Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion - Gareth Stedman Jones (2016)

Notes and References

PROLOGUE

1. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of His System: A Criticism, trans. Alice M. Macdonald, London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1898.

2. For an account of the development of the revisionist debate, see H. and J. M. Tudor (eds.), Marxism and Social Democracy: The Revisionist Debate 1896–1898, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998. For Bernstein’s attack upon ‘collapse theory’, see especially, pp. 159–73.

3. Werner Blumenberg, Portrait of Marx: An Illustrated Biography, trans. Douglas Scott, New York, Herder & Herder, 1972, p. 2; August Bebel and Eduard Bernstein (eds.), Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, 4 vols., Stuttgart, Dietz, 1913; ‘August Bebel to Karl Kautsky, 7 February 1913’, in K. Kautsky Jr (ed.), August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky, Assen, Van Gorcum & Co., 1971, pp. 278–9.

4. Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 1978 [1939], pp. 4, 14.

1 FATHERS AND SONS

1. See Michael Rowe, From Reich to State: The Rhineland in the Revolutionary Age, 1780–1830, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 158–9, 188.

2. Heinz Monz, Karl Marx und Trier: Verhältnisse, Beziehungen, Einflüsse, Trier, Verlag Neu, 1964, pp. 38–9.

3. Heinz Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen der Entwicklung zu Leben und Werk, Trier, Verlag Neu, 1973, pp. 221–32; also Jan Gielkens, Karl Marx und seine niederländischen Verwandten: Eine kommentierte Quellenedition, Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus, Trier, no. 50, 1999.

4. Timothy Tackett, Becoming a Revolutionary: The Deputies of the French National Assembly and the Emergence of a Revolutionary Culture (1789–1790), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 120.

5. Keith Michael Baker, ‘Fixing the French Constitution’, in Inventing the French Revolution: Essays on French Political Culture in the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 303.

6. Ibid., p. 265.

7. Ibid., p. 305.

8. See François Delpech, ‘La Révolution et l’Empire’, in B. Blumenkranz (ed.), Histoire des Juifs en France, Toulouse, E. Privat, 1972, pp. 265–304.

9. Rowe, From Reich to State, pp. 21–3.

10. R. Liberles, ‘From Toleration to Verbesserung: German and English Debates on the Jews in the Eighteenth Century’, Central European History, 22/1, 1989, pp. 1–32.

11. See David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780–1840, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987, pp. 25–7; Christopher Clark, Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947, London, Allen Lane, 2006, pp. 331–8.

12. On Grégoire’s conception of regeneration, see Alyssa Goldstein Sepinwall, The Abbé Grégoire and the French Revolution: The Making of Modern Universalism, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2005, pp. 56–136. In 1769, Lavater had attempted to convert Mendelssohn to Christianity by sending him Charles Bonnet’s proto-evolutionary Palingénésie Philosophique, and urging him either to refute Bonnet’s argument or to convert.

13. On Karl’s family see Jonathan Sperber, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life, New York, Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2013, ch. 1, pp. 5–25.

14. Delpech, ‘La Révolution et l’Empire’, pp. 282–5.

15. See Rowe, From Reich to State, Part II.

16. Cited in John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, London, SPCK, 1969, p. 142.

17. Delpech, ‘La Révolution et l’Empire’, p. 287; see also Robert Anchel, Napoléon et les Juifs, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1928, pp. 62–75.

18. See Albert Rauch, ‘Der Grosse Sanhedrin zu Paris und sein Einfluss auf die jüdische Familie Marx in Trier’, in Richard Laufner and Albert Rauch (eds.), Die Familie Marx und die Trierer Judenschaft, Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus, Trier, 1975, no. 14, pp. 18–22; Anchel, Napoléon et les Juifs, pp. 187–226; Delpech, ‘La Révolution et l’Empire’, pp. 286–301.

19. Heinz Monz, ‘Der Religionswechsel der Familie Heinrich Marx’, in Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, ch. 19, pp. 239–40.

20. Laufner and Rauch, ‘Vorbemerkung’, in Die Familie Marx und die Trierer Judenschaft.

21. Rowe, From Reich to State, pp. 253–4.

22. Clark, Iron Kingdom, p. 311.

23. Hagen Schulze, The Course of German Nationalism: From Frederick the Great to Bismarck, 1763–1867, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 48–56; and see also Clark, Iron Kingdom, ch. 11.

24. Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, pp. 245–8.

25. Ibid., p. 247.

26. Ibid., p. 248.

27. Wilhelm Liebknecht, Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs, London, Journeyman Press, 1975 [1901], pp. 13–14; ‘Eleanor Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht’, in David McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, London, Macmillan, 1981, p. 163.

28. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 12 August 1837, Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Collected Works, 50 vols., Moscow, London and New York, 1975–2005 (henceforth MECW), vol. 1, p. 674.

29. ‘Edgar von Westphalen to Friedrich Engels’, 15 June 1883, International Institute of Social History Amsterdam, Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Papers, Inv. nr. L 6312–6319 [L IX 233–240].

For Lessing’s situating Christianity as a stage in the progressive education of humanity, see ‘The Education of the Human Race’, in H. B. Nisbet (ed.), Lessing: Philosophical and Theological Writings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 217–40; for Kant, see ‘Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason’, in I. Kant, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and Other Writings, eds. Allen Wood and George di Giovanni, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 31–191.

30. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 18 November 1835, MECW, vol. 1, p. 647.

31. Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 252.

32. ‘Heinrich Marx to Henriette Marx’, 12–14 August 1837, Karl Marx–Friedrich Engels Historisch–Kritische Gesamtausgabe Berlin, 1927–35 (henceforth MEGA), III, i, p. 313.

33. See Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, ch. 4; Rowe, From Reich to State, p. 274.

34. Karl Marx, ‘Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly. Third Article. Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood’ (1842), MECW, vol. 1, pp. 224–63. Jonathan Sperber, Rhineland Radicals: The Democratic Movement and the Revolution of 1848–1849, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 77.

35. See Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 52.

36. Estates were broad social orders in a hierarchically conceived society and were the standard form of representation before 1789. Although they continued to be favoured by conservatives throughout the nineteenth century, their legitimacy was radically challenged in the French Revolution, when the ‘Third Estate’ was declared to be the ‘Nation’, and the other two estates, clergy and nobility, were abolished.

37. Rowe, From Reich to State, pp. 270–71.

38. H. Heine, Ludwig Börne: Recollections of a Revolutionist, trans. Thomas S. Egan, London, Newman, 1881, p. 51.

39. Rowe, From Reich to State, pp. 276–8.

40. Speech cited in Monz, Karl Marx und Trier, p. 88.

41. Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 135.

42. Ibid., pp. 135–6.

43. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 18–29 November 1835, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 647–8.

44. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 2 March 1837, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 672–3.

45. McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, p. 163.

46. Rowe, From Reich to State, pp. 247–9; Sperber, Rhineland Radicals, pp. 47–9.

2 THE LAWYER, THE POET AND THE LOVER

1. Franz Mehring, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life, trans. Edward Fitzgerald, London, John Lane, 1936, p. 2. The original German edition appeared in Berlin in 1918.

2. Cited in Jan Gielkens, Karl Marx und seine niederländischen Verwandten: Eine kommentierte QuelleneditionSchriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus, Trier, no. 50, 1999, p. 33.

3. Heinz Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen der Entwicklung zu Leben und Werk, Trier, Verlag Neu, 1973, p. 251.

4. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 30 April 1868, MECW, vol. 43, p. 24.

5. ‘Henriette Marx to Karl Marx’, early 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 652.

6. ‘Henriette Marx to Henriette van Anrooji’, 18 November 1851; cited in Gielkens, Karl Marx, p. 143.

7. ‘Henriette Marx to Sophie Philips’, 14 April 1853; Gielkens, Karl Marx, p. 154.

8. ‘Henriette Marx to Karl Marx’, 29 November 1836, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 648–9.

9. ‘Heinrich and Henriette Marx to Karl Marx’, early 1836, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 651–2.

10. ‘Henriette Marx to Karl Marx’, 16 September 1837, MECW, vol. 1, p. 683; ibid., 10 February 1838, p. 693.

11. Of Hermann, who was apprenticed to an Amsterdam merchant, Heinrich wrote, ‘of his hard work, I expect much, of his intelligence all the less’. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 9 November 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 663.

12. Ibid., 12 August 1837, p. 674.

13. ‘Jenny Westphalen to Karl Marx’, 11–18 August 1844, MEGA, III, i, p. 441.

14. Cited in Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 235.

15. See, for instance, Mehring, Karl Marx, p. 5.

16. Karl Marx, ‘Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession’, Gymnasium essay, August 1835, MECW, vol. 1, p. 7.

17. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, early 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 650.

18. Ibid., May/June 1836, p. 654.

19. ‘Karl Marx to Heinrich Marx’, 10/11 November 1837, MECW, vol. 1, p. 18.

20. ‘Henriette Marx to Karl Marx’, 15/16 February 1838, MEGA, II, i, p. 330.

21. Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 233.

22. Nothing comparable was expected of Karl’s younger brother, Hermann: born on 12 August 1818. In 1836, according to his father, Hermann went to Brussels to be trained as a merchant. His father wrote, ‘Of his industriousness I expect much, of his intelligence all the less.’ He died in Trier in 1842 from consumption. See Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, pp. 233–4.

23. Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957, p. 251. According to Eleanor’s account, the sisters put up with this treatment, as they liked the stories he told them in recompense.

24. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 28 December 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 664.

25. Ibid., 9 November 1836, p. 661; ibid., 12 August 1837, p. 675.

26. Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, pp. 297–319.

27. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 17 September 1878, MECW, vol. 45, p. 322.

28. See Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, pp. 147, 153, 161–2.

29. On the Hambach Festival, see Chapter 1, here.

30. In 1835, the works of a number of writers, including Heinrich Heine, Ludwig Börne and Karl Gutzkow, were banned at Metternich’s instigation owing to the authors’ alleged membership of Young Germany, a branch of the Mazzinian revolutionary secret society Young Europe. In fact, the Confederation had confused two distinct groups sharing the same name (although it is questionable whether Metternich was really so naive). The literary ‘Young Germany’ was never more than a loose association of writers, united by shared journalistic ventures and the championing of a similar literary and political outlook. Their alliance, such as it was, only existed between 1833 and 1835. Persecution quickly broke the connections between them, and the movement ended in a fog of mutual recrimination, apostasy and vendetta, most notoriously an undignified attack by Heine upon the memory of Börne.

Nevertheless, Metternich had not been wrong to scent in Young Germany an unwelcome eruption on the hitherto placid surface of nineteenth-century German literature. For Young Germany was quite clearly a literary response to the 1830 revolutions, and an explicit attack, both upon the medievalist conservatism of the Romantic Movement and upon the political detachment of Goethe and German classicism. Both Friedrich Engels and Jenny von Westphalen were momentarily enthused by it.

31. On the social and political tensions in Trier in the aftermath of the 1830 revolutions, see Chapter 1, here.

32. ‘Certificate of Maturity for Pupil of the Gymnasium in Trier’, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 643–4; Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 314.

33. Marx, ‘Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession’, pp. 3–9.

34. ‘Johann Hugo Wyttenbach to Karl Marx’, August 1835, MECW, vol. 1, p. 733.

35. The Prussian government funding to the Protestant Theology Faculty in Bonn was twice that of the Catholic faculty, although it took far fewer students. See Michael Rowe, From Reich to State: The Rhineland in the Revolutionary Age, 1780–1830, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 251.

36. Once a supporter of the French, Joseph Görres, a prominent Catholic publicist, was dismissed as Director of Education in Coblenz and wrote an influential attack on Prussian bureaucratic rule in the Rhineland in Deutschland und die Revolution, Coblenz, 1819; Ernst Moritz Arndt was an outspoken nationalist. In 1814, he had been secretary to the former Prussian First Minister, von Stein, at the time when he was head of the Inter-Allied Central Administration in the Rhineland. Appointed a professor of history at Bonn, Arndt attacked the police. In 1819 he was suspended for alleged links with the subversive activities of the Burschenschaften, and only rehabilitated in 1840 by the new Prussian king, Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

37. ‘Bruno Bauer to Karl Marx’, 1 March 1840, MEGA, III, i, p. 340.

38. ‘Certificate of Release from Bonn University’, MECW, vol. 1, p. 658; MEGA, III, i, p. 727; ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, May–June 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 653; ibid.; ibid.

39. ‘Certificate of Release’, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 657–8; two of the courses in the summer term could not be assessed due to the sudden death of the lecturer.

40. See David Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1997, pp. 11–17, 60–64, 70–80, 90–91.

41. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, early 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 650.

42. Under Chancellor Hardenberg in the early 1820s, it had been agreed that no new taxes could be raised except with the consent of a representative assembly. This meant that despite the large increase in the Prussian population, the numbers employed in the administration remained static. See Lenore O’Boyle, ‘The Problem of an Excess of Educated Men in Western Europe, 1800–1850’, Journal of Modern History, 42 (1970), 471–95; Reinhart Koselleck, ‘Staat und Gesellschaft in Preußen 1815–1848’, in H.-U. Wehler (ed.), Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte, 2nd edn, Cologne, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1968, pp. 55–85; Reinhart Koselleck, ‘Staat und Gesellschaft in Preußen 1815–1848’, in Werner Conze (ed.), Staat und Gesellschaft im deutschen Vormärz 1815–1848, Stuttgart, E. Klett, 1962 (Industrielle Welt, vol. 1).

43. ‘Karl Marx to Heinrich Marx’, 10/11 November 1837, MECW, vol. 1, p. 20.

44. Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, p. 130; Wilhelm Liebknecht, Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs, London, Journeyman Press, 1975 [1901], p. 14.

45. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 18 November 1835, MECW, vol. 1, p. 647.

46. Ibid. In November 1837, Karl burnt his earlier poetic works, see below, herehere. A selection of his love poems was published in 1977: see Love Poems of Karl Marx, eds. R. Lettau and L. Ferlinghetti, City Lights Books, San Francisco, 1977.

47. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, early 1836, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 650–51.

48. ‘Karl Marx to Heinrich Marx’, 10/11 November 1837, MECW, vol. 1, p. 11.

49. See MECW, vol. 1, pp. 22–4 and pp. 517–616.

50. See in particular S. S. Prawer, Karl Marx and World Literature, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1976; Mikhail Lifshitz, The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx, London, Pluto Press, 1973 [Moscow, 1933]; P. Demetz, Marx, Engels and the PoetsOrigins of Marxist Literary Criticism, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1967 [Stuttgart, 1959].

51. One exception, especially significant in the Rhineland, was the attack on entail and primogeniture found in Scorpion and Felix, ch. 29. ‘The right of primogeniture’, he claimed, ‘is the wash-closet of the aristocracy’, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 624–5.

52. Demetz, Marx, Engels and the Poets, p. 50.

53. ‘Feelings’, cited in Prawer, Karl Marx and World Literature, p. 12.

54. ‘Concluding Sonnet to Jenny’, cited in Lifshitz, Philosophy of Art, p. 16.

55. ‘Human Pride’, MECW, vol. 1, p. 586.

56. ‘Sir (G)luck’s Armide’, MECW, vol. 1, p. 540.

57. ‘Epigrams’, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 576–7, 579.

58Scorpion and FelixMECW, vol. 1, pp. 624–5, 628.

59OulanemMECW, vol. 1, pp. 593, 600, 606.

60. Ibid., p. 599.

61. Demetz, Marx, Engels and the Poets, pp. 55–6; see also Nicholas Saul, ‘Aesthetic Humanism (1790–1830)’, in Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly (ed.), The Cambridge History of German Literature, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 248–50.

62OulanemMECW, vol. 1, p. 601.

63. Ibid.

64. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 28 December 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 666.

65. ‘Karl Marx to Heinrich Marx’, 10/11 November 1837, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 17–19.

66. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 16 September 1837, MECW, vol. 1, p. 680.

67. ‘Karl Marx to Heinrich Marx’, 10/11 November 1837, MECW, vol. 1, p. 18. The quotation comes from Heine’s poetry cycle The North Sea.

68MEGA, I, i (2), pp. 92–6. The collection is drawn in large part not from the most famous collection of the period, Arnim and Brentano’s Boy’s Magic Horn (Des Knaben Wunderhorn) but from a less altered and reworked collection by Erlach, Kretschmer and Zuccalmaglio. It is also interesting that Marx included one item used by Byron in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. See Prawer, Karl Marx and World Literature, p. 20.

69. Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 324. On the family history of the Westphalens, see Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], pp. 23–7.

70. The term ‘Westphalia’ was misleading. Westphalia refers to the region of Germany situated between the Rivers Rhine and Weser, and north and south of the River Ruhr. The Kingdom of Westphalia, on the other hand, was created in 1807 by merging territories ceded by Prussia in the Peace of Tilsit. These included the region west of the River Elbe and parts of Brunswick, Hanover and Hesse.

71. The state had a written constitution, jury trials and equal rights before the law, and French-style central administration. In 1808, it was the first German state to grant equal rights to the Jews.

72. Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, pp. 325–7.

73. See Heinz Monz, ‘Politische Anschauung und gesellschaftliche Stellung von Johann Ludwig von Westfalen’, in Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus, Trier, no. 9: Zur Persönlichkeit von Marx’ Schwiegervater Johann Ludwig von Westphalen, 1973, pp. 5–19. It is significant that he urged his nephew to burn the letter after reading it.

74. Konrad von Krosigk, ‘Ludwig von Westphalen und seine Kinder: Bruchstücke familiärer Überlieferungen’ in Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus, Trier, no. 9: Zur Persönlichkeit von Marx’ Schwiegervater, p. 47.

75. The testimony of Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, cited in Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 345.

76. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 15 December 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 499.

77. Letter from Ferdinand to his father-in-law, 10 April 1831, cited in Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 344.

78. Testimony of Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, p. 345.

79. Ibid.

80. Von Krosigk, ‘Ludwig von Westphalen und seine Kinder’, pp. 71–2.

81. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 16 August 1865, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 180–81.

82OED online states of Auscultator: ‘Title formerly given in Germany to a young lawyer who has passed his first public examination, and is thereupon employed by Government, but without salary and with no fixed appointment (now called Referendar). ‘Ausser Diensten’ means ‘in retