!!Sl l\Ian: lltUl rcnd l"cuerlmch 118 enrly us the lime "'''ell he WII! oomPMing hi, dvct<.>ml thetis, but his mag'l!lm QP"$, the f~",,,,,, of Ckrilfiollj/!1t did nol make as great nn impreuion on Mllrx liS it did, for cxulIlpit'-, on Huge. It is true that in JIUlU[II,), 18'~2 i\ l nu: hud written II note entit led 'L uther U~ ,\ rbiter between Str{llI!J.'! and Fcuedmeh'~ ill which lie cited fit leugth a )lIlSsuge from Luther to support Fellerooeh'& hUlIlliliist interpretation of mirnclell I!.!I again5l the transC<!nocut \ iew of

"y Stnuu~. He linished the note by gi\'ing this aoviee to llpeculative theologism& IIn <i IlhiiollOphen: 'Pree yourselves from the conctptll lind prepossessions of e~sting_ speeulntive philO$ophy if you wllnt to get at things differently, ns they tire, lhat is to $IIy, if you want to nrrive "l the truth. And there is no olller road for you to t ruth lind freedom except tiJ(ltlenoing through the stres,,; of /irc [the Feuer-bach}. Feuerooeh is t he purglltory of the prescnt tillles:! But it was 1I0t ullti l I &~ that Feuerbuch'$ humanism becllme the outlook that united the group around the Dr:utu/t·Pranzu.i4t;!.e Jalirbiit:luT.'

As far 1111 i\ lan: WIIS concerned in IIHS (anti this was lrue of I1ICht of his radical, tll!lIIocmti", ~'Olitempornries also) lteuerbach was Ihe philosoph~ g \'ery r~'gf! or the critique of I-Iegel's political philosophy thul i\I" rlC eill ooril led d nri llg t.he slimmer or 184~1 shows the infiuellee of Feuerlmch'. method. For :\llIr:t, Hegel's "pp«>,.ch ill\"oh'cs " sptemntic 'mysliliCIIUoJl'. T his term, taken from Feuerhaeh'a 'Thtles" meant to deprive wmething or il.8 o"'n

I'Letter to Rugo', JlA·GA. I i (t) 30fl. • Jt hu reoenUy """ cI.imed th&t F~uerl .. ch, 001 M~TX, 1'118 IlIoIlIutho. or

thn nOI~. Se.e 11.. ;\1. S .... , 'F,,"erbach mtt i\brx', in 'nle'n~j;Q"'" rrn;..", of &It;ial Uiilory ~ II (IOO71I00 IF. Tho .rgument I.., howcver, not """vinci",.

• 'Lulhcr as Arhiler 1,.,1,.-"",,, Slra" .... ",1 I'~u"'b.ch·, JlEG, t • I (I) lit.; }:uton And Gudd&l, 1'. 06.

' Se.e particularly i\!cLeIlII'. T k )·o"~.9 JI"ni."" aM 1(", 1 ,lla'J', 1'1'. Mil".

Jl/or.r and Critique of lIt'gd'i PhilMoph!J qf Stale 100

irldependent nnture by making th~ nlllu,re in.l~ ~ mere en1~nation of till iniliginllry entity. j\[nr:< S"'os hiS CCltICI~11I ~ ~~Ial alld hiAtoricol niml!nsioli lucking in I'ellerlmell, bol one powl .s conlrn! tu w th their npprollche8: thu cluilll that Ilegel hud revl!l"Seo t l~e correct relution of ~ubjcch '11,,1 llredieatea. Marx sllYs; ' I t IS impomnt thlll llcgel ~Iwllyl ~o",erts the l ~lcl\ .i,~to the !~ILjec:~, IIml t he potrtielilar actUAl subject, lIuch as pohllcal scntlment , illtn the predicate. But the tle"elol,ment nl""ays takl!S pluce Oil the ~ide of the predicllte:1 And later:

H"d Hegel started froll) reallubjcct.s ,,5 the buill of the swte then he would not h~\'e round it ueel!.unry to let thl! state su hjectify itself in (' rnyateriuus war . .' . lIegel ~~bjcctitie5 ~hc predicl\lC, the objeeu, but he obJcctlfil!5 tilern I~ scpuratloll from their true $uhject. Consequcntly the t!ue subJect aPP':"r3 nl 1\ relult, ,..hertal the l)Oint is to stnrt WIth the true BUUJect Anti deal with ill oLjectilicAtion.'

i\[nr,,'s rundnmental itiM is to take IIctuli l politiclI! ul$titutiolii I\lId sholl' thereb\' thnl lIeget's conception oC the rell\tionship of idens to reAlity i; miiltuken. I legel had tried to reeo.llcile the ~dl!l.1 And the l'l!a l by showing that rrnJity WIlS the unfoldlllg Ofllll ~d.ell, 11'11$ rtltionnl. i\lurx, on thc contrary, empluuisCl the OPPOSltlO1l

hetween idcals and relllit)' in the 5ecuillr "·orld nnd categorises I lIegd's whole enterprise sa speculative, by which he meunt thnl it Will based on subjecth e conceptions that wcre out of harmony ""ith empirical reality.' i\ note of :\-Iar:K's on 1111 n rti~le hy !lanke on the festoratioll in I:rance show5 ,·cry clellrl)' the Intcrpendralion or Marx's tr"iticisrn of Ilegelltnd or his historiclil nnnipis;

U nder Louis XV III , the COllstitutioli r.xi~ls by grnce of the ,"onnrch (grnnt of rOYlll churter) ; umler Louis Philippe, the

"Critiqu~ of 1l"&,,l'A l'I';Iow,,),)· of u... SUtt', »,0;0 ,1 , i (I) ~lO; Ea~m" and r."ddlt, p. ISIl,

t 'Cril;'!,", of lJ e~l'. l'hilo!iol')'Y or the Stale', JlJ:OA I .i (I) 4~. , I On .\fo .... ~ manu"";l't;n 1",,,,",1, _ L 0"1"", .,."" PAiI/IIIIp.itm ftlllntbJ •

l i~uV' .l/Qrri .... ~e ... York, 100II) 1'1'. 8j 11".; S. Avincri, "n ", lI~n Origins of ~br~ '" I'olitiCfoI 1.'bo"lJh'·' Renno "/ Ntfapliyric' {Sep I.OO<?; II. Web~rf, T" $ocltJIOfy qf Jfarx (t, ... "lon. 111(6) PI'. I~ 11".; J . lIyppoUu., I .. Con<:er~Lon h~!O~li~""c ,Ie n~131 <It IJ& cril"!,,e I"" Karl Man', f./,,4 ••• ur J/U'J; ct II.~I, :?nd w. (I'.rio:, In6~): .J. !lurio", /I~ "'Id die ",,, .. .riOli,de $ltlal,lchre (" "nn, 100.1).

,

110

lllonarch rxis l.s by grllce of the w nstitution (royalty gr6nted). \Ve enn, moreo,cr, o llser\'c thnt the t rl.ns(ormatioll of subject into attribute, lind nttrihute int.o s\l bject ... is IIl,,"ays the nut re,·olution. J lege], in milking ... I he idea ofille slate the subject amI tht! old UlOl J{'3 (Jf e.~istence of the stilt/! the attribute _ "'hert-as, in historic,,] reality, it 11'4& the opposite tl" .. 1 e" i~tetl, till:! idea of the 'Wit having IllwllyS been the nttribute of ii.!l mode of C.ustCIlCC _ H egel, I illy. i~ only eJOpressing tho general eh"rAeter of his age, its political h .lwlogy.1 ......

Tnspi~d by 'Feuerbltehin ll philosophy lind hi~toricallln9Iysi~.lhis manuscript i. the first of tnnnyworks of :\ laTJC (up to ann including CllpiMl) thllt "'en! enti tled 'Critique' _ a term that had a great yogue alUong the Yonng HegelitlIl5., :r he IIpprooeh it represented - rent-octing on lind working O" cr the idcas of others _ was H!ry eonW:niul to IIlar:)[, who prefelTeiI to den·lop his own ideus ill oppo~ition to l/,oso of other thillkertl.

"\ 3. i\ I Allx A~n Ih ;(; !U, O~ Tilt: STATt:

TI,e "'" "u~cript in which :-'lnrx el" borated his thought 011 lIege!". Heelltlphi/Olophie ('Philosophy of Law') iA II YIlT)' close ptlrllgmphhy-pnTIIgrllph cor1lmcnttlfy on IIcgel'A tc..xt. I t tieals .... ith lhe fillll.l rmrt of the JlcchllphUO#ophie which is devoted to the stll~ T ho tirstfe'" pllgelof ;\1111':)['8 m(UlU5cript lire rnissing,lInd it begin3 ,,·ith the Pl.rngrnl,h "'!of're Hegel elCphilns tlUlt concrete freedom eon!i~1A

ill the ide'ltit,- of the ~Y'tcm of pn\,lIte illtercsta (flunily und eh·il weiety) with tho syiitCnt of generul interest (the stllte) which he dClicribe8 III ooth the 'uternlll ne<:euih-' and the 'immanent aim'. ' J\ larx eonsiders lhi l lo be an ' unresoh'ed IIntinullIY' 3nd Pill!!(!!! on t o the par"grllph in ",hiel., he "'y$. ~le entire myst('ry of lI ('gd'~ philosophy of hlW lind of hit: philOliophy in generAl is Illid out.:> In tili, partlgrAph Ilegel MyS:

T he IldulIl Idea, Spirit, dhid~ iudf in its fiuitude into two ideal spiac"" of iu notion, ftlmi ly IInel d"il society. in order to

' .IIEGA , i (t) 130. I 'Crili<)u~of 11 ~1'II'hlJOiOI,L)' " r \I",S'_\e', ,lIf:GJI ,i (1) 40B j ~:.a~lou ."d

Gudda t,)1' 1 ~1.

111

le:n'e behind its ielelllity "mIlo bceome e:)[plidtly infinite tl clunl Spirit. It lenda to thc.~c sllhcres thc, ",tllen,., l of ita fil1i~e adm.lily _ i.e. imi;' i~lutll s ?ti a m~s$ ~ ,Ill ! ueh 1\ ~I\y tI'''l tins lending IIppellrll 111e.1H1ted m ,the lIl(!!" dl1~1 b~ el~u~.~tan L'eI:I, Ctlprice. IIn ti hit: personal dlOlee or hiS s tlluon til hfe,

Mllrx limb this odd 0,\ two eounu: lirslly the .. -tull, ill Said to preda te tll1(J produce its o,,'n clements, But this in"ol\'es 1\ re\'crsnl or the t ru t relationship:

T he I dea is thoroughly !ubjceti ,-i$Cd. ~h(' tlc l ulIl rl!lf1t,io~llhip of fll mily and chon society to the state ,$ grasped IU their IIInef iuo!<ginary ncthity. Family fiud ci"il society, Are the pr('~u p+ polOitions or the slAte. they arc r('ally the ~dl"e _foTl."~. But .11 §1)Ceu l l\tio~ thill i~ .r~,'e~d. A6 th~ l~e~ 15 subJe<:linse~~ ~he aeb'lIisuhJe<:U - c",1 socIety, fnmlly. elreulu~tnnees, el\pnee, e tc.'. _ heeome ullndu"I. ohjecti.'e moment.!! of the Iden, meaning somcthillg ebe.1

1'hu! H egers ... bole enterprise of reconciling the Ilni\'erl!1l1 '~1Ullh l! particulnr is II (lIilll!'e: the Teui cleUl~nt.s of the s tll.,t~ - fnnll ly and ci"il society _ure everywhere subonhnnte to t he spmt of the Btllt e, whose mysticnl power infuses the other socinl sphere~ wi t h II Ilttrt of its euence,

i\ l o~"'JcellY .. :on Ih:llOCa.lCY .' ",,1 vi · 'v Afterth is gencrnl introduction. ),Iarx p&iS$C$on tothe monllTebiwl, I" exe<:uti"e nmllegisluH\'e po .... ers into which, according to lIegel, the stal e dio'ide5 ihelf. I-Ie criticises Uegel's \'el)' strange nrgulIIenU d etigned to show thnt ' the personality of the !t.ate lind ita eertaint.y of ilAelf ' arc u.emplitied in the monn~-eh. For i\Ja~ such lI. f'l!-r!oniticd SQ,'erei.'!nly CAnnot be anytlUllg but nrbltrary. Hegel, 56YS i\lnrx, did admit a S()\'ereignly of ~he people 8.S

Ilnlithet ielll to thnt of the monnrch. but the question should he: is it not Tall.er the !o\'ercignty of the mont,reh that i. an illusion?

, '(Tili'l",.1>f I lelr"l'~ l'hikool'lty ortho:Stalt', MEGA,; (I) 4ro; .:"'Ion .nd GuM&t, II, \ 5,1.

I 'Crili~ .... or II cg1!l'i I'loi\oloopb)' "rt!~. St_te', M J.:G.~ , i ( I) 0100; ~:,..toll a"d {i"ddal, p. 1I),l,

."

Mllr.r INJore Jlfar.rilm

,\ ru l ir Olle! did 1,lllk o(~\'ereignty of t he monnrch nod so, 'ereignty of tile !>Cuple. tIL.ell tlus Will lIot the SlIme sovereignty hut two oornpletely npp05llc eon~pll or so\'ercignty. The choice Ixtween the", "ns nn cxclusive one, as exclush'e as thzr.t ~b"cen tI . fa • sO"crergnty 0 od nnd thul of mUll. . M,"r1 th"" clilbomtes /lis concept of democracy byeontrll5ting It ,With mo~arcby, the ,euellti/ll differenoo loeing that montln:hy, bcwg onC'Sluetillnu UlIIllitetlll , n~'eCs;;n.rily r"lsified the rol6 of all nlemb,,~ uf the stat~:

In .Iemocrllcy no~e of the :,spects acquir~ /lny other mClllling t~tnn thc ItprroJlru~te one. E,/lch is ndually only an aspeel of tile "hole demos, Bul III monllrchy II part determin~ tile chllrnctl"r of,llre whole. The ,elltire constit.ution must conform to II tixed powL DCUlocrncy IS the RCnerie cunstitutiun, But mOnllrdlY i3 n modifielltion lind ind"ed n ono one, llimocracy is ~'Ontent ~lId form, I\lonllrel,y ~hould be only form, oul il fnlsilies tI,C couteut, l

T he troubl~ with monllrchy It'IlS that it "iewed the poople 1\5 merely

I un (lppen~1X ,to tllO political constitutiun, I\'hCrellS in democTllc), t1~e c~n~l.ltrlt l on WAS the self-expreuion of t he [>e<Jl'le , E"en con· stLtutLonal monarchy was not 5umcient , in tha t the eonstit ution t1,1Tcctcd only II IIJL rt of t he pcople's li fe and the poli t ical constitution WIIS not coincidcntttllt'it h the titate,

To explilin I~is ,,~ew of t he r,elntionship of dcmocrAcy to pre\'ious forms of constitutIOn, I\ llLTx Invokes IL p(lrallcl with religion :

~I'lust n. reli~on?ocs not CrCllte man, but tllli1n creates religion, so t he con ~titut.lon docs not create t he people but the people create the constitution. In 50me re5~cl8 dl'cmoeTlu:y is reltll ed to ~l! other fO~ln~ o~a~te, R~ Christianity is related to all other rel~R~On5, C,h.'"lstllllllty 18 religion plJr e.rct:lknce, the (!!lSCnoo of rellgLO!I, del/led JUlin III a parti(!ulKr religion, Similnrh', d(!mo(!rIlcy 1.8 the I!tlCnce of e"ery colU;titulioll, socilliised ~llln l1li a

,( ctl"'flSrticulllT constitution,l ; . .' /). Hew;l presentM hi! poli~clL l phil~phy as II rtronciliation of , the ulll\'('l1iIll and the particular, Hut for Marx only democracy

, I 'CriI;'I"e.o( II ~I'~ l'hilOllOphr o(theSlale" JlEGA, i (I) 4.34; Eal'tOfl and. (luddal· l"I,:I.

• '{."ril;'Iu~ of ll~r& ""iJo.oI'''y "r th" Stole', JIJ.,"(/A ,i (1) 4U r, ; E •• lna and Guddal, 1'1" 17.1 r,

Mor.r mul Critique of lIegti" I'hUwol'ir!/ of SWle 113

It'a' c:almble of mnk ing the fQrmal principle (the l)(llitienl confilitution) Rnd the nlnterill l principle (man's e,'eryday life) inlo onc ulld the @Rmc. I n other forms of con~tilution It nlon had to l~ud Iit'o dilltinct ll,'«, n Jlolitical and An IInpoLiticnl 0 11 11: ' I n any other state thun democrucy the slAte, tl,e I.w, t he ~"Qnstitlltion i! the domimlnt r"cl"r e,en witho"t actually dominilling, that is, withQut mllterially penetrating the content of other non.polilicnl IIpheru_ -rn democr .. C), the cOlUtilutiolL, the lILli', the .tate itsel f in 10 far nil it ill j)(lliliClllly constituted, is only II. self-determination of tile 1)Wl'le lind ... particulnr content of the people,"

1" order to ~how that 'nil form5 of stnt c lIIlve democracy for lh~ir truth', ;\ Inrx embarks on II. his torienlll.rurlysi~ \err 6imilnr to Hegers ill hi' l'hilNap/l!) if i/i1tor!J, tlLo"gh witl,r n much more empirical orielllAtioll.~lIlhe Illlcient slAtes of the Gntc~"O· Homlln world, people'. livcs "ere inCtiCllpahly politico I Il! It'ellns sociul entities: there W(lS no niffe rentiation bctw~n ti,e poliliClI.1 Ann the pri" .. tl! IIpherc., which wC'.re col)lpletcly penetrnted by politic~. I ii t he ~ liddle Agel, by contrastN,t WitS the socio·eeonOlllic relation@ that were considered busic lind t heir political element wn~ un nc(]uired on~, It \1'11$ because 'each pri"ste sphere hod n )Julilicn l ehnrncter' t hnt "the life of the people nnd t he life of the state were\ ~ i!LclLlical', T radc, property and societ y were ~l ll directly politiclI. l,j }Jut. though mall WM thus the ndual principle of the ~tate, it WIIS lIIall WhO'W(l8 a, yet unfree, \;rhus the Middlc Ages were ehnrflcter

jaed hy the 'dcmocrney of un freedom', ' Bu''II'td' l "

~ T he crention of n jl:c tJuincly political state wns a modern I invention: " I'he Itl..,trllclion of the stllte U5 such belongs only to

moclern timu because the ai.Mtrnction of private life helonSl' only to these ti Ule8. T he abstraction of the politiCfLI stnh ;, a modern l)rodueL~ (l' he modern politieRt slllte, being., mere ni.>slrucllODll, I hlld little effect on the life of ill dti~ns,_ This was ~hown hy th\l fuel I hllllhe prolM'rly !lod legal relntion~hips in rruuii\ Ilnll NorjJl Amenca were ,-irtuRlly the SIl~ even though the cOlIslitulions were '"f'!r}' different. The probll'cm of modern l imes was thus tu [lilt

, 'C,;I;'jue 0( lI "K"I'~ PbiJosophy 0( the SLrrte', JU;GA , i (I) 435 r.j t:UtOIL

and (luddal.},. 17:'· • 'Critlq"e <If 11<1:"1'_ I'lr iloooph" of the St.d,,·, .VEGA , i (I) 400 r,; t;..t ... "

a 'MI Guddal, I" l;il. • 1w.1.

lH

an enu to the 3ClluratioTl of the 11ri"ate spheres from lhe political 6tale.

Up to 11(')"', t he politicAl cOlutitution has been the religious sphere, the ffJigion or the people's lire, the hell"en or thei r unh'eraallly in cont.rast to the j):lrticuJllr ~nlln<lanee",i~t.enCf' of their acluality. Thc politiclli spllcrc wu the !tatc·$ only sphere within the stnle in which both content und form were .. generic

7 colltent fi nd the genuine uuin:r5fIl, hut in ~uch " "'ay that its content ooc,une formal "n.1 J'l"rlicular bcC8.u~(! lheM! ~pherM stood in contrMt to <!flch other, 1'0litiCIII li re in the modern s(!n~e of the word i!tbeschoillstici!rnof 1\ people·s life, :'Ilonllrehy is t.he completed cxprcnion or tI,is nlienlllion. T hc republic iJ the negtttion of nllenll lion within tt lienation.1

~ 1'lIe ~oJution to this problem was 'Irlle d~mocr .. c " :'l Inn doci not do much to clArify his con~lti£!l~lemocn!<'y,

~e\'crthclch~our d Ulr"cteri.!lties lire ap(l.nrent in his skete!!:Lllld ob"ionsly trnl1sitiol1llJ id~a5'

G.J\Fi~ his conception is hU "llI n i~t.Lnllm is t~c onc nnd only suhject nf the politicA l proceu , ' In a democracy the constitution is ulwuys bused on its IIctu .. 1 foundlltion, on actual mnn (lnd the. ,.clual people, not only implicitly and in its C$$ence, but in its ~istencc nnd actunlity.'1 ' In II demoCfIlCY there is purticl.I"r human ~istcnce while in other forms of state TIlIlII is the par ticular juridical cxistCIlCC, T his is the basic lIuiquenes.s of democrney. -a

(2,; ~e.£?~thi$ in \'ol\'(~d a fN!eilOl!l for mnl)loittd that wn.s..noneJla~tent In nege l.~For I legel hnd downgraded mllI!, who $hollkl be the ,uhjccl, to th(' sllltus of I'I'C<iiCl.te, Jo'rccdum ,,'ouid only lot

,

sained whcll t he roles "'cre re"cnl-G all<l man i>eeamc the free &ubject ",itl, tQ(:iety 66 I,;s "red;cltle. : l lere [i.e. in nemot:rncy] the colU!titut.ion i~ man's nnd the IlCople's own ,,·ork. T he constitution a ppea ... ItS " hnl it is: the frt'e product. of l118.n.'"

, 'Critique of llqel '~ !'loi!Q<ophy ol'tht8bote', .IIHGA, i (1)4.')6; E""loII .,.,.\ Ou,hI. l, 1" 176.

• 'CriI;q<Ml of 1 1~l'a l'bibplo)' ol'tbc !!ule', J/I;OA I i ( I) 4~H; ~:".Ion .nd Guddll, I" 113.

• ·Cril iquccrll o;ogl'l'. l'hiloool'hy ot, I", 81.1,,·, NIX;A 1 i (1) l3.'l; .::'.10".00 (;"dd.l. I" Ii".

• 'Cri(iq"" of ll tpl'~ I'hiloo!ol'h)' nf til<! 51.te', .v ;;0.1 , i (I) J:)4; t: •• loll .,uI Gudd.l, p, 1,3.

Mllr.!! ulld Critique '1lIrgcl's l'Mlwoph!J r:1 SI(J/e 11 5

,-~ "fhiW1~. i\J/l.r_ .. ·~ l'Qllception i$ ill $omsMIllIC.$odo.listJ t i~ plnin - '-Ii,,!. l i k ~.H(!gd, hr cOll~idered t.he {lim to lIeU,c rculiMt;on or nil

e8SenllC. nut instcud of the TClllislition of the Id cl!.~ "Iurx en\'iI,nged the r~II1i'JJltion of lI 'ltl!2!.:~cies.beingJ l T hus demOCI'Jlcy WII S ·1!.(lCiali~ed mlill as .. partieular constitution' ,t1

Ii'. ~~J:. N!publiCJ<lIi!m il nol IIdequllte lo this ne~', roru~ ~f sQCu"ty, ",hich in \'oh'CI! the disapl.earlinee of the state. I hll~ It ,5 ill"ccurnle to UMcril>e :'Ilarx III .. J llcobill democtllt. Heferring to '}'rc ttch socinli.!1t writ ings, he NlYs: • Hecently the f'rcuch IlIl\e co,,· llCi",!<l of this in such O!. way thal lhe politico.l $\ate diuppeanl in troe demOCTllc\·. Thi5 is correct in r.o rar lUI the political btute tiS

~uch , III constitution, no lon~r a pplies to the whole." :'Ilarlt tlbo descrioo his democratic idr,nl in the leller to Huge

mcntioned nOOye.' T he principle of luotlnrehy, allli I'lIrtielllllrly the I'runian monnrcl,y, was ma n despis~(l, delipicllble, dehnmllll-ised. Tile dlh'l of Frederick "'illinm I\"s romanticism W"i thal the only ehlu lgt now po6fiible ror Germany wtlS un 'entry in~o the humnn world or demoeracy ',5 At the ~ame time, i\1n.rx'. \'ICW of the means or effecting this change WI\! still a ,'cry idealistic one: 'Freedom, the feeling of !linn's dignity, will haye to be awakened ~ ngll in iJI these men. Only this r~ding, ~vh~ch,disa pp~ared ~rom thJ world wi lh the Greeks I!.nJ WIth Chnshl!.mty \'B!Usheu lUtu the bl"e milt ofhel\\'cn, cIOn agAin transform society into II community of Illell to Achieve their highest purpose, II democratic st"te." -

I h"'in! COl\\m~nlcd on Hegcl's defence of heri!<litary mo""rcl,y, \l lnrx I.hen nlon~s 011 to the ~ecuti\'e power. i\llIrx h"s lome

'·Inn. tern' ...... loopula~ hr t'e«<:.!H.cb.1 t .... bo,gi""Htg oibi! Ellflt('t (1/ ell';,"I."lt, . ..... "re ht! rlefined "IA", in contT1l,,* to otl.et ."i" ,"I", ... ha,'u'g ro".dOlUU_ of bl"...,lf u. aJelIlbc. or. ~.--id.

• 'CriI;q'HlCf Il egtr~ PhilooIophy oft .... Stau·. iJlf:OA 1 i (1)<&33: £a9Ioll."d GII.Itt.I, I" IH.

.' Crililjueof 1I,~I't l'hilolo],hy ol't .... 8t.o te', ,v;"OA ,i ( I) 431;: ~~tOll aoo G"Jd.', pp, 174 t, • See .\,o,'C, p. II).;,

'· I"'tt .... to 11"",,' .. 11 IW A , i (I) OO-t; .~n .nt! (;udd.t, p, ~'OtI . • ' Lett .... t .. ]I ,,,e', JU:G .... I i (I) 001; E""wJI . ",1 G"dd~t, p. ZOO. ,

,

IIG Afllr,z: l;iforc Mllr,z:;.tI11.

jnteresting pawnges on bUreaUCf(l.cy which repr~nl h~ fil1l Attempt to gil'e II sociological .J c~ nilion of Italc 1>O"'Cl' t Hcgd had s!lid lh~t the slale medilLlcd betweell the cOlltrndietlOn! of cil'il S<K:icty by IUcans of CQrporlllions a nd bUTellllcrncy. T he ("rmu grouped indil'itllllil private interests in ordl'.r to bring I'ros.sure to bellI' upon thl! stl\te;~e IftUc!:,rncdiated between the sl ./lte And prh'at.e int.erellta thus e"pressed. By bUN!lIuernc):, Hegd mMnt Il body of higlll'.r ch'il ~r\,I'UU who were r«:fuit('(i by ~'O"lllClilion from lhe middle clll-SScs. T o th1'lm \\"QS cntrll~ted the \\'orkillg oul of common iutcrcstll, Ilnd the task of securiug t.hn unity Qf the &lAte('!hcir decisions 'l;crc prevented from being arbitrary by the s(wcrcign aoo,"e them Ilnd tbe pl"C$$ure of lhe corporlttions from below.lI'hc concept of -civil wciety' is one thjlt Mllrx takes over from lIegei nnd uSes con~t.ulllly during 1843: ill Hegel'3 politicAl !rilld the tphere of dvil society WAt the second term, being bctwt.'t!-n the family und the state. In ch-il society the relationships between men lire no longer baaed on lo\'c, liS in the family, but on n~Jr-interest. It is a .odcty akin to t llllt described in i\lullde\ille~J",:

Thus every purl \l'Ll8 full of vicc, Yet the whole 1lI1I5/! 11 I'arlldi~e;

Such were the blcs5ings oflllal dllte: Their crilnes conspirC(1 to make thcm greut.

'tfi;"gel formed his concept tlfter reading the ~~lIgli8h economists Adam Smith lind Uicnrdo, lind described it v.t length in para_ grnph8 30-40 of the IhdltlphilO.lcphie.' The purp·ose of corporntions lm el hurl!nucrllcy l<'JlM 10 tnc<lillte betWl!(!1l these discordlllli "im$ flf civilMKiety ulld form them illto II hnrmony.

MlIrx begins by denouncing tills "Uernpted mediation thut doe~ not re.olve, lWU ul he~l ullly, 1ll1l 8k~, hi.toriel\lly determined oppo5itious. ) It-gel had well ullderstOOlt thc proces! of the di._ ~iution of ",edic"si Cl>lnlcs, the growth or iuuustry lint! Ihe

L For 1M", ,..,feren~ 1.1) r""".ucru"y I" .\1"""'6 "'ril,,,!!,,, , ..,., A"ln(ri, 'n t &rial flntJ l'fllilictJJ T""",kf "f Ncrt Jla, ... , 1'1".;0 If.; K. ,h~I~. Jlarr. ~"M:ur Jda /<'<hiql'<:(1'a .... 11lS1) I'I~ 97 11'.; I. ~·tl><:lwr. ')b ..... ,_n'u. "nd nqrok .... t"'·. t""uH~i<m{l/ R~,rc 0/' iSotiaJ 1I,II"ry, v (1000).

• I l"g~l'~ ,le.\oCription II(lTl\ Itl OO'ne C$tcnt ant;""il'a\"" ~hr~. S<)C! II . Ilci ..... . Ik!,,1 UII~ M~'~', ill Sl'mpwi,m, Jahrburh flJr l'Aj/6«tpA~. ,(Will).

M(/r:~ (Old CritifJ!l~ oj f{~gr.l'8 J'ldlo.J(Jphy qf :"'Ialt 117

ecollomie .... ar of 11.11 ugtlinst s ll . DL,lt in trying nC"crtllcless to con· struct Ii (oTlual os.t.IIle unity, he only Cf"('nlcd a furlher nlienntion: I Ullln's bciug, wloidl Wll5 «lrendy nlicnntcd in monnrchy, Will< nolY ~ell more IlIiJ'nnted in the growiug power of tiLe elCccuth·c .. the ~rll8uerllry4\~t Iiegel olfered Will '''t.. elllilirielli t! cscriptiol{, Qi burcltuerney,~rtly "S it wn_, nnd purlly as it p!'eten<lpd to 1.:,.,)

'l.uleed, mort o( Hegel's comment could lJ.e t .. ken verlolltim from I r the }'n,S!inll ci"il code. So rat from (ulfilling A mi"ion of reron- ,

cilintion. bureaucracy hlld its origin in the ~parlltion of the slale I IIml civil s(X:icty. i\ lnrx r~t9 l~ll!lhIlUllli h~crnc,):.. ~a Iln ~Jlartinl Ll. IIITniu"uni.-erlllll' clul. He rc\'el'$l!S the Hegelian .ITnlectie by n.Merting thal. though their function is in principle It univcrsul one, the bureflucrau hllve in prllclice ende<1 by turning 'it iulo their own Pl'i\'!Lte afTlli~. Ccrttdnly in the pllit the bureauerney fought on the side of the monnrch I'/,'llinsllhe corporation, Ilnd llgaiost seplI rntisllt: "When 'loureautTllq' is II.. new principle, when the unh'crsnl interest of the stl\le shi rts to become some· thillg ""p"rt' by iheif Ilild therehy I\n "/tctllnl' iuterest, burenu-J

'[ erney conHieb ..-;th the rorporRt;ons jUJIt AS nny consequence eonDietS-with t.he existence of iUt pretiuppoe.iliool." \ Dut once the \'i('t OfY hnt! been won, the bureaucracy needed constnntly to mui ntain th~ appcAmnce of the lIC]'WIrntioll in order to jU.$tify its Q"-n existence. For

the SIIHle 8pirit t.hnt create. the corporlltion in suciety creAtes buresuerney in the ltate. Thc 9pirit of burellucrllcy is sltscked Along wi th the lpirit of the corporation. If bureuucl'llcy carlier nltllcked Ihe existence of eorporntioliS to mnkc rOOIll for its own existence, it HQ'" (lUemph to sllst:.aiu fOl'cdully thc e:sistencp. of the col'porutioM so n~ to preserve the corporations' . pirit, which iti iUi 0"'11 spirit.!

T hus b~ll'enllcrncy "lIocntcd to itse lf (I pnrticulur, closed suciety within the state, t he col~s.::iou$ne&5, will 1I1lt! po"'er o( the date_ -. In the bIlttle IIgnillst lite eorl)()ro.tiolls the bureAucracy wa, IlCCt$IIII ril)' "ietoriou6 us ench corporation nceded it to eoonblll other

, 'Crilulue of 1I"""I'. I'hilotophy ottbe8Iat~" JlF,OA II (\) 4;:;5. Eulon.nd (J"dd.t. ". III-I.

, 'Criliq~e or lI~gel '~ I'hil"""I' loy ohhc SU'ft'. ,II~:GA ,I (I) 4,;.;".; E""lml "nd G",l~ at, p. 104.

118

corporations, whereas the burcllucrncy ,,"<IS sc!f-suflicient. In short: 'T he £9qmrntion is the " Ucrnpt of d,-il ~oci/)ly t.o I)t)come the sLIt!!, but bliTcallcrnc is til l,hl ' ;1& ;w1uilrty has me cl"il S<!9M" T i'lis bllreallcrflcy, which CAme into e\Tst:cncc to sol"e problems IHHI then engendered them ill order to CQntillllc existing, lnrncd into an end in itself and achiend nnthillg. It was this process tha t IIcoountcd for all the chnrncleristics of bureaucrllcy= the form[\l i~m, the. h i ~rl\rchr. the. mystique, ti,e identification of ;\..9 0""11 cHds with those of the state.

:\h.rx sums up these chnructeristics in 1\ p>lSliage ",hose insight oml incisiveness lI,er; t 1\ lengthy qUotAtion:

HUrNi IlCrflC), considers ibclf the ultimate /illit(l purpose of tile stAte. Since bure:mcrncy c,.>U\'crts its ' form"I' purposes into its content, it el'erywhcl"1l comes into eonAict with 'real' purposes. It is, t herefore, compelled to pAss off whAt is formal for the content nnd the content for what is forma l. T he purposes of the st"le lire ehllnged into the purposes of uureaus IIIHI ,·ice verslI. Ullreflllcriley is A circle thllt no one elln lell\'e."H.ii Ilierarehy is" hierarchy of information. T he top entrusts the lower circle! with lin insight intu dllwi ls, whi le the lower circles entrust the

IlJ top with I", insight into whllt is uni\"el"Snl, and thus they tIIutually deeei"e each other.

llurellucrllcy is the imuginury stllte be5ide the real stAte, the Bpirituulism uf the $ll\le. ' ·fenee everything has a double meaning, n rcn! nlld n burMucractic meaning, just AI knowledge and ulso the will aril something double, realalld bureuuerntic. Whot is real is dellit "ith in its burelluctutic n"turc, i ll its otherworldly spiritual essencc. Bureavcraey possesses the 5tllte's essence. the $pirilulll essellce ofsoeiety. AS its privllte property. T he ull.ivcr.:ml spirit of burea ucrllcy is the secret, the mystery svst(linoo within burCAucracy itself uy hierArchy '111,1 mai n_ tained on the outside liS a c100eu oorporntiolL. T he OpCIl spirit And Bentiment of patriotism hence appear to bureaucracy uS (l

bctrllylll of this tIIyslllry. So authority is the principle of its knowlcdge. nllU t llC deiJicalioll of authority is its sentiment. Hut within burcaueracy spiritualism loc<lo,nes (l crRSS malerial _ i5lll, the lIlutllrinli~", uf I'''$$i,·., oL-euiellce, of faith in authority,

, 'Critique of I legal's I 'h il~pb)' of lheStal~', JlEGA 1 i (I) 400; t:8~tQn .n~ O"ddat, I" Is.:;.

Marx (wd Critiqul qf Hegel's Pldlo.!oplW qf Slate 110

of the rlIcd",,,is l1I of fixed forlllni activity, fba::u principles. ,·jews '\ll<ltraditions. For the indi"idu,,1 bureaucrat lhe state's purposes become his pri\"nw l)urpoSe \If hunting for higher positiulI~ alld looking a c.ftT~r for himself. In one respect he ,iews ncl\l(lilife AS slImething material, for the spirit of tllis life 1m'" its separate existence in bureaucracy.l

i\l llTlI:'S fundament ul criticism of taitlcd in the preceding sections. I

been transferred tv

" , .

religious

j ••

is the Sl\llle lIS UlJ\t eon ~

t o de~cribc

concerning examination is

the officiol into

knowledge. '3 T he Yery fact thnt there has to be an exuUli"l!t ion condemllc, l the sptcm out of lumd : 'The fuet thu t anyone lUIS the chance to acqui re the right to another sph~re Ulerely proves t), ... t his own Bphere hllB not (Ictunlised this right. What counts in the genuine ~tllte is not the chAnce of allY ci tizen to devote himself t o the uui"cr$al closs I\S something sp~al, but the capacity of thcl1ni"crsnl class to be lIdually universlli, that is, to be the elan of every citizen .'~

l .cuvi ng Hegel's diSCUSsion of the e)tecutil'e, i\brx proceeds to the legi~lnti " c powcr. Hcre hc objccts that Hegel SIlW the functiun~ uf the e,.tutc, 1I~ II medinlioll between the government on the olle hanu

1 'Cr itiq"" of I t eK"l"~ I'hiloik>phy !Of !be !)l~le', JlEGA I i (I) 4W f. ; r':a~to"

Dnd GU(L ,l~t, 1'1'. Is.:; IT. • ' Cri~i'I"QQf II "i\"d·. I'hi r....,ph)· uftheSht~'. MJ-:GA ,1 (I) 456; l:uIQIl all,j

GuddlOt . l" Ill.) . o 'Cr itique of Ile"d'", PhilO>Ql'hy " f Ih~ ::;\81~', J{f.'QA I i ( I) 461. <lhid" JOO; EMIOtlBt\d G"dd ~t, p. 1!lO.

1'" nml the 1>OOI'1e on the other. They eoublilulcllt he synthesis of the ~tde nlld civil society. M"r" objull to thi$ that the !'Stutes arc incnpable of effecting surh (l. ~Ylllhelli,. fur two rCSSOIl3; /irsl!),. thty only took part in t he Ic!;:isill tu re nut! UJll~ were nol ucti,'c in tho government /IS such; se.:oml1y, "S II consequence, t he}' prcsuppo5('J lIw sepllrJltion oCtile stllte lind cil'it society. 'I t is not revealed bow the csi.ll.tes nre to set about uniting in thcmst:h'es two coutrtHy pointA of view. The c§tatcli urb tbll ]Cgll! vpposition het wcnll the s tnle and civil society witbi" tho stnle. T hey I!.re, at the Slime limp, n aum mUl18 to dissolve thiA contradiction:1

IIegel 's ~olution of the problem .. · ... s thus only lUI apparent oll e :

'The clement orthe eswlefl i. the puliticai illusion of d"iI8ociety.·2 His merit, Marx went on, WHI to hn,·e npprecillted the politicsl ffi\lily for what it wllt and to hn ,'c described it correctly. ~ i ot to be hlame.} . . f'" e~'f'" nce of the modcrn S\.lltl R!l!..llij)ut..k!...Eret~nding that wilat c:ruls i!J the e!.lIence 0 t Ie atnU!. Thllt the u1.llQnAlit rmU!.prortd enn in the eQntradiction or irrational re~y that iii Kt all I!2!llts thj op~iU! of what it 'procllliIllS, and proclaims t he oppoaite of w lat it Is: 3 One oftllc mOllt ob,·iolJ5 instances of this wus precisely lI el,'"tlr s contention thtlt there eQuid be Rnything hut opposition between ~i\"il80cicty (thc sphere of private ivterc3t) .lIId the state. T he ad\"antllge of the represcIltntil·e t ype of con~titLitionllly in c1e"rly I",,-ing shown this. It WIlS 'the open, untlilsi fi ed llud consequent expression orthe moderu type of state. It is unconceale{1 oJ>JlOSition. ·..j T he result of thi. socilll division W IUI tint! mcmOen uf society were abo dh-idcd within themselves;

" ,.",'". Thus the citi:rell of t.he nre l epard e. T hus mlln . himself .. ' in

'Tritique <)/" IIfger. l'bil<W.>I.I,y ..r the Sta te', "'EG,~ I i ( I) 4111. • Ibio.l. 4,4. • Ihid. 4,(;, • IlJid. ~9'!.

.I/{!r.r "III! CrilifJllr. nf IIrgrf s J>lrilosop",'1 /'If SllIIr

.!)If;!L.l cun .... usil)' UO ""~"'::~:1i~!!!.h", ~Iy--do u ;:;~;~;:n ly IK>litiCRI stute IIpJll'SI'II • sepnrll.tion of politic,,! "miL, . , rruln ch il l, i~ own IIctunl eml,iricsi ...... fL lity.1

121

ItS .l

rrom

i\larx thcn gi\"e~ R histor i cslanl\!rsi~ or estutes, nn fllllilysi8 th"t is based on t.he .~:(te nded historie"l reading he undertook in the summer of 1 8·~3. In add ition to imme~illg hirn~df in the p(lliticil l thcori(:l! or " llIchia\"eUi, i\loull!Al}u icu /lnd BOIIUellll, I\ larx took e;dcnsil'e noh's on "'reneh, English, Amcriefln und e, ·en Swedish history and "·rote !l. chronologiCllI I.II.ble (lr t.he period A.I.>. 600-1589 that 1.""O,'crf!d eighty pagel, These rl!lIllingl Icd i\1'lrx to the condu~ion thnt whcrclls in the :'> Iiddle Age, the social estatcs u such al50 had legi!!llli\'e authority. thia authority "'IIS u t$ troyed by the nbsolute 1lI0narchies of the sixteenth nnd lWl,'entecnlh CCJ!t uri" .. ided by th(!\r celltrll. lised burellucr,,(!\cs. Although this politicnl Ruthority was not !It lirst tobUy suppresscd, and the cstnles continued to enj oy independcnt cxi!Jtence, the French Revolution eOlnplct~d the transfornllltioll tlnd redu~~d the p()1ili~1I1 ,lifr~rc i1ees of civil society to mcre socil\l rliiferclI('e! thnt hacl no political impllel.

It i~ /I. progru s of history [wrotc i\lnrx] that turns poli tic,,1 estAtes IIlto social csifl.t es, ~o that the memben of the state, eqUAl in the heanll of their political existence. 'hould l>e une(]unl in their urrlllltrilil §ocial emtence. like Christinlls "'lt~, (!(j lllil in hejll·en. ate unequal 011 earth. Strictly speaking, the trAlU!formlition of political cstat C!l into cl\'il estlltes ,,"lIS brought about loy tin Absolute 1II0rH\ffhy.1

Thus the e!llIItes in countries uther than Germll.ny hMI eeued to IHI..-e nny politicul $ignificllnee, lind Hegel's ideu of their L!.eing Ad equate reprcscntllt;'· e~ of ci,·iI society Wa$ archaic nnd iudicn, t i\'c of Germ(IU underilevcloptnc.nt. llegel'8 ~om:cp l u(l l fr<l'llcw<)rk WlIS based on the ideM of the J:'rC!lch Revolution, but his 801utiol18 wcr~ still medievlIl ; Ihis W!1~ II nlnrk ofho"' fll r the polilico l situjIti()n in (;erllltlny WIU retarded wlu:'1l co lllpilred "ith Germlln philosophy. Indeed, the only estate in the medic,""l 5<!IlSC of the

1 Ibid. J!H r. • I bio!. 497 .

'" Jlfllr;r. "'1M,. .lIl1r,ri.",.

wonl th"t ~lill rf'nlllineol ",,,a the uurcllucrncy il:iclf. TI,e estates weTC no lonller tlilTcrcntintcd by nee\1 und "'ork, for social mobility ]",d incr,~,,!\',1 cnom,oLlsly. 'T he only i'cncrai difference, superficillJ "",] foru1II1, i. merely that between conntry nutl lown. But in society it~lf, tliffcrcncCl tll!\-c!0IJed ill sphe .... s thnl. were con_ slll"t]y in ,nOlcllIcnl .. dtillirbitrllrineu III their principle. MOllcy and edm::ation lire the mAin distinguidung clmrncieri.stics:1 i\[nTX oreakll olT here. noting that the ]lropcr pIlla! to discUM this ",ill b!l in lAter pUMgt!A (ne\'er 'ATiUen) on Hegel's oon~ption of cil·il I()('icty. lIe UUI..'l:I, I ' OWI)I' CT, go on to !lily. in It remark that roreslultlows the future irnportllnc:e of the prolctllrilll in [li5 thought, thlli. the chnmclcri$tic thing about conte-lUpo",r), ci"i1 society was precisely thllt 'the JlM~rty-lelf;, the class that sl.lln(1$ in immedi.te need of worit, tile elRU of Inaterinllnbour, formed not $(I much R ellllS of dvil society III the bl1.5is on which itt:. ooruponentt:. rest IIlld

n1o\·e.'~ i\lnrx 80llUll1lrises hi' objection to Hegel as follows: 'A~ IJOOIl as ci,'U eltllte! I'IJ such become poJitiCliI estAtes, then there is no ne<!d ot IIl cdiltlion, und as goon us medilltion is necessnry, they ure nu l<ll1gcr p.oliticn1. ... lIegel wiahes to presen'e the m~die"~l system of estllle8 but in the modern context at legisl"ti"e llowcrj nnd he wllnt~ 1egislntive 1)01"er, but in the frllllleworit ofn ,nedie .. ,,1 syatem of estates ! II is the Ivorst sort of syncretism:'

Marx then discu8!JeB lI~b'eI'a view thnt one rstate in pnrlieulllf is eminently fitted to wield legislltt;"e IXlII'er _ the lnncloll-ners. T he 5ptem of inlllicnllhlc pro~rtics lind primogeniture IllCllnt, lIcoording to Hegel, thllt the J.mdoll'ning nristocracy was firmly rooted in the family, the lut of lubstllnti"e dhicallife. Furthermo .... , their oWllel'8ilil' of IRlld !lot only ga"e them independence from both the stlltC nnd eh'U society but also leio!ure for politielll lIeti"ity. Mllrx rejeeLs this IIlllllysis. T he ,"cry faet that the IlIlltl_ owning clan lUl(l thi. indllperulellCl! of the 8tate implied thiltothel't did not lu\\'e it; Ilnd thnl, lince this independem:e lind RrbitrRriIlCS$ wen! the charaeterilltiCli of pri"ate property, Ilind was pri\'fIle property par ezcdltnu, In Hegel's Recount, the politiwl con· stitution " 'lIS the constitution of pri,·"te property" PrinKlg4!niture was simply the re"ellliion of the inner nllture of Inndo"'nership; itt:. i,u,lii!rlRbility col the socili l linits orthe iando"-neJ'I; llnel ensured

• 'Critkpt<: "r J h1lf'l '. J't.il(l!i(lph)· of the St. Ie', Ji£GA , i (I) 4!li. ' I bid.~!li ' Ibid. 314 f.

J/flr,e wul Crituf!le rif flegel', PMIOIop!!y (II Stilt' "3 their iJol~ltion frol11 ci,"iI society; tl,e f,.ct thnt the lund WlIS 11 01 tlistril,utetl equ"lly ilmong the chi ldren II""S eonlrury to the IOCill1 n"ture oJ'the family. Thus the \"ery claM that WII' ~l on the f"mil)' c()lI.tantl), IIcted in conln.t1ictioll to the (undtlmentlll principle of lI'll fllmily. ~or was this the only contrlldietioJ' in I Il'gel' . .. coount; in the .&eetions of the R«htlJllrilOlopllie .luling with pri,"ate law, Ilegel hnd defined pri,· .. te prop·erty ftS cuenth,lIy I'Iliennhlc amI disposable according to the will (If the owner. III COlllrMt to the rigid, d(!lId inalienability of primogeniture, e,'en the \ iet'li of ci"il !IOdet)' IIpl'eared l1li at least hUlllan I'ices. i\loreO\'er, ina !)" tem ofprimogen;ture, t here waJ a group uf men who wCn!IIl""gh"ers by birtk lt WI\6 ironiCIII that thi9 groupshouloJ be of the Innc1ed nrutoerney who IlIld \HOst laughed at the idcn ofiuoom hllmnn rights. But thi. '1"111 merely typical of Hegel'$ constant oseilllltion between a politic,,) idealism nnd II crlllll mllteriuli~lII,

H e,.." , once .. guin, :\Iarx di5eo"ers the rundameutlllly Itllti hllmanist trend in lIegei thnt he intends, using ~'euerbach'a

appr(,)l!.eh, to reverse. ' Hcr~ditll ry good!, lllnded property lire what rc.mftins. It i5 what i! eonstnnt in the rclatiorurhil); it is thll sub, shnc!!. The inheritor, the owuer is only nn accident ... the subject is the thing lind predicate is the mun. Will be':olllea II property of property:l

Ilegel then di~cussed the other p. ... rt of t he eshltl'll, 'the nlOloile side of ci .. il society', in ~'OlItr..st to the agricultural c1HSS. T heir .iu and the nnture of their oecul'''lion~ mllde it nccelllllry thut the), should be represented lJy deputies. In Heger! I'ie\\', :'Ilarx lUuiutnincd, the idea thllt all membenr of the 5tale Imd II right to participate in deliberations nnd decision' on matters of geller:;1 concern Wll5 n l'ilcile one, which stopped lIt the abstl'llet tlefinition of whnt it ,,"as to be a melliber of the stllte, It wu the 'dclI1I)erntie clement withoul IIny .... tional form'"! :\lll.tx'S reilly, ob'iously leaning on lIouuellll, is:

In a ,.."ally rlltional stAte one could. .. n511·er 'It i~ not the CaJl.Cl

that all ns intli\'idull]a ,hould participate in deliLcrnlion and .Iee;sio" on gcncrul political matters', ror the 'indil'iduals' Imrticipnte in deliberating Hlld dcdding on political nnltte" of

, ' ('riti'lue or 1l~~I·. l'hilooo"l,y "r too Slalll'. ,IO:G_~ I i (I) "Z; • • ·(:.iliq\lf! or lIeger. I'hi loolo"by of tI,,, Slate', JII::G,( I j (I) 530 i }'.-.;\<," and

G"cl,\at , ". 100.

"

\

124

gcncr~l concern liS 'nil" thnt is, wi t hin society IImi 115 pnns of society. ~ot nil uS imlividuuls, but t he imlh'iduals as alJ.l

H~g<!l'$ who1 ... problem nro~, lIS ocfQrc, from the SC llnto! jO!! oftbe \ stnte from civil SOCI!!t y:

The inl'lIsion of civil society Cit mtllSC, where p<lssible tot"JJy, into Icgisluti,'c power and its wi!! to substitute itself as actual r()r" jiclilious l~gisluti,'c power - tills i~ nothing out the dri"1) of d"il society to girt itself political existence or to ou\kc its poJi ticil! existence "ciuaL T he dri\'/~ of ('.hil society to bCCOlIlC political or to mnkc political society nciulli is c,idcnt itS II drive toward pnrticipntion in icgisiatil'c pow!'r ns universul flS

possible. 2

1Ilarx sees two po8sibililies: if lhe ~tllte Hml civil society ':oulinne to hI) sepArate, then nil ... s inoj.·iOuals <,nnnot pnttieipnte in the legi~lature except through deputies, the 'expre!Sion of the scpan.tion "",1 merely u duulistic unity'.3 Secondly, if ci" il ~oeiely becomes polit ical society, thell the significance of Icgi5lative power uS representlltive dis"ppears, for it uepends on It liI«>i\lgical kind of sqUtrlLtion ofthc stlLtc from r.i,·il .~ocicty. Hcn ,~c, what t he people should aim for WA~ not legislative powe! but go\'ernmcntul power. i\laTx ends his discussion with a passage which mllkes clcur how, in the summer of 184S, he en\'i5llged future politiCAl de\'elop· ments;

The esscnti!<1 dcmo.nd tlillt every soci{l\ need, law, etc., be poli tic{lUy evoked and determined by the entire stute in the social sense, i~ modified in the st nte 118 politiclll nbst ractioll in thJ\t the formal stllnd ag~inst another force (content) is altri hu ted to it besides its Ilctual content. Tlus is no F rench "bstrKctioll , hut Ii uCI.'t:ssury conscquenc~ , iJeclluse tIm actunl state exi~ts only us the political stnte· formnliSnl as ol).~cT\·cl1 llbo"e. It is "ot a 'l',estion whether civil sodety should exercise legisl"ti,'c power lhrough deputies or through all "s inrli,·id""ls. llullcer it is UJC ' luestion \If llJC rud.ent and grentest

, 'Critique or Ho:gcl'~ I'bi!o!KIJ)hy of tbeState', .IfEGA , i (1) 603!l; Eastoa and Guddat, p. 197 .

• 'Critiquo of lIegel 's l'hilo.ophy OflhoSla l,,', MEG.,I,' (I) ~~I; Easton 8n,[ (;",ldat. 1" 1!JfI.

"Criti'l',eof HCJ;<~'s Philo;,o phy oft),,,StI\tc', .1ft:CA ,i (1) ~42; ED! ton and Guddlt, I" ~'OO.

Maret and CritiqUI: of lIeger, PMb»ophy <If Stole

possi ble uni\'ersalisll.tion of the voting. of Ilcth'c as \l'dl 11$ pMsi\'e suffrage. This is the rell l b one of contention of political r eform, in France as wdlllS in Englnnd .. ,

Votillg is the acll, ,,1 rt'llItion~hip of "ctuIII civil society to the (:ivil s()C i~ty of the legisl"ti,'" power, to the represenlnlive clement . Or, voting is the immcdi'l tc, direct relatiollship of civ il soeiety to the p-01iticlil state, 1I0t only in appearnllc~ hut in existence .... Only iu unlimited voting, active as well as p;,ssi" e, doCli ci"i l societr flctuflily ri ~<.: tfJ lUi u.l$trueti{Hl of itsel f, to politic .. 1 existence aB itll t rue universnl .. lid essentinl e"i~ten ce, n ut the realisatioll \If this ubstractio1\ is also the trnn~cendence of the "bstnletion. By making its political existence actusi lls ib t rue exist(:nc(:, civi l ~()Ciety also makes its civil c.'.;istence unes5cnti,,1 ill contrast to its politkal existence. And with the

lone thing separated, the other, its opposite, {"lk Withi " t he f1hstrAct political stat e the reform of voting is A dissol l.ltion of the state, but likcwise the dissolution of civil society.l

Thos Marx ,u'rh'c-s here at the Mme conclusion as in his discussion or 'true democracy'. DcmQc~llcy im plied ullivel'Sul suffTllge, and universal soffr"b'" would lc"d to the dissolution of the state. It is clear from thi~ IllAlluscript !lmt i\larx "'liS adopting the fundamental humanism of Feuerbneh and with it Feuerbach'~ reversal of subject and predicate in the Hegelian diulcctic. 1l;Iurx comidered it evident tha t Ilny future del"clopment W<lS going to in\"olve a recovery by man or the social dimension th(lt had been loot e,'er si nce the French Revolution levelled II ll citizell8 in the politicnl state and thus nccentulltcu ti,e iudiv,du"lism of bour. geois ~ociely. I-Ie .. n,s explicil thnt pril'fltc property must cease to he the basis of social organisation, but it i.., not ol",iou~ llmt he W/lS argoing for its abolition, nor did he make clellr the vnrious roles of clasSCll in the socinl evolution. This ib not u~ ,,11 surprising in tllllt "Iflrx's manuscript represents only" prdiminllry survey of Hegel's text. The Illanuseript is incomplete ltlld there arc ref"rCllees to elnborntion~ either not \lnd~rtl.ken by MlIrx or since lost. It II"IlS written at a v(:ry lTilnsienl stage in thl' intelll'clnal evolution of both i\]nrx lind his collellgues.1 The different

, Crilique of lItgel', l'l'; '-'phy ..,fthe State', ,I'I-.'G.4 I j (I) 64.1 f.; t:H" "" and GuddRt , pr. 201 f .

• • :vid"nce fn' tlo,~ ,t to he fuund in i\ 1 ~tx'l m~nu.,cript HJ1elf. For UAml)I~,

jll ,. ph," .... 4)...,,,1 '.'art;,,!: from ,,,,If·OOIl,,,,iou., real Sl'iri l', I'll ",,~u~JJll}'

' 26 .!tau IKfure .Mur.rintl

nllituilcs and conCclltuai \'lIgUClieM of the Young Hegelian! nre "'ell brought oul in the (ollowing «xtnlet (rom a lelkr of Julius \\\')d~J.: ... lcuJing Derliu nuliclIl:

lIow orten do I tdl the~e people, 1hllt basically we ure nil really ... comnlunists nud lithci$u;, T he only differellt"e i~ that SOUle see the impossihilit.y of i"""efli"tdy ntttl.iulug this goul of onrl, IIml therefore t ry (or son,et li ing rCllli$nhlc; while t he olhen. t he Blluers, Duhi, Hc., con!ider thnt hYf'O"rilicul Hud !lfli rlll thut ... we must prove th(l ncccsdt)' of An uphI!A\',\I, or ruther uf 1\ rcuuildi llg, ill t heory li nd then ,t will come about in ]lrlortice of illl 0"'1\ Ile<:ord. I think lhnt , 10 long as the balance of power is 011 the side of reliction. these people tlo more harlll than gooli; hut that is their opinion, {or l1nfortunntely they li re pe"irni~b_ 1

Mnrx himself WIlJ very conscious of the intelleclual tli!;8"",Y nmong the Nltlicals amI wrote to HUlo:e ,won lifter finishing his critique of Hegel : 'E '-en though there il no doubt aoout the '"helice', tbcre tlOC6 prenlil 1111 the more confugion aoout the ·whither'. It i. not only the fllct t hllt It generlllllnarchy has broken out !L illO " !! the reformers; .... neh oue willillwe to ad mit to him$elf thllt he hns no cxnet idea of whnt i8 to hnpIlen.':

7. Till.: 1'01l 1liLITIU o r A GJ:uIAs lh~"OLUT I OS

A letter of Murx to Ruge, written in September 1843 and luter published in the Veuuc4-f'r(l,uiNi«I,,: Jalrrblle/ru, gh-es II. good imprc5sion uf " I arx' s inl.ellerllllllllnd politiCliI position immedi_ IItely btfore lell,-ing Germany. and of how mueh importance III! !lUaehed to what he called the 'reform of consciousness-, T hings might not be very clear, he wrote, hut 'that is (':l:ncUy tile advantUSC of the ncw dircetion, numcly, that we do Hot nntieip1l.te the

deleted the waffl 'M!!f-con8CIoUB' " 'hich Wfto, no ,[""ht, too ...,min ' i!<:<!IIt of n ."er·o ;,[$1.1""". s".. 'Critiq"e of ll eg<ll'. I'bilOiiO[,hy or th~ Stak,' JlEGJ4. , ; (I) ~III.

'Q"oted in G, :'<!.yer, ' [)I, Ann."glI dOl polit .. hen lIadihlllom,," 1m \'(Irm"~lit:h~" I'~_n', 7.(il""~~filr I'oIUlk, ~, (19t3).

" I."U~r to lIugtt', .J1f:G,~ , i (I) ~73; wlon .,Id Gudd.l, p. -::12,

Jl/ur:r alld Critique rif Hrgt/'I Philosoph,,! rif Slate

world dogmllticlllly. but rnthcr ,..i~h to li lld the new .. -orld t hrough critici3n\ of the old:\ Whllt "'83 d e .. r ..... 3 Ih1l.l nil dogmntisnl& were ,,,,,,eceplohle, oml thlll i"eluded the \'lIriOUf systemll of com"'1.mi5m:

Espccilllly commlHlislIl i5 !. dogmatic Illn t nteliou; I h,,,'c in mind the nClunlly e:tisting communism, lOS C"bet, ])ewmy, Weitliu)I:, d e., teneh it, not some other imngineli or possible onc. T h.is COOllllu nism is itself only II. ~eparl\te phenomenon of the lmnlllnidic principle. infected by its oppwitc, pc.ivllle I\d"l\nlllge_ Dinolution of pri-'ate property. t herefore, is !II no wily identielll ,..ith eommuni!l1l, lind communism S1l.W the origin of other s...:iuliJtic doctrines like those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc" .wt (tceident"lI), bllt neces9-11rily in opposition to iueEr, bo>cnu~e eommunism itself is only 8 specinl, one-sided renlillJ\lion o(the socinlirtic principle. _\nd the entire soci"littic principle. in turn, is only one ,ide of the rcnlity of IWIIIIUI IIlltUrf!.t

In Germll.ny, the realiu.tion ofthi5 hUllIlln nature depended 1I.00IC

all on II critiquc or rcligion "nd polit ics, for i .. Ger!llilny these were the foclil points of iutere,t ; ready-made SJStems ,,-cre no use; cri licisnl lttld to tuke n5 ita starting,point contemporary uttitudc$. ::.. rnrx nssert!, ill t erms thnt reen]] Hegel's account of the progress of Reu$on ill history: ' Huson hIlS alwit)"s uis ted, hut not atWit)"! in Nll;onnl form.'J It1l.lion1l.1 goab were already inherent in uny form ()f pr1l.eticlll or theore ticAl consciousness, find Awaited their uncovering by the critic. It il in th~e terms tl."t "lurx justilie' hi~ pre\-iolls lengthy e:tnminlltion of lIegel : social truth could he made to elllerge from the contmdictory nature of the politic,,1 SUIte,

JU-it IU religion i.$ the uble of conl.ents of t he theorillicni ~lruggles or nutnkin,l, the political5lale is Ulal of the pmetiCll.I ones. ' J'he politiclIlst."t<', therefore, eXl'resse3" 11 soei1tlstruggle5, needs, and truths within its form .fUb -"petie rei pubLic/lc. By no nlel.lns, then , is the Hloslspeeifie rolilical prohlem - such II! the dilterence between the estale system al\(\ t he rcprucnlltth-e syst em - to be the Ollject of our critique on IOccounl of lhe h'auleur del prim;ipo. For t his question IIIcrdy C!<:IJrc15cs in n

, l !.tid .. ". 212, • ' 1.cllfT laltu)('!', ,lIt:I:A I i (1) ;',:1; ~:"'m'" lind .. ",IdIlI.I'P' 21~ r. .' LeIter to Ruge', JU:QA I t (I) 6H; ~':"tOI\ .,Id Uuddd, I" 213_

''''' politicnl wily tlu: difference between the control or nUllIlind the control or pri".le prol)Crty, T he <-ritie not only CAn bul must cuter into these ~Ijtic!ll problems, which erau socialist! regard 1111 below the;r dignity. By developing the ad,'antage of the reprClcntAti\'(! 1)'Jb_m m'er the ",stllte system II critic gets (l

large I'I'tly interested practically.1

And 0 11« thi ' iuttrell hfld I.Ieen aroused, t he "cry logic of progrea "mulO, u i\ ]lIrx ~hO"'M in his critique of Hegel, lead to the state'! .lif;5<)]utio": ' Ily elevating the repraenial;'-e system from its politiclIl context to II general contut and by claiming the t rue siglliliclU\Ce that;$ u!,Jc to it, ile (i.e. the critic] lit lhe SlIme time tor<:es his Pftrty to go beyond iuelt, for il.!l ,-idory is simultaneously its 10$'."

T lms Mllrx saw 110 objection to Btllrling from actual political strugglts Ilnd cxphlining why they took pillce, The point WR6 to demy!tify religious Ilnd politielll problems by instilling an aware· ness of their exclusively liilmiinrlim~n$io~ i\rii'ri'eiid"s his ietle(;

OUf sioglln, therefore, ,,,u6l 00; Ql.for~1...c.QDs.eiousneu, not ti,rollgh d<l!l.lIltl~, lout thrQugh II IUIlysis of the mystir~a! COil~~\I,~II-;S~ tlmt is ,w~leiiril>out ~l(,_ wh~ i!Lre Iglon ~ Jlci,tlca. I t_ will he el'itl~ntt then, that l he world-.!!!.Is 1011$ 4,reamed of io.t.11e!hiu¥ of wllich it onlJ has to OO"' .... mc conscious ill order to P05$c5S it III uctuality:Jt wilf'be c"ident £hilt there is uol II l>ig bltlnk ootween tliepRs£l\nd TIiefnt"iii'<:!, 1iiifri\tller it i!,. n IIl1\tter of re~lising the thoughls anne pMt. It will be evinent, linlilly, t.hllt mllnkind .Joe! not begin anTnew work but perfornu its old work conu:iously.

Therefore, we can cxpr<!ss the lIim of our periodical in one pUra~c: >I. .,df-u m.lentunilil]g (criticl'Il philO!loph~-) of the age concenoiug its .truggl .... lind "'ishes.. 'I'hi$ is .. lIIsk for t1lf'_,,"orld and ror liB. It muat bc the work Qf united forces, It is a confession, nothing else, To ha.\'C its ains fo.rgi\"Jll6 m,'mkiliiJl,as- only to declare them ror wllllt thcy are.'

I 't...tkr to n"ge', MHO,. • i <I) 11;4; [a"ton and Cuddlt, pp, 21~ r. ' I bid .. ,., ~J4. "Leuer to n up', JlEO.A • i (I) 676; I!I.tlon and G"ddat, pp. 214 t.

Marx a nd the Deutsch-Franzosische J ahrbiicher

W UILt: i\ larx WI\' 6tud)'ing !It Krellmnch, the plan ror the Drl(tlt'h.FrallrD4ilr.he Ju/orbflcker had been making progress, Huge and Frocbel were lIet.i\·c in trying to get Germnn participation but the liber"l Irrileri refused, aud of t he Derlin Young Hegelian! only \Jruuo Onuer I'lgreed, and in the end c,'en he contrihuted notl,ing, So the collaborators werc reduced to tho!e who were alrcllrl)' interested in Frocbei's Zfl rich publications : Hen, Enge18, finkunin IUU.I Hcrwegh, T heir views were \'cry di"ersc~ I [e58 nnd n "kunin proc\ni med their own brnnd of ee1eet.ie nnll,cl1O' eOffilllunulIlI, ,.-),ite }o'roebel, Herwegh and Iluge vaguely caUl",l thelllseh·ea democrl\b lind emphasised the importance of populnr ed llcnliou, .\5 French influence Oil t he Y OUIl!\" Hegclinns increued nnd, with it. thtir politicai llwnrenes!, the tCrtll 'deillocrncy' began to replRte the vngucr'rlldic,.!ism'. But t he unity of n uge's group went no further th lln II "i~h to further politiell l upplieatiun of Feucrooch', philosophy. Mllr,; sllgg~ted in i\11I)' 184::1 tont F~lIerbnch contribute to the review II critique or Schelling;

Scllelling's sincere eariy thought., . [wrote ) [arxj hn~ become for you truth lind realily, rull of strengtll und ,,"eight. Thill is why Schdlill!l: i~ an anticipdory cnricalure of you. I)ut once II cnrieuture is fUCl!(i "·ilh the relllity, it necw.'lfil~· \·lInishes into th in lIir. T hul I consider yOIl the necessary lind nntllrlll ad\'er· III<r,l' of 8<'heIliTlg, the a{h'enary summoned by their majesties Salute Illld lI i!tory. The struggle that QPpo»es yuu is the 1t1"'Utt..t;:ie that opposes the imngc of philvsophy 10 phi1O!1ollhy itsdf.'

I ' J,clkr 10 . ·cuc.lwlh', MRGA I 1(2) 316 f .

130 Mar./' Ixforc M llrxiam

F cucr iJ.1c1J, iH)IW!I'C(, refuse.1 to write for the journul : jn his opinion, the Lime wus lIot yet ripe for a transit.ioJi frolll theory to prilctice, for the theory IlIld ~till t o he perfected; i\l nrx nud Rugc were 1<)0 impatient for udioll.

The prnct,icni side of tI,c re,';ew WAS more casil), settle.!. In order to liuanc(: it, R uge tried to flout" !nrge loull in GermlOny, out when this failed completely he oore v;rtuill!y Ule whole cost of p"blicution himself. As I) place of publicfltion Strasoourg (wllieh they hftd prc\'iou~ ly fuvoured) W/IS rl'jecled, nnd Fruehel proposed that he ullt! Huge go to Ilrnssels und Pl.ris to scc which of the two would be more sui table. /It the end of .fuly Huge travelled west, ~topped III KrcuzlIfl.ch to sec :'IIarx, lind then, juiuillg force~ with I-less lind Froeuel II I Cologne, went Oil to Brussels . BrU$sels, loo, pro"cd unsatisfnetory, for though the I'ress wa~ I'cry free therr~, the cily WIIS too smal! and JIOt poli tically_ minded. So in I\ugust Hess lind n"ge moved 011 to l ' lI ri8.

,\11 the contributors to t he Deutulr-Frlll!zo8i8Che J uhrblJcher viewed Pllris liS bot h II hll\"en fi nd nn inspiration. Huge wrote :

\.re >Ire going to Frnnce, the threshold of II new world . illny it IL VI) up to our drellms! i\ t the end of our jO<1rney wl' will lill<.! the VlIst "ane~' of P"ris, till' <'rlldle of the new Europe, the great Inborutory where world history is formed and hILS its evcr fre~h source. I t is in PariJi thllt we shall Ii"e our "idories and our defellb. E"(!n our philosophy, the field where we a re in fL.lvll l1 ce of our time, will only he aule t o triumph when proclfLimed in PfLris and impregrUlwd with the French ~piril.l

Thoc-se eXJX:etations were justified in so fi.r ftS Pllris wns t he undisputed centre of soci"list thought. T he revolutions of 1789 (Uld 1&'11) h"d m""de Paris the centre of politicnl thinking. T he ' ~urgeoi a monarchy' of Louis-]>h ilippe ""lIS drawing to its close nnd becoming more conseT\'lIti \'f~; the nnsorship luws hnd been tiglitelLcd in 18:3.'>, and front ]840 onwlLrds the nnti -lib<:cnl Gui?.ot domina led tJw Government. But p<llitical commitment was nnne tILe less lively for being semi.clandestine, "nd there ""lIS Il bewildering variety of secUi, kllie". and neW$pap_CN all produiming Some form of lIOciniism.l As SOOIl ftS he arrived in Pnri~ Ruge !et

, ,\. n"g~, Z,,-'Ci Jn~., ill J'ari~ (IA,ip"ig, 111_18), J If. I h" au excdlent aeOO1lnt of cutrent loolitic.1 groupingll a'l>ll'u blication_"

~C<! 1'. K'gi, G.lINi. d •• hiftOTifthm .Iraterinl/.",,,. (Vienna, 1~) I)P. 1.'17 If.

131

out t o lIIuke ('ontads, pilotcd by I1es~, who was familillr with t.he politicol scene from his days therc "s eorrespondent of the R Mi .. uchc Zeil!mg. I1 i~ account of bis tOLLT of the .((/oM i~ a CIItnlogue of one misll!ldcrSlllnrling liner "ne>ther.1 }~lIcl, ~.rty thought the other" cl,ntury out of (bte. A,na'l.cd th"t nugc nppellred so little versed in communism, the French were equally surprised by his being a disciple of atheism and materialism, wlLtchwords of t he pre-1789 French thought. nuge could not understftnd how the French could be so attached to religion, which Germftn philosophy had ~pent such long nnd iU"oIved efforts in neulrnlising. Lam,ueutti.s, 5 1,ule, Lanmrtinc, Leroux, Cubet, Con~idhllnl, nil refused their pllrticip.-.tioll, fttld in spite of e"ery effort the !)cul8c!r-F r(IIJZQliuhe J((J,rbiitller appeared withvut " single French contribution. By November, Huge beglln to he n.nxious e'·en "bout the number of his German contributors : lIerwpgh WII8 honeymooning lind BlLkunin WIIS lelLding ILn errnnt Jif(! ufter <:.:<pubiou CrO LU Zurich. This gup wus filled by Heine, who, IULVing been inc rcftsi t, :;ly symplLthetic to socialist ideas .-luring his lhree·yenr stn)' in Paris, agreed to contribute some poems, ami by Ferdinand Bernnys, "ceently expelled from Bantria "fter being t he editor of the Jlfmmheimer A&rut.ZejlulIg. )\1,l rx llimself llrrived in P,uis on 11 Octohor with ,Jenny IIlready preg_ l HtlIt. T hcy lodged ttt 38 Rue V" neuu, on the Left Uunk near the luvllli de~, together with Herwegh, ~Hi.ure r, a lellder of the (;o(",,,n wvrkers' Lengue of the Ju~t, tllld Rugo, who cOllcci" cd of tIl(, house liS nn expcriment in community living.

, n"g~, 0]>. cit. ,\ " ari,i\L" intcll~.'ct~a l'~ ;"'1'''-'8>;''" of 11_ 1ICC"'8 to hn,.., IK ... " '-he gwerAI o"e pro<i"offi by Cennan philorophcl'>l " I I ~a i, very eJJective i n ( ou, ... rtiul!" the high l)" ednc~t.,.] : bn t he talk! in concepb and not d irC<ltly , and "'"' i~ "ni"tdli~ihl~ to tIL"", ..-Im are not highly ed"c., t~-d. So far "U Ocrm"n I'hil""Ovhcl"I!"re th" iIIL'''e. I Ie ..... "Iiooo tltis ALtd saY8 he wjJJ improve. .. The Yo"ng (;cm'AII t,h; Jo.oI,hical ij<hnol lik .. Ih i. exawrat;on in th@(l'Y

... "'\leh Or e,'ell more than Ibe J"cohin~ do in p",ctice. In gcner~1 Rll ~" r h "'o"l~ u~ a g.m'Lin~ ob.>t"de •.•. J)"taf'",t from tI,,,,,,, ,..eak"""""" /I """ ;"l"Cry g<K>J.' Qnot"d in ,I. C. Il h",~hl i, m e KQm"'u"i'I~" ;" der &hrJXf~ (l Qri"h, 1 8~:1) 1'[" 0.1 f.

1 ~2

1. '0:-.: Til>; ,h ;wUII Q UJ,;STlO:-':'

It i~ cliflieult to tel l holl' quid;!y ;\ Itl rx II'US tllTecteu by his stn)' in l'nri., or hi~ b 'O (.'Ss"ys published in February 1844 in the JJl'lltttll -Frlw::iMilclre J nltrbiichrr, the tint. 'On The J ewish Questioll" WfI' in Inrge pnrt IITitlen before his IIm"fll fllld often merel), Aumrllluise. paauge. of hia 'Critique orHegel'g Philosophy oCtile Stflte' lind the reading on Fnmce lind ~\meriea thllt he hAd undertAken at KreuxnIl.ch in July lind Augllst. The result is to replnl..'C politienl emnncipdion b), ~al emancipation, b), rejecting lIegel's not.ion of 'ohjectil'e spi rit', which here becomes inearnntc in society lind 1I0t in the .tate, Starting from t he questioll of Jewish emflncipnlion, he further den·lops the problem of the fepantlion in mod!':rn politiC!! of t he state lind eivil society with "'hieh he hKd !llready dealt lit some lellgH,. Since laW the i'ruMinn .l ews hnd enjoyed righl..8 tnr inferior to those ofChristill.ns; r",cently Iiberllls hlld strongly su pported the Jew$ in their del1\!\nd$ for equIIHty.

The a pprondws of both H""er nml ;\Inrx SW", fru", lI le disillusion tlleY felt with the Hberals, who had done nothing to help the radicllls in 1842- 5 when under government pressure. n"uer criticised the liberab' claim in two Ilrtide~ . The first, puLlished in the D(:U/#c/It JII!tr/Jiicl(f1' in !'iovelllbcr 1842, tina t hen in tI $eparllte pnmphl~t in 1845, userted llmt the opponents of Jewish emlllldP lltiOIl were iu perior to ils ndvocates: their only fllult was thnt they stopped ~ltort or lIuhjeclin,lt the Christian stat e tu the S-llIIlC

cri ticism to.S Jud"ism. Whnt nei ther party had realised Wll8 that, in order to he n hIe to Ih'e together, both J e"'S nnd ChristiallS had to rellounce ,,'lolllSf'pfln,ted them, ~cither Christi61ls nor JewllIs ~uch coulil hl",e humnn righb; IKI it was not only .Jews bul fill men who nec::dcd elllnndptt tiQl[ Ch il right! were inconcei\'l!.ble in an nhsohlte stat e. Religiot1s Jlrcjllllire nnd rdigiow; separation would "lI.nish when dvil lind politiedl e1l.5t es dnd prj,ilcgt's were done I1.w"y with.

MlI. rx lutd been thinking IIhout thi~ question lor some t ime. In Allsust lIH2 he Ioltd 'Isked 1\ (riend to send I,i", 1111 "nti_semitie article. hy I [('rmes 110 lhllt he "u"ld I,ublisll a rellly.1 At the

, cr. ' L"U~r tu 01'1'""10,,;,,,', JlEf'lA , i (2) ~;9,

M arx alUl till! ' /}cut8ch-FrmuElilChe Jallrbilchr.r' ''''' bcgirllling of hi~ stay III ]\ reuznad" the presi~~i1t or tho .Jc~·jli l , commllnity therc IIskcd i\larx to presentll pcltllt.m. t.o the HI ,UlI!land Diet in fn"our of the JewS. i\1:trx IlgrcOO, wntuog to HUb'C; ' I lowev('f tiett'Stable I find the J ewish religion, llal1l'.r'¥ concept ion seems to me too 1Irn,lract',1 an incidental critieiSll1llmt hy the end of hillltl.y in Kreu~n.leh he had worked UI) in to II fulI-$cll le n~\..I'~k. Bauer wII.J.ucc~ ofsubjcc~ to his criti~sm only the 'CI~nstlll n Itltte' aud not the stil le a~ l uch, and UlUS (ailing to cxnuune. the... rcllltionship of polit ical e't)n"eipntjon~ that is, lilt: gm~1li r!g. ~r politicnl rights, 1(1 humfln emancipation. y o Jlr~ "e t he lI1$uffi~enC)' or 1\ merely political emancipation. Illt")o(,I~ b~ atheIst I'fopagnndll, Murx poinl..8 out that the Jewish question 1~ ~or~u . itlted in terms that nul' Ilccording to the degree of Inl~atlUIl nchie.-ed l>y ' ·llriOuslta.t.ea. In the Christian ~tate of Gern'nr~y the 'question WKA n purely theological one, (or the J~w ~ound Inmsclr in re ligious opposition to the statc. In the ~nst~tutlonl!l .• tnt.e of I?ntnce, wilh its incomplete political emll.!lclpulton lind Its stale religion (the religion of the majority), the Jewish qnestion WIIS. II politiclll probl('m retllining II theologiclI I IIppc.mtilCe, Whcr('n~ lit the free $t ... tel or North A",eriea th" problem WIIS " purely secular one, lind nccordillgly lilly criticism hurl to bu puliticlI}, lIud t hus DKuer's solution cell5ed to be relevant. \'o larx quotes sCl'el'll1 "utitoritiel to IIhow the extent of religious pn.cticc ill North 1\ltlcriea and goes Oil'

Jrwe lind e,'en in II count ry with (1111 politicKI ell1allciputi()u t hll t religion not only e:o;i5b but is fl'CSh Rnd vital, .we h",:e proofthllt t lte e.xi5tc l1 ce of relil,!ioll is not lI1eOm Jllltl,ble WIth the, ~ull ' lc,'elopment of the state, Bul ~i nce the (')(l~lence of r~l,glOn impliel" defect, the source of tillS defect II1U$t ~ ~ou~htln the nRtnre of the stllte itself. We no longer tnke rellglOl1 to I.M: the basi' but only the manifestation of secular narrownC!!s. lI ~ nce ... ·e uplain rcliboious rl'.lItriction of free citi~en5 Ull the o.US'8 of thei r ~erul!l.r restriction. We uo not clllllO tlu,t they mUlt tr"n5C('nd their religious restriction in order ~o Irnn~L'(l nd t he!r secular limitlltions. We uo dai m lh.d they w,1I lnlll3cemi t heIr religious 1't'1Itriclion Ollce they have tranSC(!~ded. their .ecul,,;r limitntions. We du not oollnrt seenlllr qU('I;tlOll5 II1to lheolog.' rnl ou(,s. We L'OII,ert thcologieul question! i~lO lIeculnr ~~'C5' tion5. History h ili long enough been rcsoh'ed lIllo 5up.:rsl,llOll,

1 ·I .... uct to Huge', )l~;G" , i (~) 3013.

'M but no,"' we call retlOh'c superstition into history. The qu(!Slion of the reh,tiu/l of poJilicalllUiuncipni.ioll t.o religion Occome' for U~ It <'[<I<:5tioll of th~ relalion of politicill I'mntlcipution to Illl1n1W emll.n.::i pflliOIl. We criticise Ule religious II'l!fllmess of the politicAl IItnte by criticising the Jloliticn] stille in ib ~clllnr LVIIstitlltion IIjM.rt (rom the religiou~ defecl!l,1

Thus political emnnciplltion from religion did nul frill! men from religious ('once.pti(.ou$, for politicKl l'l"ullIcipntion was !lot the SUIIll'! .\$ human emnncipntion. Por "'~flll\ple. cithens might alill 1M oollnd by the Iimiltltions of II religion from which n stnle hnu sh,d'ell itH.lf free. \\,hll t Bnucr hnd 1I0t renli~d Will thnt the political enlnucifl'lliOIl he advocated embodied 611 nliclilltion sin,ilnf to the religioul alienntion he IUIII jU5t critidsed . .\lan'~ emrmcipation. bcCIIUS(l it p(tss~-d through the inten' lcdiury of the stute, \\,tU stil! nb~tr.1ct, indirect Imu pnrtinl. '£\'en when mall prodllitlll himself un dheis t throngh the nH!dium of the stute -that is, when he decill res the ~b.te to be atheistic - he is sliU CJtpth'e to religion since he only rerogniije$ hia atheism indirectly through an intermediary. Religion i! merely tJlI: indirect rt<:og, nilion of man through a ruediator, T he 6tllte is llr~ medilltor be, tween ulUn and the freedolll of mlln:~

i\IIlTX then moves on to 1\ doser exnmination of the rciutionship between the abstract politit:ll.l state and d"i! society: n e begins by drawing II p"rallcl beb-een emnncipation from rp.ligion nlld cmllncipntion from pri"atl! property. The slfl.te abolished prin'te property II~ fill' ItS lI.e ~'Qn'titution WitS concerned by decltiring that 11 0 property qu"lifi,:aUol1 was neCI'SMry for \·oting. Bul lhi~, f ... r frum reAlly aooliahing prj ' · ... te proiH'rty, Itctul\l1y presupposeil it. T he slnte 'is aw ... re of itself AS" political stllte nlH,I make. its unil'el'l!alitycffccti,·c only in oppovsitioll to theleelelllenu',lU",l u, in opposition topn,-lIle property,eduClltiou, occllp"tion \tnd lOon.

The result was thnt man's being wal profoundly dj,·jucd. Wherefl! his Social being wns fulfilled in the IIbstrnct sphere of the ~tllte, the material cO!lditi ol!~ of his life! re!lHuincd unchAnged:

, 'On tlwl J .. ",igb Q" ... I; .. ,,'. JU;(JA I i (I) 661 f.: &1.1(1)" and liu,ld~t, p. ~2'!. • 'o..n .. nminaliOll.,r M.,..,,·,ldeu on """uJ.\rI~llon .1101 politico. _ K \\,~il.

'&kular_llon des looliti.or.lu:n I)~nkem·. J.tQr~'.'Huntudi.tlt. " . (1962) 141 11". 1'0r0 the ,If ... ii!b Qu~ti .. ,,·. Jl1:·GA. r i ( 1) r,s,1: F.a;ot"n .,,01 Guddal, 1'. :!""LI. " On Ih~ .Ie ... oish QU(!!llio,,', .II"·GA ,i (I) MI4; J::UMA .'Id Guddnt, 1'- ~2Ii.

Mar;r aud the' Drutult , i'rtI"ziNiR.lte J(lhrbikltu'

Dy ita nnturc tI,C perfccted pooliticnl stille i~ Ill""'~ gpecics-lifci

in opposition 1.0 his nlllleri,,1 life, All t he pre ~ "I']losilion5 of this egoistic life rClllnill i" eivil society outside'! thc stute, hut ItS

qUlllitiu of civil ~oci~ty. Where the politic"l d ... te Ims nel,ic"e(1 it! de,-e1opmcnt, mlln ICf\ds " double lire, (, he""culy 1111<1 .\11

Ctlrthly lifc, not only in thought or con.cimlnl~ but in [\('tuality. In the po.oliticill community he regards himsclf Itl " comnumnl being: bul in ch·i l society he ;$ neti .. e ali I/, privntfl in(lil'idunl, t.rcfl t~ ot.her l111'n f1$ me'\II$, I'educe~ himself to fI.

mellns, rlnt! l)f!coomf'S I h@. ['lIlly thing or nlicn powel'$. 'I'he politiclIl strite is as spiritullI in relation to civilsocicty flS heu\'cil i§ in rcilition to e"rth .... Herc, where he eounts 115 lin lIetu ... 1 iml;'·irlulI l to himselr and otllcl'$, hc is Iln i1lusory phenomenon. In the strite, where he counta 119 II species,being, on the other hnml, he ;8 nn im ... ginll ry memloer of lUI i'"l'1),";ncd sovereignty, divcsted of his uetu,,1 inrlh'i,lu,,1 life n1l<1 clH!owed with [Ill

t.lnl(etu,,1 universality"

To de5C1'ibe thi. dual peuonlllity, .\[lInt utCS 1l0uSl!l!8u'. terril' of bouTgeui# IIml ciJ0!l~ (indeed he had alrelldy used them in hil nrticle on the freP.dom orthe J'r ... u in i\[IlY 1642 in the Rireini,cire Zri luIIg). neturning to the 5ubject of religion, i\ lnrx points out that in ci\'il society it WII! jtlst bt<:lIuse of th is dichoto,ny thnt religion Iiourishcu there !W much. T,'or religio[\, which was nothing but the idenliSAt;on of this di"ision, found its b6t has;s in political emnncif'l'tion, the perfection of thi, dhil;ion; and the forlllfi of religion were but II function of thl! types of political org>lni5lltion. Instr.Jld of being the spirit of the stille, II! in German~', religion beCAme the ~pirit of civil s\'ICiely, the spirit of egois,n n1l(1 .Ji"ision -II Iul i\],,1'l( fIDi nted to the infillite number ot sl!ct$ in North .\mcnCIl. It wnl t rue that the French revolutionary stllte tried to nflinJl it5elf in 01'1106ition to eil·jJ aociety by nbolish, ing religion ""d pri\'ate l,rOllot!rty, rlfld Iluempted to set il.3eJr up fl5 the real species-life of l1I/ln. But t],is state of affllirs, being in direct oPfIDsition to the st"te's own pre8u]lpo~itions, could only be mninlllinerl by violence lind wJls t.],ere(ore hound to oomc to nU cna.'

T his anlllysis enables Mltrx 10 open Il parenthesis on the

, See note .bo ..... PI'. 11" . • ·On the J e .. hll Que;tio,,·. Jlf':GA'; (I) Mi l : ~:'<II.On ."d Cedd.t. I,,,.I!:.'> r. '1'hi •• ".Irm dra .... 1>11 Ilegd's vie .... s 0 11 tb" t'1't'"d, Itcvolut ion, 0" Il~gtr.

I<:t Plamc".t~, .UQI/llud .$Ildtt,l. JJ 100 f.

lS6

Christilln Gernlllnie ~utc, the ohjeet of 50 much of his criticism when writing tor the R lIeillilche 2citulIg, T his sut (', he ~ilyS, is far fro m being the politicul rc~disution of Chri~liauity, III it, Cll ris· ti,1nity wns merd)" Il political tool and ootrl\yed ill; own principles, fur tl,C true Christiull stille wus 'the atheistic stute, t he demueriltie ~tnte, the stilte lhnt relegiltes religion to t.hn le,·c1 of other elcments of ch'U sodet)". T he s\J,te thnt i$ still theologicill Ilud

st.ill officially prest:ribeB belief in Christianity, has not Jet dllred to Jednre itself to be iI stilt(' And has not yd sH('(:(!('tleil in e"ltpr('s9' ing in secular and human form , in its Rctuality ns a state, those human fOllnd"tiolls of which Christi,,";ty is the sublime e"pression ." ' Germany wus nlienat ion incorporuted into n politicnl regi ,nc: its ,.c1"tion6 were hierarehicnl relntions of fuiU, ill whidl the religious $pirit h"d /lot heeu sceul"rised. Nor, indeed, could it be sceulurised in such circu mstlmc~s . For sinc~ it Wll.$ merely Jeri"lltive, its secularislttion depended on politicnl seculllrisation. T his was whnt happened in the democratic state: 'T he basis of the .lemocrntic state is not Clu1stillnity but the human ground of Christ ianity. lleligion remains t he ideal, unsecular consciousness of its members beenusc it is the iden! form of the stnge of hunuuI deve.1opment /ltll\ined in the democratic slI\te.'!

Political d.., lI1OCt"(\CY WU~ not, however, to be denigrnted. For it was n weilt step fonvard and 'the fi nal form of universal human emnncipation wit hin the prevailing order of things '.3 Political democrlLcy could be called Christian in t hllt it had man as its principle and regarded him as su,·creign !lnd supreme, Dut unfortu nately this meant

m,ln in his IInci"ilised lind lln80eiul aspect, in his fortuitous e!tistenee /lnd just a.s he is, corru pted hy the entire organisation of ollr society, lost and alienated from himself, oppressed by illhuman relations and elements - in a word, man who i~ uot yet nn actunl species.beillg, T he sovereignty of 'lUlU - though M "lien (utd distinct from "ei llul m(lH - which is the chimer .. , dreum, fond post ulate ofChristiftnity, is a tfongihle Ilnd present nctuality, a secular ma!tilll, in demoeracy: 4

1 'On Ihll J ~I\"I~b Q Ut'lltio"', JlEGA 1 I (1) fKl7 ; Ea,wn s",J (; ,,~dat, 1'. 226. • 'On th6 ,Fa,..i,b Q\l<\l;tinn', .illiG), , i (1) "!)(Ii f:'.o.ton Rnd Guddat, 1" ~31 . • 'On the .F",,·j,L Q".,.ti",,', .IIJ.."GA I i (1) M17; E""ton .. ,,,I (;uddat. 1'. ~2j . "0" tI,e .l,'wi.b Q"""I;",,·, Jtl!."GA 1 i (I) fioo; Ea.to'~ lind Gudd~t, 1'. 2:11.

137

1 laving shown thnt religion is Illore thnn compatible with civil rights, l\1('fl< HOW eo"te~t s Duun's refusul t o (...,kuowledge t he .Iewish clnilll to lmmnn rights, the righu of IMIl. Bnuer hnd Mid tlull neit her t he Jew Ilor tI ,e Christian coulll claim Unil'crS"! hUr\]an rights l>ecnuse their p::nlieol:tr ,wd cltclusi"e religions nece~~arily contrfodicted any such c1nims. l\Irtrlc refutes Bnller's view by referring to t he Frend , and Am€rican Consti t utions. First ly, hc di5cuS/ies the distinction between the rightli of the citizl"II and thc righu of mall. T he rights of the citiwn were of" polilical order ; they e!tpressed Illan's p><rtieipation in the uniYCTsali t)" of t he state nnd, ns hnd ooen 311OWI1, hy no menns prc· supp<lsed t he fooolitiQn of religion. These rights CQntuined Ule socinl essence orum n - though in a tota lly abstracl form -nnd the redniming of this essence would give rise to human emancipntion. Not so the righ ts of man in general : being expressions of the di,'ision of bourgeois !ocicty they had not hing ~ocia.1 about t hem.' As e!templilied in the French Const itutions of 1791 and 1793 lind in the Constitutions of New H"mpshire ami I>ennsyh-anin, the righh of mnn did lIot deny tire rigltl lo pr(ldise religion; 011 the contrary, they I!!tpreuly recognised it, and i\ lar!t quotes chapt('r and "erse to prove it.

i\1B.r!t t hen asks: why are these rights called the righh of mall? Decuuse tJ'e), were t ire rights of lfilUi rCb'Urdcd tIS II member of cidl society. And why was the member ofeidl society identified with lIlon? Because the rights of man were egoistic and (l nt i·soeiaL T his WIIB the ease with ,ti l the eonstitutiolls ill ' Iuestiull, tweu the most radical; none ~ue~eeded in ~lIoor(linating 'mrHl' to the -citizen' . All tIle rights of nmn thnt tl,ey prod!!.imed lmt! the sallie

chAracter. Liberty, for !)!ta mp!e, 'the power b~!onging to ell.ch mnn to do anything wilich does not irnp:.dr the righh of others' , Wal,

lleconlillg to .\Illrx, 'not bllsed 011 the ns"ocilltion of "''''' with "'"" bu t ruther 011 the separatioll of mall from 'U lI l1. I t ig the right of U,is separation, the right of the limited indi,'iduullinuled to him· self:: Proper ty, the right lo dispose of one's possessions ns one wills without regard to other~, Wll.$ -the right of self-interest.. . I t

, g"" th01'3!!aageo iu tLa Iloly J.i"nily-.d'~l"(! :\ [nr~ ~n["rg"", 011 tll i. and Nh~r "'[M'ets of Lhe ,h",·isl, 'luc;tilln; ,:.,,, "Iso E. BJocL, 'M"" a"d Cili...,,, I1ce'mli llg III .Marx ', in Soci"li~1 Ji ... "'a~il""' ~-d. E. f rolt"" (Lumluu, 1007) VI" ~oo If.

• '0" the Jcwioh Question', .Vl:·G,1 I i (I) &~ ; Euwn ~nd Guddat, 1'. :::lfi.

138

lel!! e'-cry mllll lind in ot.her men not thn reuJisution, but rllt her the limilatioll of hi6 o"'n freedolll,'IJ Equality Wf\S 110 mure llll'" the t'qunl right to the li l.>t! rty d~~cribcd " bOI'C, ""d lICcurity wu I.he gUllca ntee of egoism. i\ ]urx conclude»:

T hus none of !.he so-called right. uf men g<lCS bc:yolHt the cgoidic mnn, the Illll n w;lhdr ... 'nl into hiruself, his pThate interest lind his prh"lIle choie<.: , anti aepnrnted frol11 the 00"'. ulIllIity R~ " IIlcIlIUcr of civil society. Flit from viewing mun here in h; ~ species-i)f)ing, his ~pcde8-ijrc ihdr - soc:iel/' _ mther nppellrs to Oc un external frnmework for the indivh unl. limiting hi.! original independ.:ncc. T he only bond between men i! natnT,,1 ne~itYt need anti pn,"ate inttrest, the t1Utintcllllllce of thtir prorerty (lo ut! egOifi lic pCl"$()ns.1

T hese comidern t ion& mA ke it slr" ngc, ~Inrx continue~, lh"t t hele egois tic "ights lI"d OCCrl proclldmerl mos t forcefully hy men in re,'olutioll"ry France \l'JIO h,ul been bent on founding {\ politiCIII community and awaking men'~ },atriotisnI to fend olr fON!ign nggrCIIsioll. For ill their theory citizell$ilip and the politiCflI community were merely the m~all5 to protect natural, hllluall right!. or t'Uun;c, the pr>lctice of the revolutionllric5 had orten cout",dieted thei r theory nnd the statc power IJlld intervened to curtail men', liberties, but the problem still remJ\incd, It had lin easy ~olutiun: political emancipation was the di$$olutioll of the old ('h'il soeiety - feudali,m _ all of .. ·h05e elemenls had II direclly polit icAl ehaN\eter (Mu" hcre summArUeS the long and detailed 11IlAlyses in the 'Critique of lIegel'$ Ph.ilosophy of t he Stttte'). Thi. unity wa5 destroyed when feudalism ,1i:IKppellred: 'The political re~olu lio li thereby abolished the poliliCftI character of ci"j) Roeiety. It slmue.red civi l society into it$ constituent elements - on lhe one lmlld individuals and 011 the other the materilll and spiritual clements constituting the ,·ital content and ti\il !ituatioll of these indi"idunl!. H. rclelOS .. ,:u the political spirit, which had Ocen broken, fragmented, amI lost, III it were, ill the I'ariou~ til l de-slIc6 of fcndnl ~ocictJ:l But the transition frolll feudal to bourgeois soei ... ty had not brought hUm,," emllncipntion: 'Thu! mAn " '11$ uot freed from religioll; lie receh'oo religiout freedom, He WILli not

"1) .. IN! Jew;.!. (,),_u,-",'. JlF.OA ,I (1)~; " .... '011 •• Id Gu,M. " I" 236-• 'Un tloa,lewi!;h Qu,,",io,,', .I1I';(IA ,i (I) u9~; ~:".I<'" .,ul r.",h1." 1'1',:!36 r. • '0" Ib",le"·i,,lt Quc~tio,, ', JU;C ... ,I j (I) [,0,; .;8.t"11 .m' Guddat, 1'. 239.

l GO

r .. eeel from properly. lie reech'ed freedom of property. lie WII~ not frf'f'rl r'~)Jll the cgoi~m of t.rllele but rc,·d,· ... d frclldo", of trlld,,:' .\ Iun;: does not go illto dctllil uhout the Iournull CIIHUlcipILtiun thA t he proposes in plllee of poliliCllI emancipntion. I II' Ildines 1)OIiticul em.nncipntion llS '(I n:=duction or man to;1 m~lItl~r or civil weiety. to '''' eguatie independent intli\'idu.nl on the one ha.)d lind to a eiti1.(!n,a moral person, on the ot her', und declarel : 'Only ... he,) the <\ctual. indi"idu(ll man hllft IJl ken bilek into Jji",~elfthe nhslrnd eiti,.cn (l nd in lois C\'el)'da), lifc, his indi,·idual work, and hi. indi"idnnl rdtltionshlps has become" species being, only whcn l'e hat recognised and organi~cJ IUs own pow"l'lI (IS $OClttJ powers I!O th"t social foree is no longer sepnrated from hiJll 1\$ p • .)lilicai !Wwer, only then i. Jlllman cutaudJmlion complete:1

T he 5eevml purt of !\]ltf:\l'$ review article i8 (]e,·oted to Buuer's enoy .. !!titled 'T he CIlp.ndty or Present-DIlY ,J~ws amI Christillns t(> DecQUIe Free·, which wal published in ] lerwegh's 'l ·rr:tN/!J.()I'e Shuts from Slritzeriand. Biluer's thcme WtlS t hat the Jew wu further rcmo,·W rrom enlilneipntion thun the Chri~tilllJ for, ",hereu the Christian hlld only to break with his own religion, the ,J"w hnt! I\lso lo brenk with the completion of hil religion, that is, Christianity. T he Christian lmd only one step to !linke, the Jow two, T llkingissue agllin with Bauer's theological forlnuhtlion of the prolJlem, i\ IIIr.I: de,'elops (I the.ne that he had aln:=ady touchet! on in the first purt of his nrticle: reli:,,';oll u the spiritual fat;ade of a sortlid allll egoistic .. rorld. For l'hlrl., the qUC5tion of Jewisb emaneipfltion h(ld become the ,!" esti(>n of whnt specific sociAL element needs to he o\'erCOll1c in order t.o 'Iholish Judais Il I. lie delill Cli thr 5et"l~ r bMi~ of Judaism 1\5 practical need nnd 5clfin terest, the Jew'~ worlrlJy cult 'IS harter, (lnd his worldly gud III

1I10llf'~· . T IIf' rondnsiOll i3:

,\ n o"R"lli.su.lion of """iety thut would ltoolil1h the preconditiOJls of hargJ\ining lind thus its lJO$SIoility would render the ,lew imponihJe, Il is reli~iou~ l:OUSci O USllCU WQultl diuoh'c like .n dull mi, t in the actual lire-gi,·ing fli r of society, 011 the other hHud, whell the ,Jew Tt,<:ognisu thill pr.nctie(ll nnluce of hi$ ItS

futile lind stnns 10 eiimilllite it, he works a","), fronl his t .... e\;OU$ ,Ie..-clupmc"t townr<b b'(! nl!.ml human elllll.ncip.ntion " l In 11"'.I .... I.h Que.;tu,,,,, .1I1o.Yi..t ,; (I) 600; l :.",,,,, .nd Cuddal, 1" :!.fO . • 'I hI lile , I ~wj,h Qu""lio,,', M~;('A , i (I) (;W ; E.,lvn ~",l Glld,\" t, I" :!·I t .

)010

lind oPl>osef llH~ bupreme ]lmclk.l] clIprcSl>ioIJ of hUIIl<ln sel fuli~ llfltiO".l

The .J~w hfld, howcvcr, fl lrcRny cmRndp.'lled himself in fI

.J/!,,·i5h w ... y. 'l'),i8 )",d UcCri possibl" u... ... ~Ill.se tile Cltri~ti,," world 10:1(.1 Uecomc imprcgll/lleo]itic,,] rights lllattered little to ,Ie,,·s, who in Ilrncticll wielded gre,,! linn" e;,,! power. -TIn! oontradiction existing beh,cell the prodictll politiefl] power of the Jew and his political righu iii the c:onlnulid;on between ]>olitiCli 8. 1\<1 IilU1lIeiai poII'cr in genertl!. While poliliCll ideally is !uperior to tinandlll po"'er, in aehm! (liet it 11111 I~ollle its serCI

T he basis of d"il !oddy was prflcti(,BI need and the god of this prllcticalneet\ wal mOlley, the lecularised god of the Jewi:

;\[one), is the jCllloliS !-'od of Isrflel b(>fore whom 110 other pI mA.y exist. 1\ lone), df'gt'A.(les nil the gods of mnnldnd _ /lnd com·ert.a t.hem into commooities. " Ioney is t hf' ~nernl, self· sufficient vnlno of everything. ]-Iencc it hM robbed the whole ,,'orltl, the hutll"ll world M well ,,~ nfllure, of its proper "'orth, l\ loue)' is the lI!iellil ted cSlielice of Uln ll'~ lubour !lntllirc, und thi~ nlien caBenCIl dominute9 him 109 hc worships i1.3

.J\I(l ni~rn ('onM nOl n4lVelop further n~ n religion, hut hnn succeeded in il\st ull ing itself ill pr'lctice lit the l, clO rt of ci"il society nnd thc Chri$linll world;

Jud:lillllJ rellch~a its lleight with the perfcdioJl of eh·n society, hut chil society ndlie\'es I"erfection onl" in the Christian world. Onl)' under the reign of Chri6lill ll ity, which makes all nationlOl, IInfurnl, mornl fln d theoretical reln tioll5hips elliernll l to mnn, WflS d,-it society II ble to ~eIWlri\Ie iuel f completely from politiclll life. 5e\'er fl1l mlln's lpecil!!l .t iu, substitute f'goism and Aelhh neC(\ ror those t.ies, 1111,1 dino]"e the human world into II world of IItomistic, mutuAlly hO!ltile indivj.lutlls.t

Thus Christinnity. which arose out of JudlOism, hnd now dissolved itself M('k into .Judllism.

_\I lIn:'~ lVllclusiou outlines the ide~1 of nlienated ]lIoour tllRt he will shortly develop d length: ' As long as man is capti\'at ed in

• 'On Ih~ J""''''b Q"~l j<)n·, JfRGA ,i ( I) 00\: E."t"" .nd Cud.lal. I" ~13. • '0" the J~",i .b Qu,;oti .... ' , J/J;OA ,i (I) {i(Y.' t,; ~t(l" .,>oj C"d"". I" U~ "0" lbe,I ~.d,.b (lute!l~lon', Jli;GA ,I (1) 600; t: •• I"" and Gucldal,I'I" ~~:; r. • '0" the J~,,'t..b Quettiun'. Jlb'O,! ,I (1) ()O.I f,j E~~I(ln ami (J"ddal. I" ::! I'.

HI

religio n, kllows hi ~ nnture only itS objeetified. "nd lhel'i!h)' c(1II,·crl.s hi_ nature into nn "lien illusory being, so under t l,C dOlllin"liou of cgoi!lic ueC(1 he can only net pnlctieal1y, ollly prfletien1J), produce ubj!.,<:l$. by 5\lhof(li""tin~ 001}, his products IUld his neli,ity to Ihe dorniulIl.ion ornn alien being. bestowing upon them the significnnce of nn illicit enti ly - of money: '

i\lanr of the lhemCll or thi3 art icle, P<' rticularly tilat of money :lnd th~ Jo:",~lt-Christian rcmtioruhip, are tIlken directly from a n nrticle by lien enlitletl 'On t he Essence of MOM}'·.~ Hess slIh· milteu this ;,rtie1e for publication in the D~llt,~h·Fr(mwi'th~ Jahrbllcher, but the re\ie \\' ooUnpsed before it 00111<1 "ppe"f. I1 ~'SS'8 influence hel'i! is importAnt, U3 l\b_rx's cri ticism of ]lItuer's , eeond article contain. his first tenta tive 4pplicntion to the fielt! of economiC8 of Feuerooch's idea of alienation. Hess hnd eon· verted both Engeb lIud Bllkunin to communism, hut his influence on " i flrx wu.s a much slower process: ill 1842-5, whcn I - ] ell&'~ prO!elytisillg wus at its most active, l\JUrlI Wf\8 110 communist, nnd by tin: timc "llIfX did become a communist, in Paris, Hess w,)! only o ne ItrnOllg Ulany new points of reference, Nevcrt helcu, Ilt t his purtieulllr juncture, i\ [arll ~e() nUI to han! leaned vcry hCf\vi!y on 1 [ t;!S8,3

It is lnrgely this article tl .. ,t hus given the impression th"t Mnr)!: wns lU\ tlnti ,semite.' T his is illneeufiltc. In the pns$lIges already referred to in the llol!J Family which de,,1 ,,·ith Ihe Jcwish question, ?I "r)!: lends to sid" wit h the J e"'$ more than with Bnucr. i\lnrx also IIlflkcs clenr there that he j udgcs the politie"l mnt urity <)r II. ..... te by t he tl egr~'I: to which the Jews in it are enlt.neip"le.I, nnd consitlera it ilIogiral of C;\·j) society not to gn,n! the ,Jewl etlu:,1 rights ,- Equt<lly imporltlllt, JUlllmtum, the Gerrnun word for

, 'On tbe , r ~",lob QUe.!t;OIl" JlEGA r i ( I) 00.:;, ~:a.,lo" .'lIl (Juddat, p. ~.w. • Stu r"rtlw". ,\ IcLelbn, 'fJ,e l ·o"~9 1f'9"fifl~f ""d Kdrl Jfd~~, Pl'. \"'-1 If. • 0 .. 411e ,.,Lotionship of 11_ 10 Man:, _ Kigi. Gtm';,. of« 'iol."';""tn

Jlau~WI''''''''I'I'' IoN ff., :'[cLelJan. rloe Y......, IItgt1i/l>l' lind A.·drl Jlar~. 1'1" 137 If. For I rie. ~mllluiiil.ing lhe 'e!ielwtologic:al' d ... ,nr.nl> pKUli.r to both, _ ~:, Thier, Do • .Il~oc4t~.IId.tt, jl1~. Jl6ri (C/iUing.n, 1(l:,7) pp. 41 11'.

• Scc-, •• an extreme. I). lI uflf'f!!'s .,.)il;on of thU attiele enlitled ... II'~ ..... 'Aoort Jt~. r.-.... York, 19&1).

• ~ S. :\vlner!,' :'Ia." .lId Je ... io b EIl .. "rc il~'liu,,', Ju...naJIifIM 1II1t."., Af ltk<t~, u v (I!lOI).

H 2

,!udlll'm, hnd the derin.lin~ meuning of 'cOIllm('rce', lIod it is this lIl('/wing wl,leh is uppermost in "'1"U'5 mind throughout tllll l1rtic1c, 'JlIOilism' h~'$ , cry little religiuus, lind still less rndnl, content (or !\I lIn: nnd it "'ould 00 litUe exngg('rnliOll 10 SIt,!, UUlt this lntter part of i\lltrx's rcvie'" i, lin extende(i pun III ,jAllcr', ctpcnse.

2, ' I NTIlOIlUCT/ON TO Till!: C. , T'QUII 0 1' H II:GE L'I

PII'LOSOPIt Y 01' L "w'

T he perspective of the second of Man:'$llrliclcs puulished in l he DeliluA~ f'rl",zij8udu: J llhrblicA"," i5 noticeauly different. \\'herr.1IA with re~"rJ to the J ewish question !\IlIrx <:ritid$c$ I\(wcl' withiu the (rllmework of 1"euerUneh's philosophy, the 'Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's l'hilosOIJhy of uw' <:ontAins much more ,\iSpllssionllte hietoriclllllnlllysis, It W,'S wtittelllli 1111 introduction 10 It proposed re"Titing of his 'Cril,ique of Hegel 's l'hilosoph~' of the StAle' of which the ',Iewish QU('!Ition' blld lIirelidy elaborated lleverAI themes, Being only an introduction, it is in tht! ""tUTC of fI sumllllITY, ordering it!! themes in II wily thAt reHected t he diffe rent stllgn of i\l lIrx', OWII de"elopment : religious, philowphietlt, political, re\'olutionllry, The result iii II manifC:!llo whose inci~i>·e· ness find doguultis'll reeltn the Commlmilt .1lturift410 of 18'!.8. All the clemenb of the article Arc already <:ontailled in the 'Critique of II l')!;cl's rhilOtiophy of tile Sulc', t hough there ill. quile fI new Cl1l phllSi~ on the proletArillt All future clUlIlI<:ipator of society. Al though written in P'lris, the "'bole uTticle is onenlltted towards Gcrmnny lIud the pml~ihili ty of n (;erm(ln rc\"olution. Ae<:ordingly :\Iarx ~tArt.s with religion lind goes on to politi~ . the two '"<>6t prelling suhjeeu in Gcrmllny,,<:eonling to hi~ progmlll,"ntic leller to Hnge of September 1845.'

Mllrx begins by alllliling to the whole work of the Y ollng Hegelian school from Strauss to FeuerhnclL. ' FoT Gernllln\'" he wrotc, ' the criticism of religion hAS bcen cUentilllly t'O lIll;lclecl, 111111 cri ticism of religion is the premisc of 1\11 criticism:= It elln he infcT'T('d thut for M"rx entici~m of religion .... ". 'the I,remise of "II

, s.,., • Lo,'c, 1'1" I W If. • ' l" tl'1)<l ,,,:Lio" I" ~ l' rit;'IM (If 11 ~gd'. I'hiloioopl,l' or IA'W', ,1/1-."0'( , i (I)

007; l'doilLou all.1 Gu.hlaL, I" ~lfI.

Marx aud tilt: ' Dlutsdl,Frlll,zIMiJcllc JahrbQc"rr'

criticism" for two rellM)IIS; in GermAny, rel igion wal one or the chief l'il1urII of the l'ru ~9 illn stll\.e II nii had to Uc knocked ""'I' y bd(l re nil)" politkAl dlllllge could he tI,ought of; more geneTl. lly, he helie"w tblll religion II'II.S the most edrcme form of ,\licllution and the point where Ally process of Sl:CUllln!llltioll hntl to slnrt, IIlld this 51ll'pliL'li him with to. ".od,,1 for cri ticism of other form~ of llli,mntion, T he nc..-:t sentenee8 li re II ilUmnlliry of FeUl)rbaell'iI (and Hegel's) "ie".-, on religion: .

The profane c:'l:isteul'e of crror is eOlllpro'Hisc.1 when its l,elJ. \'enly oratio pro IIru ctfocU [defence of nltne lind hearth] hns bet!n refuted, ",1,,11, .. -ho hIlS round only the reHecHon of himself ill the fllllln51ic reAlity of hea,'cll wherc he sought II.

SIlp<:rlllllnrlll heing. will no longer be inclined to find the semblAnce of hilllself, only the 1I0n·hullllln being, where ht! Iookl II ml TIlust scek hil t rue TCulity,1

Dut t hen :>IRrx showl where he ditren frou' Feuerhl.ch. It was not simply 1\ q"c~tion of reduction, of reducing religious clement.! to othen that were more fundamental. HcJigioll'li fllbe consciowmclS of mUll and the world elisted (II such because mllll and the world were rAdically "itiated ~ 'T he bltSis of irreligious <:ritici9m is : llIan .\U\kes religio", religioll docs not mnke mlln. Out mflll is 1I0l an nbstnlct. being squllUing outside the world. :\Ian is the world of man, the II.l.8te, $ociety, Till! stllte lind this society produce religion , which is All illverted eonsciou5lless of the world becnuse they lire tin in"erted ""orld. ' 3 Ileligion WIIS the neeeS$Ilry idefl1istie rorllpletion of II. dcficient mlileri,,1 world lind M llrx used II clI~c"de c.of imAgM here: ' Religion is the generAli~ed thec.ory of t his worM, jt~ eucyclc.o~dic COlll l)CuJium, it!! logic in populnr fornI, its spiri t ualisti<: poiNt '/'AOfI"eur, ltll enthusia\ulI, it.! montl u nction, its rolemll eoull'icrucnt, i lS genel'lll ground of consolAtion find jUbtiiiclltion.·' ~ll\rx continues with fI ~erie. of brilliant metaphors to show thnt religion, while being the 6)'nll'tom or " deep 6OCio. l

• Introduction to a Critiqlle of 11""",1'. I'hilo!<ol'b)' of u \O': JlEG.A L I (I) 007: Enton An,1 (;",1<1.1.". 'U9.

I 'J ntroduelkm h' a Crili,!uu of Heger . l'hiloliOl'!'Y of l.aw: JU:GA , ; ( I) 007: l-':a.I(on an.1 ""ddAl, I' ''' ~49 f ,

o ' Intro.hlC,ion I .. a CriLiq...,of II~I '. l'hiJo.iol'hy 0)( r.. ... : J/I::UA , i ( I) 007: £.,.to" an:! (j",ldRt, I" :!MI.

• ' i lltrodllcliull 10 a Cril i(l" e of 1I<'ft!I'i l'hil"'"'J,hr of I.IIW: ,!ff:014 • ; (I)

00" l-:a.ston a",1 GuddaL, ". ~Ml,

144 MlJrx &:.forc Jllllr:cillil

1Il(lluise, ,,,,is nl tho; suml) til lie ,I protest (>guinst this louluise. n cligioll lIe'-crthcless stood in the 11'(1), of rtny cure of sociA! cvib sin~'" III the Mille time it bmdcrl to jllsUfy them.

' I'I 'I! struggle u!l:ninst religio" is therefore iuniredly the struggle "":";I1&t lh"t world ",I,osc spiriLuu]llromu is religion . Heligioue suff~riHg is til", e:<p ,"cssiun of renl su(J'ering antllll Ule slime tilllll the prntest Ilb'l,illSl real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of 1\ hel\ rtle~~ world, Il~ it i5 the spirit of spiritless conditionS. It is the opium of the people . ... The criticism uf religion is thus in ClUbr~'Q it criticis,,) of the "ule of tcltrs whose 11ll1o is religion.1

j\Jnrx did not write IYluch nOOnt religion (£lIgels wrote much more) amI this is the most detailed passage in all his writings. \\'hnt he snys here - thAt religion is a fantasy of nlicnatcd mnn - is representat ive of his early thought. In later remarks, the element of elnss ideology WlIs much more dominllnt. i\!/lrX thought religion at ouce important and unimporhlnt. JmiX'rtllnl, because the purely spirituill eompenMtion thllt it Affordf!d men fru strll ted efl'ort.~ lit IIIlLterilll hetterment. Unimportant, as he considered thllt his collellgues and pllrticulnrly Feuerbllch had fully exposed tI,e true nature of religion. It was only u secondary phenomenon lind, being dependent on socio·economic circumstances, merited no independent criticism.

Attcm pts to characterise Marxism as " ~ligion, al though pl!!u~iblc within thcir own terms, oon fllse the issuc, as "Iso do attempts to clnim thnt j"l'larx WilS not really nn atlid5t. This is the Ilpproach usuoll}' taken by writers who stress the parlLllel between l'd arxism !lnd the Jud .... eo-Christian historJ of sll.l'·ation~ - though some SflY that Mflrx h)ok over this trndition when nlrelldy seeulari!ed by Schelling or Itegel into nn .. est.heti c: or philosophical reveilltion.1 1t is true thnt Marx hus in mind the religion of con· temporary German), doruillutcd by n dogmlltic and over.spirituul Lut],~nllLi9 "', bl,t he ",,·ites o\.boll l 'religion' in gencrlll /lnd his rejection i~ lL]'sol"te. Unlike so many early socialists (' Veitling. S"int·SiuLon, FOlll'ier), he would brook no compromise. Atheism

, ' [ntM<l"", iOfl In /I Crilique of ll"lJ<'l'. l'hHooopbr of I.,,,,', M/-;G..t I ; (I) 007; g.,to" ~"d Gud,iat, p.2.:00.

• 8..",. fur c~a"'l'lc, T ucker, PhilO¥Jphy I,lnrl Myth i/O J{",I ,lfl,lr.~. • &.il l'opib, Der enlf nmdtlC Jfe""h.

was inscptlrlLhle frOll1 IUIIII:I" i3,n, he maintained; indeed, gi"en thu terms in which hc iX'sed thc problem, this was undeniable. It is , of course, legitilllate to dUIIll,,'"C tile meuuing of 'utJH~isHl ' in ordcr to make i\!arx a helicl'er lI1algrt lui, but this temls to mnke the <"]ncdion senseless by blurring too mllny distinctions.'

i\1,Ln: then turns frolll tI sunlllw ry of Pllst results to tho current progress of criticism ;

Criticism hns plucked illlll.giwLry Howers from the dUlin, not so thut Illll.n will wenr the chain t hat is without ralltlts}, or eOJlsolntion but so timt he will throw it oil' nnd pluck the !il<ing flower . T he criticism ofre\igioll disillusions mun 80 thut he think ~, 'Ict~, and shllpes his renlity like a Jisillusioned mun who hilS corne to his scuses, so that he revolves uround himself "'Ld thus nrol'nd hi~ true sun. Heligion is only the illU50ry SUIi that re"ol"cs " round man so long lLS he doc$ 1I0t re"ol"e aoout himsel f. '

T he result "'liS thllt critici$1ll Illust turn to a deeper 1Llicnution, thtlt of politicS:

T hus it is the t lLsk of history, once the other.worldly t"uth hilS

Ji~lIppe"rcd, to establish the truth of this world . T he immediate t,,~k of the philosophy which is in the service of history is to unuHlsk h\lIwlll ~elf'Alienation in its unholy forms now that it has been onmasked in its holy form. Thu~ the critici~", of henl'en turns iuto the criticism of the earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of IlLW, Uu(! the eriticism of theology into the criticism of politics.~

The bo<ly of )lilrx'S Article consists of two parts; ' U' a"llly~j~ of cOllt~"'J1orary German politics as oppos.ed to Germ(,n philosophy; aud the possibilities of rC"olution nrising (rom this t'Ontrast. /llarx hegins Ily pointing out that even the neeeSSAry negation of Germuny's prcsent is ,"nachroniatic lind IVouiJ still lea"e Gcrmllny fifty ),Cltts iJchind Frnnec.

I ndeed, Ihe conti nues] Ger1Jl>1n history pluilles i t.~df Oil "

dc\dopmenL no notion in the historicul IirmllJJleut prc"iou5ly , 'n,,,ootge,,cca l ,li.cn<S;.ioulI"rtbi> topic are the tWI< Pook! by II. V~~rochC'l,

.llar.r;""11 rt rcli!}i(JII. (Paci., 1(62); Sori/JJi8mt' tl fOCioI(J!}ie re/igiet'lIJ (I'ar;' , IfIM).

• ""trcwh'ction 10.~ Criti'l',e of Ilcgcl'~ l'loilo>K>pbr or Law', ,JfE(JA , i (I) G08; E"~to,, ",~l GUlltln!, PI" ~w f .

• 'Introd"ction til a Criti'I"" Qf 11~~r81>hiIOSlll,hy or 1 ~'1I", Jlf;(hl I i (I) GOO, E,"tun and Gulldal , II. ~;;\.

\

HG .1I(lr ... kjl)f'c .l/ur.ri"ffl

cllhi!Jited or ,,-ill e"'!T ~"OIlY. \re hnnl in point or filet shaNd in the restorations ofthe 1U(){If'rn lIaliou$ without sharing in their r~vollLtions. We hl\\'1' wn r('stored, lirst bec..use olh"r nntiQII~ dnred to mllke re"olutions, lU1l1 aecondh' because other nations su ll~red countcr-ren>l"tio,,~ _ 011 the ·one haml bfocnme our IIl ndcrlI were arrni,l, lind on Ih .. othl'r hrrll1lse they were not nfraid. Led by our shepherds, W(l (mind ourseh'cs in the .. vmpuny of frcellolll only UlIfC, on the Ju)' of its burin1.1

T ilis shlte of chrouic undcnlc"cloJllllcnt found its inlel1cclunl c:ountcrpnrt. IICC(lriling to \\lnTx, in two ~ehool5 of thought which J,,~ brie fly chllractcriscs. T he lirst - t he lI istoricnl School of Lllw which ' legitimisCII looay" infamy by ytllterdlly"sl - !\Inrx hnd /lirc/Illy eritit:bed at length two years pre\'iously in the Ilheillilcilc Zciumg;1 the 5econd, consisting of 'gou.l , ulIlurW ellthulilllb, ( 'errnlln ehAm'inists by extmct.ion IInriliberll)s b~' reflection .. , Acek our history of frel..'uon, beyond our freedom in tllll primenll '!'eutonic forests,'" I)ul wllnt "' ... wllnted Wa~ not a freedom only to be found in forests, but one crented by th .. t 'rclentlen crit icism of IIll existing <.'ondiUon .'~ which ]\ !"r ... hfld nd wX.'nted in his Jetter to nuge, Marx shows in dr-tnil whnl he II1 C(lllI by this criticism by appl)~ng it to Germany. T he situation there, he wrote, WIiS redly beneath any criticism, though an albek could $erl'C to give the final blow tc what hnd already been condemned tlml uu t roy what lind lllready been rduted. 'Criticism is no longer lin end in itself butsimply 1'\ IUCllnl. 116 ('3$entilll pathos is indignfltion, its essentUtI W k, denuncitltion."l\farx then parllphralu, in two short. pMAgra.phs, the critici.m of Germnn society th"t he Ion.l50 fre<luently el .. borated O\'er the I .. st two yenr.:l. ' It is • IlIlItter of describing the rervuh'e, luffocll ting pressure of nil $OCinl spheres on one another, the gellcTlli but pll5l;iH~ dejection, l he ,ulrrownCN

"I"tn,oo\"dio" tv ~ Criti'I"r "f II,~I'I l 'hilolKl]lhr of Lew', .IlE{lA I i (I) 006 f., t;B.luu and G~d~Bt , p, 2;;).

• ' Inlrodoolion 10 a Criliqu~ of Jl~g.,I'. \'Lil"""I'I,)' of , ,,,,,,,', "'A't,A I i (I) OO!I; P,~@lo" and G"ddal, p. 2;)\.

• Cf, ,IU:(I.l ,i (I) 2,'; 1 If., Ea'!OIl And (l"~d.t, I'V. 90 If, • ' Inlrotiuctillll\II" Criti4"tl IIf 1I \'g~I', ]'hllo.<!phr of La",', ,lIf;r;A , I (I)

GO!l; E.llon ,"d Cudd.l, [I. Z~~, • ' Ldl~t tu lI u15" , .1If.·GA I i (I) [,7:1; ~:",tOI1 ~".l G,,<ldlll,]I. ~12. • ' I "trodudion 10 II Crilio,tle ur II~'S"I'. " hi"-l,hr of L.",,', ,II I.;(;"t , i (I)

GOO; l:!a!ltol\ ."d Guddat, p, :!.\~.

I .lJflrJ: aN/I tke ·ncullC},,·}rall:dhi.clle ,!a"rbiid"r' H 7

that reeognisel hilt miallJ\der.:llflllds itself - thi$ frll ll1(.oU ill lisptt.' 1I1 or Go'erumcnt lhut !iVCII 011 the conser"uliOIl or .. lImc"n ncu I1ml is uflthing hut lucannen in Governtllent'.' The purpose of this criticism w/u the ~[III1C liS t hat of the criticism of n~l igion with which he begun : 'The point is to permit t he Ger",,,,,s not e,'en!\ moment of ~el f.(le~ption tlml rcsign"tion, We must IIln);e tim actunl pressun more I're~~i!lg by lidding to it the consciousness of pressure nnd mnking the shu ltle mOl'c ~hnmcfu! by pubJiciaing it .. . , , T he pcople nll"t be taught to be terrified of til~l\l~che5 tv gi,'e them count!!e. Thi~ will ful/il nn imperu.ti \'c nC1:d of the German nation, and the new.s of nntions nrc thel\\Sch cs tile uitillulle grounds of their s.n tisfnction. '2

This criticism, i\lurx continues, could II lso be ofinlereAt to t booc mod;:orn nations who "'ere still ourdeu(.-o. with n.'llIinden of their pasl. n ut whereai for them the downfall of the aNei~N rtgime could justly be coiled trngic, 'the ''' .... It'rn "Neiefl rtgime t. merely the comediall ill' world where real heroes are dend." Under the imrmct of french sociolisb like Snint·Silllon IIlId Proudhon who h(ld considered the politicnl implications of ill ,illstritll del-clop' ment, Mar ... giye! fill exu.n1ple vf how impos.sible it ill to discm~

'ir ... ly human problellls' within th~ frallle"'ork of Gcrmun ~'()nditionl . 'T he relation of Industry and the world of lI'en]th in generul to the politiclIl11'orld is " "'''jor problem of modern times. IJI what form is thill problem beginning to jlJt'QCeopy the Gcrmllns? In the form of protective t.ll.rifl"~, thesrstem ofprohlbition,and poli. tical econorny:~ Itererring to f' t<!idri<.'h List, the chief exponent of the proteelionisl ecou\)mi~ that he is eriticisil1~, l\ I ar); continueA :

W hereas the problem in FrnJlte lind Englllnd TelldA: politiCflI economy or thl) nlle of society o\'er wealth, in Germllny it read8: political economy or the rule of pr;"o\te properly over nation" lllity. 'I'h"s in ~'rallce and England it is A question of~ Oolishi l1 g monopoly thllt 11U8 Ite"eloped to its nnnl consequences, in

" ' Iutrodndion IU R Critique of l! l>gcl'~ Phil(J!j(lllh}' of I.nw', M/"'O.t I i (I) 6011 r. , . ;"<1.011 R",l (; "ddM, p. ~~2.

• 'Jnlrodudwn lu. Criliqne of lI <!gcl'l l'hilo6ol,hy of l"'w', M~:G,t 1 ; (I) 610; I~on mnd ""dd.t, ]'. ::r.3.

• ' Illtrvd"ct"'" I ... " Cr'!"t'''' W tI~"t'I'ij I'hlkolo"br of I",w'. ,1If,'O,t Ii (1) 61 I; wlnn .",1 G"d.l .l. I" :!J..I.

• ' llIt""'u~tiob 1<.> .. (.."1",,,8 of 1I<'g~1'8 l' bjJ"""I,b)' of I..,w', J/Jo,ll,t , i (I) 61lj r:a~'on.,111 (;uddal, I" ~'". ,

G~rnulll)' it is II IluClitioll of proceeding to tl ,c finnl cun~e'l\lcncc s of lIIonopo1y, TIll!rc it j~ II quc&1iOIl of 5Olutioll; Ilcrc. still II

Ijucstiou ... f <XI1li.s;oll. Thi! ;5 nil udcqulltc eXltllll}le of tI.e Gcrmllll form of modern pr ... ul~ " ,s , IIIl extlmple of how our I,istory, like II. rnw rot"Iit, !till hl\~ lu\d to do e .. dm (Irill on Illntle~ lhrCllh()/l o,'()r in history,1 Uut th()re wns one Mpecl ill which Gcrman~' wtlS IIctulIlly in

IIdnlllce or other IIntiOJlS IIlId whidl II lfortl ~l her the opportunity ror lIl'Kdiul revolution: hn philosophy, T his view, shllred hyAn the ()ontrihulon to the Dt:utlclr.,Frall%iHiKhc Jahrbficlr.cr, made thelll appear to th() FN.'neh to be some tort of missionarics, It had been ()urrent in the Young I legelian mO"ement since H eine in his lIilt""!! oj llrlig iQ" and I'''i/wop/,!! in Germ(lJI!!, wriUell in 183:>, hlld drawll the parllilel oot..'ccn German philosophy am.! l~rclH;,h

politics nnd prophesied u. fII diwl revolution for GeTlIH'Iny tiS II.

()on5e(luenec. In ord()r to 00 fit th() h()llrt of <XIntemporllry qucstions it was Germlln philo!ophy that hnd t o be ()ritici~ed. F or in Germany it WKB oilly political pl' ilosophy that was abrcast of uJOdern conditions. The rCliult of this I1.nalysis was that

Thc GeruUln ntltiou must therefore join its drellm,histol)' to its present conditions Rnd ()riticise not only these present <XIII, dition8 but nlso thdr flh~trnet eontinuntion. 11:.0; futu re cnn he limited lIeithe.r t o th() rlireet Ill!8l1.tiOIl of its reol politicaln !1(1 legal condition! lIor to their direct fu ltllrnent , for it hRH t.he dir()ct 11l'.gntiun of its r~1I1 (.'Umliliou~ in its idenl coodilious :l.nd hus .. 11110111 outlived the direct fulfilment of its ideal cOll<litions in the \ iew of neighoouring countries,1 l\I l1.r:o: then daritieslli$ OW" pusition by polluting to two different

ILltiludes wth of which seem to him to be inadequate. T he tlrst, which in some rellpeclll rccAll, the liew! of Feuerbach, :<.Iarx calli the 'pmctical political ptlrty', This party

right ly demllnris the negAtion of Ilhiio!;Ol'ily, It is wrong not in it!! dcn!ltlld uut in Slopping ot lhe demand it neither ~erious ly fulfils nor elln fultil. It supposes that it 1ICC9ll1piishe6 lhnt n()~Ition hy tu rning ill! hack on philowpby"" You dcn1!,ud 5larling from aclulI. l genn. of life but forb-et that tho': 11eluIII

" I "trodu~lio" 10. Critique olll~lttl'~ l'hil~l'by of La .... . IlHGA I ; (I) GIl f" K~.hm ~n,1 (; u~~. t. PI" ~~ f.

• ' 1,,'roolo ... I;OI' In a Criliq"~ ol ll~s:er~ l'hil(o!!<)l.hr of I ... ",', JlHG.' • i (1) 61~ t., t.~IQD B"~ (Juddal, I'!":!~ f.

lif("grrm of the Germun mltion hus so filr sprouted oilly i11 8;111) it! <:ranillm. I., 8hort: you <:annot trnnscclld philosophy ,,'i thoul tlclllllUling it. I

T he se<:oud nttiturle, ()hll.ra()teristk of the lhcoreticnl party _ by ... hid, ~ I flr..: mcnns Bnmo Dauer and hi. followers- ()ommil! the Il1l11e error but (roll' the opf"Osile direction:

In the prl'lcnt Itruggle the l lUloreti(:fl i pllTty "'''' only the <:riti.;:ul .tru~gle of Gi:rmll.u philosoph}' ab'1liuit the fTt:rmnll "'orld, It did not consider that pre"ioua philolOphy iUelr belongs to thi, world And its complement, although 1111 ideni one .... illl mllin defe<"t m11.y be summarised .. s foilows: it beliel'ed UIIl t iteould Ilctualise philOliophy witllout trnnS(.'Clidingit,1

Hlluer·. philo~o!lhy, beenuse it refused Rnl' medilltioll with th() T()1I.1, WIlS lll1dinl()eti()111 and <:ondemned to sterility, Whnt Mlln( propol~ il a a)'uthesis of the hv ,';1'."'6 h.;: condemns: n mcdintioll with the rcnlthnt would noolid, phiIOS0I'I,y ' .. ~ philosophy" while rCllli.sing iLl T hia i. akin to 1\I1I. n:'. lAter 'unity of theory nud prllctiee'llnd tIIkes up ... theme that hnd iK!()n in his miud since his thesis ifnot beforc - thnt orthe lecularisation ofphiiMophy, From Cieukon'!ki'! pra;ril io 1838 to Hess's 'Philosophy of Action' ill 184fl ,~ thi¥ is '" t hl'llle cellt.rnl to lIeb"Ci"s disciples trying to brenk loose fro m their ma.ter·s sys tem to get a grip ou political cvcnts. It i. al()ng thc" linci thAt ;<.Ian: sees the only JlO3siule way oholv_ ing Germnny'S problems.

" [nn: then t urns, in the second part of hi! article, to 'U\ explorR4 lion of the poui biii ty of 1'1 TC,'oiution that would not only eliminate Germtlny'& b>lckward nHs, but abo mllke her the firet nation to htln~ a<:hie,'ed an ()n1Olneipation thtll WtlS not mcrely polilicll1. Th\l~ "llIr)!: puts the qucstion 'Cnn Germnny re:1eh II practice d Iii "",</eur dll prindfUI, thOlt is, " Te"olu t ion which ... ill rll.i~e it not olily to the olliciallc,'ei of modern nations, uut to the human lel'el

I ' l "tl'Oducti(ln 10. Crilh}". or lIeg.oJ'.l'hito..."phy 0» r... ... '. Jlj,'G,~ I I (I) 01 :4, ~:",t.DtI ... " (;lId,I,I, p, ~:;6.

I" ln, .... lnrtion to • Critique of Hegel', l'hil,*,phl' of L:a .... , J/EGA • i (I) 613: l::a~tOIl • • 111 Gud" .I, p, ~&6.

• Th~ ... 01'11 Ih,t Ma .... ,,_ for ',bot.b' ~ tbe I legdian t...,,, ",,~. on II", "_"i,,, of "hid, _ ,1,0"", PI" 18 r.

,s..., II"",,', art;.· .... i~ Twnly.(),,' $/I«I_fro", S .... '.trifmd. nl,riu''''' in N. /I,u. I'M/_pM.,."" "lid .. :ialilli",u _~ltfMJI.::,. ed. rom" ftnd M!Il,h • 1'1'. ~!!(\ If.

/

1;,0

which '!lill I'll! their immedilll.e futuref"1 Dy w~y of Il prclimilillry t1n~wer, !\Iurl[ recnpitulates his previous condusion :

The 11'0:"1'011 of r.rilicisul ob\'io\l ~ly c"uuul repluo:c the c ri liei~m of w('apOliS. !\IBlerili1 force must be on!rtilro"-n hr materiQ I force. Hut theory also IlCC(lme. a material foree once it lul.li 8rippo:d the m~$ilCs. T hoory is cllpuMe of gripping the ma$se$ ""hell it demonst.rll tl!~ tid 1I0III;IIt>ll, IIno it dllrllollslrntcs (III

homilltm when it beCOlill'S mdica1. To be rAdical is to grnsp thil1~" hy the root, bUl for man the root is lrIali himsdf. T he cleAr proof of the radicillism of German tlll'<.1ry amI l,ence of ill politieul cllcrgy i8 thflt it procecd3 froll! t.hl! decisi'l! positi"e trall~~"(' ndallce of religion. The critici~m of religion eml. with lhe doctrine that man b the highcd being for mlln, lIenee "ith the categorical imperative to o\'(:rl.hro\\, nil condition. ill which IUlUl i5 A dcgrllded, en~lnved , neglected, coutelllptible being.~

T he im]X>rtance of the '''·elll'on of critici.&m' for Germnn~' i! shown hy I.uther', theoreticlil re\olulion - the BeformatiQIl. or course thi, re,·olution wns .111 incdmplete one: 1.uther hlld mcnl)" internnlised man", rcligiool conseiousneu; he had '~hatlered faith in B"thority by rcstoring the authority of faith'.- But IIlthough Protestantism had not found the true $olution, at lelut its foruHIlulion of the prQblem hlld been correct. T he present situation of GermAny wu similar to that "'hidl preceded the Rl."format iou; the only difference was thllt philosophy took the plnce of theology lind the result \\'0111.1 bt: a hllllliln emllncipation instend of onc thnt took place entirely within the sphere of religion.

I n the lu t few pregnllnt pages of the nrticle, ;'\ Iarx dntws from Jlis sombre feyi ew of the German scene t he optimistic conclusion that the revolution in G"rlllllny, 11.8 opposed to Frllnce, could not be parlillJ lind must be radical. Only the prolctllri/\t, in Illlianee with philowphy, would be cflpable of cnn-ying it oot.

),1I)Tl[ hegins with the dWkultics Hint oec", to ~tllnd in the wily of II mdicnl German revolution. ' RevQlutions require II pnssive ."leonent, II material hllsis. '11leory is {u: tUfllised in 1\ people only in

" lntrOO"ct;o;m I" a Critique (Ii" IIpg"!'~ PhilOl<lpbl' of I ...... ·, JIIWA r i (I) 01 ~: Ruton and Ollddal, p. ~$7 .

"lnlr'Oll u~tion to a Critiq .... or Ilcg-eI ', " h;loo>ol'hy nr I ..... ·, .11"(;11 r I (I) 614 r.; }I .... tnn .... 1 1':",IoI8t. 1'1" !t ... ; r.

• 'Introd~ctio" to. Criti<luc."c II~I'. I'hilMOphr "r I ..... ·, .111;(111 , i (1) Olr.; f:a.tnn and G"d".I, I'. ~r.n.

lIi!

&0 f"r 11-' it nctWllisu thei r neL-US:' The question ".\IS "·]'elh"r prncticul needs in Germnny complemenltd theorctkal nt'eds. ' It is not enough tlmt thoug ht should seck its uctutlliSil t ion; nctunlity must il!;elC ~tri"e towflrd thought:> But German rClility was lILuny $tngcs behind the politicKI tle,'e1opment of suc.h countries as France lind it was not nt nil cleM how it~'Ould trlln,een« not <.1l1ly it! OW" Iimitnlionl hut those of other nAtions too. 'A mdic,,1 re,·olution can only l;c ... revolution of radical need. "'hooe preC(lnditioll5 and birthpilu:e, app·ear to l;c lacking,'"

But the "cry f!let thnt Germnny \\"ll¥ ~o ddielent poliliefllly indicllted the sort of folure that aWllittld her. The enormou. and inereuing gup bet"'een, on the one hand, 1l1<Hlcrn politiculltu.tt"S toget her ,,-ith their tlounlerpnrt - Germlln philo!ophy - Ilnd, on the QUler, the politicnl situation i"side Germany ~reutcd u stute of nffni ... lhflt demanded r ... dic ... l JUCl\.Sures. German go"enunenl!; • ... re drh'en to combine the ei,·i1i8eJ lIeliciencics of the mooern political order (whose ... d,·nntnges we do not enjoy) with the bart.QrOU6 del1ciencies of the mtciCll rrl,l"imc (which we enjoy in full). lIenee Gcrmany mUlI"l p"rtieipnte more nl1d mON! if not in tile sen$(: at Je{\$t in the nonsense of those politiCAl forms tran! cending ih ItlrflU qIlD.'~ Tills tendency, which en~ured that 'lIS the go.Js Of811 nlltions were foond in the Ron)an Pantheon, the sins of ,,11 fonn" of the stale will1.;c found in the Iloly Gerrunn Empire? " '11$ enhanced by the dutrneter of Frederick "'illililtl IV, whoso iudeci5ive uature denied to hi! mllll)' "ices e\'eu the \'irtue of COIl

si~teney. The result of thill was tl,at 'as thc ddicieney of the political pccsent erected into II "ystcm, Germany will not bt: II.hle lo s),cd these specilieall~' German u llututions ,,~t.hout shedding the geuo:rll-Ilimitatinns (If U,,, poliliett.1 preAent."

1 'I nt"",gcti(m 10. (',;ti'l '''' of II~I'. I'hibloph)' c.f' La ... ., J1£GA I i (I) 61~ C.; E ... ton.nd Gu<ldal, p.!WI.

I 'inlrOOucl;an to A Critique of Ilcgt'l'~ I'hil(Jt[Oplt)· or I. .... ', .IrEGII , i (I) 610; Easto" R",I «"ddal. I' . 2:.9 .

• ' Inlrodprtion 10 . Critique or II~'~ I'hikt.oloby oI l ..... ·, .IIEQII I i ( I) 61(1; t:n.ton and Guddat, p. !!MI.

• ' I ntroduction to 1\ Critique uf Heger. PhilO!Ol,hr of Law'. :I[£G,I , i (I) 610; .ruston And (";"ddal. I'. ~~9.

" I ntrodudiun t .. R Critique or lIog..l·_ l'hilo6ol,by or , ...... , JlEGA , i ( I) (iii; };utOll o"d (;,,0101 . 1, I'. 200 .

• ' In tro/luCllon to Critique of 1I.'Il"'I'~ I'hil(Jt[Ol>hl' or Lau··, JlJ;G,1 t i (I) 017i Ea"tort "",.I Olldd"t, \I. ~OO.

-

152 .Ilar.r IN/ore JJur.j';slfI.

What WRlI utopia,. fot Germany 11"'" nol a I"Il(iic,,] !'e,'olution that would achic"1! the complete cnu. ncip'ilion of Illllnkbl/l bllt (I

puru,,11 rel'oinlil'm, II revolution that wns merdy polilicnJ, n revolutiun 't]",l h~u \'cs the pillllrs or the ],OU61! standing',' 1\ll1 rx then chr.r~clerisc~ A pun-I), politicnl revolution, ob" iou~ ly hIking the Frencl, ROI'olutiuu ,,& hi.\; pnc .. digm. The bosis ofthi~ ",\'0\11-tion was 'part of dvil society emancipating itself und attaining universal supremacy. Il ])articular <:III" by ,;rtuc of ill: 6p,eciai situation undertaking tile general emancipation of society. T his class elllllllcipatcs the whole of SQCiety, but only on the t'Ulitlitiu li that the whole of society iii in the Illml! position liS this c!1lS$, for c"" lIll'le, l !.llt iliulS or cun ellSily acquire n,oney and educatiou:: No clni>S could o<:cuPY ti,i~ 'special si tuulion' in society without Ilrousing un impul~c 'of ellthusiusm in it/leJr and in the mll ~~ell. 'UI

impul~e in which it frfl.tcrniscs IIU t! merges with 60Cicty ",t inrf;:c, identifies iuclf .. ·ith it, lind is experienced IIml r«ogniscd liS its gcncrnl represenlltlin'" 1111 impuh;e ill "'!uch its clllim lind righta nrc truly t he claims find righ'll; of society itfletr IIml in "hieh it is ll.etuaUy the .ocifli head lind the social heart.'3 ,\ud for .. clns! to be IIble to 6ci~o thi~ cnmucipnlory llO~i tion, there mu~t Uc fI

polarisation of chuse8: 'A pMticulur cla!lll must be the cllIS~ of general of renee and the incorporAtion of general limitatiun. A particulll r socill l sphere II1USt stand for the uotoriuus erimf! of weidy M" whole so thlltemnncipatioll frolll thi' sphere IIppefll'illlS genel"ftl lll!.1f.cmllnciplltiun. For one class to be ti,e elttSS of emancipation par ra-ullrHu, conversely IInother "lII~t be the ob\'iou~ dlUlll o( oppression." T his, IIccurdillg to MflO, Willi tile ~ituatiou in \>Tflnce Ilf!fore Ii89 when 'tJle negnlh'c, g~ner",1 ~ignific,Ul c<l

of the F rench nobility ~lId clergy determined the positi"e, gencrlll viSnificnnceofthe hourgeois sllllldillgllext to lind opposing theUl.'~

, ' Inlrod""lk>n 10 , (.ntiqu. or U~gel'f l'hllollOl'Ior of I ........ •• JJHGA I j (I) 6lii E.fit<ln ,n,1 G",Id~I, I"~'

'·Inll"()dl!ct.il'" I" . (.ilkl'''' ur II","';! ', l'hiloool'Y uf La ... ·, .1I1:0A I 1(\) 61i: t:mon and G'ldd.t, JI. 200.

• 'Introdudion 10 , Criliq~ of IJ ~I·. I'hil,*,phy or I ..... ·, .lI1:G.1 , i (I) 617: Easton and Gudd;.t, p.:!OO.

• ·In l:vd"~'''''n 10. ('riti'lue of 11',£,,1'8 I'hil ....... rh)' or L. w· , Jlf:UA 1 I (I) (J IB; t:~810" nn~ (h"ld~!. 1" ~'Ul.

• ' Inlrod"cl ion to ~ t.:.ili~"e or Ik!,,,,i'f l 'bil(lil<ll'loy 6f t ow' . . 11f:flA , i (I) GlU; Easto" ~lId (:0.1<1(\1, r. WI.

, .

1m

In Gtrn)l'n~', howe'tt, the !itunliOIl Wilt I cry llitr"r,'nt. '··or thel'{· 1'\' ''1')' dnu Ineketl l.he ('()I)('~ion (lnft Cfjllrngr I.hnt rOllhi ells t it ror the w le uf th .. negnti,'C rel'~5e"tttt i\'e of society "rtft ... 1110 the illlllgiUlltioll to identify it~elf wilh I he p.eople "I. Jrtrge. CI ... ss COil -srioll~ne!i5 8]lr ... ng from Ihe nctivit.y of opprpssing n lower cl"ss rrtthtr than from de/hUlt protest against oppreuiOI\ from Rbo,·e. I'rogr('u W(l5 thl1s impossible, for e\'ery el(lss WRJI engngcd in n

~lruggle 0 11 more than one front:

II l':nel': prin~ struggle agAinst kings, the bUrI':Au('rAt Against the nobility, and the bourgeoisie against them all, ",hile the Ilroletarint is alrelldy b('ginning to struggle flgaiust the bourfCeoi~ie. The middle clllU hllcdly dllrcs to colled\'e tile iden or emuncipntion from its OWIl perspecti\'e. The dc\'elopment of soeifl l IXI nditiong and thc progress of politieal theory show t hAt p,erapecti\'e to be AlreAdy Antiquflted or At le(lst problematic.!

:-'Ittrx then ,"mmllrisel the contrast he I"IS heen elftbocfltiug bell"een FNlllce find Germany:

In France it is enough to be .omething (or olle to wllnt to be 1l,·er.\·thinfC· In Gcrnutn)' no one can be a nything unless he i! 1~~llJ:lrC(1 to renounce enrything. III France p'lrtilll emnncip ... _ lion m the bMis or uni\'ers(\I C'M.ncipRlion. [n Germany un i"erlllll emllncipation is t he cOllditio ,int qun 110/1 of Ilily partial enmllci\Jlltion. In France it is the Actuality, in Germllny t he impoui )iltty. of graduftl emllncipation which mUlt giH~ birth to complete rreedom. In Fra.nce c"ery cllllJ of the IIIItion is politiCAlly idelilistic lind uperienl--es itself liNt of 11.11 not lliI I!.

I'"rticolllr clfl!>S, but a~ rcl,resenting the general needs of society. 'I'h.} role of en .. ",cipntor thllS PO68\!6 SlIece66(ully nnd dTllmnti . mil,. tu different elAS$~ or ptople unti l it tinAlly renehts the d~l'I.~ which ~c tltnli se! soci ... l freedom, no longl!r 118!uming cer~flin condition~ e.~ternlll to 111111' null yd cro.mll!tl by hum,u, ~VI.·,dy I.lUl rnll'l!r org,'ui~lng .. 11 the cOlHlitionH o( hum:tn Ilxi".lellec un the bRsi, of locilll rreedom. In Gerlllany by contr" :ilt, "'here prll.ct icM I life is tiS mimllelli ... menlul life is ilnprfletielll, no ell'" in chil IWCicty has RUY nee" Ul'llapaeity for #enerAl enul.ncipAtion until it is rorced to it by ita imml!di!\te condition, by mat l!cri(ll necessity, hy ill "ery chain,.'

'· l n1I"()dut l;"n 10 R Criti1U_ O( Il tgel'l l'biloMphy or I ...... • • • lIf:Cl.~ I I (1) 610; E""on and (;uddat.l'" 2G2.

1 ' I nll'O,I"~t;o,, to)" ('ril;'ltll' of U'·gel·. 1'!>iI"'''''l'hr of I .... ·, MJ-:O,l , ; ( I) OIH; I·:".'on ftn(\ Gu,Mal. ". ~6~.

..... --.. --------------------------------------------------------'

154

T his pll~8.lge shows the importol.nce of hi~ ~tt1Cly of thl) FrCIl<'h II cl'olutioll in the formation of ;\Iarx's "iew~. The Hhilldllru!, where he was horn, brought up lind cditc!\ the Ilhcill i~.:h6 7.ci"wg, h"u been Frcm;!L untilla l", and hud tuken part in the gains oft,he Frclll:h Hcm!ution whcT(l ci"it emancipation W/IS l\ gt'llIline experience and not 1\ \>OI5session of foreigners only, to be envied from nfnr. T o nil Gerlll lln julcilectllllls the Freud, He"oiutiull WIIS tfll revolution, finn Milt:< and his Young Hcgc1iitn friends eVilstantly compared tl,cruse!vcs to ih!! heroes of 1789. It "'liS his rending of the history of lha Fre.nch Revolution in the summer of 1843 that showed him the role of dan struggle in social dcyc\opment. \\'hile nt Kr(mz"",,h MaTx r~ftd, nnd look mllny c:<trncu from, the works of WachslUuth, Condorcct, ~radamc noland, i\l"dame de Stl'cl, i\Jignet, Thiers, Duchcz /lud Rou ... , Duillcul /ln t! l.emsseur. l In 1852 \Inr~ wrote to Weydeltleycr ; 'No credit i~ due to me for diacoveting the existence of el(ISSCS in mooern society, nor yet the struggle between them . Long hefore, the hourgeui" historinns hild described the historicnl ile\'elopment of the elMS st ruggle. '2 This reading continued until the summer of 18M. nuge wrote in Mny 1844 ; '~'I strl( wish('s .. , to write the history of the Convcntioll; IIC has nssembled the nceessllry doeumentlltion for this lind IIrrived "t new mlu fruitfu l ooncepliulls.'S i\lnn eYCn sketched ou t the tnl)lc or contcnts of (I lJ.ook he iutcnded to clIll 1'ht; Cellt;lit; Hi#or.1J of the ,IIodn'n Stalt; or The Fr(nch Revolution.'

i\ !arx noll' IIrrives fit tile deuouemcnt of his arlicle, which he introouce~ with the question: '\\'herc, t.iII'n, is I.hc positive lM;bibility of German ennUlcipatioll?' His anower is:

in thl) fornlUtio n of II dnss ,..ith radical chains, a cillSS in cil'il society tlo'it is not of chil society, 1\ d uss thllt is Ule dis~olution of <II! clltsses, a sphere of society having II uuil'ersnl chnractl'.t becuuse of it". ""t.·ers,,1 ""lferillg n",1 c1niming no r~rticlllnr right ""enuse no pnrticu11lr wrollg bllt unqunlilied "Tong i$ perpetrntetl 011 it; u sphere tllllt ""n i"voke 110 trndiUOIlII1 title bllt only ... hUlllnn title , ,..hieh does not parlinlly oppose the consequences but totnlly opposes the premisp.~ uf the GerJll1I 1l

I Fur " ~hort 8"aJy~i~ of Ill" co"I~,,1 of ~~cll of Ih_l.>ook~ and sllggel<l;on~ a~ In IlIdr .m,...l nil Man, II('fl " Agi, n~nt.iA d~t hit /c .. l.",h, n J(lIlerlfl/i.nmt. PI" W9 If. I M8r~- En!.C~J~, &I"d~ C{ffrMp<)I/{I~II"" (1",,,<1,,,,, Lfl.'l~) 1" :37.

• RUg<!, Hrii'j",,,,,h8Cl und Nru:hldu, c~l. N",rli<:i, I ~ 'I.'l: .. .c .,\<;0 ill;d .. 1" 36~.

'.11 r,'VA I " ~2; Easlon and Gulld.t. I" 3'J'J.

155

pulitical sylitem; n sph~re, finally, t1mt CUUllo t elllllucillUte itself without emnncipating iudf froll! nil tI,e other spheres of society, the reby eUlI\ucipfllillg thczll; n spilcre, in short, thut is the complete loss of hUUl,ulily n.nd en.n only redeem itself through the t.otnl rcdemption of humanity. This dissolutioll of ~oclel)' U fl pArticular clAM; is the I'rolet.nriut,1

Thi3 pa~~ag:e ruises "II ob\'ious question u~ to tl,e reU~01l8 for l\lIIrll's ~U'J.uen adhesion to the CAuse of the prolet arillt. Some hal'c claimed that i\lal'x's description of the proictnrint is non_ empirie,,1 nnd thus thnt its ultimnt(' source is Hegel's phil,,~oJlh)' . It has, for example, been mailltn ined t hn t 'The insight into the world-historical rule of the proletnrill l is oht.~ined in A purely ~pccul(\til'e mann('r by a '!Cvel'S,,!' of the eonncctions thAt Hegel Imd eslnblishctl betll'een different forms of obje('til'e spirit.'t Or, more recently: ' It is c\'ident t hat illan.; ... nrri \'cs ut Ius iUe" of the proletarint not through An economic st udy or lin historic"l "nalysis, but through a series of nrgUlUCIlU 11m.! eonf"ontutiOll$ u1l of which ArC \lithin the IIegelian trndition anti rclnte to thc llegelian idea of a universal da.~. 'S Another nuthor c1ainls to find here the ucmplificntion of the dual Hegelian dialectic of master and slal'e and uni,·eNu.i Mid partielllnr.~ .<\ further rcfinement claims that lIegel 's i,lsights Are fundAmentally those or a German Protestant nnd thu$ that !\1arx'6 underlying ~che",a here is the Christiun oonception of salvation - the proletariat plu.p the role of I Slliuh'~ suff('ring servllnt:

Through Il cgcl, the young J\IIH", links up, no doubt unconsciously, with the soteriologicu.18c1lcmu underlying the JuUneoChristi"" tr"dition: the id('a of the collccti .. e tiui"utiolL obtuiuL-.J. by a particular group, the thelnc of 50h·ine destitution, the OPllOsitioll of inj u~t iC(! th"t enslaves (Ina gencroSity thnt frees . TI,e prolcLlrint, bringing univer~ni ~al\,iltion, plays II role IIllaiog(l(l$ to thnt of thc l\Je68ianic commullity or persollal ~t\.\·iour ill biblical rl'.vclation. · l' lntmhlction 10 Il Griti~u! of Hcgt!r~ Philo.."Opbj' of Luw', llU;C,! I i (\)

61!l r.; Ea~lon ""~ G"duai, p. 262. • Frietlricl" J'MI"",ph;~ .ma O~1lllDm;~ bei,;! jw»ge» Mar;>" " . a I, following

Pupil>. lJtr ~u/.frrmJele .lfen",h, 1'. roo 'S. "" ' ineri, ''I'he I!cgdl.1n O,igill'l or M~rx 'ij l'olllk.\ 'J1"",gll~" flet:i~", of

jf'/~I'h!l.i<o ($.,1' 1007) p. ·11. • cr. Wacke"l,";m, fA f'IJU/;/~ 1M f(1, .,.;jigiOIL ,/'''p~i~ '':arl Mar.." p. 200 . ' I bid.

"

15G

Or, C\ en morc csplicilly; 'Thllt the lIuiur.r(lI;ly of the prolcll\rh\!. echoes the ciRims of the lIuj"r.rral Chrisl. is CQulirllu .. .J by ,\ llIrx's insistence thnt the prolel.nrint will ellist, pl'"t-'Cisely st the l>uinl. when it becomet unin!n:ll, in f\ scourgC<.l nIH1 emptiC<.1 condition_ nnd this, of OOUr5C, is Marx', ,-uinlii. or the dh·ine !-rtUU;,:1 Others h:l" 11 claimed thul, iiuee l\I(ltx'S ,·h·..-, arc nut ellll'iriCftlly hased, this ~bows that they hAve their origin in an ethiCAl indig:nation at the condition of lhe proletariat.

'I'ltde ,-iews, at letul All A total v:planalioll, (Ire mistaken. '\llIr)l.'S procillmation of the key role of the proletariAt i. a contemporary AppliCAtion of the nnlllp;s of the I-'rcnch Re"olutioll he hnd outlined ellrlicr in his article, wIlen he biked of a particulllf socilll spheffl hll'ing to '$U\nd fur the notorious crime of society as fl whole w that cmnnciptltion from this sphere appears 115 geJlern l IIClr_enmncilwtlioll ' .t The prolebrillt WR! now in the position tile French bourgeoisie bud occupicd in 1789. It WIIS 110'" the pro. lettlriat which could echo the wortls of Si~y~s,~ ' I am nothing /llltl 1 should he everythiug'. The conte)l.l thus shows that ::-'1l1r)l.·s /le«tllnt of the role of the prolet1lfillt \\·"s drnwn from his stu tly of the French Revolution, howe,'cr llIueh his language m .... y be thllt of Young Hegeliall jourllulism.

To this iti5toricu l hMe wQlI/ldded a distill .... tioll of eontcil lporury (trench $oci!llist itlClIs. }'or three months alrcudy 1\lur}l: had li"ed anti worked with promincnt socialists in I'nris. T he view of the I'Tolehtrill.l eontll;noo in hi. art icle W(U not unique even in Young IIcgclitUI circles, but it w". of course commonplace in Paris. It is ~urpri6illg, then, that IJOllle hll"c "l'!{lIcd th/lt l.orenz \"OIL Stei,,'s hook Socul/ism, alld (.'omlll.ulI;.,m ill COlltcmparor,V Frane(: wps instnlmental in his cOI\\'crsioll.' (The book had lint appeared eighteen monthll prel·jously ,,·hen "[lin: WIlS not responsil'(l to sOOllli.t idellll; though it Ilad wide illltucllce on the German mdieul eirdCli in which he mon!d, it h/ld aplWlrentiy made no impael 011 11;111 nt that time.) Ind~d, fj" frolll beillg e1aboratiolls

I E. O'-n .. Mar~ and tho it"""rrndlon", J OII,"IIU( qf lite ffilltJTJ qf It/tall

(I!l68) p. 130. l' lntroduction to. Criti,!l111 of "~g~I'8 l>Li"-l'l.)" uf L.. ..... JlEGA I ; (I)

0111; ~;;.,,(,," .",1 Gutltlat, p. ~'Il\' • s"lllot~~1 ("r IU'lYing bcon a . Ieg..1i;o11 bc(Onl tbe e'·~nt. tOn StdJI', boQk, _ aoo.-.. , I'. ~~I.

-

157

of bookish mnlerinl studied Ilt !lecolld or third hallll,' :\[lIr)l. '8 suddrn e~pouSltI of the prolelarilln CRuse can be directly IIUri. huted to his first-hand contacts with socialist intelleclulI}s in Fmnee. I n~tcnd or flni ling II paper fOT the Rhenish bourgeoisic or .itting ill }.is $tudy in Kreuznnch, he "'"8 110'" lit the hCArt of soc.iali8t t hollght ami action. From October 18",~ MIlrx "·IIS hrcllthing 1\ sociulu.l ntmO!iphere linn fl.\"en !i>ing in tile IAmc house III Gf'rmain Mllurer, one of the lenders of the Lcllgue of the JU5t \I hOie mcdings i\ IArl\ frequented. rt is not surprising tln~t his surrollnding!l mnde n twift imflllcl on :\1ut:'i.

i\f .. u ntlmitted that the proletariat he dcsrrihcd WIIS only just beginning to exiR ill GermallY. For ... bat eharn<:terise<l it w~s not Ulltll"tI po'·ert)" (though this hnd II P"rt to pll'Y) but pol'erty thnt WIIS IIrtificially produced $Ild resulted pnrli<:ularly in the di._ intf'grnlion of ll,e middlc class. T he proletariAt would IIchievc thc diuolutioll or the old order of society by th .. ncgnlion of pri"nte propcrt.y. II negfltion of which it WIIS ihel r the embodiment. This Wit, tile dllss in which phil050phy could finlllly realise itself: ' A~

philosophy finds its materilli weapons ill tim prolelRrinl, the proietflrill l finds ih intellectunl ''"':''' I'''"S in phno~oph)'. /\nd once the liltht.niTlg of thought liM deepl)' struck the unsophi~ticutl'tI ~oil of ti,e people, the G("rman$ will emancip!l.te themsclves to become m~n:' Thc signal for this re\olution would come from 1·'rl\.nce: 'Wilen nil tl,e inner eonditions lire fulfilled, the drty of Gerulau rc.nrrection will he nnnounced by the crowing or t he French rooster."

In !pitf! of the originAlity of many of the urlides it r.onl.ninc.1. the J)c"I'r" -Fr("'~iHhche hhr/)iit/ru met \lith little succe". In 1'.~ris, the French ,,-cre. not interestcd in an exclusi>'Cly German Jlublieation and in GermAn~' government rf'aclion Will swift. \\"ftrrnnb were illlllle<1 in Pnlssia (or the l\ITCl1t o( Huge, "larJ;, Heine .. nd IJemnys immediately they should !let foot on l'nluiuu lIOil, RmI the ronfisclllion of the periodicn.1 inside I'ruuill wnll onlereu. Ilullfi reds or «tpies lll'(:rc sciJcd at the rrontier and th;.

• See Tu~b •• PA/,.,.,pJo, "". Jffl~ ill l\arllla7.r. p. 114 .... ho r- II r •••• to IIIr that tbe onty prolet.';I". Man: k"" ...... ~ro: t~ in book ..

• 'lntrodllclion til " Critique Dr 1I..g<ol". PhilO«lphl' of I~ ... ·, JI ':f}A , ; ( I) 11::.'0: 1" ... I(}n and Ouddat. pp. :!63 f •

'· l utrodu~tioIlIO. Critique of lies-d'. !'hil'_ I,b,. of t... ..... JO:O.( , I (I) 6~1: Elston and r:ntldal, ,,_ ~>t;.I.

1;,8 .lfllr:c bt-fore .1farxi.t1/l

nggrn\·n t. ... d thc finnne:i'LI .Ii fli cultie! of the rcviNv. " Ihen Frocbel deci.led to willJ{h'aw his backing, its f(Lte WitS virt\LUlIy sealed. There "ere nlso finoneilll prohlems amOllg the contributors themse!\'es: Hess had to horrow mouey from Ruge onclillu! <lifficult)' in paying it IJIlek; am.! Huge only pnid l\ la rx for his cont.ributions with copies of thc DtIlIICh- Frrull:ii/ti .• chc J allrbiiclu:r. Fiunlly, the politicnl opinions of l\hll':X and lluge hcgnll to di\'l~rge more nnd more. For during his stay in PAris Ruge became more and more hitter about Genlll\n communists, arriving, by the spring ofl844, at the conclusion thnt they wcrc money-grnsping individunls who n.hoented a sJ:wcry nlLlln police stAte that would only genernli~" the misery of the prolctarint. The occasion of Ute delinitive break bclwce.n Ruge Rnd l\f,trx was a quarrel Rbout Tlerwcgb, whom H uge criticiscd for his dissolute Iifc. Dut wherens in thc Clll;e of t he Frdtll i\lnn: hnrlllgreed with R uge, 110\\' he took l hl) oppodite side. On HS Mn)" H uge wrote to FeuerLnch: 'M ar}( uroke form ally with !l Ie by letter, tnking advanlfLge fo r this of my ha\'illg exprused myself perhnps n.lilUc too JU\r.ll1Iy on the syhllritism alltl cynicism of Herwegh thnt (,'ontrnsted with his public cha racter. Marx defended I-Ierwcgh lIy saying that hc W J\$ a genius with :I f,'l'en l. futu re in front of him.-1

l\ lnrx latcr found nn opportunity of puhlicly brcnldng with Jhlge by "iolcntly nttncking nIl nrticle that n uge wrote ill Jul)' in rorw/irU, A. Germlill $OCinlist paper p ublished in I'Hris and edited uy Ucrnnys who Ii/.d contributed to the ])cllllrh-l-'rtlllzQAilrhe J (lhrblicllcr. ,\ propos of the re\'olt of the SilC>liul1 WCII, \'ers in the summer of 18H, Ruge hall cluimed lhnt 110 soci!!.l revolt could succeed in Gcrmany lIince political consciousncss " ' 1lS

extrcmel), undenle\'doped a nd ,odd reform sprang from politir.nl revolution. MII.TX, in his reply, f(1,\'ollrnbly contrasted the scnle of the SilesiLln wen\'eril' re" o}t with wurke"' rC \'olts in England. A politiCAl consciousness was not sufficient to denl with social po\'erty: E ngland hnd II. \"Cry de\'eloped politiCll.I con&ciou&nes9, yct it was the country wili, the most extended pRuperism. The British GO"ernmenl 11I1IIal1 cuormous amount of information at its di!posal, but after two cenlurie~ of legisla tion 011 pauperism could find nothing better thnn the .... orkhouse. In France, toll, the COrl\'cntion and Na poleon had unsuccessfully tried toSUppteS9 beg_

L Rnge, I}rit/u:<'Chu/und X"chl~", ed. N~rrllch, I 31~.

•

Mor:ll (/fld the 'Drut.tel,-Prallll:ij,iItM Ja/,rbac1,,:r' liill

gUfy. T lmsl1,e f"lIit wn~ notin Ulls or t ha t form of tI,e state, n~ lluSt! believed, and the solution coulU 1I0t be found in this or t haI. poli. tica l programrne. The rnult 18Y in the vcry natureofpoiitiefLl power :

The stlLte and the orgllui~8.tioll of soeicty itT/! not, from the politicPlI stlludpoint, two (li/fcrent things. T he i t.ull! is HLe 01'

gllnisRtion of suciet)'. So far o.s the state admits t he existcnec of Bocilll e\'ils, it attrihutes them either to natural laws, which no hunulli power C1\n cho.nge, or to pri~ate life, \~hich is independent of the stnte, or to the inlldequacy of the administration. which iii dependent on it. Thu5 England linds poverty rooted in the naturnl lun' Llecording to \\'hich population con· linuou~ ly exceeds the menns of sulr.;istel1t~. l i rorn Rliother 5ide, Rnglnn.\ expln. ins ptltlperism ns l\ cOIl'C<Juenec of the ill will of tllC poor, just as the King of I'rliSlin expillins it hy t he UI\

chri~t.ian !pirit of the rich and thc Convention expl!Lin~ it by the cOLintcr-re\'olutionnry nlld ~'1uivucRI ttltitudc of property owner1:L. lI",lIee England punishes the poor, tiLl' King of Prus",i" ad mo.w.llClI the rich, "n.1 t he Convention decapita tes property owners. I

ThU$ if the stnte wanted to trlLn~el.' ml 1111' impotcnce of its ,ull1linistration it would have to abolish itself, for

it is bll!cd 011 the contrndiction between JI.1blic tlml pri\·lIte life, nlld on the C(Inlradiction hetween ~'C\lerAi interests lind particular interests. T he administration, t.hurforc, must collfille it~elfto II. r"rmnl fI/ld negative act ivity berall~c its power cen~{'8 where ci\·il life nnd its work begin . ... This di$II\Clllbcflllcnt, thi~ de\.u ..... lI1cllt. this sla\'Cr)' of ci\·il society ill the IlIllural foundati ou on which the nJOdern sttlle I1'stil, just R5 the civil llOCiety of Bla\· ... ry WR! the foundation of the ~lfLte ill IlIIti'luity. T he existence of the slate nnd the existence of slu\'cry nrc ind i\'i& i blc.~

This was confirnlc(l by the fact that thl) 11Io,e pow ... rful thc slfLte And the more dC\'eloped the political consciousness of" nnlion, the less it Wit' dispO!lcd to seck the ctLuse of lociltl i118 in the state itsel f. l\ 1a.rx onec ngnin $uiJsh.ntiale5 his point by reference to tI,e

I 'Critkal Not\ll otl"Th" King of Pmp and Sociallteform"', K. Mar.: Ind F . }:"ge~ I l'tI'~lL (lkrIin. I~ If.) I 4(11 (bere>oftcr refel'n!d tn u .IIEW); Ea.~l(\n R"d G"dd~t. ]'. 3018.

• ·Critic.LI N""", "" "The Ki nS of I'ru~A ~LLtI Sot;.] .H~r<Jr"' ''·, JIf:lI' L

401 f.; !aston .nd GuddR t ,]I' 34!).

1GO .IJur;r fNJor,- .Ifar.xiJm

French HCl'olution, whose heroes 'fltr (rUIII perceiving the source of rocifll defects in the principle of the stute, rnther saw the ~Qurce Qf political evils in social defect~ ·.l

Thus for ;\lnn; it w"s not 'political con~ciousncss ' that "'liS

imporlRnt. Tiltl Silesian revolt WIIS lwell more importnnt thtln revolts in Englnnd und Frnncc, be"uusc it ahowed '" morc de"eloped <:Ill" con~ciOU!nes5 .. \ftcr (Il\'ourllbly compnring Weit. ling's work, lI'ith those of Proudholl and the Germ31l bourgeoisie,' ;\!ftrx repeats hi5 prediction in the J)eubrll·Frtl"zlMi.Jclre Jan,· blicher of the role of tile proletariat Bnd lhe chalices of a milie .. ] nll'oiution:

T he Germlln proletnrilLl j ~ the thcori~l of the European Ilrokwriat, just us the English prolelnrint is its ccollomi!t lind Uu,) French proletariat illl po!itici~\Il. I t must be admithl(1 that Germany, though incapable of political. rel'olution, I",s a eI",&r;i · cal smllmom) to wcial re'·olution ... _ Only in !IOCialisl11 clm a philos-ophicnl l)eople lind its 5uitnblc practice, t1m3 only in the proletariat can it fiud the IIctil"e elcmcnt of its cmnncipatioll.l

Marx finishes hi~ Ilrlidu with It pll.Ssagc that givcs a concisc HUI11 nulry of his studies OIL so<:inl change:

We h,,,'" 4e('n tllnt n soci:!.1 revolution il\\"oh'l':s the SLuulpolut of the ... hole beeause it is I!. protest of men agllin8t dehullIanised life e\'en i( it oeCU/"f; in only one factory di.il tnct., because it proceeds (rom the 8tllndpoint of the Single netunl individual, bectwse the cOllltllunity ngninst whose ~epllrl!.lion froUl himself t he individUl,1 rllHCUs is the true community of Illnn, hUIlUI"

existence. T l,e political soul of .. re,·0Iu1iol1. 011 the other hllud. consists in tI>l). tendenc)' of politicfLlly uninfl uential clusscs to end their i~olation from the st!).te IIl1d from power. Its stKwIpoinl is tlmt of the state, li ll ahstrllct whole, "'hich exists only through the 6eparatioll from aclullilife and which is unU,inkllhle with· out the orgallisetilUltith~Ui between thc uniwl":!8l idea Ilnuthe indh'idllal existence of mlln. Henee II renllulion of the political

I -Crititol Xo~ on "'n", King or I'n" •• i. Ind Soci.1 Returu.''', .111,'11' I "()2j EaI!ton and Glldd.t, p. 300 .

• Marx ill oome"'hat lnsc<:u,-,.te in cla iming Ihl t the!"\) e~istoo Q ,,,.!cific~ny Germa" f"rlll "f "",,'Rli;lIlI: fur \\'eitliug, like tho ot h~r Gc rm"" ~iRli.l>"_ h~.l I;"ut hi;, lKI<linli.11l from French 1IOU,"""", h.ving !i,·\..J ~~\'"ral rUI"I! in l'ori •.

• 'Critioml Notel!l 011 "'I1 ,~ King of I'n'l!'!'~ lI"d Soc,al lieforno"', .v~U', "Wj t:astoll lind Gudd.t, I" 3$3.

J/(lr:r (I/lff tile' J)rullt/,· Fmm:.wilcllr J(II,rbiirArr' 101

~ol1l 11150 {lrgllnites, in lI('cordllnee with the Il!).rroll" IIl1d split nnture of this soul. II. ruling group in Rociety at thlleX]lI'lls(o {If s(l('iety.'

T hlls Huge's iJ clI thul ~ ocitll "el"olution lleces~lIri1y hlld ,\ polilic;.1 soul WIIS the opposite of the t ruth:

I\ ny revolution breaks up the old society; to that extent it is social. Any ~\'oiution o\'erthrows the old ruling power; to that extent i1 is political. ... Hel"oilltion in genenll- the o\'erthrow of the existing ruling power and the dissolution of the old conditions - is II. politiclIl nct. Without revolution, howe"er, socialis,n cllnnot cOllie uWut. It rC(luircs this politic!).1 act 50 for 118 it nell(ls overthrow and di~50Iutioll. Out where its orgaui9ing: lIeli-'ily begin5. whcre ib OWII Rim nnd spirit emerge, there socialism throws the politicR I hull away.'

T his article IlIl1rked the end or :\Jarx-s collaborotion with his YOllng Hcgclill1l collcague •. Of the old wmpany. only H~ reo umi ne<l, though -, Iar.'( nuule the closer RcquRinl>lIlce or !)'/lothcr Young Hegelian - Frederick .t:ngels. It WII~ partly under his inlluellce that "lnrx beglill to Ulldertnkil I'Xcll,sivcly economic studics.

I ' Crititd :\01"''''' -'Th$ King of 1'",51;" lind Soc!~l lt efor"'''·. J/B1I', 40Rj 1':a~l(>R ~"d "ndd.t. pp. S.',(1 r.

• 'C'rili«ll"okil on "' l u. Kingof P"ruiIl'U .nd s.,.,"'1 K~fj)l"fn-' '_ "0:11' , 400; ~:~ . u",.",II : ulld~I' I " :1;;;.

ClJ APTF.ll S EVEN

T he 'Paris Manuscripts'

1. TilE PJUt I'ACY.

D URING tI,c summer of 1814, l\hn began to !'!ompo8e n critique of politicni economy lhnt "'as, in effect, the fint of seveml drafts preceding Capital in 1867, In fI. prefAce that he sketd,mi out for this work he cl'plaincd thnt he could not f"IIH the promise mAde in the Deuur.l,- FrmlZli~i.'r.h e JC/h,biicl,~, of publishing a crili<I(IC of Hegel 's philosophy of law, For

prep.-.rillg this for publication, J found thnt the comhination of criticism directed solely against ~pl'!c\llation with criticism of various subjects would be quite unsuitnble; it would illlJ)Cdc the dC" clopment of the argulILent and renller comprehension (liffieult. :\Ior'cover, the wealth nnd diversity of the luhjects to he dellit with could hftv" been accommodnte,l in 11 single work only in n very "I'horistic Ityle, lind 8uch nphori~tic presentntion would have given the impression of Ilrbitrnry systemlltisation.1

He therefor,! proposed to deal with thl'! "nriOliS subject.' _ law, morals, politics etc. - in imlcpcn(lent 'brochures', beginning lI'itll pil1it.iCnl economy, lind entlillg with a g(!11l'lml treatise ~ howillg their interreinlionsl,ip IIond critid~ing Ule speclIlnf.i\·e tre .. trncnt of tile mnteri ll l - indecd, he had fllready signed,t coutrllct for this work with Lesk!'!, fL publisher ill DMmstadt. In this projcct for 1\

lifelime's work, l\lnrx never got beyond the lirst st.lge, Capital fmd its predecesson being the first nml also the las t of these 'brochures' .

:Four of the manusclipu which wefe to form tl ,e basis of this critique of political economy II/we 9uT\'i"cd, though in 1111 incOIll-

I 'P"ri;o "I.n"octipb', F"JlI~ &lIrifl~n, ed. 1-1.-.1. l.iebet . nd P. J.'"rth (Shotl_ gart, 1002) I OO~ (h~",,,f'tet' rcl't'mId to &It p,.r1M Srlt";fll''')~ ):.$tOll ."d (; ,,,I.-1ftt, I" !!&I.

plete form. The lirst, twenty,MIlI'en pllges Ions, consists hlr~t:1 y or excerpts from cltls~ieal economists on wages, profit Hnd rent, followed by l\ lnrl"S own rcfleetionR on Klienltted lnbour. The second manuscript is 1\ frugment of four JllIges on the relntionship of capital to laoour. The third is forty-live pages long I\nd comp~ a discussion 01\ primlc property, labour AUti communism; a critique of lIegf'I's clinleetic; 1\ section on production and the d i,·islon of labour; nnt! fI ~hort section on mOlley. 'Hc fourth ml\nuscript, four pages long, i6 a 6ummary or the finn] chapler of H eb'C-l 's Pll(:N(lIllrllOlog!l.

The form of these lIulnuscripl!! is similar to that of i\'Inrx 's 'Crili(lue of Hegel's Pllil080phy of Lllw' of the previous summerextrll(:U rrom the authon under tliseu$llion accompanied by " critical commentnry. Tile 8lyle find degree of elnooration are, howevcr, very v"ried. In the excerpts fril'" thc dllSsicfll economists :Vlnrx, Il~ he says himself; uses their own \llnguage, and spcak5 in pla in, short sentences; i\lnrx', O""n reflcctions on ~ocicty recall the rIletoricallllngullgc of his previous articles ~ while his Ili$Cussions of H egel's philosophy "live the same involvement ,,,tll obscurity liS their subject.

In the prcrnee, i\f>lrx lIIentiOJ1S his sources. The fi~l WIlS '"

'tllOrough eriticnl study of political cconomy'.! Before heginning I,i~ first manuscript, i\-larl' Imd rend lind excerpted fifteen works all economics, ineillding Adluu Smith, Uiearoo Rnd Sa)'. T he secom\ debt thd :\Iarx acknowledged WIl3 to Germnn socialists, though lie add5 t.hllt, apa.rt from \\feitling, 'tile signifiellnt Rlltl odgi nnl GernU\1l contributions on lhi~ ~"hjer.t . , . (lIllOuut to no mo~ thnn the essays by Hcas in TU'eut!J-OlUt Shut, and Engel's 'Outlilles of 1\ Cri tique of Political Economy' ill the DetltlChFrmrzu,i,cll,. Jlllrrb iJcher'.' It was abol'e all Engels who directed i\Jnrl" a attention to economics and J-:ngels' article in the DCIl18c11-] .'I'{IIIJ:i:).titeile Jahrbiichu WItS the first work on econoruic~ from which i\hn: took notes. 'file two;) IHld met before in Cologne in Nm'emher 1842, hUl !\-furl' lond receh'ed Engel. coldly, fteeing in hint n representati"e of t he nerlin lo"'cie" with whom he hllll just brokeu. Engels had betn cOIl"erted to communism by 1·less lind

• 'I'".;" Man .. ""ri"u', fo"'OIt~ .~Jori/l~~ , p. t.:f.l~ F....wn lind (;",1.-1111, ". 2117. • ·I'llti. :\Ia rm""ri l't~' . ~.,.o"" Sr~rIJl~n 'll. r.o7; ':.,;;t,)n snd (;Ull<lnt, [0, 2114. ··I'ori~ Mlln,,~r.r;I'I.i!', "'rl1h~ !jchri/len, p. OOi~ .:1<111.(0" Bud (;",ldllt, [I. 2nr, .

J.1fllf,l'lH:f(lrr .If(lf,ri.flll

~ r){' nt mOllt of 18'1-.'1 ,\'orkin;t ill his (ilther'!! factory lit "lunclH::~l.l'r,

T here he IUHI bN'1I i" oontllc1wi1h English socilllists II ml s lud ;C(1

~lIlith , Owen, l\JiII, i\IRJthu ~ und lUenrdo. lIerwegh invited him to write something for till) Df:"llI':h · "'f(lIIzmj~cke Juhrblichrr und Engds rel)Jjed .. ith b 'o Ilrtides: 'The Situation in Englund' /tllli

'Outlinell of A Criti(lue or Politicul Economy', I-Ia\'ing interprel~d N)ntinelll:ll movements to the English in the Owenite paper New .Moral World, Engel5 did the rC\'cr:se in tile Deut.fclj~Fro'IZO#i,cke Jakrblidttr, T he Jirsl or his nrtidc. was (I. critique of Carlyle's bool.: Palt fiNd Prtltlll. Engels 8ym(ll\thised with Carlyle's criticism of the inhuman society ertllted hy cupitalism, but denied tlmt the solulion consisted in It return to religious idefll ism : ,,'Imt Engels Ildl'oell.ted WI!.! II. thorough Feuerhnehinn humanism. His second nrticle WitS ,~ sUl1Ullnry of Ilis rcading on economics. Central to it 11'1\5 An indictment of primtl: pro~rty nnd of the spirit of coml}Ctition that it f'ngeuul!retl, T he recurrent crises were the result of nunrehy in production ; the growth lind IIccurnullltion of cllpi tnl in\'olvcd n lowcring of sltltuies Hnli nccentunted tIle e1I1SS struggle. Science and technology, wJ,ie), could nfford immense possibilities IIllIler communism, only serl'etJ , in n cll pitalist society, to incrense tile oppreuion of the workers. This I .• rtide mllde /I great i'o preuioll on 1\inrx (who eallrd it n '$ketch of genius")' fi nd llInl"ked the beginning of hia intel'e51 in econolllie questions. :\Iarx and Engels begAn their long correspondence imrnedintely after the aprenTnnee or the J)rut,c:" - Ffll11J~lUi.lc:h f: Jahrbiicktr. And 1\ lnrx wrote Ider thnt, when Engels e"me to Purts ill t.Ilf' summer of ]844, '\\ 'e I'I:nlised thllt our "iews were in complete ha.rmony in all thcoretil'!u l fields And it is from t.hnt time t/'nt our C<I-opernlion dlttes .'~

The thin! sourre that :\ Inl'lt mentions nrc t he FN!.neh lind £ngl illh IOeitl list.s, Among these it \\'ns cerbinl~' ProudllUll lI-il.1i whom :\11l1'lt hAd the mosl cont"ct. Mnrx hnd a lready singled out from among J~'relld, ~oci nlilrb I' roudhon'5 'penctrnting work',' T hey sail' 1\ lot of elleh uther while i\I!\1'lt Wflll in I'lIr; !! . :\Inn:

1 K, M.r~ , "'""rBl'e to" Critique or Polilk.1 F~n(>"'y', ;n :\Inu- Eng.',". .<;6«Ud Work., I 364.

"F, "':ngehl. ' Hi.tory 1)( tbe C01n1n1lniot l..I)agp~·, jll lII~r~-.: "get., &ltt-Itd Wurh" 3; " 34~ .

• '('o""" "n;.", .tltJ lloe ,j,,~.f6"T9"T Jl Il!l''''tj,,~ 7Al.tn~'. ,IJI'X;.~ , i ( J) !!G.~; t;".h,,, and ( ;uddM, [I. 1:.Jl>.

Th r; - f>{1r i4 .1fruIll4cripl.f' lWi

wrote; ' I" the <:11"1'$<: of lenbrthy clclmtes, ort"n IIl§ting 1l1lnight. I infected hi In to his gren1 injury ,,·ith Ilegeliltnis ll1 II'hil~h, o\l'ing til his lack of GernULIl, he tould not study properly." Engels, too, rctllllCl1 lI'hen 'lhe t. ... o of thcm in Paris often spent whole nighl.8 dillcu~8ing economic Iluestions.'z \Yhltt l\lltr~ most a ppN!.ciated in Proud holl \I'" S his thoroughgoing critillue of pri\'ate properly Itlltl l, i5 conception of economies n~ the determining factor in soci"l cvolutioll.

Underlying nil :\Inrx'~ notes is Feuerbllc:h-s liumnnisU1 (IICl:1~ nnd Engel~, too, ..-ould huve destribetl themse.ivl's ItS Ili.sciples or Feul'ru/lch). :\llIrx snys tllRt positi,·., criticism, lind thus /lIsa Gernllln pOlliti\'c criticism of politiclil economy, il founded 011

rcuerhuch'~ Ui5co\"cric~ ill his 'T hescn' lind Grulld,iitze, 'POl!itivc humnnistic nnd ,,,,turnlistic criticism hegin8 lI'ith I"euerhnch. The less "oci fcrou$ Feuerbo.ch·~ writings nrc, the more certain, profound, exten!i,'c, .... d lU$tillg is their infl uence - the only writi nb'll ~ince l1 egel'8 f'l! ellOmll1ologg nud L<Jgic containing Il. renl theorcticnl revolution.·~

!l, .\r.IIO',l.n: l1 L,\~o u ll.

T he lir'llt pnrt or :\Ial':';'$ tirst mnnuscript consists ltlrgely or ext,'ncls or pnraphmscs frou, the hooks Oil econolllil'!l thnt he WI\8

reading lit that time. He di\'ide<J thesc cxtrn"u into thne 6ectio1ls on Wltgc5, cnpitnl nnd I'I:n1, ench occupying une of thl'! t11ree nrtieal columns into which Marx had divided hi~ pages. I n tile lin.t, drawing on Adam Smith, "Inr:!" not(:$ tlmt the bitter atruggle between CIIpitn1ist and worker, .. ·hieh uctermined wagl'!5, also reduced the worker to the status of II comm<:Klily. The worker could not win: irthe wealt h of society were diminishi ng, it .. 'ns he who sufl'ered most ; if it WIlS increasing. then this mennt t llllt cilpitul Wl:tS being aceulllldated and tlle I,rodud of labour wns increasingly II.liennted from the worker, In ~hort, ' In II declining st"te

I ,'IMK to ~l".~jt""r. ill M"r~-.:ngcL<. .'irl«lrJ C"rrr.p'md, ,,ct:, p, 171. • F. "'''tieL.. Int.wuctWnlo K . Marx, n~ J'f1«7ly 0/' I'MI()I6p~!I (N~'~ Y(lrk,

loo:.l) I" 7, • ' ,'n ri" )[an",.,-r; .. !..'!' , f'flJII~ Srhl'ij'lr>I.I" JOII ; ~:'~~to" n,,~ Gn,hlat. 1'.!!Il(;.

166

Qf 6OCidy. in~rcu~ing misery of the worker; in (I, progre»h'c state, compliCAted mi$CI'Y: lind ill the final ~tlt le, 8lt1tionary misery.' I

Pol itical ecouomy, MyS i'lIUl'lI, deult .. "ilh mllll in mueh the .ame t<'I'II'8 liS it dt'lllt wj!h, 8"Y, n house. It did nol d~1I1 wi th ,,,,,n ' in his free time, 1\3 1\ IUl1luln heing'; lhi~ ll ti pecl it left to other di 8ciplin~. l\1"rx cOllti"u~s : '

Let us now rise a!x)\"c the ll'.\·cl of 1)!,Iliticll] economy And seek from the {orch"Oing "rgumcnt, which ,,'/u presented ailllO!!t in the words of the economists. alls..-en to two questions -1. Wln>!t is the signi/icltnce, in t he c!c\'clopruenl of Illllnkind, of

this rcductioll of tlU! {,rrcntcr pRrt of mAnkind to .. u,trllet lubour ?

2. \\,hllt errors ure committed by t he ud\'ocates of piccelllcul reform, who eilher wtlnt to mise ""lgtS lind therehy imprOl'e the condition8 o f the " 'orldng c\USlI, or (like Proudhon) !'(:gnrd equAlity of wIIges as the uilu of !SOCial rCI'olution:1

T o an$"'U these two questions i\ lurx lUll8iSeli II ierie~ of (luotntion8 from three source!; : ti rstly from the Germnn li~rnl writer \\'ilhelm Schult on the workers" p,\ uperisution, the dehumnnising effect of mnchinery a nd the number of women uml children working;! secondly from Constantin l'ec(IUeUr on the dependenee lind (Iegradn tion foreed au worken under CIIpi t lllislll;" thirdly frotH Eug~ne Buret on the mi$ery /lnd cJlploitntion of the proletaru..t.'

Tn his e.ecoud IH!dion Marx nota a number of p.aSsages under the heading ' l'rofit of Capital". First, quoting AdAm Smith, hI' d£!inc8 capilnl u t he power or S3IUl1nand jU~bo~.aud ill p~ucts. He then describes th~e&lu by whic~ capiLalisb.lIIl1ko

1 ' I'B';, M~"'l!jCTiplll', FtUh.&hrijl.", I" ftl~: I\, ~Ia "", &:Tly I!'T'li~,., OIl. l.I()ll",uo", (I.ondon, 100.'»]>. H (I,~,..,afI~r rcrcrr<.'ll iu a; ]Jollomo,..,),

• '1'",iI Man"l!I:riI'Lt', PTil~ SrArift~n, V, GI6; BoU!)n.o,,*, lip. jO r. • Cf. W. Sch .. IlI, m~ Ikwg"~!1 dv 1'''I>II,u.tlo", .l:.'i~e ~I<AjcAllic.·lio.lidl«.~

AhlttoN/lillng (,lUrid>, 1&1.3). • C. P~ueur, Tltiorlt (JOI<rrlk d'1co"" ... ie lIflriaie rt poIrtip! (I'ali., 18-12).

I'etquwr .dvoc.ttd I dernocnolic, fairl)' I:tll\l1Iliied JOciIILZJ!I and erilieOied eopit.aliJ;m Ill! eonl ... !')' to ... Jigiqn Bnd morality,

• }:. Burel, Do 1<1. ",IN '" Itt. dalln iabori",IIC' til Angln~.e n ('!O .... "'n~ (1)~,;;,, 1640), ll u>cl'~ baok I,. well-docu"'~"I~d ateo"nl l.>olh of the b"rro"" or th Ind"'lrial n~vQlulio" ~"d of \100 l'""it,ve ~blliti(';j il offe .. to men. }'!). tlo~ in Hucnco of I,I"",L ' ''' ~farx'. ceo'lQ",it <:(I''''~llt;on., ... ., G. Cotlier. D .. r~'!Oa"li#,,,. all '>4lr~ 'i''''e ( I'~,;", 1001).

167

" profit both from "'''ses and rrom rAW mll itrinl, Ild'-\lncec! : the moth'es that inspire lhe cllpilnli~l; nllli Ihe IIrcunmlation o r c"pitul nnd COlli petition a mong CIlpitllli8h. [n t his I"st $ectivII i\lnrx quottS fro'" Hicn rdo, Sch ull! lind r eeque"r IL~ well liS fronl ,\limn Sn,ill ,.

l'-lr'rx's lhird section is o n rent nS one instnncc o f the perpt:lu:11 opposition of interests thl\t is chl\racteristic of CIlpilAl ist soci,'l),. Mnrx Iluok':5 f .... m .\,Inm Smith here, but cOUlmcnu:

It illliHurd to conclude , however, 115 Smith cI~, thflt 6ince the lund lord exploit$ everything wh.ich benelilliociety, the intere6t of lhe lnndlord is alwny. identiclli with that of society, In the reonomle system untler the dOllliulltiuu of private property, the intrrest thll.t Il.n individual hlls in society i$ in cxact!y in"ene proportion to the int.e rest which soeiety hilS in hilll- just ns the iuterest of the moneylender in t he spendthrin is by no "'enns identicl\l with the intere6l of the spendthrin.1

Mnrx outlinea the similarities between landlord and capitalist: in the lut Anah'sli there Wilt 110 d istinction !Jetween them and sodety Wll9 di~'ided into hI'o cllISSes only - \\'()rk er~ lind capitalists. T he eharnctc r of landed p roperty had been utterly transformed 6iuce fcudul tilUes nnd neither the prescrvntion of lurge estates nor theirdivision intolmall properties could nyoid precipitft linga eri~is,

,\ t this point in his n\lIllus<:ript "'IIU breRks off writing in three l)Kffillel column!l an,] begins to write !trnight across t he page. He AI$O chnnget his style, wri ting in his own penon with no quotatio n from other "Titer!. This p"'lng~ on IIlienll.led 1, .• l>our ;s the best~ writt('n part of the mllnus<:ripll. In ilMnrx criticiscs the concept of labour found in the clASSicAl economists, from whom he hnd just !Jeen quoting, 011 tilt: gellcral grounds thnt their conccption ~ werc superfic inl nml aiHtrllet wheren his o wn gAI'e n coherent I\Ct'Oun~ of the essential Ilature of Ci:UnOIll;~ . H ..... ing started fro lll their presuppositiolls Mnrx claims to show thAt the more the worl,er producell the poo",r he beeomt'll. Dut Uti, Rllalpis remained superficial:

P (lliticlli ecouomy pr<.ICeed i from the f,jet of pril'llte J)fOpert)', It (I OC$ not cxpluill prin'l tc property, It g T1l 9J>9 the nctlml, m nl~rinl process of priv''lte property in ul»lruct uud general

• ' i'Uril M~nulCtif't~', J."Q~~ lk~TifI.n, I" ~49; lIollomorn, I" 100.

168

formul:oe whid, it thell Illkl!8 fU ]"W5. . I'olitical ('.:(lUOIl!\'

teacher Uli nothing nhtJut. the .. ~Itnt 10 which these exlern,,!, "ppllrentiy nccidcntnl cir""nl!illnces fire !i"'I,I~' the c:<pn.·niull ofn neCi!S~nr"y dC\'clopmenL We hnTe ~n Qllr poHtitnl ecollomy rCJ;:nrlis exchJ\I1~~ itself .. a nn nt.'<:irlcntnl fnct. T he olll~' wh('l·J~ which politiC81 e.collomy puis in llIotion nrc greed ,mu the \\'nl' UIIIOlig the greedy, competition.'

lIul b~c"u8c the dussiclli ccolLomi~h hllli fnilet] to lll\']('l's l tllld tho n~ceMllry connection flll(1 dil\'clopmcllt (:If different cI:ullonlic f"ctorr. they could gil-e no coherent tlCI!Ott lit of economic!. "'urx, on the cOllt,.lIry. aims '10 gl'll~JI t,he I!uentini connedion nmollJr , pri",.t,c I)T'Opcrl.". greed, di"wall of ["hollr, Cllpil.lll lind Illnel oWlicrsliip. ""d the connection of exchllnge with competition, of "lIlnc "ith the de"lIluation of men, \If monopoly ,,·ith competition. etc., And of this ",hole Aiienlltion with the tnolley.§ystem'.1 The uSII,,1 method of the economi.l iN to Auppo!C tt fictitious primordinl stute ulIlI to go on from there; but this simply IIccepted liS A fll("t whllt it WAS supposed to be explaining . 'J II such a manner theology explnins the origin or c,·il hy the f'lli of mlln. ThAt is, it l\S~crts liS

n fll,·t in the form of hi~tory whl\t it should expl .. in:3 Before introdudng hi~ mllin point, i\larx oncc more asst!rtli it~

e"'pirie .. 1 busis. 'We proceed" he IlIy8, 'from II present flld of politicAl 1"('0110l\'Y." 1:"i5 rtlet is the Ileneral impo"erishment and dehumllni!Ation ofthe worker, lIJarx dc,c\c.>p8 the implicRtions of thi" thu$ introducing the theme or this ~ectjon:

Thi~ r"et ~iml'ly indic:Jlte8 tMt the object which Inbouf pro. dllees. ill! proiluet, stnnd~ 0PI~d to it Jl8 an alil"n t.hin)l, liS A po"'er independent of the producer. The proouct of labour is labour embodied and made ohjmivl! in 1\ thing. It iti l he objectificntion of labour. The r(!ll.1iSll.tion or labour is iu objectitlcntion. 1n the ,·ie."·point of roJitiml e~ono",y thi~

"I'Rri . Manu!!Cripts' , P"Q~t &hr(/l~" , p. 'M!; E.-ton and (;uddAl. p. 2R;. Tile IQ~t ~ten~ of th~ ~"oUlion (,. IIII"h~".IM,,<I hr Tn~kcT. I'MllmIl.hp Qot" Jr.~I~ iN I{Qrl .}[(Jr~ ·. I" 1311. no: ' 'I'll'" only ",!i\.'l<I, tbat !let JlolilirAI ~no",y in motion, a .... g.--\ And Ihe w.r bt!lw""n the ~r _ oo"'loeti. lion.' The d;lI'eren .... belw ..... n th~ Iwo ,-rffiol@ilIoflh"find i"'I"'rlan....,.

• ' l'ArI~ ;\hnU!tltri)!I~'. FrS'" .'kirijltll, 1'. 1.00, ~:.,ton .nd GU.l<llt. p. 2811. • 'P.ri~ ~"nu...,ril>I~" ;"'Q .. &.rlf/t'ft, p. 000: t: .. ton and GuddRl, 1" 290. • ' I' •• ;,. ~"nu""rlI'U', F>-AAt &.rtn .... , I'. roo: .::..1 .... , .,,,1 (; .. ddart , p.~.

TIle 'f'"ri., .1lQIIUlCripll' '00 re!llisatioll of Inbour appenrs liS diminution or the worker. the objediliCiltion III the lou of "lid the subsen'ience to tI,e oLject, nn(1 the Appropriation Alli lienntioll, u externAiiu.tion.' Put Ie'" lilll ,h anu

of Ii ienalion 18 this: it i8 "UUl'~ lI:llurl" to his 0,,'11 cre~tlor' II!!

form, Am ( ~H' 01'" I " '>'! I \\'or 'IIlg on 1111< Iru"s urlllin tile \\·orrcro-u 81 11m 111 eo·operll on WI I ,~ e ow men. In this progressi"e illterehunge oetwccll lUun and the world, it is ''1!\!''S Iluture [0'1.10 III cotltrol ull1l1~ pl\lCe~$, to be the initinlur, the 5,'-0_ jed In wllleh the process on tillites. l ·row~i"'ffiiliTre'"ui become a len ° 1111111; lltt IS, it Iii no 1011 t!r hi~ "ud oolon to ,,"othe~n;on or llng. 11 rc igiOll, for c"umplc. it i8' ",10 '5

the sutlject of the ludoneul process. It is God who holds the initiati"e IWU "'"'' is in u sltttc of depenuence. In ecollomil-s, according to "'Ian, it is money or the ('.Mh IIl"lUI IMt mAIl(rmres men around a. though they "'~re objeds instet!.(\ or the re,·erse. The central point i$ tlmlnUln luts lost coutrol oC his o""n e'olutioll und 11(1$ ~ecn this control inn!$tcd in ot her entities. Whttt i$ proper to m.n hilS become .. lieu to I,illl, being the uUrillute of I something the.'

The fAct that the worker is related to the product of his labour us to &11 aliell object IIICullli thut the more the worker produt'es the llIorc he applOllehe! loss of work "-lid starvation. Once lIlore, i\lurx draws fI ptlrllilel with religion:

It is the SlIme in religion. The 1II0re '"un IItlriLutes to God, the less he reillins in himself. TI,e worker puls his life into tI'e object; then it no longfr belon~ to him but to the oLjed .... The exteTl.ali:>atioll or the "'urker in his product IllCUIIJI not olll}' that his "'ork beco<ne.IU' oLjed. un external existenC<!, but also that it esisu; oulside him independently, alien, flll lIuton0ll10U8 power, opJlOti~d tu hi",. The life h~ IIIIS giv~1l to th", object t'OII

rrollh him a8 h08tile "lid "liell.3

, ·1'ori .• M8n'Ii!<'';I'!~'. f'flM, Sd~ifl~n. I'. 061; . : •• 1011 AI1'[ (;"~"At. 1'. ~I!! ' . • ,\ Iarx "lei 1 .. 0 (jun,." IfOrd~ to c)"\>reM hit ideu of . lieMtion: thQj' Are

~;"l1i"'''''~''.9 "II: _~,. to "" thQ t ... o tCrllI1 in~ii«i",inat .. ly, IOmelin,,,,, u';lIg boll. log .. 11>o:r f". rl ... IOlM:al CIll I,lIn.i~ . ·\lrlhct. ~ the .l1.ie~ l>}' l\.ell. UrarLnJ(Ik" and o·:-:.iIl "ICI,U,-,"M ill lhQ Ilihlk>jtra"h)·.

a ' l'aN :\bn·,..,ri,.\Jj', f'rU!oe ''«~'lfon.l'. &62, . ;"111011 An" (;",1<1.1, I'.:!OO.

170

T he worker is here deprived in II dU1I1 way: hi. contact with nature, the 5enIUOO' e"ternll.l world, is !IO necessary tor him that nlicnnlion dcprhd him both of objects ( 1) \l'ilielt to work " nd 11150 of ohject.. fr()m which to lin.

i\["n: t l1l!ll ri!lurilli to the attitude of clll~i;.k'al eOOIlOlllll."ii which enunciaks tiLl' In ... of .. Iicn"tion 85 :0110"-&: 'T he mOrf! the worker produces, the leu he hilS to OOIl!lUIlIC; the more valuClllu! erenlel the more wortilless find un"'orthy he becomes; the better ~hllped his products, t he mOr e ",[l1li10 .. 1'''" is he:' CllI....,iclll ecunOJUia d"'elt long on the wealth produced under capitalism, but ignored t he po\'erty, mutilntiolltlnd <:retinisu. tlII.1 it imposed upon thcworken. 'l'be rclution of the \I"orker to the ohjed.5 of his production was lhecrucilll dimension from which Lo judge thequalilyof laoour.

Hl.,·jng (\isculI$cd this relationship of the worker to the objects of his production, J'o l t\ rx defines flnd analpes a second, thi rd and fourth cho.raeteri~tic t>f nlienutcd 1I1U1l. T hc seeond is his aliena- ;l.

tion ill the net of production. ' How could the worker', ask! ;\llIn, 'stand in An alien relation.hip to the product of his activity if he did nol IIlienale himself frOIll himself in t he Yery ad of prOOuction?'2 i\'lnrx distingui~he$ three .. spccls of t his type of ulicnatioll: firstly , labour WHS external to t he lnbourer nnd no part of his ILlLtu re ; second ly, it wns not "olunblry, but forced labour; nnd thirdly, llIan's actl-'ity here belong~d to a nother, with once Illore t he religious parallel; ' In religion t he ~polltaneit)' of human imagination, t he spontaneity of the humun brain and hean acts independenUy of the individunl lIS 5n alien, (Jiline or del,ili,h /lC

til'ity, Similarly, t Ile activity t>f the worker ii not Wi own iPQn_ tuneous llciivlty, It belongs fo aTiOt.hc~t1ic loss or his own ~-"he mult ort}us WIlS to t unl mlln iiltO An Ilrumal,'"'"1Oi"1le only fclt at cue .... Len pcrfor'nir~g the lI,umal runctions or elltillg. drinking ulld procrenting - in his (Jbtinetiy human functions he ,.-.. s mnde to feel like an animal.

;"I/1r% hal analped !nlln Q5 alienated from the product of his I .. bour .. " d .. Iso .... "licn"tcd i ll Un,.cl. or production (thi.!l 8<:eon<1 he abo call, '~dr- tllienlltion'). He now deri vc~ hi~ Ulird charaderi,lic of alien{\ led lAbour from the two pre\iol1s ones: mlln is

"P.rii M.n""""l'b', ~"'Q~ &'\I'ifl~,,', P. L6:l; EutOll and God,lal. I'. :!OJI, • ' I'a.;' M.nllll\:riplil'. ~"'Ii'" !Jdrf/ft~, p. M-l; .':"1011 .,od Guddal. p. ~'9L a ' l'.riiI Man...mpbl', ~"'1Uor &.rljt~", p. 005; .:aston .nd GuddM, p. 2!l'l,

The ' !'nrf.t ;lfmlflscrip'" '" ulicunled from his species, from his r('now U,eJ)" J.,hrx noll' define. whnt h/' m~'n~ hy 'species" a ter,,' he took over (rom 'euerb'ilch, The t ... o chid cl'"I'II<'teristics or Il Sl!S.cfg being were ,.M eo; s.c1ousnm eml III,iv/'I'Ai.]jh·j ' )\I an is 4 &pecies-Iwillg not onlY i lL

thl\t he prr. ct icalh' 1\1\(1 t heoretil."ally IUnk/'.!! his UII'n srcies It!

well as thAt of other beings his object, but ,,190 "nd thl$ i. only nnother e."'p:~ion for lilt SlIme th ing in that all present And lil'JII" ! It'Cies be eon_ideflil him5cIr to be .. u,un'l'$Il.l and Mn~'l" ' . ...~ 'l1,i .. unh·e..-lity coll.!l14ted in thto fnet thnt mnn could approprilltc for his own U~1l the w"ole realm or inotg'lnie nAture,

T he uni\'~l'iIlllity of nllIn appcars in practice in the un;,'er",lity which Hlnkcl llLe whole t>f na t ure ju:; iuorgnnic body: ( I) I\a 1\

llirect rn!!tlU B of life, and (2) as the matter, object, Ilnd instrument of his life activity. Nature is the inorgnnie body of mnll, that is, 1I"lure in ~o far as it is not the human body, .\I an lil'c$ lIy nllture, T hiH means that nature is his body with which he mUlt remain in perpet ual l'rO<:ess in order no t to dic, That the phpiclII Qnt\ spiritunl li fc of ml\n is tied up with ""h"'1) i~ I\l1othl)r I'll)' ofe'lying that nature is linked to ibelf, for IMn is 1\ pnrt of ullture.2

It was trllE tlilit an;nu,is also proouced - hut only whnt \Vns immedintcly Il CCC$8!\ry for them, It was lIlan's nnture, on the other hilmi, to proouce Llui,cnlally and freely : he WIIS "ble 'to proouce according to thc slandard of allY species and nt all timel know, how to npplr an intrinsic ~tandard to the object. T ILLlM man create. Illso Ilcoording to the I .. ws of heauty: a i\lar1 SUII1I u]' 1hl) resulls of hi$ discuJsion liS follows: .

In IIlienating (1) nature from man, nmi (2) tlum from himliClf, his o,,'n Actll'c function , his life-adi\'ity, alielllllN Illoour also nlielu.ler; the~pecics from him; it makes species-life the meill'! of iudh idu"lltfe, In the fil'ilt place it alicnates 5f1C'cics-liCe fIIId the indhidunllife, Rnd secondly it turns the latter in ib abilrnctioll inlo the 1;Ui'pDlle Qfthc rormer, also in it!! abstract and alienated fornL.~

"I'nls )IR~"",,"pb', I-}-Q" &'\l'iflc".I~ 006; ~:""'to" .nd (ludJat. p. !!I'lIJ. • ' I'~'" )1 ."u~ril,I~ ', FWlIott ,~'>ijlt,., p.!JGG; ~tOIl and Gpdd~t, I" 2!l3, " 1'.", M~np..:ril'b', "',Q'" &~rift,,., 1'. 56t1j ~'.II.!tton and (l"ddu, p. 2M. "I'an. )bn" .... ril't~', I-'rGIte ,~drifl<!>t,l"p.~ f.; h!"lnn .",1 (; ",1.18I'I'.20~ ,

1_" ,-

n . h

rill " ;

, illi ... of :alitndion out of other men.

II (ourth ('ha .... ct ... r_ mlln i! Il!iennlell from

In general, [he Sft)'sJ the slntcmc:at thnt 1111111 is nlic l\.Ilted from hi, IpI!eiell-eltiatl!nce means tlUll one IORII is alienated from IInother jutt liS ellch 111"11 i. alienated from human nature. Th", alienntion of IImll, the relntion of Dum to himself is realised IInu expru~ed in the rellition between Illilli and oti,er men. T hus in the relation of ll lienated labour e,'ur man sees the othen! ucoordillg to the stll l"]llrd and the reilltion in which he nnds himself liS 1\ worker.'

H aving reiterated thllt he i~ solely IInnlping concepu derived from economic fuets, "June now po!!~ the question: Ifl he product of,my I"bour is nlien to me, and belongs 10 someone dsc, who is thi, o~her person? At the beginning of the pMsage he hnd touched on thn ~ue$t ion : 'T he relatiouship of the rich to the objecti of productIon IIl1d to production itsclf is only Ii consequencll of this first rdntiollship nil!! confirms it:'l\ow he takes his point rurther: !he produce of mnll',lnhour did Ilot belong to gods, nor to n"hl~; It could only bIllong to mlln him~elr. "That the product of labour docl! not l>e lollg to the "'orkllr nndan "lien po1l'"er confronts him is pu5sible only t.ecIlUse tM, Ilrodud belungs tu a mlln other than the ,,·orker. If hi8 Ildi\'ity i, " torl1lent for him, it must bIl the plellsurt' IInu the life·enjoyment (or Rnother. Xot go<h, 110t nn.tu~. hut only mn.n himself ("fin be this Alien power oq,r IlIan:' i\ IHrx here refer, hack to hi' dit.cuMion of the fourth ehllrActer-

" " aria Manueeriplll', FrIlIMJ &Arifltft'l~ MO; Eailton alld Gu,ldat, p. 2!Ml. I 'Paris ~t.n"""riJ)tIi·. PriM Sclr\ft,,,, f'poM\3 r.; ~::'!ton and (;,oddat"p.~I. • ' r ari!. ManulCnl,IlI', f'l'IlH !r' ~ijlt: .. , I" 670; F.aslon Rnd (Judd Rt. 1'1'. ~ f. "" 8 ,lOCI! n?l ~an, aooordill,g to Mus, that the npilalisl i. 1101 ~1"~'lrd. Hotb (el"tIJ~ot and wo,k(, ",,""ke of the .,.me alienation, Ibou~h In rl,!f~,..,nl ''')'~. s.:e (;. Collfm. ' Il"",'lt"";. ~",I r,..,I~,,,n.,,-.·. J(jlt;nol nf lie lfil4",., ~ Ittl'f).~ (. ' ~" IfIOII).

I'm i~lic of nlllll" Illicnlllion.1 T he fad lhHt bolh the prvo.!"cl of nlan', lawur lind the IIcth'ity of production hllu OOoolHe IIlien lo him mellut thllt al10ther lUl;lil hlld to control hi~ product 11111.1 his

IIcti-'ity.

";\,cry ,c1f.l;lliennlion of nlll11 , from himself lind from n"t"re, IIppellni ill the rellltiol1ship which he postuh.t.es betwCf!n ol her men and himself Alld nalure. Thus rcligioWi sclC·lI liena.tion "ppu.n n~c:es~ rily in the relntion ofl...ily to priest . or ~I.", 1(>" lIlcuiutor, since we Uft! here nO\l' concerned with the spiritual worM, In thc pmcticlll rl':al \I'orM self'lliienation CUll Il]ll)(llif only in the pructiefli real relationships to other men.!

"lflfX now tirll''-S " few prllcticAI condUllions with reg'trd to "ri'<lI te property and wllgell. Since, aeconiillg to Marx', al1111y8i3, it WItS the nl"tion of the worker to his labonr thflt produceu tile relation of the capitalist to labour, ·pri\'ate property is thus product, rtsnlt lind ne<:essllry eOllsequencll of ellternll,li_eu I llIbour'.- It WIiS t rue thut pri\'ilte property seemed tv cOllie linit, but 'the unulY6i8 of Utis idea ,ho\\'s that though pei\'lI te property uppears 10 be the "'Touml RUU cause of extcrnalised labour, it is mther A. eonscquenee of cdcrnnlised lawnr, just U8 b'Ods /lrc ol'iginttlly not the CIIU5C out the elfeet of au ul.lerrution or th6 humall 111;nu. Later this rcilltionship C()l'c t'tleS.'i T hi, has 1.J.cCIl c/lll6u II. petilio prim:ipii, lind, ~trietly spCRking, this is correct: the

, Tucker. Pft;liHIOphJl ",,'" .IfyiA in Karl Jlor.r, p. 14\1, nIi.,lr.nolat ... thi, l,a!'#Age. lie A),.: '''bu ... u at )eut oloor.",..,l)· aWl"" orlbe .)'aki,,_ of hi. I"",il ion, fo)r he made I nOI~ )n "'" mon"""";I" NO) ;"1:: " We ""',." thi"k o,·.,r tbe I' ....... io" .. , · madll 8tJ1te,,,(,,1 tlul the reu,lion of ma" 10 hlml!lflJf Ii",,! beoou_objtclh" .,HI .... aJ through "i.! n',1ation 10 .nol" .... " .. " .... Th~ t,o".lallon ... 9tlId bt, ' 1..,1 WI colllidtr the .totemenl p""'io"gl), ",,,de .. .' Marx U. b~ .. limp!)' "';t~r.I;Hg his rou"b d .. raclerirlie of alien.tion. TDck~r il led to ",.ko Ibi. ",iI:.ke by pMI"llting ("'itb no erideole8 fro", 110. le~ t) that Marx conCl'iffl of..Jf·.li""ation ( .. ·bjo:b ·ruebr,..,r.,n. t" ail ·.Iienated "'!if.""lation' a ''f!ry dilff;rent thing) u I'"",anlr. l,b~lIIl",,,non of lhe iml;v;u"",J I"'yd ... : he ' h~n I"~"ls nil tll.at Ib;" .. in conl,.,..jio;tlon ,,-ith "bal Marx "I" .bout .o("lf_ a lil'Ullio.n bti., _"ti • .!)), 5«;.1 and d_ribel tb", fOI theomicaUy unt.,nAble. n Ullbe '«mITlldM:tiotllt' iii bel"""" T uckH "nd Mara, "ot bet ...... " M,u .",1 ;\1 • .,..

• . 1' .... ~ho",""'ril'b·, f'/'1IJ.t: ScAriftt'" I'P. ~70 t.; ElI~lon and (;ud<l_I, I" ~i.

1 <" • .-;. ~1.n,,!<t'riI;I", f'l'flb Sdrijltn. p. ;;il: F .. .ton a'MI GuddAt, 1'. ~'OO. " I'arli ~lan uKriI'l,t', f'rl1H &A;ijI~", I" r, i :!; t: •• tu" .,,~ n u,ldd, 1" 200.

lH .Marz IN/QI"'t JJor.ri,m

idca of alienated ]aoour presuppo6Cfi pri,·lIte property just u much rllS it givcs rise to it. What i\ "IrX l\" i,h~s to bring out., hO"'e, cr, is

\

that social labour i, the Source of 0.11 nolue and thul of the Jistribut.ion of wealth.

i\ lurx U:l('S his conclusion to aIlB,,'er two contemporllry problCnl5. The nr,t arose from the (llet tllllt whcrea5 c!a~ical econOnlics

In'lIted lllbour liS the IJIIsis of production, it gll\'e nothing to \ 1"1.00,,,· ,,,,d CYCI'ythiug to wi'li Le pn"l'l;,·l,.. lie,.., "guill, c\uuicllI ecollml1ie~ had only forJllulated the Inws of /l lieuli ted lawur. 'WllgeS and pri\"l'tc property lite identical: for when the product. th ll object of lnbour, pUYI (or t.he labour itself, wagu lire only 1\

nece!llary consequence of the Rli~:Ultioli o( laoour:' L.!oour thus bccsme the 5en'ant o( wagt!8 And nil i " c~1l!oe in wages would be unAble to restore to laoour its h~mlUJ melOning and significance. :'\illrx concludes:

.Enn the eqwLlity of wages, AS adnlllced by Proudhon "'ould ouly ~onvert the r.e1ntion of tbe contemporary ,yorke; to his work ,nto the rclRtion of allmM to In.hour. S(t(:iety would then be coneel"ed ns nn abs tcl;lct ~apitaliat . WlIge$ lIre II' direct resul t of nliellllted I"bour, !.Ind ILlienlLted llIbour is t he direct cause or pri"nte property. T he downfllll or one is necessnrily the down. f"ll (.If the other.'

The IICcond of the problems that Marx mention, is th"t of the nehie"eLllent of un;'<crsnl huma n eluancipation. :'\Iarx thinkt (IIIICI hcre he re~au hi, "ie"" at the end of his 'Introduetion to II.

Critique o( HcgeJ"s Philosophy of Law') thnt this will be bronght llbout by the eUIIUlcipution of the ,,·orken. Unj,'cl1Illl ILLII"an emaucipation ' is oolltailled in tOOr I'.lllllneiptltion be<"ause the

I whole o~ human ser\'itud~ is in"nl~ed. in the relation ofworkt'r to productIon, and all rclatlOns of 6Cr<'L tude nre only modifi~ o.tiolll !lml COIl~cllllences of the worker's relaGon to production'.1

,\I",." """I. pJ" " " <lU " <1"''''' ';0'' of ,,11 " . pecta of c!"Mic .. 1 economic~ - bllrter, competitiolL, ~upitRI. Illouey - lm~ed OJ) the h~iu facton of ~liellf.te,llubour Ilud private property BlIt. llrst he trll'S to dcterllulle 'the gcnerllllllil ure of pri"nle property in its

I ·I'.m M. nll=if'Uo·, P"'fl~ &Arifl .... , p. lij~i .;"~Ion .. nd Gu .. hlAt, f"~' • ·".rio M.n,,:so:ripU·, FrQ~ S.Arifl~II.I" (', 3; .:....Ion .nd Gudd.\, I" WOo I' Pam M""wocril'U', FrilJot &llriflell, ,,, 0(.1; EII"lou lind ClIIldat, I" ~.

171i

relation to t.r ul), hUllllln l>rOpert.~·'. Ha"ing 5ummnri~ed hi , pre,·iou. ooneluJionJ, h", proJl'»es to o:onsider thl!. rclnljun of I he alien person, under whose ,lomiuAtion production hilS ntllen, to the worker, to labour lind its object. MLl rx mt\kcs t hree preliminnryrcmnrks. f"i~lly,everytljing thut with the "'orker II ppl!aret! a, 1111 tteli"ily of RlienRtion, with the non·wurker appenred ItS neondi tion ofnlienatiou; seeomlly, the pruetical attitude of min.:l of the work",. to hi, product nnd work npponro" AI 11 theorlltieRl ntlitull'" ill tile non·worker; I. h[('"(I1)", thc non·worker did 'l\"~ rything 'Igui llst the worker thRt the worker did agLlinst himself, but he did not d" IIgllinst hill own .elf wlull lIe did IOgAin~t the worker . j\ InTX wrile~: 'Let u! consider more dosely these three r",lationlhips', lind there thl! manmcrillt lJrellks off, unfinished.

In spite of the juo:omplelenC6/1 of the mnnuscri]lt, it i1 pOS$ible to rcconstract whllt t he continuation would hnn: looked like. I n his notebooks of thi. time, Marx put down his 0""11 reflectio LLB OLL his 1'£!8.:liu!! of the ch .. uieal economisu Ilnd his note au Jnmcs l\IiIl'! Elcm("tI qf Political EcOllomy i! exceptioll lllly long nnd rieh. In it :'\[ arx denl8 with the categories of d U5si<,,,1 economies that he had plllnned to discllu in the unfini~hetl part of his manuscript 011

uliellllted lAbour _ barter, competition, capital IUld money. He concentrntu on the dehumnnising effect of mOlley lind private property, finishing with lin account of his conception of unalienated Inoour which i. the politive side of his critique of AlieMte.! Illbour.

Marx begins his 1I0te b~' eri ticising Mill 's attempt to formulate precise '1111\'8- in cconomics, a field 50 chaotic and open to constnnt fluctuation. He then o:ommenis on MilI's deseription of mOllc)" tiS

the medilllli ofexchll nge. Money nlolle g,,,'e 5ignilicau~ to Ilmn'$ relntionship to his fcllow mell n /ld e"en to his produeh:

T he p.utnce of moncy i~ not primarily thn t it edernAlise8 property, but tl1(lt the. medill ting aet;"ity or process - the human and socwl nr.t. in which lIlan's produets reciproc~lIy comlJ!cment Orl(l another - becomes aliclla tl!<! lind tn!:es on the qUlllity or It mnteriRi thing, money, extetnlll to 1l1llJl . Dy c,;tcrtlfllising th is ml'rlillting" Ilet;"ity, mllll is lIet;'·C oul)" RS he is Imt lind dehULllllnised .... T hrough thi, nlien medintion, man reg"rd~ Ilil will, his ncth·ity. Ilml his relntionships to others, liS n po""~r independe"t of I,imself Mnd of them - justead of Illlln himseJr

Ji{j Jl/ar,'l) bif()r( Ji!tJr,rism

being t.he Ilwuiutor for m:m, , , , l\ p"lt from this medil,lioll, ohjccts lose thei r nlluc, They hl\\"e "n.lue only in so far as they rel'rc~ent it. while originnlly it I\rp~n.re(! thllt the noedin.tion would lo tH'e value in so fur:os it, represCJlts objects.'

After ,!ra wing II. (not vcry cleflr) pilrflllci between the mcdin.tiol) of money lUld tll" IHcdill lion IIfChrist, ~Ial'x expln.incrl UI>\t UlIIlLey \\'lIS lleeessn.ry under 11. regime of prj"nte property, for men must "'XChilll!(C LUid exchnngc must end up ju vulue. People. it wns h"t', were ~ til! svp('rstitiollS nud hung on 10 their money bn.gs. Enlight_ ened cronomists hMI tried to eOllluat t his hy inlrnducing bills of exchnuge, cheques 1111<1 Vll rlf)l1S forms of crcdit. Even the follo\\'ers of s,:,int-SilnOIl hnd M n misled into thin king thn.t hI 1\ credit syd em (II fully org.1nised hAnking system wns their idenl) til(' Illienotion of m,UI from man would be gn.d ulllly o,'ercome nnd human rdalionships restored. Thi~ restoration WliS only Il.ppar~n t , JlQwc\"Cr, for here the alien"tio'" instead of being purely ..,.~terior, lodged itself inside man's morH! lind soei,,! existence, for

Credit is the economic judgement Clf mfln'$ mO!'ulity, In credit, '"an himsclf insl cutl of met.ll.l and paper has occome the medium of exchange, uu t not 118 IT.a n, hut rAther as the existence of capitAl And interest.. Humll.n indiYidufllity Il.nd hunulll morality have become all article of trade and the material in which muney exi~b. Instead of money und pAper, Ill)' "cry personal existence, my Jtesh and blood , m)' $ociuJ "irtu(' lind reputation is the matter Ilnd the substance of the monetnry spi ril.~

T hc credit system, .1/:/:ording to i\l a.·.~, hll.d four main ehuflLcteristics .. Firstly , it increased the power (lfthe wcalthy, for crcdit WuS more readi ly uccordcd to t hose wllo already had money; seconllly, it added A mor,,1 judgement to an ecnnomie one, illlpl)"ing thAt Il. lIlall witi.out credit was Il lso untrust.ll"orthy; thirdly, it compelJcd people to try to ohtain crcnit by lying and deceit; fourthly, credit reachcd i~ pcrrcclioll in tl .. , L"nkiug ~ystclll.

1t is in coni mst to this society based Oil money nnd credit. thnt. l\lnrx outlines 11is jdell. of mail 'S nuthelllie socill l existence:

"F.Kcerpt,,,,,t ... "r In44', Ii.. MQu. T~~I~ ~/J J/rl~l><f~ "nri l'ffl.r;f, ~,I.

IlilhnAnr.," lIl6 f. (t-I ~"'aftcr refe""" 10 ~' 1"I.tlt) ; Eu t()II'll!i Gu.l<l"i, 1" 200. · '~~~""'1.I-MI~· of ISH', T~.tJ;, ". 1, 0; ~:"" Ion R!l<\ (l,,,ldat,l" 2,0.

.\ $ hU!lIO.ll lllllure is Ihe true common li fe of man, mcn through the nctivlIlioll III' Iheir unturc erc«te !Iud produce" hUIlI (HI ,",OIIllIlOIl life, u ~ocin ! C$scnce ,dlieh is 110 nbs trRdly uniw,rsnl powel' orpoo~d 1,0 t ht' single indh'idunl, hut is t hc essence or nnture of ""ery ~iugle iudh'id"ul, his IIlI'n Il(:livi~y. lJi~ own life, hi~ own spirit, his own wealth. Authentic common life flrise~ not through reHedion; fllth(::r it comes flhaul from thc nced fin d egois.n of i"dh'id"llls, t!hlt is, in.mcdilltely from the aeti"ution oft heir verJ exi~tenec. It is !lilt up til Ill"!! whether this common li fe exists or not. llo"'e\"er, so 10llg liS mall does 1Iot rl'ccognise himself as mllll 'l1Id does no t orgAnise the world humnnly, this common life uppelll"li in the form of !llicn«tiou, Ut;c!l"se its S\II>jed, man, ii II being I, liennted from itself. :-'I cn (,5 ,Icll,ml, Ih·ing. I"uiicull\~ indi" id""ls, r")~ in ''', nbstrndion, t'onstitnte this <:Ollll"on lire.l

Classical economists, Dcstutt de Tracy a nd .,\,Io"n Smith, for example. cllnsidcrcu tlus conUIi OlL life of limn to consist in commCfce alld exchange. But if e)(chflnge and lmrtcr was the social, generic nel, thcn even private property took 011 all impersonal character. For in the fil"lit place, it had oecu takcn from the mnn who produced it and Acquired by someone for wllom it hat! 110 slIch per~ol1al significllnce.

I n the second plncc, it IHls hccu relntc!! to nmI equated with another pril'ate property. A private property of a ui/fereut nnture lU\5 taken its place. just lIS it itself takes the position of II. prh'nte property of" different ""ture. On hath sides, then, pril"nte p''{)perty IIppears as Il. rcpresentative of prh'lI te property of II dilferent nature, as the cqui"alelll'c of a"otJ u~r l",tur«1 product. Both sidcs ate 511 feinted t hat ench represents the existell"e of the other "lit! t hey Illutunlly serve as substitutes for thelusehes IIlld the other, The existence of priVAte property ll! such haa thus become A substitute, l\ll cqui\"alent.=

T lris results ine\"it"bly ill the tl·ansforlllfl.tion of lahonr into \\Hge·h.!)o" ... In primiti"e barter men only exchallged t hc ~u r plu~

of their own produce. But soon m{'n producet! in order to e..~chllngc and finally ' It becomes entirely incidentlll lind "HesSGnti,,1 whether thc prodm'er iltl111CJilltciy cllj (l),s ,urd needs Ilis prod .!d "nrl

I '1·;.,cccl't -n1}to;ll of 1 8~" '. Tut> . I" 1, 1 ; E .• ~t"" ""J G,,,IJ,,l. 1'1" ~il r. • ' I::xccrt'i_notc. of I3H', 'I"ul~, I). 1,,1; t:n2ton am! G"d~at. 1" ZH,

/

whether the udb'ity, the "clioll of ]UboUf iuelf, is hill selfi!J..t i5fnction nor! the ..... .nlisAtion of his nAlurll] dispositions lind spiri lllRillims:1 Till, proceSll Will only enhanced by the (Ii-is;",,, of Ifloour 1hl1t in!'re".sed .. -jtb ci .. ili.Jation.

Thus "'hile milo in R IlIlrhRric stille produced just liS much u¥ he needed. the ol'crproouction in " .]va.nce!1 ~tJlges of 50Ciety "'/18

only nn indireel wily of sAtbf)ing n Oeffl which fi nds its objectification in lhe Ilroduetion of another person .... Our mutual product, therefore, is tlte means, the illtcnlltodiary, the instrumt'nt, the ncknowlcrlged power of our U1utull iu« ds. Your dcmnnd (lnd the equil'alcnt of your properly nre terms which for me lire lIynonymO\l5 f!ILU equlllly valid, amI your dcml\mi is effective only when it hns An effect on me. \\'itllout this effect your demnnd ia only lin unsntisfied effort on your part .. ",.I without consequence for me. You IIIH-e no relatioll!;hip to my object ns II humnn being ~ause r myself ha,-e no human relation to it.2

T he conclusion wnl thtlt 'Our mutual '-nlue is the value of our Ill\!.tunl objecu for IIs . . l\lnril' imsdf, thcrefore, is..JllutuaIlY~"MlueIC1U'or us.'31Harx r.ntshes his nute un mUTlcy with n description of Ull1lJicnatcd Inoour that is Olle l)f the few P"SS3b'Cli where he de~eribes in tiny detnil his picture of the future comllJuuist soddy. It is worthwhile quoting I t length:

Suppose we IJll.d prodllced things tiS huailul beings: in his rrodul'lion Mch of liS would h[lI"c twice afllrmed himself and the olher. (1) I" '''Y I'nxlllcliou I would have objccli/1C(j my inilh'iduality nnd iu pnrticuln: ity, nnd in the course of the 8.elivity 1 wouirl ha,·e enjnyed a1 indi,-iuuallife; in ,-iewiug the ohjrct. I \\,lIulri hn\"(' elCJI('riente<l the indh-idunl joy or knowing my pcr~on"lity 1t5 It" uujedi,~, 6ellliuou~ly perceptible a nd indubihl.ble power_ (2) In your !nwfo\o:t ion and Jour use of my product I wo1i1o hn,-c hlld the direct I1nti oollscious $atisfaction tI,,,,t my wo.k ... Lisljed " human need, that. it objccLifte<l Iouma" l1atl.l~, and ~hnt it created all ubject a ppropriate to the nccd of IInotht'r hUlllan btoing_ (5) I "(lUlU ha\'e I..io:x:II the mediator betwcc-n you .tnd the ~JlI!eiC!l .1.1:11 )'011 would h",e experielH:ed

• · ~:x«fl)t."{lteo or 111.1". Tau, 1'- 17i ; ~:a!lton and Gllddat, 1', 27t.. • '''r'''''I,l-n"t..I 0( 1»44', 1hl" PI" 178 (,; V ... ,,,,, .nd Gudd. t, I" 27(1, I '1::~<:(:'I)I.", .. b"iI "r I II~~', T(.<t~, I" 100; E .. ton and Gu.dd.t, ".!!DO,

Tile ; I'llr;.t MIIIIU8tripU· 1'. me tIS R redinh!b'1'ntiun or yollr 01"11 n .. tu~e and II ncrl'~"Jlry purt ur youl'$tlf; f would ha\'l~ been IIftirmed,l~ your thotlghlll.~ ~-,'ll ItS YOllr lo\·e. (.~) In my indhidunl aetll·lty, I would hlwe 1~1I ' medintely conlinnecl and realised my true humlll1 and ~O<:lal IlII.tU«:,

Our productionl would IJ.c so """'y mirrors reflecting our nature.

What hupp.eIL;; ~o far u I "IL' concerned would also apply to ~'ou. , __ . ;\Iy labour ''',,\lId he II. free IlII1IUfl'1Slnlioil of life nnd lin l'njoyment of life, . , ' . _ _ _.

I'urlh~r",ore, in my labour the partil:!ulnrlty of my illlhndu"lity would he aftirllicd iw::cause Illy indi"idunJlife is allirmed, LAbour then would be lrue, net';'-e property. Under the presllpp05il!on of primte property Ill)'. indi,-iduality ~! ~xternltlille(i to tlu~ IMlint where 1 hJl.te thi~ actiVity lind where It 15 _II ,torment for me, Hather it is then unly the scmbhlllce of'tIl netmty, only A forced neli,·ity, itilpotied upon Ill: only by external ,ami uceidentul neceuity 8.nd not by 1111 IIlternal nnd deter'llllle,1 necessity_I

;\Iarx-, bnsie t.hesis b thus that nHu,'~ u\.JjcclilicAlion or him~clf in capitAlist suciety denies his species-being instead of confirming it, ;\ Iarx It,!erts that this is ajudgement based purely on n study uf economic filet; he clain'" to he using the conehl$ione of the clnuicnl ec~nomists themselves nnd only criticisiug their premise9. Se"eral linles l\lltrx claims merely to be gi,·ing exprC!i~ioll tu ccono,,,ic f"cts; and in the int roduction to the mnnuscripts liS II. I/: whole, he ill)-';: ·It is Jilin!!y necessary to assure the render flllililillr ,,-ith political CCOlimay that my CQllclu5io,,~ ha\'e been obtnined through an entirely empirical 1\ll>.Ilysis based on a thorough, criticnl s tudy of politiMI ecollollly.'11 Howe'-er, his t,ue of terms like 'alienation' lind 'lhe reniisntioll of the humlln c~nC1:!' plainly Iho,,' that i\llI.fX'S nnll.lY5is is not II purel.y ~ciel1tific one. :-ior i, it empiricOl.I, if this is taken to mtall deml.d of "ulue judgement.!. For "Iarx'. dellCription is full of d~anul.tica ll! o,·crsimplificd pronoullcements that border on the epl.gr'lImlllatlc, And while the eeonomie annly!is is taken o\'er from d aHleal eWlIulllics,

, 'Exeer1't.not.o!o u( 18~4', Tu", 1'1'- 190 (,; E~~on ~"d G"dtl,,\, I" ~1. • ·1'".;. ~bnUftri l'ljI' , f"'/J"e Sd. rifl .... , 1'1'- so6 r.; .Mum .00 Guddn, I"

:!6~,

180

the mor",) judgclUcnh ure inspired by tile rending (IIOted ulxl\"c) uf Schulz, l'e<:queur, SiSlll(mdi, uno Buret. Il is importAllt to rcalis/', in order to UndCl"ltAnd i\!An's claims, that ' empirical' {or Mill dill not iu\'Oh'c II {"d-nllne tli itillction (1111 idell which he would 1III\'c rcjcctctl) uut merely that the annlY6i.6 (whtl"1.l\·cr it might lead) surt,cd hi the right pllce - with man's JIlalerial lleeds.1

3. COMlIUI'lUI

Of i\ I IIT"" second rn(lOuseript only (our pages to"'lIrds the end survive. lIere Mllrx is describing the attitude oCthe Cllpitnli!t to the worker.

The \\'or~cr is Oll]Y" worker wilen he exists ns ""pital for himself, Ilnd he only exists as capital when capital is there for him. T he exidclLce of capi lnl is his existence, his life, since it deter. minc:i the CQutcut oC his life independently of him. Political economy lhus does nol recognise the unoccupied worker, the working tlllUl 60 far as he i.s outside thi5 work relationshi p.1

T he .wilcl1cC or privlt.te property implied both the production o( human ncti"ily as aliennled labour nud the production of capital wllieh mllde Hll uatuml ami social clHlrncieristic.s irrde"nnt; :\latX praises eh.ssieal ceonomie6 ()r hll.,-ing llbolished the rumnlttie illusions of the Inndowner lind CllnsformeCl him into a prosflic capitalist. l Ie flllalY&e. reccn t economic de"elopments and concludes thllt 'T herc follows the ncecswry victory of t hc capitalist, i.e. or de\eJoped prh'ate propert:", o,-c r unde,·cloped, immature pri"lIle properly. the landOIl·ner.'1 T he tltHIlUSCript fillishe! with ~hurt pCl$Wge~ ou the dc\"elopme&l or thc relationship of capital to labour.

, For. ~l,-ly .~.,.J .".1,.;.;, "r\ .... ~ml';,;.,.1 r_lu_..r .\1 .... ,. ,Ioct";".of .l~ ... ti.on, _ I). lI ... rb1'OOkt. 'Oi&gnooill ."d Il~nledy io )lau·, Doctrine of AllI"'rutlon·. In 8«141 IItMJl'tI> (.u\um~ 19t,s). Thcl"ll ~I"II 5(':1."()tll pieoN or ........ ...,1, ,Ioat toh M • ..,.'~ Joel';,,>! U a haoi;,.. 0"" of the bc.t-Itnoom i. It . Illou""" "Ii~"..t;"" alld ~'r«fJ .... (Chicago, 1~4).

" I'a';. M. "IUCriI'IJI'. J.'rll~ 8drifl~". I'. [',6; IMt ... .,,,,,,, 1'. 13;. • 'P.n. M."uit';j't..', I''''G~e SdriftM,I,.Ii83 ; Bottom .. ,"", l" 1-'3.

1'I!c 'i'ariJ Ji/(l1wlcript,' Hil

T he t bird mnnuscript begins with lwu IUllg Hull'!; rcferrinf!; It) H

lUullu$cript that hus u...'e ll lost. Thc I1rst ufthesc notcs denl~ with prh'de pl"operty And labour. It is unly the ,:collomics of Adam Smith Kod his followetl5, says :\11l0:, thnt 'can be ~,:(Ol\sidcrcd III both n prQduct of mQdern industry. and II. force which hIlS flecd~r_

Rted and extulled the dyntlltlisnl and development uf illllulltry And had made it a power in the domllin or conSeiou$ueu'.1 Engels Wtll!

right in t ailing .\dRm Smith 'the Lut her of ecollomics·. i Just as Luther irllernalisoo religion, so in modern economics man ... ns recognised '" the essence of primte property. Bul this recognitiun "·a~ only apparent, fur economics ,,"lIS Clt.Ugllt in the contradictiQn of making labour the sole essence ofwenlth lind yet demolUltrnting that this had consequence! that were inimicn.l tu mull. Tile feft Qf the nute i, a criticism of QucsnllY and the phyiioctllt.lt for defending feudal conceptions in the luuguugc uf modern et:ollomie8.

The !i~'Colld of :'I larx's not es outlines his conccption or communism. T he pllth towards thc overcoming uf self·alienation fullowed the same dages I1S the pr~s of alie"Ation. Previou. f\tt~mllts to fUflllUiate t.his trRnsition hRd bl!en unsntis(nctory. i'rourlhon, ror eXAmple, lwd ud'·ocllted the abolishment of (·RpitRI und Fourier and Saint·Simon IHld tmecd the ulicnntioll of lnbour to n p.o1l"ticulll r form of lnbour. /\ $ n resu lt , Fourier hnd a(il-ocaled a return tQ ngricultural labour, ,,·Idle Snint·Simon con&.idered th correct orguniStition ufinClustrial lllbour to be thc key. CUUllllunism, huwevcr. went (urther than these pnrtilll insights nnd reprt8ented 'thll posith ·e expresgion of private property AS

oW'rr.nme'.' But en'-II oommuni~m hnd its stAges. The tir!t form _ 'crude' cummunism _ "·,IS merely the un;venali ·

!tltion or private property. 'On the Olle hund the dominnlion ur material property bulkllliO lurge thnt it wllnts to destroy e"erything ,,'hicJ, cunnol be JlO5SCssed by ever)"ulle a. privRte property. It "·Rnts to nbstract from talllnt, etc., by rorte. I nlllledi"te phJsieal posscs!iun i~ fur it the sole aim or life and existence." ThIs conctption of commnnism had its couJlterpart in the propo3AI

'·Pom Man" .. ';pbl·, FrGAI ScA";j!tll, p . .::.a.;; Boltomo,"", p. 14; . • ·l'an. "'."""';1,1.'. PrIJJ.e SdTij/Ot, p.~; Ilou(OIIIo"" p. 14;. • ·"orio! Mon\l~';I'l@', ~"'IJJ.e St-~~iflat, p. ~90: t :nton ond G"d,lat, p. 301. • . Pub M."lltrril't~', FrOb lkI>Tijl:tn. \,\,. ;;00 C.; F.a!!lon .nd fludd . l, 1'1' •

301 r.

182

t.o abolish tlllirringl' "nd ~ulostitule tI,e <:onlllllmity of "'0111(;11. For it was the l"cJnlions],ip between th ... sexes that WIlS 'the immediate, ""turn1 necessary Trlntiollship of human being to hUlllan heing','

TI,is communi81ll - in that. it neglltes man's pcrsontllity everywhere - i8 only the logical expression Qf the I)ri,·"te J!ro[~rty ",hid, i5 thi~ llcgnti';II1. Uni'-<)r:lni en"Y establishing ihelr I\S fI

power is only t he disglliscd form hI which greer! rc-establishe!l IIIHl snUslies itself in Il.lIothcr wny. . How little this o\'eroomillg of pri\"ntc property is lUI I;dual appropriation is shown precisely by the nus tract negation of thO) entire world of culture nnd civilisation, the rc"c~ion to the IUlIlfiturni simplicity of tlH~ poor and WUlltiCSS mlln who hns not gone beyond private property, has not ret even nehie\'ed it. 2

Here the only eommuuit.l' W!lS" eOllllll\ulity of (nlienntcd) laoollr "nd thl' only I'quillity \l'a~ olle of w'Ib'CS I'ui,] uut by tlu: 1''''''IHunity 11$ unin,rs:.l eupit<llist.

?Inrx sccms here 1.0 he referring to tll·O groUpli, the Tmvailleurr ECIditltirl'$ u"'] the Humnnitniru, mentioned by Engels in his nrticle 'The Progrl'B5 of Social Reform on the Continent', published in the Owellite p"per NUlIllfor"lll"orid in No,·e",Ucr 1843. According to F.ngels, the former 'were just like Uie BaOOu,·ists of the great re'·olutiun, ruther 'rough hewn'; they proposed to turn the world into a commlmity of workcl"li and thus to abolish c,·cr), rcfinement uf culture, science an,l flrt flS useless, dll.ngerom II.nd Aristocratic l",mry.'l The IIlIInallitair" were 'particularly knuwII for their attll.eks on mnrriagl', the family and similar institutions'.' T he Tn<vaiffrnr6 f.;:alitairC6 nud their newspaper, L 'JIIlllulllilo'irr, cUlUe into IloC!ing nhollt 1840, after the dissolut.ion uft.he S~iIU dC6 Sai4on", in 1839, fullowing its "bm·tive (lttempt to organise a C(>lip.

L''''lJma~IiJa;re took its main inspirAtion from Silv,tin i\I.1.Techr,l, (luth(lr (If the Ba.uo",·i.ste ,\I(wijcllc de6P.gawr, lind from m"nqlli. 1i

The s~cUJld form of eommuni!m thll.t i\farx wishes to urand 11.9

innde'lunte is of tll"O sorts : the first he descrilx:s as 'still of politiclIl

"Pari;> ?bnlueript, ", f'rQ~~ ikhr!fk~, I'. W~; ~:~",," ~ml (;"ddRI, I'. :10.1. • 'l)sri~ ;\Iann'lCriplll·, f"'Vh~ &h7ij1~lI. ,,. WI; Ea~lo" amI Guddat, ]>. 30'~.

• .11 f:GA ,ii '13f1. 'Ibid. • Cf. E. l)ol1~a"s. m'I{lII'eIf" "'Qu,.,,,,rul aucri~, (I'''ri~, t9,~i), lifl. 11,C,",,;"

" [0)1 af UllO)f,,1 Inckgr'.mnJ j" form&lio~ j" Klgi, Geu~. i. d~. h;'lOri",A~H

Mall'l"ia/;,m"" Pl'. 238 11".

Th , 'l'ariJ Mallultrijltl' 180

lInture, dcmocrlltic or ,lespotic" and the second as ((chicving 'the o\·crcUlning of the ~tnte uut st ill incuillpletc nud influenced oy private property, that is, uy the alienatiun of nlllll'.1 Of both these fUrln$ l\Jarx s{\y~

C"',""'lJni~1l1 ni .... II (]y know~ itsclf n~ t.he rcintegrntiOIJ or r<:turn uf mOIl to himself, "S the o\"crcOining of humun sdf_" licnlltion, but since it has nut yet understood the positi,",l essence of prj,·"te property lind just liS little tlm hum"" n"ture of lIe<:lls, i t still reml<;ns cnpti,·c to and infected by pril·ate prop·crty. Il h,lS, in,lee,l, grnsped its concept but still nut its !lssence. t

The democrntic communi~m thAt MArx mentiol1! here must be the utupillu wri IHh·ocltted by ~tienne Cubel which "-us increusingly l}Qpular in Paris about this time; the despotic type probably tllludcs to the transitory dictaton;hip uf the prolcturiut udvvcnteu by the folloll·ers of Babeuf. The second type of oommuuislll, invo!.·ing the uoolition of the swte, was rcpre.'lented by IXuuny, author or the frImous phrase "oout "n IH:I'UlIutnnt IIntl " register heing all that WIIS ne<:esS8.ry to ellsurc tho perfect funeti(lning of thc future communist society.

Thirdly, l\larx describes ·his oll"n idea of e(Hlllillmism - the culiuin<!ti(1II uf pre,·;ou! inadequate conception~:

Conll"ulliSIll liS positive ovcreoming uf private pruperiy, uS human self-\l.liell<!tion, lind thus lIS the tlctu,,1 "Pprolwiuti(on (of the hUIllUll essence through "'Id for n,rm; therefore as the eOIll plete and conscious rest(lrntion of m"n to himself within t.he t.otal wealth of previous development, the l"Cstorntion of mnn us a socinl, that is, hUIlll\n being. T Ills cOllllllu ni~m I\S c(oilipleted nilturulislil is humu" i ~IUt a~ cumpleted hUH"lnist" is ,,"turllli~m. I t i! the genuine resolution of the rmtRgon.is111 hetween mnn <inti na.ture and Uctween rnnn nnd man; it is the true resolution uf the corHlio.:t uetwcen existence and e~sellCC, oojeclificlltio ll and self· Affirmation, free<lulH "nd necessity, iudividuul "nd species. It is the riddle of history solved «111.1 knoll'S itself as this ~0! ution .3

This is the first time i\larx tieelaT()s himself in favour of com-",,,,,i~m. The wurd~ socialism Ilnd communism "·CT() used almost

'·Paris Mallu""r'pl-'l·, FrfJi>e .'khrij"tfll, p. $\l3; t:3~lo" nnd Gu<ld.t. p. ao:J. " I'.ri~ M.llu""rip"·, I'r~he s../; '(tlen, l'.(;ro; Easton.nd GllddAI, pp. 300 f. • · !'~I·i~ ~Jonu,;c,.jI'U', FrVhe !khrijlell, l'p.SDa f.; Ea.IOIl n",l C",[,[al, !,.3Q4.

1&1

interchangenbly ahout I hi~ lime. T he word '~rx:illl is111' fir!lt beClIlliO current in £ nglnnd nll\ong thfl Owenitea in the 182011; 'r,omllluni~m ' wus II more JlII rticuln r term of recent French origin, :lpply;u!:: to thO! tludrines of men 8uch liS Cnbelnod D~1.nmy !L1lt1 ilwo!.·ing c5pecislly the nbolition of privilte property. When did "lllr.: becomo n lOOIlUUUIl;,t? l ie "'''$ fnmilint ""itl> conllnlJni~t idCIIII from the IlItter IUllf of 18-12, for in the articll!li N!jecting the lOr-entation! of communi~rn by the ,Iugshurger .411gl:11leillc ZeitulIg he citH Leroux, Considerflnt ll1UI J>roudhon, adding thnt he '<:lIlIlIot CW!II concede theoretical reality to communi3tic ideal! in thei r jln-senl form',' T he Hlrdllbclre ZdtulIg in genc",i WM

I lo~ti1e to cOlllulun;slII nnt! He"', 8.rtjcle~ were thO! exception. i\ lnrx hil1l~elr said that on the lIurr~ssion of the UhdnUi:he Zeitlme h~ 'withdrew from t.he public stotge into the study' in order to form nn opiJliol1 on ' French tendencies',t I n September I lHa i\!urx "gllill rcj eclJl communism liS R ' dogmatic nbs trnction' ,md cven sodlilis lU WIIS (or him .. t that lim~ 'only One $ide of t he reu]ity oftrUl! human n!lture',) It is t rue that Engels in an article published ill NOl'ember 1843 refers to i\ lurJ< li nd utl,en! ,,~

' philwophkrd communi.h',. but Engeb Wal in England !I t the l i ll ie IIml di,l nut knuw 1\lll rx well. It secms clear thnt Murx w,,~ not n cornmllUist unti ! lira Ill'peurllnce or the Dtu18ch ,Frl/1J::~ ildt

,1/lf!r!JIJr,"tr. ,\ Itrmirl ill IIII/(. quelll i8 established by the ' Pnris i\ lnuuscripis' written during' thc slimmer of 1 S+~, lind hy Oeloltcr l &,"~ i\b.rx nnd .Engcb both took com muuism for granted in lheir COrrC:!l ]Klntlt!IlCC. This flu well with Rugc's statement in his memoirs thnt -'lnrx gnl'e In hi~ rC'llion for breaking wil h him thu t he (Marx) "'1lS I\. commull.i8t. Huge dl\.ted this cOIl"ersion of i\!ar,;'s "I'.ry sl)CciliclI. lly: 'From &.:ptembcr 1843 to Mnrch 1844 i\ lllr,; made thc lrlln5.iliutl lo "CI"IISS sociali.J;m·':1 T hus i\ larl> became a

eommull i~t ill tile lirst t hree months of 18#. H"'"ing oullined hia oonet"tioll of eouullullisru, i\larx b~8 011 to

I'Co"'lnun~, .,od the AUgH-~""'~ AlIgtmtin Zl/f~~1', MEGA J i (I) W3; ~:;""'ton and G"ddat, I" \31.

• K. Ma",-~'. ~;n~18,1W(J(Ud Woo-b, 1362, "Lelt~. to lI u(I:"', JO;GA I i (I) 673; J-.lton and Guddat, p. 2]2, • J/KOA , H 416, • nu~, Zwi Jokl"(' In I'r"i~, , 1:1!l r. cr. Ilu~, IJ .. i'/~hd, ,,01, NeITJidl .

:).11.

lar. cnlMge 011 thre!' of ib pnrl,icnlnr fl~pcet~: its historienl IIMr'.'!, it., sucia! ehar:.chr 1I1It! ils n!gllr'.! flIT tlr~ i",l i\'jliun1.

Iftliling ",ith t.hr lirllt 'ISpcrt- the hi~torieal bll.Se8 of communilllll - ).!lIfX ,I,.,.w, " furt her t!i~tinet.ion Ioch'cc ll hi~ OWII conununi'm nnd the other 'underlie,'eloped ' sort. T his If1tter (ns eXArnplce of ",hiel, he citt:!l the "lupinll eommuni.'!l11 of CalJct and VilleJl:lln1elte) trit'5 to judify ibelr by :t.llp!:'aJillg to certain hi8torieRl fOTIIIS of cornnmnity thnt were opposed to pri,'ate propert~'. Out this choice of isol..ted aspew or epochs or past hi~tory implied, for i\hl1"ll:, U,al the ~.t of hi. tory wa. Nolan argument for communism. I n his o""n "ersion, on the other lUI lid, 'The entire movement of history il therefore both it..ll actultl gene~i$ - the birth of il$ empirical existence - Il udlliso for its thinking .'Iwafen~ the coneeil'ed fin d conscious II IO"crnelll ofiu heeorning:l T hu8 the whole fe"olution, IIry mo,'ement 'Iind~ both it..ll empirjcallt~ well II! theoret ie"l bflsis in tl,e del'elopment of Ilri'"lIte property - in thl! economy, to be cltact'.' This WitS 80 because t he al ieulltion of humun Ii fc WIlS

expressed in t he existellce of primte property, Rnd it 11">\8 in t he mo,'Clnell t or prh"'ltc property, in production Rnd consumption, tl u~t mUll hnd hi therto attempted to relll i.e l,inlSt!1r. ' llclig-ion, fnmi I.Y, stllte, 1'111", mOTnli ty, science, art, etc., lire only pflrticIll1\T forms of production lind filII under its gcnerllllaw. The positi,'e oycrcoming of pri\'l\.te property iI.S the a ppropriation of human life is l hus the positive o\'crcoming of llll l1lienation and the relurn of man from religion, fR mily, Btate, ete., to hi~ lIullInn, that i~, social c"istence::O T he iJlllIic a1ienll tion, i\Jlln goes on, occurs in lhe economic sphere: religious II\ie 'llition only occurred in the con, ~dou5n\lSll of lI1un, wherelll economic alienation occurred in his rellilife and thus its sUp!:'nleMion in"oh'ed the !lIpcf3l!!!ion of 11 11 IIlienll tioll5. Of coune, the presel'ing of athei~m might be impur' tll/lt whcre re ligion "'11$ strong, but atheism WM only II. stnge on the pnlh to COlllmunism, lind lin nbstract one lit t hat; only coulrnuni~m llroprn;I.,d II. doctrine or lIction that a H'ectcd what WIl$

rea l. Secondly, i ll elllphaJ;is.ing the socilll chllfllcter of communism

, 'I'ftril M."u .. ript~', Fr/llte &hrtf!'ft, »,,';!).I; .:""Ion lind r.l.ddd, I'. 304. 1· I'~ri. Manu!'<"ril'u', 1-"~k8 &J.rifl~., I" 51U: .:...11)11 .nd G,ulda!, p. 3ll4. "Pari, ManuRr;pti!', 1-'rijA~ Sd .. ijI~n,I'I" G!\~ f. ; .:~"lon Ind C.u,l,lftt, 1'.

300.

lR(;

i\ lnrx hegins hy rec~l pitlllatillg the contents of It manuscript thnt. hl\8 nol 5un'i\'ed, probably thc continuation of the one Oil aliellntl'd lnbour. T hc rdntion or lIlan to himseir, to othcr men flud to wh"t I,e produced iu lin ullaliellflte.isiblfltiuli slu)wed thnl it Willi

I.hc soc;,,1 c1u\r~u .. -tcr orlnoour thtlt WI\II bl!.si(" .. lie says, in a p;t5SRge ilimilnr t.o the third thesis on l"cuer()l\ch:' _\ 5 socicty itselfproduCC5 "" HI H8 m(lI1, so it is produced by hilll .. Activity and satisfactioll, both in t.heir content lind mode of existence, are social, wciltl nelil'it)' a lill lIocial satisfaction." )'llI.rx then extends the reei[)roc"l relation of man and society to man and nature:

T he humRn esscncc of nrltll re primnrily e.,dsts ollly for social mAn, hec/IIISC only herf! is nnture 1\ link with mnn, ns his c:tistence for other~ nnd their e:o;istence for him, 1\5 the life-dement ofhul1l!ln actUl~lity - only here is nnturc the foundntiOIl ofmnn-s 0\\' 1} humnll existence. Only here hns the nnturlll existence of Illan become hili humf>n Ilxittenca amI ul\ture become h\llnnn. Thu8 society is t.he com pleted, eS$.mt;nl ,,"ily of ma " wit], nature, the true resurrection of IInture, the ful fi lled nnturaliSIlI of mUll und iHuuuuism of uuturc.'

T his pnssng.\ nml uther ~ i mi lH r ones, SllOW il larx very much under t he ;nn ucncc of I·regel, to sueh an extent tha.t he nimost sn)'s that nature is 1,rol/uuil hy IIltln.' Het urning to t he socinl aspeet: il lnrx shows til/It the "llpucities peeulitl r to man arc produced in 80cinl in tercourse. ]':,·cn when a mnn WAS working in isolAtion, he IlCrfonnc.ln iiocilll net ~illlilly in " irtue of his being human. Even t hinking - since it used Inngul\Jre - was a social netil·ity.

[ [owl".cr _ nll ll tI.i" is i\lnrx'a third point- this emphnsis on the socin] nSI>l.'CU of ,"ltl1-jj being did not destroy man's indh'iduAlity: 'T hough mnn is lht' rt'fure n p'l rliclllnr imlll'illulil - :11111 pn!eisely his pllrticulnrily Itmkes I,im a n indh'idul\l, nn actual indi\'iduAI commullltl being - he ia elilltl!!y the totalit~·, the ideal totality. the suhjecti,·e existence of society explieitly t hought And experieneen alul Guddat, p. $.

I ' PArio Manuocri"tlt', J.""II~ .'!tbljlelt, p. ;iOOi Ea~ton and Guddat . !'I" ~f .

• See, for euml.k, the iu terpl"'ttaliofl of J .. \'. C.l,..,.., 1.0. i'e1lHtJ d~ ","arl Mar.., ( I'nrill, 1l),)(,') 1'1" 300 If.

t 'l'~ri~ "' n n"~r;I't~ ', I+~ht .'!tA,ijk ... /1. Wi, ~;"'!ton arid Guddat. I" 3Oi.

181

'icews to he fI hllrsh ,ictory of tI .e species Q' ·cr the pnrtieuJ" r indil'iduill und to eon trndict t he species' uni ty, but the pnrtieulllr indh 'idual is only II I)/Irticulnr generic being ,,,"1 AS such mQrtl,]-.1

i\ larx den,tes most of the rest of lI .is swtion to drn"ing II picture or unnlienated IlIltl} , I)h\l) whom he calls 'totul' and 'allsidet.\'. Qne should not, he SAyS, 11I\,·e tou nnrro,,' nn ideu "Wil t ,,"hilt the supel'$e!s;on of private property ,,·ill nchiel·e: just AS the state of nlienntion tota lly litiated 1\11 humnn faculties, so tile supericssion of t.his nlienRtion would be " tobt l liberntion. It ,,·ould !lot j UJlt be limited to the enjoyment or poMCSSion of mat eria l obje.:u .. \ IIIIIII1",n fnculucs- ;\[ .. rx listli seeing. heari ng, smelling, tusting, touching, Uunking, observing, fecliug, desiring, ncting. 10Ying - ,,·oult!, in their di lferent II'nys, IlCCOIllC meRIlS of 'lJ1prol'rilt1ing tCulity. T his II',IS diHiell lt to intllgine for alienated mnll. since pri"llle jll"ul'crty hlld m"de Illim .'10 ~tupid that they could only iliUlgine IIIl ubject to be thci" wheu tlu:y ".-:tunlly used i~ and.e\'cn then it II"IlS only elll ~loyed AS 1\ menns of ~u~tl1illing hfe whIch 11"11.<1 understood ns conSisting of htbour nnd the erCAtion of eflpitnl.

Heferrillg to Hcu's work 011 t hc subj ect, Marx declnres tllUt nil phys ical nnd illtelleclunl se llses hl1 \'e been replllccd by n single n~ienn tion - ~hnt of lUlVj,,:;. Dut this Absolute poverty would give uu·tl, to the lIuwr wcuJth of hunulll beings :

T he overcoming of pril'ate proper ty me"ltS thercCore tI,e COIll

plete llnm ncLpation of All hmlUln senses nnd IIptitude5, but it me~n5 lhi~ emuncipAtion precisely because these sen8CII nnd ~ptltudel hitI'll become hunllln haUl suhjecti\'ely l\Ild obje.:ti,dy. r ile eye lins hecOtne n humall eye, j ust lIS its object hftS be<. .... ,"c a social, hunUln objcet derh'ed from un~1 for man. The senscs !I~"e therefore illleollle thcoreticjllns im",ediately ill their prll.ru. 1 hey try 10 rclnle them~eh·e5 to t heir subject mattl.'r ibldf in UII ol.j eeti.c Imm\1I1 rela tion to itse.lf IIn~l lo "'an, a nd "iee ' ·t'.r$l .. .seed or sntisfRclion ha'·e thm lost their eb .... istic I\lltUI'C, Hlltl nature hns lost its mere utility by use bet..vl lling hUlllltn use.t

.\ nllw's CQutllCt with reality, il lnrx continued , "'''8 not merdv 'Ill illdilidu~11 olle: he I\ppropriutcd ohjt.-cts with nnd througll

, ' I '"rl~ M~ ,,,,"'ri l'li-' Frfihe Sd rljll!u . I" MI!l; E ... \(IIl . nd Gn,ld.t, 1'. OOi ' T,,", l\lal1u.I\C" I'U', Jo'riiAe &It,ijl~n , I" Ml!l ; w\(In "ud Guo.hlml, I" tlOO.

'1 :

". Marx bifOTt ,llarxilln

QUler "'cn. T hl) way th£> !i\cultics of """ lif'Il(ltetl mlUl u.pproprinhJ their ohjects OOCnnH) totnlly difl'<:~nt when the object became nn ohject thut corresponded to nlnl\"s nature. Theil /lUlU W(\S 11'-'

longer lost ill it. :'.lnTx here rlivides hi~ discussion of the rcl"tion of IUUU tQ outurc hilt} (In olljective nnd a subjective side. Objec. t ive ly, "lielllllc.lllllln tlcnlt with ol~cct..s thnt were o!Jjecli(i;::'ltio!\$ of himself. This link ill 50 intimate that i\lnrx suys : 'All objects OO(:u"'£> ror him the ohjcctijkllti()11 of himself, become objects which r.oniirm allll realise his imiivi.\uality Ill! his objects, Uwt is, he l,imself becolllcs tl'e object.'1 Suhjecth'ely, beauty of mu~ic or of form only had mellning ror II faculty tr>lined to upprcdute it. Thi! cultinltioll or crcntion of the faeulties could only be rll:hie,'eri in cert"in surroundings. 'For not only the fh'c senses but ,,1$0 the 50-called s pirilu~1 nIHI ",ornl 8enses (,,-i ll, 10l-e, (ltc.), in,.. word, lluUlfUl sellse find the hUllllinity of the senses come into being only through the existellec of their object, through natur(l hUlllllllised . The deyelopment of the {he senses is II labour of the whole pre,ious history (:If the world.'! For plainly a stan·ing lIIun fl ppreciated food ill Il purel)" animal way; IlIld a dcaler in minertll$ saw only v u]lIe, fllid not neeessllrily beauty, in hiil w"r~8 . For his faculties to become human facultiH, m,,!) needed to be lil.lerated from lilt externtll constrnints.

I n t.hll pa5t, cultural developmcnt hlld depeniled on thc ilcl·clopment of I'rivnte property, with all the llIalformation~ tJmt thlit implied; the trnllSccndellce of priv~te property would tl"'8 give rise to 1\ full !lnd hflrmonious development of 1I111 n'$ culturul potentilllities. Abstrtlct intellectuul oppositions - that, for extllnple, I.Ietween spiritualism lind I11ntcri"lislll - would disappear whell the real problems ur ]ife were tllr.kl~d . 'It is IIpparent how the resolution of theoreti<')l.l nntitheses is possible only in " prActical wny, only throvgh llhtn · S practienl cncrgy.'a

It is pnsw.ges sueh itS this that have led peoplc to Slty tlm~ l\lnr,,·s modd of ll\1man Itctivity is fin artist.ie onll ali<I thnt hll uro.lI"S much of his picture of man from r(lIlIlWUC sourCeS lind particuhlrly from Schill,.,r. The ideu of muu's nlienated senses finding (:Ibjeets approprinte to them, the uttempt to form n connection

t · I'n';. " lnnui!Criplll'. FrUh~ &hrlJlrll, 1' . COO; Eaill ... " "".I G~JJal. I'. 3OfJ. "I'''r;'' M"'\"iICrillt~" FrlJ.~ SdirlJlCN, r. 001: E. ... to," M"l ( :"d,lnt. I'. $O!J. • ·Pari;, A1am,~ril'tl!·, FrllM &hrtfl~". 1'. 60"~; }:.~lo" .",d vudd_l, I'. 310.

1'M 'I'(lri, ,lfaml4f:ript8' ,.9 ootweell freedom .~ml nefithelic nctivity. the picture of the allro und mlln - 1111 these occur in Schiller's IJriift, The following plls511ges show what Schiller was describing:

, . _ Enjoyment was separated frolll labour, tl.e IIlCIUlS from the elld, exertion from reeo'llpcnse. Etern<lUy fettered only to n single lillie rrogment of the whole, mall fnshions himself only liS

II fr'lgmellt; ever hearing only the monotonous whirl of the wheelll'hich lie turns, he never displays the full harmon)" of his beiog_ . . ' T he nesthctk forml\tive impulse estnbliahes . . n joyous empire wherein it releAses !HOIl froll, ol! the fctters of circumstance. und frees him, both physicl\Uy lind moraUy, from aU thul el\n l>c culled ~'<tnstrnint.2

It is Iliso possil.lle that t here was a Inore contemporary lind personAl influence or thc slime nature, in thllt Marx spent a lot of his lime in J'nris in the eomJlllny of Heine Alld Hefwcgh, two poets who did their best to embody the German romantic ideal. Heine Marx dcclared to be thc only mnn that he was sorry to leave when expelled from I'nris, and it was l\larx'$ nttachment to Herwcgh th"t led to 10;8 ,!uarrd wilh Ruge.

~l!lrx goes on to sketch the importance of industry in the history of mllnkind. The pnssl\ge lIntieipates his later, more detl\iled "c~'<tunts of historical materialism. It WIU the history of i"dustn·, l\IIITX mllintained, that really revealed humnn cnpllbilities ·'lIld hunuUI psychology. Since human nature had been misund.erstood in the pllst, hi~tory had been turned into the history uf rcligioll. politics Hnu (Irt. Industry. howel'er, re\'caled man's essentilll faculties I\nd witS the bnsis {or Ilny scieu~"ll of Ullln. III the put, I1l1turlll science had only been viewed from,~ utilitarian nngle, 13ut its recent immense growth had enllhled it, through iuuustry, to trnnsform the life of mnn. If industry were eoncei,·ed of a8 the exterior expression of ll1an'~ essential faculties, then natural science would l>c able to form the basis of humnn sden~e. This scien~e had to be lJ!\sed on sense-experience, liS

Ilc5cribed by I.'euorbnch. But since thjs ""'IS },UIIIOIl Sell$e-esperi-

• F.:-d,iIlcr_ (Jb.-fJ;~iI.tI"lil<h~ I-:rz;lku"gdu ,Ve~«M" . <'<I. W.ll~l\ckm~"n (M""id" 1007), r, 02.

• 11.oi<'\.,]I. \lIo). (l"QtcII ia S. Luke.!,· AlimUltion mId AMmie' . i" j'h;f()M)fJny,

1'!>I;ac~ a~d !So<:icly, 3Td $Cries (Oxford, 1007).

HJO

CUCC, there would be It single, oll.c11lbrllcing science; 'Nnlnro1 licie]}"e will in time include the science of ll111.n OJ; the science of Inlln will indlulr. '11,1111"1\1 ~cicllce: there will ~ olle science. -. Thus the reciprocal rdntiollship tlmt ;\! nrx I,,,,] Ollllillf!<l hefnre ll/llwcen ma n and nnlure is reflected here ill hi~ ir.cn of n nnturol science of mono

!\ Innl: here nlM~ on nsitlc on the IlIMlIing of w('>llth .and pOl'erty for soci:'llist 111011 :

His "ppnrenl how the rich mn n nllt! ",ide human need I1.ppeJ\f in pltler. of COOlillmic "'I~'lltll 1I11d fM)\·erl),. The rich mali is si lllll1-t ftncously one who IIce(is n totnlity .. (I"",,,,,, 1ll""if.:stAtioTls of life 11 1111 in wllUm Ius 011' 11 realisation e:.o;isu as inner necessity. ftS IICC'1. 1'\,.1. only t.lm wC!llth hut 11150 the poverty of mall e<lunlly ncquirc - under the premise (If ~oc i nlislll - II human nnil t.hlls stlCill l men ning. It is the pHuh'c oond which le15 mnn ell:)>el'iencc the grc'ltt'st lI'enllh, the otlu~r hUlllltn being, 'lS nee<l.2

Tile lost pArt of Mnrx'~ mnnuscript. consists of n TIIt,her undonraclel'is lic digression on the ql1e~tion of whether the world was t ' l"cntt~tl or not. Q ne of tile key ideas in l\'Iarx's pictu re of IIl:In is tJ,\lt nuul i" Ids I)WII (;r(',(lor; nlly being tbllt lived by the fuvollr of nnother W08 a depemlrnt heing:. J\ cconl ingly, i\[nrx rejt'ct.s the idcli t/mt the world 11'11.8 created: although the notion of creatioll wos n di£licull one to dispel, it had been practically refuted by the science of gel.geu), which tnught tlmt tlle world wus genemi.etl spontanoously. i\lnrx thclJ rdH~nflieli Ari~totl e'~ argument nhollt. t he indi\·iduul owing Ius existence to his parents and they to their I".rt!llts nn, \ so (orUl. '1'0 this he replies, relyinp: on his conception of mon liS II. spceie~-l>cillg: -You must IIlsu k~p in mind the circular movement.seJll;.ihly tlpp".relll ill th"t process whcrehy man repnxluce8 himself in proerentioll; thus '1)lln alwnys remAins the suhjeet ." ;\Inr,,:.!i illlugillliry opponf.'ntlhell "Ilks who created ti le first mnn nmlllnlure ' IS II whole, M arx replies:

Ir yon aak About llof; creAtion nr nAture nnd mnn, ynu thus nhstrnet from unture "nd 1111111. You "Merllhem as nOlH~x..istent 01111 Jet wnnt me to pro\'c tl lem to you liS existing. I suy to yOlI:

I · I'"r;'" M"""l!(:ril't,,' , J.'~II~ .~It~(IItlt, p. /;().I; F.1I.~to ll .. ntl. Cud<lnl, [I. ~1!!. t · I'"ri. Mallu..,';p"', ~O~t &~~ifit,.. p. 00:;; }-:.~h", "uti. CudoJnt, 1'. 31!!. • 'P""i~ 0\11111" ..... 1110.., p,nht ,'!rhrljlom, p. GOO; E .. ~toll and Cud(\nt, p. 31:1.

'1'lu; '/Juri8 Jl famJ:1cripb' 101

gil e UI) ),our abstraction and you "ill a lso give up yom' question. Or if you wallt t ... maintain your ai.n;lrltctioll, be consistent and if y011 think of mlln li nd nature ns nnn·cxi~tent, t.hink o( your.lclf 119 non·existent n! you too li re lIature Ilnd mlln. Uo not think, .1 ... lIot 'luestion me, for us soon as you think lind qUelllion, your IIbst.r,l(:tion from the e.'(istcnce of nnturc II. nd mnn makes no sense. Or are you such an egoist that you assert e\'cr)'thing 115

uolhiug :Iud yet wallt youflielf to exist?l

I'Iblfl("1I nrgumcut i5 pluiuly rather stiltcd and when his OIJponent replies that he docs notll'o nt to I.lsscrt t he nothingness of nnture bllt on ly to ask About its genesis, flS he might IIsk fill onatomist nhout the rormo.tioll of bones, l\'1urx breaks olf the a rgumelllll.nd COlltillue~ in" IIIUdl IIIOre dmructerisl ic "C; II: 'Sillt.'f! for soc;,.lill l IIlUn, howel'cr, the entin~ s(J.enlled world history i~ only t.he crClltiOJl or mlln through human labour and lhe ue\elopment of l1 (J.lurIJ fur 1IHIIl, he hits el'ident and incolllro\,cl·tible proof of his ~elf"crCl\ tion, I,is own fOl'Ullitioll proccss.'2 TIlliS fur soeinli~t mlln the question of on nlien heing beyond mon lind notllre who~e ex i~ lc lU.:e lIould imply thei r unreality h(ld become impossible. for hilll the II lulu,,1 illleruC!Jlelluence of Illall HIIU ualure ",,. 6 wh"l "'as

cssent.inl fuulllnything d~e seemetll1nrl~aL • Atlu~ism IlS a !lt~tlilll of this unreality no longer Illakes sense because it ill a lIegntioli oC God lllll.llhl'ough this negation asser ts the existcllce of 1l1/1ll. llut ~O(:inlislll II~ ~lIch 110 longer needs such meJilltion . I t begills with the scnsuou~ I>crception, theoretically lind prncticnlly, of IIUHI nnd nature a5 cssential being.'!.'3 This Jlerception, once csUtulished, 11 0

longer I'equired the o\-eroonung of religion, just as mali'S life, once 1';41 of 1I1ienntiolL, 110 louger neeJed the overcoming or pri \'IItc property, 110 10llgcr "celled communism. i\!\lrx fini~he8 with a \'cry Hegelian rtmark 011 the trnnsitoriness of the communist phase: 'The posit ion of communism i! t he negation of t he negation I.lnd hencc, for the next staKe of historical de\'elopllleut, t111~ ntx:eS~llry !tctual phase of man's enllllll:ifllltion and rehabilitation. Com" munism is the neecssary forlll and dynamiC princi ple of the immeJillte Cuture but \lot ItS such lhe goul of humllll de\'elopmcll t

I . J'uTili ~lIl1~rjl'l!I ', rriiltt SrAri/lt ll, 1'1" G06 r.; 1>a~loll allli Gu,ldat, VJ" 31;1 f.

I' Pari;, ~k"usctil'\.Ij', J.·!'i1A(I ';;c;'I'ijltll, 1'_ 007; F"",tQII a n,1 Cilololat, 1" ;11 '1 . I 'Paris M~II\''lCr il'ts', P,lIhc &hrifttll, 1'_ 007 ; t:astoll :nul Guoldar, p. 314.

'0£ l1!nr.Il /}('forr, .MarxislII

- the form of hUlllan society:l IIcre oommuni5m setm~ to be ,icII"ed"s Illerd), II !hge in the di .. kctictt! o"ololioll. II ~t. .. ge lIlf\t d /I given moment "'OUltll1A'"<) ~en'ed its P"TP(liit llnd be sU I*rsedcd. The earlier picture of'lrue commnni;un' IIIi °the solution to the riddle of histnry'1 11'<18 much morn ~tKtic lIuo.Iunhistol'ical.

fl. P ulimill(lr!l

T he section to which the editors of the MEG.-I gave the !.itll! 'Critique of I-lcgeliao Dinlectic /."d Philosophy in Gener"I' (0110"-5, in Marx's mlUiuscri pt, directly on, IIIlII rorm~ pliTt of, I,is section on oollullunisnl. T his section wu di--ioed numerically into ii,'c pw.rh and tloc section on l legel's dialectic is Pl'C(:eded by" numher six, (15 though it formed /I C(lnlinulltion of i\lnrx's co;nnumh on commoniam. In t he preface he uo-es 511~·: 'I n eontr,, ~t to t he critical theologian~ of our time I Iwve rcgunled the concluding cilllpter of the present work - the di~cn$$i(Jn of lhe I legeliltll di"lectic lind philosophy ill gcne!!d - to 00 Ahgolutei~· ncceumy hecAuse such" tAsk has not yet I.Icen Ilceol1l]llishet.l.~ Dut Wh'lt \\"1' lu\\"e here nrc only 'some com"'l'nts' AmI unlinished ""'mments lit th"t, for ~ I Arx says he wi!! dcltl with the Y ounS II cgeli'llls IIbo hut duc5not du $(>.

The elaoomtiOI\ of themcs U1I'I t hlld IInSCn in tile prc' iou~ sections on communism - pnrlieuhuly the rel!ltion~hip betwef!n man Ami IInturc nnd t he eventulIl irrclemnce of IIthci~1ll _ shOll" how dosely this scction is linkcd to pre"ious OIlC$, In II pllmgTaph 1\

fe .... pages further on, l> larx indicate. how hit di$clIuion of lIege! is relevant t u t he prcC<!ding thellles of thQ mlllm~cript. The point is tllllt ' Hcgel's standpoint is that of III()tlern puliticlII economy:' Howe\·er abstract and mentnl 11'118 Heger, con~ption or labour, he fiaW th'lt hlbour was the creator uf ,·nlue: the structure of philosophy accurately re.flecteo.1 the n:al e<:onomic alie.nation of !111m in hi~ "·ork process. Hegel hnd grl\5pe.d the CSllIcncc of man',

1· 1 '~r", l'.hnu""riplo', FrlJ~~ Si'Mi/!ell. 1'. 00II; E""!o" an,[ r.,,~d" l , p. 3]4 . • · I'arili )'-ulIeO.'npl.!l" PrQIot ikAri/iM. r'. I>lWj ~:ulon ""~ (;u,M"I, I'. 00-1 . ' .• '.n. ,\bnOlll'Uipu;', PrfJM ,~.rljIt ... I'. r,()9; Ea!!lon .",. (;uddal, 1'. 2$,;. ··"ari. ;\ImlllOlCriptll'. P1"i/Ae Si'AriJkn , p. a16: .:a~IQn .n~ G,,~tlRI, 1'. 3~2.

, f)f)

labour in It way that "·nS hid,len from dlluie>!.1 economists, HII,·ing nUJu,kl .. 1 the dns~k'll economists for lI'ei r nel!led of thil f'ld, l\b,rx is nOw ,aUlding lIegtl fur lun·ing 'IilYblilill,I' his very Ten]

Jisoo'·cri('S. \\' l",t ~l/lrx docs irl t his section is to (liscuss the "nri0l18

lI Uitmlcs of the Young Ji l.'l!;clinns to Hegel. lind to Bingle O\lt FeuerlNtch li S the only constructive thinker ; he then U5CS Hegel to S],OIV up the \\"Qllknesse~ in Feuerooch'$ apprOl\ch nUtI finally settles down to n long nnalysit of lIcgers tundnmentul error, fir"5t in the PI,,·nommoloC!I in gener ... 1 "nd pArticularly in the lut chapter. T he lityle is often obscure, invo"·ed und (:JCtre1\lely rcpetitil·e, IlJ ~ I arx is eon5tflntly wurking o,·cr aud reformulllting hi~ nttitude to lIegel.

b. 'rIle J'ouIIg Ilrgrlillnl

~Inrx thinks that, until ,·ery recently. U,e Young HegeliAns had scarcely sparcd A thought for their me~hodology: '~ I ()tlerll

German criticism IlJU been so 111\10;11 preocc:upied with the Pllst, 10

much restricted by thc development or its $ulJjccl IIIlItler, that it hilS 11I .. 1 II eomplctely nn(.riticAi attitudc towllrd methods of criticism and 1111.$ been completely ohlivioul to the seemingly formal out Itctufllly e.!.'lential question: how do we now stand in relution to t.he lIegl:'liAn dialectic? '! i\ lan hns in mind Stm.uss .lIlff l~rlicula rly Bruno BUller who, with most Qf the Berlin Y oung Hegelians, hml retired from the political bat:le II.no.1 WCn! tnrning tlleir critieilUll into something completely trnnscen(\entai I\nd uncommitted. FeucrlJlleh. on the otller hllnd, waa the oli ly one of 1 ·I ~cl '5 di~cil)les who had Ueen "ble to come to terms wiUI lIege\'s ditlll'ctie. ' Feuerbach is the only one who fLl~ n serious, cntiefll rellitim, to Heger, d inled,ic, who hilS nuule gelHline discoveries in this lield, nnd who /l. hove all i ~ t.h ... true c()nqueror of the 01,1 philwophy. Thl' mngnitudc of Feuerll4lch's .chic,·emen! and the uill/retcntious sim plicity ".ith which he p'·Cl\I'UU it to the worl, l stnl1(l in I\. stnkingly opposite invel"lle Mllio:! ) llIrx dj,<idf>.a Feuerooch's great achienmeuts into tl1n~e:

(1) Pr(IOfth"t philol!Ol' t.y i~ 1I0thiro g mure 11l"u rl!ligioulll"ought " I'Ari~ ~b.nuotcript"', F',AJ,e &.ri/l~ •• I'. 63;; t::lFtOIl a"d Gu~d.a.I, p. 31(;. " I'Ari~ Manu.OlCtil't$·, hUh, SrA~{flt,., p. 639; &ulon "n,1 GIlddal , p. :116,

,0< J/llr;r /NoJON .11l1r.rikm

10 IIlld tlevelopetl in rdk>et ion, nml thus is f'Qlllllly to I ~ con· ,\f'mnro Illi ,wolhn form nnd mode of the " Iiermt ioll or ," o n '~ Ilnture ;

(!l ) T he establil!.hm('nl of tru ll Rllltcrinlism nnd renl scienc:e by 1I1lIkjng the 8(>(:i,,1 reblionship of 'man to llIun' the (unrinmcut"J l,ri lieill\C OI( \,; s theory,

(3) Opposing to the negillion ohhe negation, whiel, claims to he the IIUsU\utc pMitiw!, the ~elf-8 l1bsi stent positivI) posith-cly gro ll n,jpd Oil itselU

Furlhcr c"idcnce of :-' lnrJC'H rr.~plld for Fcuerbn.ch i_~ eontAine.\ in n leUer of Iris written in August IS·,"} (Inn only published n few yea rs ngo. Enclosing II copy of his ' Introduction to It Criti(lliC of II rger s I'hi loSQphy of l .IIw', !\I nTx '"~'J:

I Am glllfl to lirui nn opportunity of Ilssuring you of the great ndmirntion a ml- flllow me ti,e ,,·onl-Io,'e thAt I beAr to"·ants you, Y our Philosophy oj the Future nml Mltlltr: oJ Faith Are in tilly etl~e, in spite of their limited ~ize, of more weight thnll nll the present-Ilny Gerilinn litl;' rllture put together. I n theM writingll you h",·c gi,'en- whethu intelltiOlllllly I do not know -1\ philosophical basis t o soein1islli. nrul the communists, t oo, hlLve immediflteiy understood th~e work! ill this sen~e, '1' 1111 11nit\" of man with mnn, whieh is Iliised on the real dilf(!renc(! be t,;"'j>I;'n men, the concept of II 1'lImlll ' Jlp<'des drAwn Ilown rrom the h(!n\·(!n of nhstrac lion t.o the real earth, wh~t C~lI th is hf. hut t he concept of socitly?!

Put brieny, what Feuerbnell had alH:c:eeded in showin/t (Ilceord ing to Mnrx) ,,'as Hlll t lIeGel hMI itartw rrom the flhstrflc t, in iini te point of , ·ie .... of rdigion alllllhcolop:y, sUp<'tS('ded t.his h~' the finite nn!! p"rticu\IIr atti t ude o r philO!ophy nnd then ~ lIpersedl"!l this a ttitude by I.' rcstorntion of the nbllt.rnd.ion t.ypicnl of lIu~oloEt.Y' Philosophy, having sl1fWMleded theology, then went t..Il('k On its t rncks and ('ont rndicletl it.!el f. Fellcrlmeh lhou;.::hl the Hn tl. lstAge .- the nega tion IIr the ne![nlion - WI,S " regrwioll And "Iarx ngreed, SII)'ing: thnt it euullleo Ilegel 10 find 'on!~' the niJstrnct, log ical, spcculuthe I:xl)/"cssion of the mo,'emcnt or

"j'al'i;J "bu",..,nl' ... ·, Frll.~ &"(/1'''' 1" (l.'}!): Ea·ton a"d (:"ddal, Pl'· 310 r .

• l ~ t'eolerlo.:oth ,lIri'.!ortrhtl, eo!. II' . s,.t",fI'~"hauer (j ~I!"'ig, l!lG:'1) Pl'. In., r,

Hl5

histol)" nollhe n<:t un l hi~tory of mSIl /IS /I ginn subjed hut onl~' msn's genesis. the history or his origin'.!

c. llegrl

:\[ nrx brenks oil' here to have /l look At Hf'gd'6 ~ys tCIll, l Ie "cJ;i ll~ by ('opying out the table of eont.ents of lhe Phl"lolllrllolog!J. 'thc 1.,.111;' hirth plnee tlnd secrd of his phil060phy',' I [e the" summtlrises the element s in Heg(!l's philosophy lll,d IlCC\lSC!i Hegel of ~L (Ioublc mi~tJlke,3 Firstly. though Hegel said t hnl IIlu n suA'crell rrom economic nno politiCdlalienation, it wn~ only the thought or economiC!! nnd p1)IiUcs iu wllich H~I W>lS interested. The whole process entletl in ah80Inte knowledge, with the n5ul t thnt it was the philOlloJlhr.r who j ud~d the ,..orlll. ThLls,/lccorlIing to Ilegel:

It i~ not thAt t he h"rllRII being objectifiCfl himself inhllmlmly in opposit ion to himsfM, but that he objectifies himself by distinction from find in opposition t o .. hslnld thought - thi~ is tile essence of tl\ielltltio t) lIS given snd u to be t.tfLn~cendcd, T he npproprintion of mnn'i! essentinl cnpncitit:, "'hich hll,l'c bc~"O",e thin~tjj, e,'en alicn thil\g~, is thus primnrily only 1I 1l 1I1)proprintioll tnking place ill eOllsd ollsnc5s, i ll pure thought, that is, ill nlJstrnction.'

;\ IRrx 's sCl':oml ohjection is, in "freet, the S[l IIlC M the fll"!lt - thll t I [egcl hlld mtlde fill t hc entiti e!! that in re/llit~' btolongeo ohjectiwly nnd seIl5"oll ~ly to mnl! into mentlll entities, s in e<! for him spirit .. lone "·as the gelluine ~$Cnee of m:tll.

I-Io"·e"f.'.r, this criticism of Il ej:tl'-I is temllCrt."!I hy nn nnnlY6is of I Iegel's nchic" emenh thll t shows d enrly "0"' much, ill ~pitc or his $ trio~nt cri t ici!tIL, :0. Inrx owes to Hegel. For "Inrx oon~i dl'l'" thllt, nlthongh in the PhOlO1Rtlloiogy criticism wns sti1llinhle to mystify l1.nd wns not !u flici ently s(!lf-(lwlI!"e, t.h.i~ criticisn, II cH:rthc\cS$

" I'"n5 ,\bn"".,.lllu·, FrOhe Sd .ijlt ", 1'> 6--10; Eft.ton an,t G"~dKl, 1'. 31 i. 1· I'An. ~fA ""..,rll'l-.", ~"' ahe ,~.r!.fl~", p. 6·1\ i Ea!\on 81"[ n u.ldRi, 1'. 31n. o For In analrli, of tile ;ml,1i~.tio". "r tlli. ',[o\lhklmllota\t.· rOT l'oIa r~'~

latet ,..ntingi, j;(!Je ,J. O ·~eill. 'Th., C"n«pt fir .:.trar.remen\ in the ~:"'rtr oml Lu~r \I"riti nlf" ,,( Karl M in', l'iil"""~!1 .. "lerirLo" F"R~ &/1,.(/1'''' \'1'. (l.l.' (.; . :ulon Ind G"ddal, p,

"".

lOG .llar.v brJore Jilarxillll

weut file Oe)'oud luter tlc\clopmenls: in other words, 1I0lle aftbe rlisdples had liS yet beeil nblc to outatrip their rnlls tcr. Indeed, .\Ian: makes the Ilslonisiling claim for t he l'hcllome'lfJWg!l thnt '/111 the ell!cmenll of Criticillill lire implicit in it, alrt!luly prepllred H"d f'lllhomteti ill 11 Ill/tllller rnr lIurpa5lling the Hegelinn sUIIHI. point. T he sections on the "ollhllpPY consciouslles:!", the "honest consciousneu", the struggle between the "noble nnd ba.se consciou$ness", elc, elc., contain lhe critical elements - though still in II.n alienated form - of whole apheres such liS religion, lhe stil l!'., civi l life, e tc.'1 T his Willi be<:II.U~1! t he P hnlomcnoiog!! 11Ite! under. stood the alienation of mal\, had ftchie\'ed insights into the process of nlllII'S de\-ciopment lind had seen thflt the objects which np~ ... retl to order men's ih'ell - t he.i r religion, ti ,eir wenlth - ill fnet ]W!lollged to mAn 11.11(1 were the prod uct of ~selltill] humnn Cltp"cilies, 1\ lurx su ms up his ntlitlltle to Hegel ,IS foHml'S;

The greut thing: ill iICb'Ci"s I'IICll o1lltllolog!J /tlld iu linnl rcsIIll _ lIlC diulectic of IIcgllti \'ity M the moving and producti "l) principle - is simply Ilint Hegel grnsps the sclf.dcyelopmcllt or mnn n~ n pr()('c~s, ul,jcdificlltion ns los~ of the ohjcct., n~ n1i('nntiOIl '(lld b'!\!ISl'Cll(lcncc of this nlicnn tion: thut hc t.hus :':""'1",11", ,,,,I,,,,: vf \\'UJ!.. " ",I "'''''I',.,J'I:"J~ ul,jccli,c "'''' ,. uuthentic heCl\U8e Itctwll, n~ the re ~ ult of his 1V0rk,z

1\hll1 could only 11I'l'ome t.he species.hei ng thAt he WfiS by fh'/it tl'ealillg his sIK'Cie&'poller! as oujects 5ep:tn.le froUi hiulseJ f, all\ l thi! mCflnt thtlt I\lienation Wtl, n necessAry stage in mtln kind's el'olution. Before finishing hi, general rornmenls on the I'MllonU'lIo1op.v, howcver. ;\Iflrx rcturnli to what he considers Hegel's hasic tl{'r~t, sRyill{t tll"t thollfth HI'Jl:el does grasp IRoour ns the lel f-confirminjr enence of lIlan, )·et 'The only labour lleJ:!:ei kilO"" nnd rceognises i! I\bstract, lIlenta l llioour.'"

Although ;\larx's lnllguagt' is, a, OftI'll, illI'ol\'cd and hi' armngemcnt sOll1ewhat haphazard, this is the passage where he ,::;"es his fulll?lil And cleArest account of hil; debt to, Rud disngreemellu with. lIegel. I1egel thought thflt reality Wll8 Spirit

" Pa"" :\1a""",,ri[,Uo'. F~'.~ ikJtrijlt ", I" IJ.I.J; Ea.I"n ~ ",l Cudd.l , 1'1" 320 r.

" P"rI. M~Il1, .... rir,b'. "'rIM_ &~rifltn, p. 6.J~; t;"!!1.",, anI! GU.,hbt. I" 321 . I ' I'.,ii :\[I"u..,ri!'I~'. F~ I/1I • .xArifl~", I" ts.HI; F.1~1"" .,,0.1 Cuddd, 1" 3:!'!.

11)7

reulisi liK itself, In tlli~ process Spirit produced a wodd lh,,[ it thought nt firs t wu cxtcrn~l; ouly lflter did it rel\lise til/It t his world "'uS its own production. Spirit WM not somcthing ~c~rntc from thi! productive netil'ity : it onl~' existed in find t.hrough thi~ nclil'ity. At the bej.!'i nning of this process Spirit WI\S "ot ItWltte that it WIU eXlernalising or a lienating itself. Only grl\dul\lIy d id Spirit realise that the world WflS not external to it. It is the (ailure to realise tills tilflt constituted, for Hegel, alienlltion, Thi, nliclllltion would CClMe when men been me (ully 5eJ£-COn~eiou8 and understood their en"ironmenl Ilnd their culture to be elillUlltlions of Spirit. Freedom con~isted in this undersulllding, nnd frCi':dOI1I " ' 119

the Rim of history. Whl\ t :\Inrx did, roughly, WIIS to reject the notion of Spirit lind rctuin only finite indil'idufll beio~: thlls the ITegelia.n relationship of spiri t and the world bccnmc the 1\[lIrxian notion of thc relationship of nUUl to his social being, r., Iurx 8ay~ tl!llt Hegel only tll.kcs nccount of lllfln's mentnl flclivities, lhnt i" of h!s idcus, 1l1ll1 tI",t thesc, though illlporlllllt, nre hy thclII ~ch'es insuJlicicnt to cxplnin social nnd (lJlturnl clUIIlJ;C.

I n fllct, this critici~1H of Hcgel is not quite lICC\1rntc, Hegel certninly took more factors into account thnn si lliply mUll 's illtcllectllfll nnd eulluml ucti"ili,-,s, Even ill the l '/lfllOlJlt:IIMO{;.'1 llcg:r l {lclll~ with 111(\11 us n poli t icfll lind biologt<:al II l1imnJ. T he ~cctioll! on IlUlslcr 1lI\!'! 51"I'c IIl1d 011 the Ileed for !tnti 8lrllt;g!e for !'ccognit ion nrc deeply ]loliticul. Indced, it is ortcn n8~('rlelll that the pnssnge ill the l 'hrnomt:floloC1J thllt particulurly impressrd 1\[lll'lt Wl\i the one 011 mnster and sll\l'e;2 however, it sccms JlOuibJe th ll t the rc,'cne is t ruc nnd that ;\l arx, "'hen criticising Hegel for being IIbrlrllclllno mental, did not pay sufticicnt utlc ll tion lo this section of the P lwlf)17lttwiog!/i certainl~' ;\larx (t hough he does lpeeify other scetions tl".t 1l111>CIIled to bim) nel'er II.lI l1d t'll to lhis Ollil,

i\ 11Irli: tllen torns I,is uttcntion exclu!i .. ely to the Inst chnptcr of l-J eger~ l'htl1ml1tnolo/Jg - he had mnde an Cl'tendetl ]lredloril which slill $u(\';,'ell at the fourth of the mllnuscripb. His !Ullin point here is thllt, IIccording to Hegel, self-conseiousness hilS only itself for object lind so ffiIIn can be equated ... iUI selr-consciOU$ncss.

, ('r.. fur eU"'I'w, Tucker. PAiiOIOp"Y 111>11 J/yth ii, A"wI ,If~;.r. ", 1<17, t For. lud..t ~xJ>(>@;li"n (If this T"'--g.,"" l'! .. n."at~, J/an and S(JI';('I!/, n

1;\411',

100

r It followed thul it "."$ objccU,'jty ",I,k!> consti l ulc(1 ,dienll tion lind that the overcoming of alienation itwoJ\'cd the o\'cr{:Olllilig of ohjccti"ity, these two tenus loci ll !; fur I lege! pmclicnlly ~ynonylllou8.1 As " Inn: Sill'S some pages l"tel', 'Tim appropriation of ulitmnted, obj ecti,'c lJ.eilig or the trn n~cendellcc uf ubjccti"ity in the Illode of alienation (or Hegel means 1'1150 or primarily the lrun8ccndcncc of oujcctiyity 5ince the objecti,'c ch~lru cter uf the object for self-consciousness, hot its determinateness, is the scandal of aliellution.'l i\1uo, sets out to sumnmrisc Hegel 's "iell" of the O\'crcuming uf ulienation, prcfllcing it with the reulluk tllllt whereas l1egel ta lked as though human nature were but olle attribute of seJf- consciousucs~ , in rC~llity sc1f-coIl3ciousnf,ss WIIS

Ull attribute of human nature, l::Qr lIcge], ~lurx continuc5"A111 (llicnaUOJl Wll~ ulienlltion of self-co!lseiousncSS, T IH.lS IH' t uul al[~ution, alienat lOll Uial had lo do "'ith natural objcd~, wa~ only appllrcnt - Jo cnce tllll word '~enomelloll)gy',

The rest of th is section cOllsists of a crl"lici:1 commentary on this idc~l of thc o"ercl,uning of alienation and dh'ides into t\\'o pltTts: in the first, j\ lnT): cxplain5 his conccption ofmrm as nn objective, nutuctll bcing ; 111 the $ewud, I,c criticiscs ill dcwil Uegel's idcalism ,

Firstly, tin!!), III oJ)po~ition to Hegel's conception of n lllu u~ "~lf' L'01I3CioU3"',SS, i\l,.rx proclaims :

It is entirelr to be expected thut (I li"iuj,r, natuH\1 being endowed with objecl.i ve (i.e. muteriul) cupacities should han rcal natural object:s con'cspondiJlg tQ it:s nntun: nnd 1I1~0 t hllt ib self· externlllisntion should establish nn actua! objective world, but 1\ U"Qrld in the form ofcxteTrlRlity, Que which uQes not IJclong tQ such Il. 1>eing's n<l.ture, un overpowering world. There is nothing incQmprehensibl ll Qr !lly~tllri ous in this, T he cQntrllT\", rather, would be mysterious,3 •

It \\'IIS equally clear that, if man wen; re.luced to self,collsciollsness then he CQuld ouly establish Qutsitle himself a bstract objects that were L"OlIstrucb uf man's mind. These ol>jects would have no independence vi",·a~vi", IlUln's self·eonsciollsness. j\ll1r.: '5 view 'of

I I'llrllll'r on lit;" ~ ,J. ll )"l']l{)lite, l"-'!1i1tl~ tI eri"t llCi' ( I'''ri~, )!),j.3) r~ st

char,ler . • 'Par;, M~ II\1'!t"I· i l't.s', J.'rllh~ Sd'ifl~", " , ()w: Ea~tQn ~II~ G ~(M81, 1" 3~, . • 'l'ar;8 M~n~ri l'b', 1,'r ~h~ &hrijltll, 1" (l.I!l; }:a~lQ>\ all,] GuJ,lal, 1" 3~ 1.

I

Til t ' Pari8 :1fmllluripr~' lD!)

human lIllture is vcry ditl"crcnl: 'WI'llullctuHI, corporll:!1 nmn with his feet firmly plllllted 011 the solid ground, inh:lling IUld ellhnliug: nil of nature's energies, cstahlisllcs his n.::tunl, ohjective essentinl ellpacities a~ alien objects through I,;s e~tcrrU\lisatiQn, the cShlblishing is llot tile suhject hut the Bubjeetivity of ohjellth'e I'nl)1\citics whose actio" mttslU""r..,(ofe lJe objective.'1 Marx clIlls his "iew 'nllturdlism' or 'hu mnnism', and distinguishes this from hotll idealism nnd nUitcri"li~m nnd c1ni",~ thllt it ullites what is IlsseJltifll hoth to ide"lism and to mnteri"lislll. ' \Ve 8tlfl I,,~re how" consistent nllturnlislll or hUlll""ism is distinguished rrom both idelll islll I\lId lIlni.crinlism ns well, nnd III the Mille t.ime is the unifying truth of both , 'Ve niso sec how only lIaturnlism is nblc to cQIIlpreheml the nct or world history. ~ Mnr~ follows this witl, two concise pllrllgraphs, very reminiscent of lhe previolls se.:tion 011

privllte propcrty lInd conllllllllislll, on the mcanillg of naturalism nnd objecth·ity. ~ature seems to menn to i\ laTX what is opposlld to mUll, whut uflords him sCQpe for his ,,!:ii"ities Ilild sntisfies his needs. It is these needs and drivcs t hnt mnkc up mnn's nature. ~lnr)( calls his "iew " I"turulislII' I.>oth ucelluse IlUIU is oriclltllt lld towartls Illlture lind fulfils his needs in nnd through nnture II IHI

also more fuml illnentllliy, becl\use mnn is II. part of nllture. 'fhm mllll as I).tl 'lcti l'e natural being WflS emlowed with certain nnturnl capllcities, powers 1I1,d dri\"C"!j, But l,e WM nlso a limited , dependent suffering creAture. T he obje.:-u of his drh'es were independent of him, yet he necdlld them to sntisfy bimself and ellpces9 hi ~ Qbjecti ,'c nature. T hus, ' 1\ being which .Ioes not jutve its nllture Qutside itself is not a nl1turo l one llnd hilS no part in the syste.m of nnlurll,'3

T his leads on to a discussion of what it is to he ohjllclivll: 'A bei"g which hilS no ohj ect outside il.~e\f is not objectlYll, A l>cing which is 1Iot itself lin object for tI third being lll1s no being for il.9 object, th" l is, is lIOt r<'1"tcll'lI went on to suppose"

" I'~ri~ Ma"u"",i !,"", f~Oh. ikh,ijlen, p. ~!); EA~to " 9nd Guddat, p, 32~ .

• ' )'oris M .. nu""ril'ts'. FriJl~ &1riflnl , I" 6.iO : l-:u\o" 8UJ GllddAt, p. (l2~ , • ' j>R.is Mnn"~ript;<', ~.,.u~ s..hrifl.~, p. w1: Easton "lid GudJnt, )I , :~~6,

0" Ihi. I,~!> .. 'g~, ~Nl .1'0 ,I. O'Neil!, 'Tho'! Con"cpt or E ~I .... "gcme"l in tl'll Enrly am) l.lIler Wrilings of Karl Man', I'hil~h!/ amJ l'h~RQ"'nlolillJiNl Jlt mll"Ch (St.1' t~~) III', 68 f .

• ' I'a,;, Mo,,,,,,,·,il'l. ', Frnh~ ,~rhrifl'''' p. ru) ; Euton Dud GuddRI, (I. 326,

•

'00 he~ng thllt "'n~ neither nil object itself nor h"d 1111 ohjt.'d. Such .. beIng would be the only existing bcing. 1I.1ll1 so non-ohjccti"c, " mrrol n lmlmctioll. Marx finishc~: 'To he Rcnt.icnt is to ~ nffer . ;\S 1111 o:bjeclh-e ~nlie"l bcinK .nMI is thererore " sullering bo:ing, ",,,.I since he feels hill suffering, he it It pauiollilte ooing. 1'>I!!ion i. mnu's C>;!i""U,,] "''' I'"c;ty c""rg<lticuUy Lent On ji.>< ol.jccL" Th i~ contains cehae. or tile eighteenth.century 1;'rO:II('1I nlnterilllilb, Holbach nnd 1 - l ch·(..~iu5, but tile main source (or ;\Inrx', idens lIud Illngtu\ge on IIllture !lud objedi"ity is Feuerhach's I 'MI(Mopllll if file Flilure.2 .

"Inn. now IIlnkcs lUI ,mc<)llvincing attempt (Wllich he ]"ter c.~ out, as he did the section Oil IIl1turnli$ nl .. bo,-e) to dis. tl r~gul8h IlUUl froUl other nntnral heings. H e $11)"$ that neither the obJcct!! mlln lleals with nor his perceptions arc immediately ftdequde ton thoroughly human being. What he seem, to melln i. thllt humanism iii moro tlutn mnterialism IJe<:nuse its ol..j",..,ts al"'O medillted through the spede!. T his theme (IHld the iden of history us the self-collscio\ls gcne!is of man) 11II.\'e bcen more rully dellit with by MilT)( in tile section on coJUmunism proper, '

Arter thi~ digre:!!sion on his own conception of hUmnn nnture, ~\brx continues with hi , commentary on the IlISt chapter of tbe Pltt /lomr.nology, I-Ic summnrises ft discussion in which he &II \ >t!

• All the illusions of speculation IIrc anemblcd,'~ I-Iegel'.'t ,,·o m~i;: points here were, necordin!( to i\lnrx, tlul l eonsciouSllJlu k lie", t he nullity of its object in thllt it knew thllt its olljcets ",e.-e its own selr-AliellAtion lind thnt there WAIi no distinction beb'een ita objeet lI ntl il8clf; And thnt consciousness, in lhis knnwledge, h8.1 trlln~c~nded t.he Alienlition Ann Irlt. It l one with ihelr, i\ r!lrx'. objections Ilt~re are twofold: fintly, lIegel had equated fllienation wi~~ objectivity : u.condly, mftn &eemed, hMing rccogniu.d the spmtull l world us !\ tiphcre of alien(ltion, to celt/lirm it in its nliellllted form A/ld consider it a rncet of his nlltlientic exi~te/lce, thnl is, to feci himself III one with it,

1 ' ]'3 rl_ M3n u""rlptR', Pra~~ Sc~rifl~", PI', 651 r.; ~: ~!itlln Ind Guddat, I), 321.

• A co,,,,<>c,,tary l lI.t ~ml.bll!l~ the F'~,,<:h n,at~rW"'t>< ill K.lg;' (;"ltrli, tk. M.# .. riM;.m ,\I"/"i41ip .... , J'P, 26~ 11". ~'or tbe d~bt t" """e ..... ~h, _ MeLdJ ... . TM I'flU"9 IIrg./iau Gild Karl Mar •• 1'1" 101 If.

o ' !'aris ;'lanu"",;p!,;', l-'r fiAe Schrifl~", 1" o.;~ ; ";uto" ... nd Guddu, 1'. 32!l.

~Ol

~' llIIs, Ill'I.er lrnusccnding relig~on, for example, nnd reeogniSl llg It U P pr(Nluct of gel f.c:dernllh ..... ti"fl, he yet fintls oonflm":l tioll of iliUl~elf in religion ns religiun. llere is the root of I [egel'A f"lse IlIJ!;ilivislH or of his merely AppArent criticism which 1',,"erhnel'lloted 1\. the poIition.negAtioll nnd fe.establis hmenl of religion or tht!ology - hut which llJ\s to be conceived in ']Jore geuerflilerllls. Thus, r~nsou is at one with itsdfin unrellSOIl 115

uure .. ~on, Hlning recognised thltt Ullin le/lds Iltl externllliseJ life in hi"', fNlitii.-'S, etl."., U1('1I ICilds in this <!xtern.8.li~d life 11$

~uch ili~ truly hUIlHln Ii fe.1

'l'lllls for tllnrx the iuue of llegel'5 accOIlUllodlltio ll (lhllt hlld lJcCTl in hi. 'Hind since he wrote hit doctoral lhe$is) "'115 quite c1t!ar : Hegel's false posithism "'AS 'the lie or his principle',2 Ma rl( differed fu ndamentully frOIl' Hegel on the IIlC/millg of t.he t erm ~"if"eb'JJJg (lrull8ecndCllce, su ppreuion). He considered that Hegel's uC<.'Oon t ... ,., IUcrely II 61>Cl'olll. tt.·c lm l' : ' With Hegel the negation of the neglltion is not the confirmation of Illy .. uthentie IIlItl!re cven through the Ilegaliull of its upf>\:lIrunee, It is the confirmation of the .pp!lrent or self·nlienatell nature in iu deninl. '2

ilut private properly, lUorlllity, the fMnil)', eh-illlOciely, the Itllle, 1111 remnined in existence in spite of their hUl'ing been ' transcended' in thought. T his "'as because l legel's transcendence WII!

rAdically IllUbinilent, a lnmSCi!ndence in which 'denial lind ]lrL"lIenlltioll' "Crt! hound together. T here wa, t he additional ~oll~eqlle'.ICC t hnt Ill/In was only truly llUllltl ll ",hen he was cngag_ IIlg III ph.losophy anti that, for I!XllIuple, thc m05t authentiCltlly I'(lJigiOUI man ,,'U the philOllophcr of religion.

I n his u5UlI16ec· ... ... ing tllllllner, i\J.ln:: now retll rn8 to his com_ tnt- nl! al the beginuing or the section on Hegel 's uchievements Kud IIddresses himfflr to the 'politive' A!pl'Cts or the l'legelian rtin.l~ctic, \\' Iull l'legel had arri\'ed lit "'11$ in~ight (tlllJcil II $till ulicutlted one) into lhe proce!lll of alienation ,1nd its trnnscendence, lI eb'CI's !Ijnlectie was a d lart thllt "'lIde plniu ho'" nthci~ 1Il tnwsctnded God to produce theoretical hUlIIll.niMl lIud IU;I1\' eommununn transeemled I'rivllte properly to product! pmctielll

, ' l'..-i. M""~..,,nl'b', F'r-il"" Schflflm , PI" w~ If.; ~MtQn Rnd Guddat, Pl' . 326 r.

I ' I'an. ,\la",,,,,,nl.tlI ', f'r-flltc Scltrij/tJl , p.~; ~:a~to" . ,111 Ulld,lat . I" :j~'!.l , I ' PaT;" ,\I .,,,,,,eril'liI', ;"'Qhe Sc~fifltJI, p. GMi ~;uton . nd Guddat, I" :j~'!i'

•

IUJllHlIlUiJl). Botll U1C5e limibtiolls, religion ,uHI prilfttc properly, ~eeU1ed (t hou),:!. :'I [urx's lunguugo:: is \ery obscure here) t il 00 alteml'll! Lo ""rive at hUIll:l ni~m, Lmt attempts l hnt lind to hI! trnuIICclltlcd to gj.-c risc to a sdr."'l1!ntiug, positive humunism. Mnrx rl:ilCrlItts hi~ prtlviolls 5LltcIIlcnts t h"t .:ozlltllunislll 11'11:\ 110 relu l'll to primitive ~i lllp1id ty uu! invoh'cd " (" II tlm'clopmcnt of "lIlLlllu"s enl~ldlil'!i. He repeuts, too, hiB Aucrtion th,.! Hegel had grasped the true nature of hu mlln I .. /.Iour, hul (for he rou!d never stop criticising him for !onlt) iUlIne.liately cxplorl!!l t l l(' consequence of II cgd'~ speculat ive iuvcrlliun of t his net of 8.:oJfcrcaliull. T hese COI1SC<lm!II<.-eti were tllrcc (it is obvious thnt "I .. rs i~ I,cre merely reformulating ",hnt he has a lrendy "-rilh,n) : thb Ilet of ~el f·erel\t i oll was "Ien:ly furmlll; ItS a COIlSC(lll~IlCe the "lIege,1 trnuscell,iellcc uf nliell:ltiull 1.0 111)' confirmed it in spite of Hegel's wiling it :l 'divine process'; thirdly, ~ince thc sulojcd of the proccss - Got! or thc Ah~olute Spirit - only cmcrged liS \I result, aetuul cOll t cfllpornry lI111ll 11'118 t urned intu mere predicatc.

i\ l arll Joel! nut get beyond elltborating Oil tIle first before Ule IIlnuuscript bren ks olf. lie points out the contrast hcl"'ccn 'thc r ich, lh'ing, 5CIISUOllS, cUllcrclc IIc tivity of ~df·objccti ticu tioll ' . l afl"onicd by his uwn view of Ilumnn !luture li nd tllC forma liSIll of Hegel's nbstrnct negat ion of the neg-ntion. i\ iarlo: then bccollll.'S

extN:mdy Rb~trnct i.n his own right and al1ej;:u thnt the Absolute Idell. lllu~t tuTU to its oPJ)()site, naLure. For t llis Ile gh'e~ two .·CI\SOllll: eit her UccIlUiC it is ~tj]] subj ect to the dink'dic, or else Ve<:nuse boredom .Iri,'cs it to sOlllethillg different. :\ iu.rJ( udds t ll"O vcry illl'uh'cd pnnlgn' phs 011 Hegel's I"i/!w of nature nnd tlu:n the m:mulICript break, 011".

Tl,is ~ection of the ' Puris i\ illnuscripu', inl'oh'ed and repctitil'e nS it i~ , cotn prisca .'.[ar,;' s definit ive cri ticislu or H"'gel's dialectic. l ie refe rred to th is work more tl lllll thirty yc"rs luter, in 187B. in tile prefucc to the second edition uf Capitol, wbich con 8er, e IIi ... tiUllllllury of what he CQnceived to lJc the cssence of th is criticism:

!\ [y dilllecticnl method is !IOt only .liIrertnt from Ihe Hegdinll, hut i~ its di rect Ui11)()site. To I ic);,'"I![, the lifc.proce~s of I.he 111J111IU' brllin, i.e, lh<l proccu of thinking, which, vndcr t he IIlIlIle of 'T ho Idc,,' , he e,en trunsforms into all indepelldellt

" I'~rilr "l u"\I»cril,I~·. F'U~4 &/:,ijlcIl. I)I" G.Y.I f.; .;"",(0" "lit! Gudd~t, I'.

""'.

2O!1

subj ctt, is t he demiurgl.ls of the TCIII worM, nnd the r.:al 1I"0rl,1 IlJ oilly the e:tternl\l, JlhenOmCllIl1 form of'T he Men' . With mc, 011 the contrary, the idell l i~ not llillg d se tlmn t he mlltl'rifl l ,,"or!.l rdleet/!d by the hUllIlln mimi, IIl1d translnted intll I"'rllls of thought . T'lIe mystifying side of Heyeli'HI dillledic I critid~ctl l\eurly thirty ye/lrs ago, at II t ime ,,·hen it WI\S still the fashio n.

. T he my~tHic,lt i on which d illleetic sulf..,T1I ill Hegel's Il>!.Ul I~

by no means prevents him frum being tho first to present it:! yeneral form of working in a coml'rehens.h-e RIIII conscious !!mnner. With him it iH standing on ih helld . It must he turned right side up agoin, if you 1I'0uid discover t Ile m t ion"l kerncl witili" lhe myst ical shell . In 11.9 myst ified form diAlectic IlCCJmle the fMhion in Germany, btell l\se it seemcd to trnnsllgun! an(1 to glorify the ell isting state of t hings. In its rnt iOJUl l for m it i~ fI seandal anll ubominl\tiun to bOll rgeoisdom Ilnd it., dodri ll ' nire professor3, beCllllse it includes in ita comprehension /tll(\ nffirmnth'e recognition of the exist ing- slRte of things at t he 81lme t illle abo the recognit ion or the negntion of t hAt stale, of its illlll·ilable brenkin!; \I P ; IlI)cnllse it regnn:i! '~I'ery historicfl lly del'eloped social form 85 in fluid mO"cmcnt, find thereforc lakes i"to nccount its tNinsient nnturc not less thnn itt: momentary cJ( is lenee; becnuse it lets nuthing im]losc upon it, Ilnd is i ll iU eSSence critical nnd rc"olutioIlIU)'. '

Thl!rt is a certain continuity e"iclent i'l Mor.t.'s altitude to lI egel from the 'Ooetornl Thesis' to the 'Pnris MnnU5eripts" In llis thc,is :\ i:l.TX rejected t Ile idea t1mt lIegel 11"1\5 guilty of 'nccomll1odntion' and demll.ll<led that app!ln!nt cont rndictions be resol ved loy n]lpell l to Hegel 's 'csselltial consciol1 ~nP.ti~·.2 I II his 'Critiquc of Hegel's Philosuphy or the State" Mll r >: ~ h o\\'cd by rdercllce to pnrticulrLr ellAmples tilR! I il'gp.I's pri"cipl~ ine"itabl), illmlt'('(1 accommodAtion. But it Willi not [l ntil l\ ["TX trll nsfe~1

his nttc ll tioll f"om Hegel 's I'hUO$oph.1J q.f LAw to his }'hrllOmt:'U.Hut:.'1 that he WIIS nhle to for mula le :\ A:eneTIII criticism of I1e~d'~

diAlectic. I lere it is cleln t hnt i\1 .. rJ(, although st illnt home with HI~gel's con<X:J'b lind terminology, d id nol CQnfine himself to intern .. 1 criticism. J\t th~ SlI me time, he still respected Hl:gel lls n J:re .. t thinkcr nnd con~idercd his dialect ic .. ",duable i n ~tn' rnen t for ill,"csl ignting the world. lIe also ('reditell Hegel with ha" iug

, K. :\InT:<. CIJpital (;\ lo)iIC"(I,t". I !},';~) I W f. • ·0 (1("1"' .... 1 Tit .... ; ... .lU:G..4 I i (I) G~; t:~ .• lo" Kn,1 r,,,.ltlal.I'. 61.

•

Mur..: lx/orr; .I/l1r.rillll

huumuisllI. Botl, these limit"tioJls, religion nnu pri,nte property, lICel1led (thoogh i\IIITX', 11I.1I!;UlI!,!e is vcry ohsel,re here) to be attcmpts to Ani,e at iIullwniSnl , hut aUculpts thn t hltd to be lrllll5cenc\eu to give rise tl> II :relf-crenting, positi,"e ioUlllllni$111. :"I lnrx reiterlltlll< hi i pre,·joll' sb. temeuts tlliit COllllllllllism was no return to primiU, c si mplicity but ;U\"(IJ.·ed 1\ full <I,.'·CIOPIII..,II t of nil "'"n'~ capacities. He rep..,nts, too, his lIucrliOll HUlt Hcgel htHI grAlpcu tile I.rue lIature of human lubour, but (for he could lle \(~r

stop criticising him ror long) immediately explore!! t he eon_ ~e(l uc"ee of lI egel's ~ peeull\ti,·e invcrsion of thi i ud of self(."1"..,><lion. Tlle5C coIISC<juencct: were three (it is ob,ioul thllt i\lilrx i8 here Inere!y rcfonnultlting wllllt he hila Itlrell.dy writtCII) : t his act ur selr-crelltiou wu~ merely re>rIlllli; 11.5 II collo;e'lu"nec Uu" ,dlegel! trnnscen(icnce or nlie llll tion ouly confirmetl it in spi te or Hcgel-s ctllling it " -,Ii,ine process'; thirdly, sinC(l t he subject of tile procen - God or thll A!Jwlute Spirit - only Il",ergoo 115 a resull, "duill contem purllr~' man was turned into Illere predicate.

i\J~,rs does nol get beyond clnbornting on the fint Ixofore the nUUlult.ript brenk!! off. He points out the contrast ootween 'thc rich, Ii>ing. sensuous, concrete Ileti.ity of lelf-objeetifiClltion·.1 ufforued by Ilis OWIl viell' of hUHlllll IlIIture Mill the fOl·HUl.li511l of lIeboeri 1I.00lnu:t llegRtioll of tlte negation. :"Ibelt thcn becomes cxtremcly aLlitn,.ct in his 011"11 right alHl alJeges thllt the ALiiolutc Idell IUUst turn to its opposite, nll.ture. For this hc gives two rellson~: either 1.oewuJe it is still subject to the dialeclic, or else because horedom tlri l·e5 it to w lUethillg different. i\Jnrx tldds h ·o '·CI)· inl"ol,·cd rntmgrjlph~ un Ilegei"s ,·iew of nat ure tlml I.hell the mnuu5eript bre"ks off".

This .edion of t he 'I'nris ~Jal\uscripts', im·olvcl! and rep-et iti,·c liS it iij, compriu. i\!nrx 's uefinitive criticisllI of Hegel's uialectil'. l ie referrcJ to this work more tl",n thirt~· ycnn later, in 1873, in the prd"ce to the second ctlition of Capilal, which cnll serve liB a sUllllllnry of whul he collcei '·ed to be the essenr.e of this criticbtn ,

My di~lecti(,,\1 methut.l is not only different fro", t ile He~lj,\I\ , hut is it.s ,lirect opposite. '1'0 lIegcl, the Jife-I'rucen or tlu! hmnnn hrain, i.e. the pr~ of thinking, lillich, unuer the I"""e of " I'he I\lM', lIe e'·c II trans for1l1~ iuto ,\11 imlepcnliellt , ' l'ari~ :\iam''''''''I' I<I", J.". (Jh~ &~'i/ltM, PI'. U<;ij t .; ~~~lo" ~nil Gud,bl, I' .

""'.

~)!I

$U bjert, is t he (\emiurgus oft he renl worM, "11<1 the I"('nl worl,1 l~ only the cllternnl, pilcl1o,nen,,1 form of " 1"I.e I (I '~!I '. Wi t h nil', 1111

the contrary, the ide"] is nothing else thAn the " u, teriul world reileet('d by the humlln mind, lind translJllL'Ii into form s of thonght. The mysti(\'illg side of Hrgeli,Ul ,linlect;c , eriticis('d n~"rly thirty ., can ago, .. t Il time whell it Will still the fashinu. . _ . ' I'he my~ti fic&t ion .. ·J,i ch dinlectic 8ulren in Hegel's ha'lIls by no ",u ns prc.-enlt him frOI1l heiug the first to pr~sent its ~cllernl form of working in " comprehensive and conscious lIIanner. With Ililll it is sbn/ling on its head. It must Ix! turn(.'I1 right iitlc up ngllin, if you would discol'er the f(ltiu.",1 kernel within the nl~·stical shcll. In its rny8li lied form di"lcelie beCAme the fnshion in Germnny, because it seemed to transfigure Ilnd to glorify t he c!'l i ~till:X state or thin~ . III its rntionni form it is " scandal ami nbominntion to bourgcoisdom nml ilrl doctrinAi re professors, because it include!! in its comprehension lind IIffi rmntil"C recognition of the existinjit stnte or thiugs ut the sa Ine tillle also the recognition of the negntion ofthtlt stllte, of it t illc\ itaLic breaking up; l..Iecause it rcgaNls e,·ery hbtoril'Ally ,Ioo,'elopetl socinl form tiS in flu id mO\'elllenl, 1\ 11<1 ther~rore tuke~ iuto "coounl its tI"lllliicllt nnlure not Ielis tl"'n its momcnlnry cllist cuCC i beC!lu$e illets nothing impose upon it, Ami is ill ib eS5ent"f! cri tienl nlld revolutionnry.'

T here is 1\ ecruin continuity e,-idenl in Mllrx's attitude to I lege! rrom the 'Doctoral T hesis' to the ' Pnri. i\lnnllseripts'. In hil thetis :"Ibn: rejectetl the idea thnt lIegel "'(\5 guil ty of "Rccommodntion' I\IIU demnnded thnt IIpprtrent eonlmdictions be rc~ol l'ed L~< nppfni to Hegel's 'essentinl l'on~ciO\lSnC5s'.1 In hi~ 'Critique or 1·!l'gt!!'s Philosophy of thl'! StRtC" j\[ lIrx showed h~·

rererencc to pnrtieu!nr t'xnmplcs thnt 1 1 ~g.'rs principles iue,itnhly inl·"l"ed Ilccommo<iutiOIl . lIut it Ims not. until i\ lnrx trnnsrr. n·el! his a u entiOll from Il ege1'l l'hillMophyn/ lArD ttl hi~ Phr,uw,fflc/0t;y tllllt he WI" ub!e tl> for", ulate n gencrnl "riticism or Hegcl"s tHnledic. lI ere it is clcRr thnt i\·I"rx, nlthough still ut home with lI e~rs concepts 111)(1 terrninoiosy, .lit! not confi,le himself to in t (' rnal criticism. At the Mme t ime, he ~till rl'tpected \legt!! 118 n j:!reAt think er Anti cOllsideretl his " wleclic n \'IIllln hle instrumcnt ror in,·cslignt ing the worM. lie "Iso credited Hegel with hll"ing

, 1\. i\brx. (ilpl/al (Mu""""., l !l1i~) I 10 t. '· I)(><"tl>r.>l·n ,...;,', .I/lX;_i I i (1) 6-1 i E~'Ion .not f;"d,l.t. 1'. 61.

•

2., diu.'<>I·crcu, t hough in Il mys tifying fOfm, the process of nlI1n'~ "li(>1IIItion rmd of its o"~roonling.

5, Xt. f.[)~. P ltODUCT I QS, Til E DI\"SIOS 01'

L u o ua "SD :\loSEY

The couclulling portions of the ' Paris i\I "nlJ~rip~' consist of twenty i""gel of reflections on the Illollliity of prinltc property fuul ll ihert ~C(:tion 1,111 the IIICltlliliS of moncy_

T he discussion of wpi tnlist morality does not IIdd much to pre\'ioui Icct ions or the "'lt llu.s<:ripts I\lId !)clongs in the frilme. work of the li"t ~«lion on WAge!, rent :lnd profit. r-Jarx oontrasts the sod,, 'is t 1I1t;t",lc to the wenlth of hUlIllIo l1~ds with lhe nUilude brought about by primtc property which l<ttilicially "rented ncctl5 in order to bring mel! into dependenr.e. 1'\$ R rc!uit, poI'erty incrclI8ed 1\11 fIl ell and their needs were nl the merc), oHhe HI(mey nUlI'ket, Kud e"tnlunlly Olen'! livi llg condit ions became wo!'!;c thrtn thm/) of nnil11"k The theoretical counterpart of this ~tutc of "jlidrs IV,\S political economy. It reduced the needs of the worker to t he miReTllhle necessit ies of life and prenched uUer asceticism :

Thll ~, oHpite its worldly ami plCilsure.seeking nppearnnee, it ig n truly moral science nlHl thll lI11.lllt morlll of all scienCe!;. III principlll tllI!'!i! il the renuncintion of life and of human needs. The len you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theli lre or to \)1\ ]1$. or to the ]lublic house, lIud the leSS you think, love, theori!e. lOinlt. ]mint, fe nce, etc., the IIlore you will be IIble to MW, alld thll greatcr .... iII become your lrel\!ure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt _ yonr ca pilRl. T he leu you lire, the len YOll espreu your life, the more you hnn~, the l:\rell.ter is your alillnntoo li fe nnd the greater is t he $I\\'i1lg of ),(mr nlieunte<:1 being.1

The cynicism of HiC(lrdo Wl\6 qui te in k~ping with political ('(!(Inorn}" wllich it hl\d its own pri"de law!, for 'The nature of nlienalion imillie!; tlmt each IIphere npplies n .litferen t a nd eontradktory norm, that ,uorality d<.H:S not a pply the SlIme nor", all

, ' I'a rlo i\)a' UlJ<:riptil', F"~M .(ld'i/lf~, !" (;1 2; Uotlomo..,. p. 17L

, .. 1)(Ilil ieRI c<:onorny, I'tc. , hecau5() eRth of thern is R Imrlienh.r alieuation or rnnrl; each is ooncentr\l.let\ upon a SllCeifie an'a of nlicnnle<:1 ncU .. ily and iI itself alienrtted from lhc othllr:'

)I .. rx me"tions briefly how e1M$ical economists .... ish to limit t.h!l J)()J,ul"lion l\nd think even people a I .. "ury; and ho\\' paradoxicl\J it 11'11.1 thltt the ~nte$t wealth WI\! orten e"traded from tha u t remest p'lI'erly. for eMmple, the rent.. of . lum dwclIings. H(l then mnkes sOllie fmth llr remar ks on communism, The eqUAlity proc.lnimed by w me Prench eommunists Il'lI!! merely rI IMllitiell1 foundation lind WfIlI no better than the German attempt to bue tommunilIU on 'lIlin~nal self·consciousness, The sitURlion in Englund WAS a surcr oosi~; 'The transcendence of alicnation ..1"'"),1 proceeds from the form of alienntion which is the domiru.\l lt power; in Gerrnnny, self.ton.ciousness; in France cquali ty, 1Je· Cll1I5e politil!ll ; in Engl .. " " . the renl, material, self-su/litient, pmcticul need:' Marx then re.emphMises thnt comrnurli~m is not the finnl stute of society and thflt it could only come about through 'gcnuine communis t nctj,'ity'.3 I-Ie then mflke. lOme renlllrk i on the meetings of eoml1luni~t workers in Paris that sllOw thot his picture or comtlluuist society wos dmwn in part froll! hi ~

ohsen'ations there:

" 'hell t'Omnwnist ftrtisans ful'lu associatiom, teuthing nnd propall:,t tldn Arc thdr first nima. Bllt their Il5socirltion itself creute! a new need _ t he neet! for 50ciety -Imo what appellred to be l\ mean! hftS Uecome an end, T he most striking remits of this practiel\l development lire to be seen when F rench soci\llisl workers ",cd together. Smoking, eating and drinking are no longer simply meuns of bringing people together. Soeiet y, lI$5ocilttion. cntertni,unent which alw hus society M its uim, is $nllicicnt fur them; t he hrot herhood of man is no /!.mpty phnue blll a ~nlity, a nd the lIobility orman shines forth upon U~ from thei r loi l.wonl bodin.4

1n the second half of this section. Man; rel"ru~ to the de· humltnising effeCts of eApit.al .aud discusst:$ the dedining ratc of intercllt and the abolition ofland rent. i\ l ostorthesection is lakeu

• ' I'ui. Man"ocr;I'I-.I'. Pr-fllte &/oriJlt .. , p. 614; 11oltonlOl'1!, p. 173. • ' P.ri$ Mam'fCnl'lo', fOra*, &."i!l~". p. (;1 ; ; HotlonlQl'e, p, 17(;. I ' l'An! MnnW!t'l'irt.t', p,.fi~ &10"(/1"", p. 618 ; I1ottomoroe, ". 176. I ' l'nL! ~1 ~nliiICM I'l", PrUe &A"i!ltn, V.IllS; Uotlomo"" I'. 176.

:WG

up with the question of thc division of laoour with q 1l0tutiollS frOlll Smith, !\'lilJ lilid Say, hut Marx comes to ,,0 subsitl.nth'e conclusion.

In the short seclioll on money, !llufx I]lloles exlellsi,·cly fru,\! Goctl!!:.'s Fuud and SIU\kc~JlCa re's Timoll qf At/lelll tll show th"t money is the ruill of socidy. Since money could purchase (llIything, it coulrl reme(ly nil uc/iciellCi!s: it 1,'!lS ·the 110111.1 of ull bonds',l 'Since money. as the existing and active cOllcept of \'alue, l'onf .. m",ls and "xcl,,,ng"s 1I\'III'Ytl.;"g, it is the "ni,oer.""l confus;oll lua] triUlsprnsition of all things, the in\'l!rtt'(i world, the con fusion and transposition of all natural "tul h\lIl"~11 qualit.ies," In n truly human society where man wns man ti,en en~rything "'ould h(\ve;l definite, human "alII\) ,,,,d only lo'·e could be c:otchnnged for love, lind so on. Here the ",,,,,"script br~"k$ off.

l\!,.rx himself s\.pplicd no conclusion to the 'Paris i\!anuscripts' and it is impossiblc to draw one from such a disjointeu work: economics, ~ocial criticism, philosophy, history, logic, dialectics lind mctaph)'siC$ arc all preeent. Although each scction is dOlllin"tcd by a different subject matter, there is II certain Ilmnunt or tlIutUIII influencc, Here for the tint time what Engels described "s three constituent elements in l\Iarx's thought - German ide"list philosophy, French socialism and English economics _ appcar together, if not )'I!t united.

"Parisl\i8nll""ril'U!', FrDh~ Srhrifltl , fl · G33j Hottomo~, I'. If/I. 1 ' I'ari~ Mallu~ril'U!', F,~h~ Schrijh., 1'. 636; RoUoUlore, p, H13.

CHAP'l'EJ't E1G H'l'

Conclusion

1. !\I .... ax·s E.\RLY WRITISG S IS HI STORICAL

P £RSPECTIVE

AT the time when they were wrill.,,,. Marx's early writings dill lIot make much impnct, Tl is contcmpomric5 _ Hess noove nil _ cerbhlly cOJlsi.kred him IL \'cry gifted person: he was nnly twcntyfOllr when ulJpointed to tl,e editorsllip of ti,e Rl,eillilcM Zdttmg. Ne\'erthelc5~, i\lar:ot could not find a rubli~her for his Gcrm(m Ideology and even the popularly-written CommultiJl .IlIa/tifUlo of 1848 had Yery little effect. In the 184<ls and 18505, both inside and outs.ide socialist circles, I'roudhon, and even Engels, were much uetter known than i\larx.

This neglect of i\l nrx's early writiugs by his C'Ontempol'8ries was quite normal considering the lack of interest in them displ"yeu by i\larx and Engels themselves. They ~eemed indiifl)rent e\'en to preserving their nULIluscripts: in the preface to his Critique of Political EeOliomg, Marx said that he and Eugcls had abaudoned the manuscript of the (,'c,-mml Ideology (1846) 'to tlH! t,rnawillg critiei~1lI of i.he mice all the more willingly !IS we had achie'·ed Ollr main purpo!lC - ~elf-darificR t i on·.l \\'hen ill 1867 a Gernmll friend, Dr Kugelm(lnll, an enthusiastic admirer of .i\llIr:ot, presented hill) with!\ copy of The Holy }{jmil!J (1844), hc wTote to .Engels : 'He possesses a milch better collection of ollr works thslI both til' liS put together. Here I also found the Holy Family again; he hilS pr{'~{'nt .... 1 it I" "' .. Ami will R",,,I Y"" A ('''l'Y. r II'''~ 1'1""R" "tly RIIT_ prised to filld thll t We do lIot Heed to be aSllitlued of this work, although the cult of Feuerhach prodllces a very humorous efl'cct upon olle 1I0W:~ Engels, writing in 1888, dismissed the Gr.mulII

1 K. M~T", ' l'~fAec to Il Critique of I'oli tienl ~:conomr', in M~rx-ElIgcI8, &/erl .. 1 W~rkj, , $(;4.

I )!ar>;- F. ngeJs, ."tI«I'!<1 (.'Qrff'f'O"<kn~. p. 217.

r

•

Mar;J: kfore Mar.rilm

!t/~oro;;!J vcry curtly: 'Defore sending these lines to t!Uj prcl!.9, r have QIICe again ferreted out nnd looked up the old nUllllJscript of 18·~5-6. The ~ection dealing wilh }'euerbach is not conlplctccl. The finished portion COll5istll of all cxpo~itioJ1 or the m'It.'rifLliJ;tic conception of history WlJicll provt'! only J,ow incomplete our knoll'll'dge of ecollolllic history still was at that time." .Engel's nttituue iii vcry dearly ~howli in a L"UIL\crs .. tion thnt n ll ussi,Ul visitor, Alexi8 Vodcn, 1",H1 with him in 1800. \'oden, recnlling in 1927 It cOII"cl1I,.tioll concerning the early works of l\[nrx nnd Engels, reported:

Our next conversation wns on enrly works by ?\,ran: nlld Engels. At first El\grl~ WI\$ embarrassed WhCl1 I cxprcSlJed interest in t1w.~c w"rk~. He mentioned too thnt Mnr,;: hnd writteu poetry ill his student yeftrs, but thllt it would hllnlly int~rest Il.nyhody, 'j'llen he asked ",hid, of !\fan's And his works interested 1'Iek ]lIU'OV flocl his fellow thinkers, A nrl \"fhat was the exact r~ltson for that interest? 'Vas not the fmgmenl on Feuerbuch, which Engels con!l.idered tI'e most meaty of those 'old works', sufficient ~

I guve nIl Plckhnno\"~ argumenh in flll'OUf of publishing us soon liS JlOssihlc t.he whule of Marx's philosophical legacy and I,is nn.I Engels's joint works, Engels sRid thRt he luul henrd that more than ollce from certAin GermAns, the 5eriO~lIesa of "'1I03e intere~t in U'O$C 'old works' he had no reluon to doubt; but he IIske<:1 me (or Iln honest answer to the question: which was more important - for him, Ellgcls - to spend the rest of Ilis life publishing old "'nnu~cripb from publieistic work of the forties, (lr t.o s~t tu wurk, whell Uook Three of Capitlll cnrn!! out, on lhe publicl\tioll of i\Inrx's mn'HlB.:ripls on the history of the theories on ~ urpllls \'ruue?" .

T a\'r\iled myself of what seemed to 'nc the mo~t (''''(I1emblc moment to lIrge Engels to redeem frum ulldeserved oblhiol\ Itt lell.ljt UIC most. essential of i\lar:<"s earlier works, I'euerbaeh alone heillg insufficient. Engels snid that in order to pellctrnte into that 'old story' one nccded, in fnd, to hll\'e an interest in Hcgel himself, whicl, ",:os not the ense with anybody then, or, t.o be exnct, 'neither \\ith Kn\Jhky nor with Bernstein'.~

, F, Enge"', 'L",lwig ~'~u~ cl>"d, Mnd til<) 'F:nd or ('t.."!-U:al G~ .. nan I'hiloIKlI,h), ', MaU-~:"Io~I~, &1ff'/ttL 1I'Qr h ." 31)0,

S 1\, W .. lp.n, ' T"lb with F.ngeJs', fl~"'i "j«e"ct,qf JI"r"'/I~d RJlg.oII(MOI!OOw, no date) PI" 3,'1() f.

2tH)

All Enge1s'a remllrks here indicnte, the J Icgeliun nppC'OIl.ch of the carly writings soon Uccnme out of c!ale. Well UI\ illto tho Id(j()H 1\ I"rx \l'IIS IIot wdl known outside 1\ smal! circle, Ocing thrown into thc shade by Lnssnlle. When he ,li.1 hl~come known, fifter the publication in 1867 of the first volume of Capital, it was ItS nn economist who had set out to pro"e sc.:ientHi'~llly ll,e iU(:I'ibchle decline of capitalism. Already in lRii9 'F.ngels wrote, in a re"iew of Man;'s Critique qf Political Ecolwmy: 'The Germllns h1\\'e long ngo pro,'ed their equalily Illld in most cascs thdr superiority to the eh'ilised Iintions in fill ti.~ld s of knowledge. Only one single discipline counted nu GernuUlllame among its devotec~. Kow her!! it i5: K'irl Marx.'l About the same ti1llc, thl] Communi.rt J.I/(mijellfll began to ha"e all cffed., !saluted sayings from thc enrly writings, ~ucl, ns "fdigioll I)!'!ing the opium of the peoplc, began to be wdl kllo"'n. Bernstein did publish n few ~l!;tn\cts from the Gtrm(/II

Ideology, but tl'crrl ,.-..5 nil real interest in thc early !\larx find (lintil I'ery recently) this has remained so with orl;h(l(lox i\fllrxisls,

OJle reason for this lnck (If illter~st is tllllt Jlot Ulall}' of i\iarx's early II'riting5 were ,,,'ui],lble, Th!! political essllJ~ written IIlllilily for the Rlwi,dlche Zeitun!; in 1842 ,"!!re re-e.lilecl ill Cologne in 1851; the Holy Family lIud the essaY8 published in the Deutlel!, "'ram:iJli.ulu: JuhrQUthcr were long out of print and forgotten; .md !\Inrx's doctorfll thesis, the 'Critiquc of Hegel's PhilOl:lphy of the State-, the 'P'lris l\hulIlscripts' and the German. Idcolog,l/ hnd ncyer been published at all. After the turn of the century, howe\'er, l\iarx's early writillb'S hegun to arouse the (peripheral) interest. of hi~l.ori"n~ And ill particular of .Mehring, the first hiographer of Marx and historinn oCtile Ci,:rmllll Social D~moerll.t 1'1lrty. In 1002 i\ lehr ing pllhlished some of the literary remains of i\ t.,rx lind Engels, illcluding the doetoral thel!lis, tile eo!~fly8 in the Dl!lltlch-Frnnwbchl! Jahrb fir:her lind the Ilol!l F(lmiiy, These were ftcoom pnniefl hy introductions t hat contained II. wealth of detnil. lIowever, Mehring's edition did not eOllt.ain the 'Cr ili'lue of Hegel's Philosophy of the Shlte" tl,~ ' P,cris i\illlluSCripts', or the Germnll Idealogy. ['erlmps !IS a consequellce (the 'Critique of I ]('gd's Philosophy of the .stllte' t\ml the 'Puris Mnnuseripl.'i' nrc the moot l-kgeliun or ~Iu"x'~ !!url)' Ilriling>;), no importance was

, Q uoted in t:. 'fhiu, 'J,;tlIl'l'ell dcr )lnxiulcrl,retalion', ,Vllui, muu/udiCN, I (10M) Iii.

210 Mar.c brJore J}ar.l'i,m

"Und'l.:d to the inlluence nf II~d 011 1\1,lr-". In the slime )"elll·, Uel"nstcin published fmgmenUi of ~Jarx's nttnck 011 ~tinler in the German Tdl!olog!l. Bul it " ·flS not until 1927 t.hnt n com· Illete edition of i\ll1rx's curly writi ngs Ivas produced. I'ublishecl ill Fraukfurt nlld later ill Dedin, it "'/IS edited by D. H jll"ilIllOI'

under the ljupcn-ision of the i\lnrx Engels Inst itute ill ::-' lo.eo",. IJllfortullulely, this superb edition WIIS ,liscontinucd in 19G2 for politicnl rCllsons.lt did, howel'er, contnin t.he ' Pnris MlIJiuscripUi', the work which, nhol'e nil Oll 'CnJ, seemed to show Marx in a nell' light.

Luck of a,·ni!abili ty wns not the oilly reason for the delfl)' of intcrest in the young 1\lnu. Thcr(! " .. s nl80 >I political reason for thc underemphasis of e,·en such of 1I.Iflrx·$ enrly writinWO' 1\$ WI:re known. A revi,·a\ of intercst in thc young l\Inrx illlplic(\ II Te,·il'nl of interest in the bourgeois philosophical trnrlition nllli prillciJllllly in Hegel. n ut in the first two dccnd~s of tillS eetltury, ,ocial democrnts and eommtllli~ts were concerned to emphasise their distinctions from the hourge()i~ie lind to portray Marxism as 1\

scientillc and proletnrinn world-I'iew in opposition to Pllst and present bourgeois ideals. T hus they sharply contrasted the young n.nO the old JI,'[nrx to the detriment or the former. How~~'·er. with the risc of till! twill tollililatianisms of J~'ascism and Stalinism, oppositional elements with humnnist aspirations were drhell into nllilillce, and the time wns ripe for emphasising lhe COlltilllLty of i\ lnrx with the Western philosophical trndition ill the face of lIell'

horhurisms.1 It was thought important lind necessary to slreiS the continuit.y hclween ti,e bourgcois and prolctnrion rcvolutionnry rno'·cfllents in ordcr to pre'"ent the German and Italinn bourgeoisie from supporting the Flt~ci8Ui. 0 \.lI"iou8ly, too, for 1I0n·St!llinist socinlists, the end y writing~ of the young 1\lao.: could serve as \\·I:Ilj.XllI6 to.gtdnst tile growing nuthol"it.llrinnism null bUI·cnuerllcy of ollicinl communism.

I nt,cllectuully, too, tile climate of the 1920s fnvoured nn illteTcst. ill l\h.r,,·s en rly writings. _\ I'ogue hnd dewloped for rcsenrching illto the origins of the idcns of imporllult lhinkers: Dilthey had wrillen 011 the enrly worb or SchleierlUtlcher and Hegel; in 1920 i\llIyer publishcd the first "olum(! of his delini lil'e biography of

'ce.!. t"elilCheT, 'The Y(llIug Bod the Old Man·, Jlar", ami Ihe Wtllem Worl.t (Notlll DaHle, 1007).

C(mclllSUm 2 11

Engels; !lbme nil, 1I'l,'d's early thrologicn l writings wele pub· lished for the first time in 1907. TI,is led to n rCllcwll1 of illtere~t in Hegel in genernl and his pllrt in the formnti()11 or ~llIrxism. Uy tile end of the nineteenth century posili\"i~m IIml lIeo. Kuntinn libcrlliism hnd lhm"" Hegel inlool,I;"ion. T he prHcticnlly.minded rC"isionists, such us Bernstein, hrlll no t.ime fo~· Hegd. C\·C II IHld t.hey hecn IIhle to undcr.;lnnd him. 1\lIl1tsky nnd ti,e ort.ilodox i\ Inrxbts nlTil' cd lit till! sli me result for very di!l'erCllt r CHSO Il $,

those of doctrinal purity: they wished to h i: uhlc to prench a scientific socialism free of any ethical or mctnphy~icli l elcmenUi. Lellin lutd eerlltinly sludied Hegel ill I,is S\\·iss exi lc, but there was 1I0t much evidenC'C of influence either in his thcory or in his practice.

By the 1920s, ho"·e,·cr, interest in Hegel WAS relu~wcl.l. Aln:ndy in 1911 Plellge hod puhlished n book depicting lIle you ng i\ lnr" 3S ;l genuine pupil of Hegel. And ill 1~~ two interpretations of !'I larxism were published which emplmsised the 1-1cgclinn element. Both anticipated the publicutioll of t he n:mnindcr of i\larx's ellrly writ ings und pl'ep",·ed the wuy for a ll unclerstanding of tl,eir importnnce. Thesc two booh, both written in Gt:l"lnllII, were I{ arl J{or5ch's Jl{(l r,vi611t (/lid I'hi/ruoplly l\J1d George I.uknes' lli.'/.()f'!J (/lid C[a"" COIIJcio/l.flltll, Korsch took seriously Mnr"'s doctrhle of the unity of theory and practice, his I;hrases about tl,e 'realisation of philosophy" tl nd his dcbt to liege\. His book gave the impression tllltt oflieiul !\fnndsm wns being criticised from the mOTe open lind criticnl position of the young Marx. Lukn cs adoptcd the snme Iinc, sharply criticised tile couccJltion of a dinlcctie of nnture nlld elaborated t he iden of reification, a refornlllintion of i\larJ['s 'alienation' . Luk l\c~' hook was subtitled $tudieJ ill J1/arxiJt Dialectic, IInl.l sni ,1 ill the introduction ; 'It is impossible to discuss the problem of COllcrete alld histori,;nl dill iectics \\'i~huul closcr study of the foundel· of this method, Hegel, and hl3 rcl'lliollship to 1\ lnrx. The warning of l\ larx not. to trcllt lTcgel lIS Il 'dclld dog' hll5 remained II d'~nd ll~ttcr, e\·en for lIIany good 1I.Inr)(i5ts.'1 Most theorelicinns of the Second l nlerllntiontll viewed hislorica.llllaterill.lism Hl! Illl ohjccth·c and scientillc doctrine of the Il\ws of social del'elopment, Inll's thnt were similar to those cuunciuteu oy IIntuml scientists. tukacs (ullowell the

, G. Luka(l;!, 1Iil(oire ~ t()ltltSencs <kdlul8 (1'1Iri;j. 1000) p. I::.

"

212

)'oung \\Ian: in considering the nllturnl. ~cielll;e~ ~o 00 conditioned by llistorien l Ilc\'c1opment uno lutegrtti POlilts of tl,t! !iOeinl whole, 1\110 put at the centre of hi, doctrine the iden of the prolctnril't'& c1l1ss eOllsciousnc!;$ becoming prnctical. Doth Korsch nnd l.uk,,~-s were 5lrongly criticisccl by the orlhodo", principally by the "deran KnlJL~k)', lind expelled from the party, but their books continued to htn-e influence.

In this climate, the publication of the 'Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the Sbdu- and the 'Paris :\Ianuseripta', the two main ae<:ounh tJUlt ]\Illr" ga"e of his rclnlionship to Hegel, ImIde a swin. impression, and interest in the young t\ larx Ims si nC4l heell il1tense, pnrticull\rl~' in GeTml\ny, Frnnce anti Eastern Europ-c. ]n Gcrmony around 1930 the discussion WAS pre-eminently politicnl, wit.h the tlielnlonhi p of the prolctnrint being regarded, gi \'en the wellkness of the pnrlillmcntllry ~yst,e"', 'IS ~he o~11y "lternllti,e to Fllscism. With lI itler·.iJ rise to power, d,scu!SIon ceased for twel\'c yell". 1\ fier 19-1-5, since there was no cOllllllunist party in Germnuy, the di~cllssion became Acndcmic; .t\lnrx :"1\1; trcnted ~'8 olle philosopher II11l0ng others rind n fr.vou n te Rul'J.eet fur tiocl.()r(li theses. I n I"runcc, on tl,u ulher hnllrl , M(\rxl~m remained a subject of lil'eJy 1'JOlitical deootc, During the 1!)30g, Koj cve'i urillinnUy idiosyncratic "iew of Ilegel through the ea~ly "Inn: inspired the independent Left tu constant battlca \I'ltll Stalinist orthodoxy. After the war existentialist thinkers like Sartrc nnd i\lerlellu-l'onty borrowed man}' elcments or i\lnrx's enrly writings. There WIU (I fnitly c()nsln nt ~trcllm of expulsiuns frolll the Communist Pnrty for ' re\'isionislII", the most importa nt being thAt of lIenri I.cfebHe who emphasi5ed thc theme:! of ·Il.lienatiun· and the 'all-round mall' centrnl to the -I'llri. Ma nuscripU'.l :\ Iore recently, tltisllcbnto: hns tllkc.n Oil renewed force: Hoger Garlludy. chll,npion of un 'opell' r.lnfl[i~1II re!l~)' for dia\o"uc willi other beliefs, propounds II. human'~t l'I:rsLOn of " ' nr; stemll)ing essentially froll) tllc curly writings;~ Louis AlthuMer denies thll.t !, Iutx Ctlll be cll llctl a hu", .. ni~l, d"iming th.nt it is 1\ term solei), ehllmcteristic of MArx's early "'ritin~ lind ~ubseqllelltly fejected.3 The impftct of ),Iarx"s carly work III the

, cr. J J. L.!f~ln'n), I~ .lIali,ia/l.,,,~ Jinlreliq"~ ( J'ari!:, 1031). I Cf. 11. GU .... '"h-. f'ro", ,1 1!1I1~tma 10 OiIlI01trl~ (Lon~on, lOOi). I cr. I,. Althu~r, /'01/' )iar:.] (I'Bru, 1{)6(i).

213

English-~pellking world hilS been much slower; the Ih'llt tl'lIl l ~ t(llimr of thc ' PlI.tis Manuscriph' did not appear untill9GL

Thus, a~ far all tht; \\'~ st wn~ concerned, of ~18rX'5 two mnjor nnnlYlics of capitl\list society the liNt, that of the progreui\'c pnufK'risntion of the proletftriat And the lIecessity or ill! coming to u realisation uf ib re"olutionary role, hns been rendered ohsolete, T he creation of IRbour unions ,ulll the growth of reformism dcmonttrtlle5 thllt, rAr from Aiding II prolet",; .. " , .... olution, ll,e eeonomie infmstructure of society make. ror the prol.'f(IlI/;i\'c integration of the working elnsses into the social order. NCI'ertheless., the second of :\ Inrx's major allltlyscs, and the one most evident in his ell.rll' writings, thAt of nlienAtion, hns ncquired an illll)ort.lll1ce fllr grellter thnn hc imagined. i\ llI.rx's ann lysis huc nill,S Ilt showing tl1ll1 ill" commodity ~ucicty the products of men"s

I"bouracquirea material powef opposed to the prodllcerll, lind thnt thili cnuses the relations between persons to nppear "' relntions between things. This is the same conception that hns been t.nken up lind 50 strikingly IUlII lysed pllrlicultlrly by such writer!l as l\!arcuse and LukaCS under the nume of 'reificntion'. T he very wcalth lind eOll1plcx.il.y of highly de\'eloped societies hns, in this teSlJoect. mudc i\llI rx's ullnlysis more $igniflcant thll.n couid hu\'e been lI utiC'ipnted in the nineteenth l~ntury. The cont.emf'lOrory usc of~uc ll" concept liS flliellJltion is Uc"·ildrring. It luIS rl!<:clltly been Mie! of it: 'I ts e\·itlent rC$Onnncc rur noo-:\ Inrxi!t th inl:ers, in !toth the West and the East, for existenlinlist philvsopilcrs nnd theologiall!, for p!)"c,hiatrisu and industrial psycholugisl-s. for tlimcllllt nnd intellcctullb 'lI"! student rebels hns mennt that it has been widely extended nnd nltered in thc intcrests of a number of contemporary preoeeupntiolls.'! i-Io\l'e,'er, this "ery width of nppliclitivll I III~ ruubed ti,e conecpt of much of its userulne8~, nlld sollie or the most interesting recent (Ii ~cul!!ions lu,,"c beell o.bout the ability of the concepts contained in i\ ltlrx 's etlTly writings to identify and explain certain facton in e,;iating aocietiCi. The fru itful use to "'ruth r. l nl'X·s concepts can be put when gi"en 1\

suDicienlly empirical rererence is shown by B1auner'$ resear<:h in ChiclIgo on car-lISsembly workers, Friedmann's di sc\lssion of the kibblltz nnd current reseArch into workers' control experilllellts in Yugusl"\'i,,.

I 1.1Ikefl, • AJi~":lIion Ind Anomie', in PMI()I(>p~,. /',)Ii/ie, lind Socitl§.

Mar;J: ~ff)l'e J/arxilm

In Ensterll EUrope, on the other hand, it is the gap hctween ideology lind reality that hns enuse!1 the sprend of illt!!I'!$ t in :-01llrx'8 early writings, Pa rt icularly in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslav; .. , the early \\Titings of l\ la rx IUl"e hnd 1111 increasing influence on iutellectunk j\ fter KhI'lISIH:lu~v 's uCIJUIll:iatiOIl of Stalin in 195G, the humanist attitudes of the young i\'{arx were uscu ruI fl bflsis for opposition to relllnining St ... lilli~t clemcnu ill EAslern Europe, much Il~ lhe Kew Testament was ugeu by lhe Heformer~ to oppose t he Cl:Ilholic Church, In Czechoslo"akia t he 'hlllllll rl fnee of socialism' that the country's Ic>..,lcr.i were t ryi ng lo nchieve in W68 Jlrior to tlte Rus~ i tl n invflSion, and particulal'ly t. he '2,000 Woru~' Jl uwifeslo, tire very close to Marx's early works, lu l~olu lld the d i&ctlssioll begun i ll 19m) with the publicntion of J(olakoWliki's article ' Kllrl :\Inrx nnd the Classical Dcfillition of Truth '. This url,ide drew n shnrp distinction bctwecn the t heories of kllowlwge of the young Marx on tlll!: one hanu aod of Engds I\nd Lenin 011 the other, and implied thnt !\Inn: W;I& not n dialeeticui IlH<terinlisl at all in .Engels' (lnd Lenin's seose, Kolnkowski's ViCW8 wcre tHken up by Adllm Schu!l', II member of t he Ceutra l Committee of the COUllUuuist l 'lIl'ty, nnd e:l pnndcd into ~ n

in'Juiry illto the rellsons for sodnlism's innbility to du JLwny will i hllm:m aliellation,l Tn Yugols!.t\'ia, studies of the young :-OIarx havc l>ecu much more widllspread, And 1\ lot of 1I'0rk ha~ hef'n done on the sources or l\lnr:.: ·s tllought. T he mllin organs of the philosophers is the :t.ngrcll journal Pro.ril.

2 , T ill<: YO YNC M A RX AN D l\ I ATll R F'. MAII:lT~M

It is importnnt to ask whether thc carly \\Titings of :\{arx should be '-flluecl solely ror their own sake or whether, too, they shed light 011 the inspirfltion or i\£nrx's thought as a whole. As t he .\ bove quotatiuns rrom Marx and E ngels indicatc, they themselves sl'owe,1 no concern for their carly malH'scripls,2

1 See the "rtjd~ br Kolakowiki and SellaII' In 1k~I#io";I"" ed, L, Lat)()<1z (Londo,." 10(2); G, K )j,,~. ' I_.ek Kolllkow~kj lind the RIl"j,ion of M>lrxi~m ',

F,,,riJJI"'I" l'hi/woph!l 7'oo()!1 (Chicago, 1!l&\). I The follo .. -ing few 1,IKe!' are D slightly Bhe~ wr$ion of the last 5eCtion

of my Inlrod"rtion to A-II~1 J111~Z: 'Iht £'II~I!I 'It"'/I (O..r"rd, \l), O).

CoJJt~llUio"

Nc'·erlhelr_ ... ~, though i\ lnrx an,1 Engel! III-ter avoided the ' ilhilosophieal' Innguuge of t heir early years, and in the CVII/mu"ilft M rwifc4/0 derided the Gc.rmnn litemt; wbo 'beneath the I'rench I'rit.icism of the economic fundio n of mOlley, wrote "Alicnntion of lIu munity"',l they always recogniscd t hat-'thc German workillg+ clan moyemcnt is the inheritor or cl lI l!l!icnl German philosophy,'~ lI i~ colltcmpomries lUay III1-\'e been incapable of undcrstnndiug B llgel, bul l\ la rx lIe,'er 100t his interest in llim, IIlId it is ob,"ous that the problem or the continuity or ;\'{ .. r:.:'s thought is bound up with lois contilluing interest in Hegel. In 1858 he wrote to Engels:

1 am gctting some nice dcvelopmcnh. Fol' instance, I havc t.hrown over t he whole drn:triuc of proJit us it has existed up to noll'. In the mt!/luJ(J oftrentment, the fact t hat by mcre nr,r,;,lcnl. I h>l.,'e again glancec;l through Ilegel's Logjc l'as been of grCII.t ser,·iee to me - FrciligrAth round sollie "olullle8 of Hegel's which originlllIy IM!lnngctl to Bnkunin and scnt them to me as presenb. If lhere should c,'er be time for sueh work lignin, I 8110uld grcatly like to mnk e nCCC~$i Lle to the ordinary human intelligCllce, in two or tli r('(' printer's sheeu, II"hnt is rn/imml in t.he lIu:tbod wllidl Hegd discovered but nt I,he Sn lllC ti,Be el\\'eioped in my~ticism,3

I n 1873, in t he flflerword to the second Germnn {'di lion of Capital, 1\I11rx made clear his position with n!gnnllo Hegel ilnd specifiCA lly refcrred to hiscssuy on Hegel's uialedic in his ' l'aTis Mnllllscripb'.' Ellgcls, too, sllareu this dew of Hegel's import"nce. I,I his essay on l·'cuerbflch, he wrote: 'Wit.h H llgel philosophy comes to lUI

cu ,l : on !.l, t; une hflnel, because his system is in \\"hole de,'elojlUlcut in lhe most splendid fushion; find on the nthur lLUlld, becuusc even thougl, l1Iwo"sciotl ~ly, l H~ slu)we(1 us the way out of t he Inbyrinth or 8}'fIten's to I'MI positi"e knowledge of the world.'6

If, then, as these t'Juotalions SIIg!;I.'!St , there is SOme ullity in i\larxist tll0ught, what dOl.'lI this unity consist in and wllat a re tile tllemcs which are common both to the early alld to the Intcr

' 1\. Marx-F, Eagela, '11"5 Communi.t i\lAnuClIto', in &/«Im Wurkl, I Ga. • F, t:"IP!li!, 'Ludwig Feuerbnch ~nd the ~lId of Classical German Phllo-

,ophy', in M nrx- Engel., Selected WQ~kt, 11 '102. I K. iIlarx- t'. EHgel~, &/~/e" ('o~rt~p<m<k"C'f!'l" 102, • ~ tbe quotalion .OOT'l)" pp. 202 f. ' F. t:ngel8, 'Ludwig I'euerbacb and the Erod of C1a8l;ic,,1 ('-.(!rm~n Philo

-.;)]>hr ', in Marx- EngeL., &1«15 W,rb," 3G.j.

S!16

writings? OM possible i!.nsw€'J' is thllt Ilttempts to re"td i\ lllo:ism IlS n ' scientific' Moount of sociRI development are mist a kcn, ami Il lIllLhe ceutr><1 illspir><tioll ofi\ (llrx is refill y pseudo-relig ious 8110 that. the e\'idence for t.his is cll!IIN!5t in i\ IATX 'S efl r licst wrilirgs.1

Another vicw would clu-im tlmt i\ lnrx's centrul thesis is all etLicnl onci t hnt the el.rly wri ti ngs fire e\,jdence for t he moral indignation that leads him to aohere to the cRuse of the proletu.rint: (lJI(] t IHit TIegcl'~ influcnce II'RS not ovcrriding .a Thc most u~unl 111I8\\"CI',

howcvcr, is t ha t the prublem uf the unity of i\lllrxist thought is closely bound up with tIle question of the relatiollship "f i\lflrx to Il cgcl; thnt :\Iflrx nlll'll)"s relllllinccl iusom€'. sClise a Hegelillll; and tlmt the ellrly \\"ritilLgg are illlport:llLl since they document thc formation of Marx's attitude to Ilegel"~ philosophy. l .cnin himsdf il~lIt SUllie support to tl,is \'ie.w lIy ,,'rit,ing ill 1914: ' It is impouible lu fully grnsp Marx's Capitalllnd especiAlly the first ehRpt~1 if you havc not. studied or understood tlul u:hole of Hegel's Logic. COIlJlelluently, nOlle of the Mflfxists for the past half century has understood Marx !'I T he most usual document q110ted to ~holl'

1\ 1 un;'~ 'Hcgd i ll" j~ III ' is the ' Pllris j\[u",,~crirls' . Hecentl)', l:owevol', itlll\s Iwcn Ilminluined that IVl fll"x's decisive encounter ,dth H e:gel was a )"e:ar earl ier in his 'Critiliue of ll cgcrs P hilo£opll)" of' the. State' and that ",rurx's bmic ideml on materialislII, the disIIppefU'l\lICC of the state, lind eOll1muni!m life to be found here. '

If there werc a theme running through the whole of i\llIfX'S

writings, thc most obvious would Oe '"Iienation" a concept thllt Man; Ildopted directly (rom H egel, though its or igins Rre much earlier. T hose who claim to find II break bo,tw(len ll,e 'young' IIlul the 'old' Marx usually nminUlin that nlienatiou is a ooncept llml was central to Marx's early thought but wllieh he abll u<lollcd Illter.~ Sidney !look , fur c."'"lIplc, wrote recently : 'It is enbY 1.0 ~"ow tJlat tile !lotion of IHlIU(1.1l alienation - except fOI" the sociologieal meaning it hllS in Capiral - is (lctun lly foreign to l\ l lI rx'~ couecpwoll of 1111111 .'6 J\lId I)lIlIicl Hrll hus SlLi, l th lLt ' ' ''herens ill

1 cr. Tu~kcr, I'hi/owphy ",,,t J1yO. '" Karl.\tar.r. • Cf, Hubel, Karl Jro r.r:. fai<li d~ btOgruphit '"tdkdlll'l' •. I V. I. 1.000II;n, ,! ,"otoo in Sod"'i. U"m", .. i.m, nd. !-'ronlm. p. 69. • Cf. Ayin~ri. Tk SociIIJ lI11d Po/i/i(:(1l TAOUflht /if Kllrl Mar .... • (.'f. l.. F,,"~r, ' What ill "Iiell~li","? The Cal"\'o(" of a Col\CO:pt', Xt .. f'.:Iillu

(!I"illg 106"!). f 1 took. !'ralll 1l1'tJl.'1Io Jillrlf, p. Ii.

COliC/lI~ioli 217

the young :\IIITX there WIIS a double "i5ioll uf the Illltilre of a lienation ... :\Iarx '~ thought.! de\·elopt."l lIlollg olle nnrrow r01i11 of economic oonccptiolls of )Overty and exploiu\tion, while t he other road, which might III\\'e lead to TIeli', hUllIliliistic COllccpb of work nm! InooUl', II'ns lelt Uncxl)lored."1 'I'hes(l siate lllenh arc, hOll'e'·cr, iuuccuru l .... Not only the concept but also the tern) itself occurs Oil 8evernl occasions in C(lpitfli. l\ llIrx writes for exnmple: 'The cililTUctcr of imlcpcflliellce lind eSlrilngcmcnt which the enpitulist lIIode of prOliuction liS a whole gh<es to the i n~tnlmenb of laoouf and to the product, as IIga inst t he workman, is Ile'/eloped by menns of Ill tLchincry into n thorough antngollism.': Yet i~ is IIvt only u qucstion of terminology; the content, too, of CapItal is Il continuatioll of i\ lnrx's I!IIrly t houghts. The main theme of Voilime I uf Capital, surplus_vRlue, rests on the equRtion of work 111111 "Rille that goe$ hflek to the conception of man as a being who creates himself Rnd t he conditions of his life. - 1\ (:(,Illceptioll outlilled in the 'Paris i\lRlluseripts'. It is IU ~II ' S lIut ure - aceordinp; to t he :\Iarx of the ' Paris :<'lilnuseripts' - to be constantly ueveloping himself and the world about him ill ("o-opcrntivu wit.], othel' IIleli. Whnt i\lnrx ill Cllpitlll is describillg i ~ how lhis fundnmenl>'ll ",,1,111'1" of mnn _ 1.0 ~ the initiator Rml controller ut llistorica\ proccss _ has been lrnnsferred or nlieflntcll ,,11'\ how it belongs to the inhuman p,tlwer of cnpitul. The counterparl to alienatEd man, the ullillielillteo or 'totlll' man of t he ' i\lanuscripll;', Illso 1I111JeIln> in Capital. In t he chapter of Volume 1 011 'i\lllchi nery Kn,1 Modern Industry' ~llIrx IImke!l the SlIme rontno.st between the effects of aliellilted and unfl!ienated modes of production on the dC\'elopment or humnll potentilllit.y. He wri tL"$;

:\lOllerll in(\ ustry, inclcell, eoml)(!is society \lllIler pt;'llII lt)' of .11 ~lItll to replace the detail-worker of today, crippled by life· long: repetilioll o f one lind the s>'Ime trivinl opern t,ion, linn t1111~ reduce.! to the IIl1're frngmcll t of u. ""'''I hy the fully licve\ope(1 indi,·ilillul, fit ftl r u vll riel.y ofl"huurll, rMl ly to face I\lIy ehallgE! of production, and to wholll the different social func tions he performs arc but so many u\Qdes of gi" ing frce scope to hilS own nntlirRin!l{l RI:qllired powers.3

I I). Ilo.ll. 'TI", IHhlll .. on AIiP.II,.I;(",·. ;n Hn;";(,,,i., ... .... 1. I..,.b" .... I" 210. : 1\. Marx, ('flflltal, I -132. " I\. :\[ ...... , ('"pilll/, I ~1l8.

218 1I1ar,v biforc 1I1"rx;s?n

The fiLet that in Capital the conclusion is su pported by it det ailed analysis of t he effect of advanced t echnology should not obscure the continuity.

The section of Capital that most recalls the early m'it ings is the final section of Chapter J, entitled ~Fe ti shlsm of commodities'. The whoJ e section is reminiscent of the section on alienated labour in the ~Pari s Manuscripts' and the notes on James l\Ilill that Marx composed in 1844. IVlarx writes: ~ A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men's labou'r appears to them as obj ective character stamped upon that la bour ; hecause the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own 1abour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, hut between the products of their Inbour.'l He goes on, as so often in his earlier writings, to draw a parallel with religion: ~ In ord er, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world , In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of human commodities with the products of men ~s hands,'2

It should be r emembered, of course, that Capital is only an unfinished fragment of the task that Marx set himself. H e complained frequently to Engels of the time he was forc ed to spend studying economics. In the preface to the ~Paris n1anuscripts' he had outlined the programme of his life's work:

I will therefore present one after another a critique of law, of morality, politics, etc., in different ind ependent brochures and then finally in a separate work try t o show the connection of the whole "nd the relationship of the parts to each other and end with a criticism of the elaboration of the material by speculative philosophy. Therefore in the present work the connection of the political economy with the state, law, morality, civil life, etc. is only dealt with in so far as political economy itself professes to dea.1 with these subjects '

In fact , IVIarx never got beyond his first ~brochure' on political economy.

I K. Marx, Oapital, J 72. 2 Ibid . :l I\.. Marx, /<'riilte Schrij'ten , I 506; Easton and Gudd:lt, p. 284.

Conclusion 219

The continuity in Marx's thought has been demonstrat ed beyond all doubt by the publication, under the title Grundriase del' K,'itik der Politischen Okonomie (,Elements of the Critique of rolitical E conomy'), of the I ,OOO-puge draft that served Marx as a basis both lor his Critique of Political Economy (1 859) and of Capital (1857), The Grundrisse were published for the first time in Moscow in 1939, The time and place of their publication prevent ed their attracting attention and it was not until 1953 that there was an accessible edition. The Gruudr-isse, of which t he Critique of Political E conomy and Cap ital are only parlial ela borations, is the centrepiece of lVlarx's wOl'k. l It is the basic work which permitted the generalisations in the famous \Preface of the Critique of Political Economy\ a preface not matched by the work that follows it. i\1arx himself describes t he Grunddsse in a lettcr t o Lassalle as ' the result of fifteen years' research, that is to say the best years of my life' . The GrulldTisse consists of an introduction in t wo parts, the first dealing with money and the second, much larger, dealing with capital , in the form of prod uction, circulation and profit. Since it was only written for personal clarification, some parts of the Grund1'isse are very difficult to follo w, being written in note form and extremely elliptical. But in spite of its sornewhat fragmentary character, the Hegelian categories in which Marx forms his thought are obvious. Questions that were prominent in Marx's 1844 'ITitings - such as the tru e nature of labour and the resolution of t he conflict between individual and community - are taken up a.gain and filled out with a wealth of detail. Something of the tone of the Grw ulrisse is O'iven by the follo wing passage: b

The ancient concept ion , in which man always appears (in however narrowly national, religious or political definition) as the aim of production, seems very much more exalted than th e modern world , in which production is the aim of man and wealth the aim of production. In fact, however, when the narrow bourgeois form has been peeled away, what is wealth, if not the universality of needs, capacities, enjoyments, productive powcrs, etc., of individuals, produced in universal exchange?

1 Cf. K . Marx: Pre-capitalist Eooll onu'c POl'lIIatiolls, ed. E . 1lohsbawIll (London, 1064) ; M. Nicolaus, 'The Unknown Marx', New Left Review (Marl AI'" 1068).

HZ

Marx lx/are Maui,m

'Hmt, if not the full de,'eloplllent uf I'UIII,," cOlltrol u"er the forces of ullture - those of his 011'11 IInlure I1S well ali tholie of so-called 'nnhtre-? " 'llllt, ir !lot the nhwillte elubomtioll or his cre<ltive di5positio,,~, without II ny preconditions othl)f thnn I.Ult~ced~nt historicnl cl'olution which mllke5 the toltllity of this e,'o\ution - i.e. the el'olution of all human powers ~~ ~uch, unmCMtlrCI\ by ~tlLy p~l'ious established )"1'I.rdstick - nil cnd ill iu;clf~ Wh .. t IS this, if not II situation where man doea not produce himsclf in IIny d~terJllined futm , but product!s hi~ totality? Whl!.~ he does not seek to remain somcthing formed Ily the 11I'lit, but is in thc flbsolutc movement Qf becoII,illg? In bOllrgeoi ~ politicill eCOIIQlIly - und in thc cpocl, or prOf\uclion tn which it cOI'!'csponds _ this com plete eluoorutiml of ",hnt li l'$ withiu HUIII, D.ppenrs n$ t hl) totn l uliCllntioll, lind the destruction of nil fixl:!<.! one-sidetll'url'0ses liS the sIIeriliee of the end in itself to (t wholly externlll com pulsion. l

Tile Grulldri,u, then,are Il8 Ilegc1itl ll 88 tI,e 'Pllris Munuscripls' "11(\ thei r publication llUlke!l it impossible to maintain that only l\llIrx's ellrly writings lire or philosophicnl interest, and that in thl) later Marx speeilliist economic interesttluLl'/!! obseuretlllle earlier humllnist I'ision. The curly wri tings contain all the SUDsl)quCllt themes of Mnrx's thought tlnd show t hem in the llIaking. i\ Iarx·s work IC lids support to Aristotle'! laying that to underatll.nd 1\

thing one must liludy iu origins.

, Ii. :>Olaf", Pre-«lpllalia £roIlO,"ie FO">IlIliou, cd. lIohs\>& ... .." p. Hoj.

1818

''''' 1831 18:!!!

18.'16

IS'" 1838

183g

'"'' 18·11

IIW?

18·12

Ch ronological Table

May:

Summer :

(fttubcr: Autumn:

Octol>er:

Hirth of Mnn: 1I111rX bl!gins a t Trie r HIgh

School Death of Hegel D. F. SITiluss, Do, Lt~1f J,.,,,

('J'lrt Lift oj JUN') :>Ol nn: enters Unil'ersity of Bonn Seo:-ret engagement to J enny

"on WC!;tphAlen Mnn: Irllnsfen; to ~1in Man: jolrt!l Docto.,.' Club

Nm'cml>er: 'Cologne affnir'

Ja:tU:lry: May:

J"!lc:

Ff'bru:tr)' :

./unl':: January:

;\ I.reh :

Arril:

FOllndln~ of 11"lIitche JIII.r/;liclllY Dellt h of II"iurich Marx

Frederick WlUialll IV 8uceecd. to the tlorolle of PnWlI:l

Jo'fiuerbach publishes Tire JAltllU ~f Cltriroalljl!J

~"' r x lelll'C!i Her lin for Bonn Founding of H.,,~,.ju;h~ J.~llIIIK Marx Aim·"" to Trier Death of Baron ,·on

W"tphalen Mnn IIl0l''''' to Bonn

August: Schoolleaving ~tys

Early poetry u tter to his

fnther

Marx hegins doctoral theo:is

April: ;\Ia". ~"h .. mils doctoral thesis

." pM!: ·Th ... !'hlln""ph;",,\ i\h nl· fest of tile Historical Sel",ul of Law'

;\[ay: ·Dehatcs on the Freedu'" of the Press'

'"

I RI4

''''

.ll(lrl' lxJorc M (l1',ri6ffl

Octobt'r , Mnn beromr.t< editor of the IIA~iAiN"~ ron/illig

N'H'ember: Lor",,>. ,'on Stein p\lb1i5hC!l Soci"/i",, "lid Q."'''' ....... ill fAIIftWlptml"!/ "'ra1'~

Mnreh: S\lpp~" ion of RMi",,,"he lril.mg .\hrx moves to Krellz"""h Feueru..eh publkhe5 hll

I'nli",j~nr!l Th~,u

J"ne: Mnrrlnge of ;\Inn

Cktol>er : Man ,,,o,'ts 10 Paris

Ilcbruary; l' ul>\icaUon of lk!l1..:11· f"II".lIIUc/j( J .. Iorl1icMr

AI .. ;1 :

February: Marx expelled from Pnris

.luly: 'TI,e Le"d· ing ..... Iide of the K1JlniKM 7.ril""g'

'Communism and the tI~g.bMrg<7 tf/lgr..mM 7.fthlllg'

(ktol.oer :· Debate QlI the La ... on Thdl .. of 1imb.:r'

'0" " l'roposeti Dkort'C L:lw'

~ I ~reh _ August: 'Critique of Hegd'~ Philosoph)' of th .. Stllte'

).b ..... h, ~[ ny, Sept. : 'Leu"", to Hug<"

Oelober: '0" the J "wlsh QuC!ition'

J~nu,.r)': ' Introdudioll to II Critique of lIegel's I'hlloWI,hy of L.tt.w'

August: 'CritiC'aI ~otes on "TI'e King of Prui\S11I. "nd &<:Ial ltefonn" •

Summer: ' I"trig M~lluscriptll'

Select Bibliography

I . GtnlllI"

K. ~ I ar,,_ .". Engels. Ui.IbrUc!"l;riti~M GUllllltlllllSIlIK, ed. 1>. UjnllrlOY and V. Atio,"bklj (Ilerlin, 1927 If.) ( _ .\lEG:f).

K. ~ I arx _ , ... F.ng~ ls, Wtrh (Berlin, 19.:>6 Jf.) (_.HEW). K. Man:, fo'rfill, &lIrijlnr, ed. H . .J. Lieber I\I\<I I'. ' .... rlh (Stuttg~rt,

]962) . K. ~ [ aTx, I)j~ fo'rlill6Cllrijlnr, ed. S. L/l.n,il;hut (IJ.erlill, 19~5) . K: ~l.rx, Trlte:v Mdllod~ M~d l'r..n., ed. G. Hi1lm~"" (Hn",ln"g,

'06i0). K . Marx - 1". £uge1~, SI~di~IWIl'gllbt, ed. I. Feto;cher (l"rAukfurt, 1900).

2. E"Sli,4

K. ~larlO: . Early Writins" ed. T . U. Bottom".e (Loudon, 1963) . K. Man:, Writi"s, t>f II. , YownS M aT.% 0>1 l'hiiolophy ~~d Socidy, ed .

L. E.u t"n /tn!1 J\ . Guddat (New York , 1967). K. M~r~, Th, Early Tub, ed . D. M cLellan (Oxford , 1970).

:I. fo'u'llClI

K. ) 11ln:. CE"~rfl (;f1",p1t~" etl . .I. Molitor ( Pari~, 1935). K. Marx. MlIuKrifl d, 18-1-1, ed. E. BottigdH (Paris, 1(62). K. )lar): , (Enrtl. ~l. ~ I . lIubcl (Paris, 1!}621f).

CO""I:NT"R'&~

I. 1Joo/i, ill £,og/i,"

H . I'. Ad .. ,m, Kurl ,n a"" i .. Ai, Earfitr II'ril;"g, (~\(lon, 1!)M)j 2nd ed. London, 1965).

S . A"ineri, 1'M Sonlll (J1Id pqfilical TJ.()OJ.,Ai Df Kurt iHllf.% (C,uuhrldge, ]!)(i8) .

I. Herli". Karl .ulf"'" 3.d .... 1. (O~ford, ]9(>3) . IS. Dclfgaauw, TAt )"()OJ.I!lJ M", .. (London, ]967) .

J'farx brforc Jfl'lrxi.tn~

I'. Demel .. , M"rr. Engdl ond tM /'",,~ (Chi~ago. 1!165). I.. Dupr", Tht Pki/(}H)phiro/ }'()tmd"/;{)n' lif M oy,r;$m ( Ncw Yurk, l!ltiti) . ..:. Fromm (ed.) . &doli" /(umu"i&m (London, 19117) . I';. Fromm. Mnr",', OmGt!p/ nf M iln (~ew York. I!ltil ). H. Garaud}", 1>:",l Mm''' : 'I"h~ E~o/uli"u nf hi' Thought (LJndQn, 19f;7). S. H ook. From /Jeg~IIO Mn',~, Qnd ed. pl l~higall, IOOI!), Z. Jordan, Tht lirolution of J)ill/tcliCQ/ Jla/tria/i,m ( l ..oudon, 1967). E. Kamenka, 'I""~ lilhiclll f 'oumiutionl of .Varn,,,, ( Lcmdon, 19G!!) . G . Lichthcim, ]\[nrri'm (London. 1961) . N. Lobkowicz, ThtIJ'!!l!ml P'od;t:I': T ilt !fillD,!! ofn !\larxi,l Om""/,,

(Notre D"m~, 19(7). K. Liiwilh. From llrg<!l to Nid::.d,t (London, 1965) · D. "'!cLellnn, The Yq.mg I/tgtli",,, and Karl Mnrr (I ..on<l"n, 1969). H . :\I"rcusc , Rr(1$1>11 and /It''o/IIlion (New YOTk, 19H) . I'. I\lehring, Knrl Mo,:.; (l.ondon. 19S6) . B. Nioolnie" ~k\' and O. Macnchcn·H elf<!n , Korl Ma,.., ( I.. .. "'du" . I!}!.!G). N. Rolen.treic·h, ilo,ic l)rinciplt l of Mar:.;' , I'kilruoph!l ( [ndi:o napolis lind

:-<ew York, 1[I6~) .

J . Talmon. 1"h~ Origil/' ".! TotolillUion DemocraCy (London, 1952) . n. Tucker, Philosophy""'! M!!th in lIari Marr (Cambrjdg~, 19(1) . V. Ve,,~ble, Human ,\'a/llrt: 'l'h~ Marxian T' it lT (London, 19-H').

2. Ar/iciu in Engli'"

S. A,-ineri, . "Ian: :lIld Jcwi~h E"'~neipation', Jouma/ of Ih~ Il illor!! of

Idcal, .\.W (196~) . S. Avincri , 'The Hegelien Origins of )'lux's i'",litic"l T hought', fl.ecie'D

Qf M~laph9 .. icl (Sep 1967). D. llell, 'Two Iload~ from Mar~: '!lIC TII~mes of Alienation ~nd

F.xplo[tatlon and Workcrs' Control in &>Ci"Hst Thought.·, in 1'he 1:. .... <1

oj Ideology (Glencoe. 1900) , D. liell, 'The D eba te OIL AlienAtion', in l le1:i,ioni,m, ed. L. f, ,,bf,<iz

(London, 191:12) . 11. Bowl<:ll , "Il'e M"r~iml AliAl'Ultion ofth~ Ideology of Fuurier ' , Soulh

AI/t",Iic. Q"orltrI9' 1.1 " II ( 195.~) . D. Braybrooke, 'Diag nOliis and Hcmc<ly in )'lan.' ·~ D oct rine of :\li e nll~

lion', SociallksMrcA (autumn 1958) . G. Cohen, 'Bo\lTg1!OU amI Proletari6.115', JOllrnal oj Ihe IIi , ,,,,!! ".! /Jeol

(J an 19M). • •• F. Conklin, 's...me :\speew of the )'larxi~n l'hi\osQphy ",f Go.r:l , 1 he

Nelf' & hl)b"lici, m, .u,·'" ( 195·~) . L. I·:""ton, ·AliellQl.ioll ""d History in tha ga rly ~ l nrl< ', 1'IIr·IMOph.y o/tll

"h~no",cnok'gica/lI~u",cI, (Dee 1!1(1 ) .

Select /Jib/iogmpll!1

l. FetschcT, 'The Young oml the Old MlLr.x· , ill Mnr.r 111111 /I" IV .. , irr" World, cd.:S:. T.Qhkowlc. (Notre Dame. 1967) •

L. 11 ,,11 .... , 'Marx 's Uc!igiou" Drama', Em:ounl~' (Oct. I[I(5). i\J.lbrriHgton, ':\ I "n "<!,,;us Mnrx '. N~", 1'lIIi/i,~ (au tumn 1[161 ) . A. L. linn-is, ·Utopinn l'.le",e" b;in :\larx's Thollghl'. t:lhic,.~~ (.Jan 1f)~(I). D. Ho<igeli, 'Th" Young :\ I ~n" A Heapprai~a['. I'hill)lophy a"d I'h .. ,,(1-

IIttnological Rlitarck (Dec 1000). W. Johnston, • ;'Il ar.~'8 Verse of 1836-37', Jourllal aj Iht Ili"MY of Idt ll$

(:\pT 191.l7). E. Knm""ko, 'The Primiti,'e Ethie of " "rl Marx', A UIlrall1linn .IouriM/

oj 1'I.iu)$I>I'h.!!, X.Ul' ii (1957). ~. Lobko\\"icz, 'Mar:<'s Altitode towards f{eHgion', in ,unr", and Ih.t

IVu/trn World, ed, N, [ ..obkowic~ (Notre Dame, 1967) . K. l~wilh, 'Self·alienation In the EaTly WTiti"g'< "f ~IHrx', Soc,,,1

IImnrch (19H). S. l."k .. o5 , 'AlienAlion ""d A""mie' , In ")'ill)6l)ph.V. Politic, and So<:;~I."

3,.<1 serie.~ . etl. P. IJL~ldt anti W. G. Runciman (Oxford, 1967). S. ,\lOOTe, ' i\larx nnd the Stat<! of N"luTC', JOt",'al oj Iht I/;,/ory 0/

PhHMOphy (1(67) . }:. 01<sen, . ~[nn' amI the He!'urre<;lion', Jot/",ol oflht Hil/I)', of Jd~a~

(19BS) . .J. O ' \!aHey, . Hlslory and MalL's "~ature" in Man', R~ci~", 1/ 1'1)/i/ic"

(Oet J9oo) . .I. O ·Xeill. 'Alienation, Cln~s Struggle nnd M~nin" Anli·poUtie«·,

Ht"i~", oj J /tI"phy, ics (19<H) . .1. O·~ei11. 'The COl1C"'pt of E 'trangllmllllt ill the .E:lrly and Lnter

Writings of K"<I Marx', 1'/,iI(}H)p"9 and 1)/'tno"'t1/%gi~al Rruarch (Scp 19(H)

1 [. l 'UT$On', "I1'e Propheti c ;'I1i, <i on of KaTI ;'Ila,~' , JOUT""{ 'if ReliSion (Jnn 196-9.

11. I'rHlIg~r. ':\18ro< ""d PoliliMl ThMry' , 11.t:1';t l~ of 1'00ili£1 ( Apr 19GB). ;\1. Hader, . MAn's l nterprettLtion of .o\rt nnd Aesth~lic Vnlne', IJrilish

Journol of A~sthrti£, (1(67). A. Hynn, 'A ~ew Look nt I' rofe&Sor T\lcker's ~ I "T"', l'oIili,,"/ Shu/itt

(1967) . A. Schaff, THi <!", uf Fromm and Tucker, fiislor!! and l'/'to'!!' n ( IOO!l). T, Sowell, • :'>ia rx and the Frecdom of the In<li"idual', F.l/li", (Od 1002).

3. Bf}O/a in Frcllch

I .. Altlinsscr. I'"ur ,Ifar,r. VIA~pero.l'.1T;g, 19M). K. :\xeios, Marx, ptll,"~r lit la It:r:",,'qut (F.ditions de Min"it , I'nTi.,

1961) .

,llIIr;tJ btJDre Mar.rinn

I':. 1Iuuio:"m, Gc"iu '/H ,fIt·ill/i,,,,," lCienfifiq~e (l?d i ti o'l~ Stw-IIIII'<>, Par", 1!l(l1).

J . Y. C:lh'('~ . La 1't1,m de Kar/ Mar~ (Sell;], l'Mis, 1956). A. (' .. mill. Kurl M urz. &. rif: rl_ ,rwrl'l' (Alcan, l' ... ri~, 19~H). A . Curnu. K,,,I Jfarx tl Jo'rjtJ,ic/, E"ge/,. 1,~r rierl tarrU, 3 \'Db (l'rC51JiClj

Uni""-",i!a;...,,. .1,. Fu, ... """ Paris, 1955-G:i). G. Cottier, 1.·.4thii,IIIe '/NjtlrtU M(l' .r. (Uri n, PBri~ , 19$9). ... Colli~r, IJ u romll"';,,,,e all r/llf1'ri, me (Abatla . I'llr~, 1001). I!. Ik~toth~, MlIr:tilmltl rt ligiou (P.U.F., Paris, 1!}(l2). II . ~Irochcs, Son'(lIi,IItu cf HJri"["gie n:lig;n<1f: ( I't1ri~, 196;;). R. Garaudy, Ko.r/ lifll., ( Khen;, Paris. 19«)4.). F. C~goIN:, A IIX «JNrt:r' de U. pntmth M arx: //I~I. Fntrood (l.o,,,,. in ~nd P~ ri_., 1941).

II . r ~(eb ... e, 1-"" ,uatmllli""f: d;lJ/teDque (t' .U. F .. Pari •. 19S7). II. i..ef('bne, ilfarx.' '" ";",...,n mor n ( P.U. I~ .• i'lIri<, I9(H). II . de Lubnc, l..e n,"mf.lllrI·h muni.me utllie (Spes, Pari§, 19·J.!l). K MAn del, IA F_o.lioll de lu P,nue tro~(J",iq"e d,. Karl M"r~

(M ~SIH:':to, Paris, 1007). P. Na,·llIe. I.e NOllCenN Lirio.lnu1I (pari., (957). It. Qllkie •. Afarx tI E"gih, potle. p lercure de france, Paris. 1935). L . Somerhausen, L'''" ... a~;'",~ lJgi6lanf II~ Knrl.1farx (PllriS, 1916). C. W~ckcnhein" Ln Fail/ilt de I" n ligion Il'aprh /';lId M"r~ ( i'ari~,

l00.Q). E. Well , IIrgel d 1'£ 11l1 (1' lIrh, 1 9~).

.... Arlkltl ill FfflIdI

11 . C. I:ko;rochcs, '$oclaH<me d sociologi.e du christillllisme', Cnlliu. l"ltr~nli,,,,au~ If" &",;,,1(l8i, (1!)5G),

ll . I)ur hnc, 'BouTs:,,'<' I~ l c cl prolCtariRI Il lrn"~r~ l'rel1H C (I,. " Inrx· . Cnhi", I"lunalio"u ,,~ d(' Sociologi~ (1901).

. \1. DUrN·IUle. 'His\oire ct hi,toricit": lin .sped <1(' III .w)C1,,~!e du jcunc ,,11 •• x', Clhir:r. IlIlentnliolln~.r th .~iJlogi., (HU3).

E. IJroIller , 'CI~SK:S ct ",ppor~ de c1a~ d~m Ie! prcmi .... e< " ·UHe!; de Marx'. CtJhi.,rl I nl"nalif>ltau de Socialogic (19H).

O. Cur,'i(clt , ·T." ~lologle .I ll .Jel1ne "lau', Cu"iu.lut('ril(/li"",IU~ d., &c:iologit (1918).

J. I lyppolite,' M arxlsme et l>hn~l)hie', lIe,·"eSocinlillr, ", '~I'rlnlcd in: tl~dtl 'N' IItgei 1'1 Marr, 'lnd ..d. (I'Dris, 1!)65).

,J . Ilyppoille, ' De \n $tnJel"re l,hilo5ophi'l"e d" "Capital" ~t qu<;IIIII"" pr<!$" I'~C'O l'J.ilnl;nr hi'lues ,Ie r .. ·u .... e de " ' •• x'. 'J~!ll'Ii1l dt /11. HJri~ifMllf"itt de l'hibuopMt:. U lI (Oct 191a) (reprinte, \ 11._ "ho,e).

J . 11)'1'1'0\;1(', ·L.1 Conr('1'l lnn h<!gc Ue.nnc ole l'r,tnl et ,n .. dliqu(' par

Karl ~fnTl(', O,hia, ',,In''lItio,,tlN~ ,/~ Socir>logie (1!)~7) (rqlrlnlt'd M ..bo,·e).

II, J R'gnr, ·S.1I'igny U M R. " ', Arclrirtl rI~ fll l'hi/lMI)phin ,IN /Jr",1 (1!.167).

,, 1. !l"be!, ' J"a. Cahlen d'el"'!"" de K ... I !\Ian (18·10-185')', /~IrrIUIlional Refir"" of &n,,1 /linn., ( 1957).

~ 1. Rubel, 'Scieuee, <!thlque et ideologie', C,,/tier. / n/tfnul;olll'u ,It &ci%gie (l91:iG).

It ,'nn dcr GuChL, ' AvcntnrCII UU ma. xlsme·, Fr(rCI '/U MOil/lr, XI.V (19M).

.J. BaTion, /lTgTI NM die ",llrri.liN:/',. &ntlllUnU (Ikmll, 1965). H. Barth, IVnn,neit Wild Id«JhJgit (l nriei" 1 9~) .

K. B~kker, Mar.r· pnilo.ophi,de EnltricH~~K _ Sci" f'rr!tll/lNj, rtI Urge (7. ii.lrh, 191{) .

K B1~h, 1)n, l'rin: ip Ifuffn"ug. 2 wls (Berlin, 1 95'~ r.). W . Blumenberg, Klld Mn" ( 11 ~mburg, 10011). K, Bockmuelrl, UiblidtNit ud GcsclUcn"ft (Gutllngen, 1961). 1\ . H. Brener, 1Hr J""!fr! MlJ1'x _ s..; .. II'~ :M", Ko",,,,ui' ''''iI (CoI"!!,,,e.

19~~). G. Dicke, n u Ide~l;tllllgt({u~~"t bei FeNubach '",rl Mau (<Alogne

Opl~den, 1900). ;\1. Friedrieh, I'nil<u(Jpnit NIld Oko>."",ic lJt,i",j"~gt" Mtuz (llerHn, 1960). G. HUlmann. Kllrl .\IlJ": 'l'uk t". J\fn!tode "lid 1" llri., S ,'Obi (Hmn-

buTt!'. 1900). G. B lUmaun, <V"u ull lltgil (Fra nkfurt , 1966). .J. Honllncs, Du led"i«h" f :1'(}I (Frd burg, 19.15). P. KAg', Grlleli. d., Iti.toriztnfll l\I,,/uill/i ,mll' (V,ellnn, I~),

11, Klagu. 'J ,«n,,;«h,., lIHI",,,,il>lm' .' Pnilowp~i" ,,00 S/"t"inlosit d,., ." dIeit bri .U nr/: (StullgMrt, l oo ~) .

H. ""nlg. Die Rn";~i.d~ Z";hr"8 .,.... 1842/3 i. i~rn F.inlltlJ.,"~ :;wr Jr,·.lllIrpofitil- rln Pre,milCnen S/.aal~. <"Inn.tt r, I!>-Zi).

~\. Kuenzli, ,u"u _ Ein,. /" !fC/,agrl1p/,ie ("le " " ~ , 1006). S. i.uII,I"hut, h'ar! M"u.' f)ie Jo'r r.nn:/,rijttn _ E;,rldl~nlJ (Stuugart,

1 9.~.1).

K. L..~\\"lth . t'OIl Urgel:" N;tI:«!re. 2nd ~ .. 1. (Sluttgarl, 1950). /I. " 1 4S$I~z"k, Dcr ",~"""hlicAe M fn«h (, ' io::nna, 1968). G, Meude, Karl Mn'" Enl.n.;J;I"'g ro .. ,.,.,'OI.finnlifttr IJe_Mft" :-or",

h ~"'M"n~I('I//.!ln! "d. ( Ik rlin. 19(0). S. " 1lI!.:r "nll l}, S,,,rn(b kl. K",' lIur~ in lk,li1l (Berlin, 1 9~6). I I. ~I o)l~. h'n./ Ml1u ~~d '{', i"" (Trier, (964).

228 JI/arz kJore .U{lr~ilm

T. Oisernlan, f)i~ f:/IIII""'I1I8 de( M9rzilfil<J.~1t l'hilOlr1p/1ie (Ikrlil), l!}rp) . ,1. Plengc, Mllr~ /lild If~&d ( r ubingen. 1911 ). ,\ 1. nedillg, Du polilirche .-ltIJ<:i'mu ( \'l eIma, 19~7). It. 5nnnwllld, Mllf:r und llie 1I>rIU'c (BILst!. 1951). A. Seh~fr, Mllrs;""". "",l!lUl mClUCldich~ Imlh'id"«,,, (ViennA, J9(5). H. Schiel, Die U"'H"~/I dnj~>lgM M arl ( 1', ;c1.19640). A. SclUlIidt, /kr JJ~8riJfd6 Na/Ilr ill da Ldru'01I Marz (Frankfurt Ilm

Main, 19(2). W. Sclmlfenhauer, Fntr6c.dt II1Id dtr jrtllH~ MUTZ (lkrlin, 1965). W. $ens, Karl MIIN':. &illl!' ''''r;ligi/lle En/",ieJdlUlg .,.ltd Qilli~"ritllic!te

Ei"ltt{//l1I8 (HAile, 1935). H. Stuke, PlliiQlf1pllit dtr Tat (StuttgArt, 19<\3). I~. Thier, D a, J [,n",h",bi/d dujl/n&fll Mou (COUing"", 1957). W. netor. Jlurz lind I-it-im'. Srd ed . (UcrHn, 1953).

G. ,irticl.., ill Camilli

D. 1l1lulllgarten , '01"", den """ rloren g<,:gllluhten" Anh~ng 7.U Karl ~ I au ' Doktordissertlltion' in (jtgttlll'arl'1'robk"", .1", So::iowgi~. Alfm Jlit ,lmnlfl &:1/111 SO. G,f,urld"g, cd. J::.i<errnnnn (Pobd,,,,,, 19.19).

I ~ . Bloch, ' !Jc. Student !\Inr,,', Sin~ "'If I Form, 111 i ~ ( I!M l). F. BorkenRU, Kurt MIl.,r - AUIn'"hl uml Ein{tilll:ng ( I';<~her IIndH· .. ·I,

F,.,nkfurt Illn ~lnin, 1956), F, Ddekat, 'Vom Wesen des Geldcs ', MarrilHlllnllldiCII, 1 (19H). I. retcSCher, 'Von dn I'hiiosophie d es I'ffl!cbrinb lIlI. prolet~riSf'hell

Weltanschauung', M"rnl/J'Ullllldit" , II ( 1!~7) . I. Fetsche!, 'Das Ve,h;lllnL' de!! .\ l llrsi ~mus 7.11 Heger. Mu,,rj,,,,ul

Iludi"", ill (1900). J. Gebhardt, ' Kll rl .\ Iarx und Uruno BiLuer', PolililCAe O",/~u1lg 111111

"',"!lICk/ieh" F.,rillrne. Ftllga~jU. }:rie l'Q('gt lin ( ~l lLnich, 1!)6'l) . H. Golhdt7.cr, ' I)iu IlIl1rxisti;;chc Rcligiorlllkrilik nnd ehristHcher

CllItlbe', Mflui.m,,,,ludir,, , 1\' (19<J~) ,

C. C.u~nherg, 'Urkundlieh..s aus den Un;"ef'!lOitil.tsjahrc.n \'011 Kn.1 !\Ian', .4,dtjv ftr al~ Gacltir},l~ au SodlJliuUII 11M "n' .4,bftltr~N'tgIlN&, .~n (19'26).

C, Gruen~rj!, 'Man: HIs Abiturient - l'rkundHche Mitteilungen mit Einlcitnng', .~ ,eJ,jcfo' di~ G~lChichl~ d~1 So:iali~",,,, nd rlu A.beil~rbe"'eg~ ~g, XI (1925) 6.

H . Hi rsch, ' Mof" und dM rel igm~e OpIum', Gei'l ~n,1 'Fal, P "Ill (19$0). H. Hirsch . '~ [ D.slanl1 J udllica', C,,},jen de /'l~'EA, Ser;e~ S (1963). [I. Hi~h, '~lnucns Milieu', CoAle" d~ /' / SEd. Seri~ S (1965). G. IInnlem~nn. 'Ocr C edanke der SeU"'lenttrcmdung bei 1\ .. 1 ~[" .. :

1

Sd.:ct Ilihliograp"!1

IIntl in dcn Utoplen von E. C.bet bis G. Orwell', Zri/«ltrijl ft. Ikli~D'" "nJ Gti,kl&tldicAlt, n (19.H),

A. Kober, ' Karl ~hrx' , 'ater und das lH.pokon i~he An.'''lIl'' "cgbN~

gcgcl1 die J wkn. 1808', Juhrbuch Ju "~/"IIC1tCII Gc.u;hkhitlrcnint, XlV (1932).

L. LRmigrebl! , 'Hegel und ~ [ .. n', M ur,ri,muuludifn, I ( 1 !15 '~) .

I,. Landgrebe, 'Ollii Problem der Di~kkcil,',MfI.ri'''"tfl/ud~n, tIl ( ] !)OO). K T..en~, 'KIl.1 ~ 1 ,1.r); nbcr dle eplkurci;.che I'hllosopllie', in A,dti~flr

die Gachidlll' .It, Stri"li~""u IIna an' ArhtilcrW1«&lIIIg, .un ( 1918), 1'. LtKb, 'Zur Situation der MIl.x- FOf$Chung In Wat-!l:uropa', KiJlnu

l.tilrcAriftfo, & : 'o/0Rle ud So::ia/phi/l)l(Jplti~ • . ~ (19~)· W, M~ihofer, 'Recht und SUat im Ocnkcn dl!S jUllgcn ;\hr~', in

Karl ,\[a, .z; /818- 1!J68 (no editor) (;\lnlnt 1968), I-I. MlIrcuse, ·N.mc Quell/: ~ur Grundlcgung dcs historisel,en MKtcr i>.

lisnms', Di~ Gu~II'cAnft, IX ( 19S2). £, ~Ictzke. '~Icnsch und Geschiehte 1m urspronglichcn An","h des

~11l.),'sdlcII Denken~ ', ,\[n,xU1Hwul"ditll. 11 (1!)S7), II. ~Io"x, 'Die sod ale Lage der eitcrlichcn I'amilie \'on J\ ~rl ~ I .. x '.

in /I:ari ,un .. /818- 1!J6iJ' (no editor) (Mllill". 1968), T. nllmon, . Di" kOnl\igc Ge:.c'1:.chllf\$()rdnung nlleh dt.r Thcorie ,'on

M Kn uu,ll'.ngcb' , J[n,ri"nwlliudirn, II (1957), ft. I\;ch, ' I);" krYI'Il)rdig i1hen ~Ioti\'" in den Frl\h~chrift.cn ,'on K~rl

I> l u x'. ,[,A#!I)logiIr:A~ l.e;/rcllrift, \'II (19$ 1), (;. itnhnnos"., 'Sli1l~la"d lkr Dialektik ', Mar.ri'mul("di('A, \. (19f>3), 11.- :101. ~"-<. 'I-'.,u"rb:lell . tatt ~[ .. r~ ' , InkflfuliWln[ lke~HI nJ Socj,,1

lIi~Inr..' ( 19M), H , SehIOlO'in, 'Gn""h:ngc de. l'hiiOllOphle df!'> jungc:n ~ I Kr), ' , SI"di ..

I'IIi/nlOphiC(l, x,',. ( 1957), U. Stein, 'Karl MaTx und de. l(heini!'Ch" 1 ':tull<:ri~"'''~', Jahrb~d ,Ier

ktJlnilch'" Gt ICAidd'l'ertin', XI\' (1932). I'.. Th;er, 'Etal'!'<'" tier ~hrsintcrprctatlon', ,uar:rilmUllhtllit:n, 1 ( 1 9~ ~).

7, BooJ" in Ila/III/' .\1. dal Pra, JA dill/cl/iea I" tl!"r,ll. (S ... ri, 19M), G. Pischel, M".,r Gia'.""1N! pUlan, 19111). M. H05Si, ,un,:r t In "i"ktIKa Itrgdial«l (Rome, 196'.i!). A, S.betti, SII1l4jondtl:ionr: dd mQlrriQ{i'flfQ IIQrl<tJ (Horenee, l~),

Index

AlItn_tlon. l~. Ill, l:i!l, 140, 14$, 16511'" 11611"., 19tiif.. i ll 11".

Aiknsr.::ln, K •• 110 Alth~. L .. ii!l~ "merle«.. WI. IS'?/I'. A,,"~kr, F .. \lb A ri.t"Il~. 6~. ~11f .• 69, 190, 2;?O Alh~i.m. (1.1., 69, 12(1, III I. UH. HI If. A u~rbAeh. B.. 71

lIabetlf, G .. 18.'1 IlGill .ul. J .• 1~4 llakunin, )1.. 61. 9 1, 01. lOi. lilOfI' ..

loll, i . oS I;""~r, U .• ~. t,llt .• 6-4, Mil., 81. M If ••

19.8 1 r .. 9!!. OS, 100t, 10-1. ISO. I~ If .• 14!l. 1 9~

i!.o.ntr. ~::... 1/ 1. 1"6 lie.Un, '~,.u. !II. 98, 101. l iffl. 1:10. , .. !.k.""yJ. F •• 131, 157 r. U~rl\,\trln. K . !KIe If. Ilil",e, J ... 131 BI"IIIJ"]' It., 18i1 BI""",," It .. 911 lillI''''', I~. 18 Huhl, L.. 126 nu ...... ",..,"'. I J.s If. Hurd. J:'~. WIi, 180

Cnbd. E.. lin , lSI , 18.'1. 185 Cupi'ul. 110. I ~. 5lO6 r .. fl IT/f. Carlyle. T., 164. CathQiicio"" 7 ff. Chrhlian S~te. 751., 7t. ii7 Chri>.ti.n;ly. 7, lD. 'lit .• ~ $4. Wt.,

Sift' •• 101, 112 , 115, Ul, J!H, 1!IIi, l ~'., 1M, 176

Cl_k."",ki, A .. 1.9 Civll.5tJ!,lety. 100 . 110 r .• 116. 120 tr .•

I~tr. Class. 1I..'i. J19. I~ tr .. In CoJ"IJ'''~ AJI'mir. Sf .. 31. 'fl. 83. II~

Communj"n. 93 If., os. Ht6f .• lUll, I~l, 141. 166. J6Sf •• lSOff .• Illi t .. HH. "I~ If.

e""' ...... ,! JI,,*ijulo, I ..... , 'lO7. iOO Cnndorm. ~! .. quOs dc, 164 C<)n.l"~r.nl . \' .. 1.')1 c.:.n~t .. nt. II .• I I Critiql«lof P..Ji,iMI ;:..,,,,, ... y. 'lOO. WI9

I)allltnann. F .• 10 de StAtI. Mn'l~. 1M 1)",nocNoCY. ltl!tr .• 1l?3, tiM. I ~. l!Ul d·~:..t~r. K .. ~.s Dctult de 'I',.ey. 171 lH .. j~'" J"lo"'~lo". 8;, 100. 10311' ..

un.13i DI""<~-fM~:40; ... h,Jak1'Ml<Mr, I().~f ..

108. Ii(;, 130( .. 100. 16~. '!tI9 net.m)', 'f .. I ~ f. 18.1(. 1)1.~j.,.l1,l9i'tr. DlIkrot. 0 .. H Dllthty. \\' .• '<110 1~·Clull. MIff .. 67.91 O1IlllllJt"r,I .. 9

Eng.ola, Y .• 5, 17. ~r .. 34. 91, 94, 97, I()'l, I ~. loll, H I, 161. 168. 16:', 181 f .. 11I.I, l!Od If •• WI I, ~ Hr.

Epic".u," 3.5, .s~ If .. M fI' .. 70 E __ of Cltr;,' ..... 'y, lin f.

t'.IIe",k~ . H .. I I Fell.hi,,,,, 0' r. FeuCTbo.ch, 1.. .. 14, 61, fl!l, 77, &, IOJ.

1071f .. l:1O f., 141 11' .. 148, 168. 16~.

111. 18G, 189, HM. i()Of .. 9071 .. WI" Fi,:h!". J .• If, 4$ If .. 59. 61 t., 11 FourW!r, C .• 1.1, ~6, 0:1, 11!7. loU, liB I·',,ffitl'!ck \\un.", I II , 1. :10, 7,~, M ~'rWtrlck WUI .. ,,, IV. II. GI . 9 7. 100,

ll ~. 161 f '"i, •• S7. 9 1 r .• 08. 1608. l~ hdllJrath, F., II. ~ 1 6

232 J/ar~ ~fore Jlar.t'i8m

r .. n ch HcV(>1utlon, 1.9, IGr .• 19, 7!l. 131, ]38, U~. I"'. 160

1'"",,1If:1. J .• 11)'2, 104, I!IO. 1.'>8

Galt. L., H, 2.'0 t. GaM, E., 14. \10. !lOr, C: ... udy, ll •• ill! G~rllLCh. L .. 1 G,,,,,,,, .. lJ'lII"'9!1. SO, lICI7, 900 God"", J ., 33, +1, we 0(1 • ...,.. J .. II (;,lIn, K.,.a G"",d,iu" ~19lf. Cuhlk",,', K. . IS

lIalli..,Jt~ Ju~m~dt"', 7!2, 81 Ilambo.ch. ~ H"Mlcllbcrlj'. K., 2, 3ft !l~g<'l. G .• 10. 13. !!Off., ~Jf., ...sr .•

illll" .. l(Mr., I IOff" I~, I3&. 142 If" IIi!, IM, I6S, Hi;), 186. l!lllf .. i!IOtf.

J!,·i"~. II., J:lf .. 21, «. 71. 106, [31. 148. 1,s1, 169

IIth·~t;"s. U,;Kl() He"~tcnber8', E., 7 Ilem"'~ X .• 69. 87 r.o 02. 133 Ilrrwt:gh., G., 11.98 fI'" l30f .• 1:)0, 158.

HH,189 lien. M .• l ~. lir, 61, 81. !lgB' . . lOll, 100.

]!IOt .• HI . I-W, 158, 161. I~, 184.

'" lli,turic.Ai Sehool of l .... w. 79 f. HI\Ifl<"". T., 9$ Holl>ueh. I'.. 7 1. !.'OIl lIo1y FllmiEy. )41,007", 'lO9 lI "ber, V •• 8 Hngo. Go, 1Gf. lIulnt. 0 .. Hi. 5£', <i8

J aenhy • .I., 83 J .. d,e, K.,9 Jung, G .. 81, R6

K.nl, I..~, ~ If .• 52. 6~, 7. W .• 83. 101 K"uLiky. K .. 908. 21\ If. Kkrkegaard, S .. 61 Kojbe, A .. 2 1il KoI.ko..-ski. I~, 1l 1·1 KOl"'I<:A, 7.~{f~ "g. 81. 81. 97 K/iMig,/Horgtr Z,i/uny. ~1.11 1

J.:llrl'm. K .. 50. 54. U. n. 13 Koneh. K .• 1I 11 r.

Krelllnlleh. lO:if .. lOll, 130. l ~ r .• I~~.

'" ""/1"1", ... "", I . .. 007

L. ~Iettrie. J., U r...", .. rtiu ... A .. 1:11 I ~"lrn."'is. F .. I:IJ Lrls.i4l1e. F .. l!09. !l11l L.,... 8!o. 95 If. Ua~u., oflh.,.I".I. /:11. 151 I.d,·b\·~. H .• !lI!! [ .... Ihul!. G .• 15, !hi. 5!! uniu. V .. 9 11. iil-H, L.-rou~, I' .. 1M L • .,;kr. K .• 163 I.-Ing. G .• 16. 911 Ln·a,.....ur. It .. 1M Lib('r"!;"1H, lor .. 25. 74, 18. 1O.~ Ll.>!. I" .. 8 1. 147 I .....,k~ •• 1 .• 15. ~>!) Louis XVIII. 100 l.o,,;"-i'''ilippc, 109 , 130 Luk4<"<.G., ll l lt. LUI!u: •• M., 108, l5O. 18 1

"'lac"la,·~JIi. N .. IS M.tthu~ T .. 16' Mandeville, Ikrnard. 110 i\IMI"CIl!l<". II .. >'1:1 i\IR~".I,.'; .• J8'l M.,.,.. E .. !?7. 33 M3,.,.. II., '1() If .• !J.~.:I9. 4~. 51 M ... ",. 1.: •• p ..... lm. St, ,,110 Table of

Conl,..,to ~hlllr .. r, G., 131, U7 Mayer, G .. IlIO Md .. ing. 1' .• !!(II) M ... I ... ,,-I'OIII)'. ) 1., ill!l ~Ietl .. rnlch, C .. 13 ~I",·i~". G .• 10.81.91 Meym. E .• !!II Mir.hekt. K .. .'lO, 8.5. 61 Mi","" !, 1(., 15 ~ Mill • .I .. IU. 11~.!lOG Montf!l;quleu. C .. II. lill Mlllier. A .. 1 ~ I y~t!fic.tio". 1M

~·"polt:On. I, 17,31.78. 8.iI . I~S Newlo". r .• 15

Old IlegeIlans. 2'0 If.

Judex

Opvc"hd",. 1J" 81 . 9) O""~" . It .. 161, IS·l

Pa.is. 91. 131. III r .• 1M. 16 1 I'l-cquc~r. C .• Id6f., ISO Philo!;oph)", III If .• 558" .• b1 If .. 1-1'1.

14<;. I"" If. l'lato. ~3. 6J, 1-1 l'JeklllUl<)". G .. !K18 I'leult<:. J., gil I'luto.rcll, M. 6Of. 1'I"IJJ:i •• 6H .• 61.H9 l'ri"Mlt: I)ropen)". II!:!f., 11". 1~7. 1:l4,

16H .. IH. In. lSOf .. ISS Proltl«''''I. S, 160 If .. 160 l'TOmdh~IJ' • .'i5. ~9 }'Muuhon.I'., 9:1. II;;, 1.:l1, 111. 160.

16.l f .. lill .IS I,\IO; I 'm""i«. I. :-I. il r., 7. '1? 8" .• 100. IOj,

'" Hadic.n"". II If .. 10·' n .. d",..lb. J., IS U ... "ke, 1-, S, 109 Il.ti.on"!~,,,,. 75. 8 1 If. Heifictttiun. !W, 91 1 lteligion. 10. 3 1 I .. It! I .• tiS ft"., 1" ft' ..

8:ill" .• 9i1. IOj, liZ. 11-1, 119, J ~ j, I~I. J33If .. 1I~1f .. 150, 169ft' .• ISS, 218

Ilenard. J .. 81 lIc:voluli01,. IOJ, II'::'. J IS If .. I~:llf .•

[.lo8ft", Jlhe; ... Uc~, Ztil .... f/.:'O. S:. 90 If .. l,;.t.

lEU, !IO:, 'lO9 HhindK"rl.9f .. 8If .. Q1,133.16' ni~ .. rdo. D .. 11 6, 16SI .• Wi , 21H Hlg"ls.13~ft" .. J:i71f. I (omanlic~,u. 41 ft" .• 79, IS5 I. n"""ukrn"~, K .• 10 IIvU«:k. K .. II I .. 14 HmtS5<'ftu, J .• II r .. U. 9S. 71. l itl f ..

'''' nil,""', ,\ .. 6Dft' .. 13. m. SJ. Slj. 9(1. ~8. 100. 10111' .. US. l!jOt .. 111. 157 If .• lSI. IS!)

Sainl-r .. ul, 11' .• 100 Sainl-Slmoll . H .• 13.. ~.::., 39, 31, 9';,

! ~I, 1017. 176, lSI S.rl",;: •• 1 .. 1!l'2 ~"lgn)', "., -1-1, 79

Soy •• / .. If.:!, \!06 Schalf, A .. !;lJ.1 Schelling. ~' .• 16 r .• 4J, '1iI, 5:.1, ijl n·., 1U.

S7. 91. 1!jO. 141 &hHler, r .. ,I', l es IT. St::hl~l.rd. A .. 7.·N l:i\:hleU:nnndICr. I' ., ~JO Sd,ul • . \\' .. 1I;6r., leo f'~lr .. ,.,n..,ko~.ncSl;. r.!l, I~r. S~y;". 1-:". IfoG S;".nonui, J" ISO S,nit h, ,\ .• !l6, 16:11f . . 181 , 111. !!OO Social '1u""llon~ 51, !'~ SocI .. ll"n, 131 .. eM .. !oJ, 91f .. 91 f ..

106. 115. 12;( .. l30r .. l.'lif., 161, IHr .• IS!!. 19·~

S~ie:.·""inG", I~l;'. 170ft" .. 178( .. 100 Slli'K""', II., f>;!. 11. 1'l" r.. so. 8.5. 101 Stahl, J .. 1 State, 18. 16. 18 r., ~!} If .• u,;. 10 I . 10,; ft" ..

l :tl If" 191 If .• \!.I.I, S! 16 If. .'ild ... L .• 8, II, e I. 156 ~llrn~r. 1\( .. 0 I. '210 S,no,,". U .. 10, ill r .. llI>l. I J1 S"'lll,,~ v.h,e. 96, 9111

'i"hkrs. : .... 1M 1~d<:I~"Ix"l"/f. F .• 6~ 'fr;"'.,'2.J.tf .. !l1

\·nJcgard~U ... 1' .. 18J Vod~n. A .. !I06 \'oltal"", I' .• I,r.,!/S, 30. :m. 71 Vor,cJrl • . JJS

Wach>I ... "lh. W .. ];"H \I" "ld ... cI;, • .I .• U~ \\'~\tltnl!". W .. 14, 10.1, 1'.!7. 144. IW,

'" W""tploalcn, E., 3-1 W~IT'halen, F .. :lll II' <":Slphakn • .I., 3 1, :.m. 4g ft" .. :;J, Io:! I. \\"~pMk". I~ . 39 If .. 91 \\·cyt!c.meycr. J., 1(; 1 11'0111'. W .• 69 Wylten'-"'d" 1I .• ~.:18

Yo,'''1!' HcgcJhms. IS. !KI1f .• '~I , $ , MI. [.elf., lj.l lf .. sor .• 81. 9~, 10·1. 101. 107. 110, I!JO. 14~. I';'. 1511. Hli. IWf.

7Jlrich. 100. Io-J, 10·1. 1:101.

[David McLellan] Marx Before Marxism(Bookos.org)

Documents

Transcript of [David McLellan] Marx Before Marxism(Bookos.org)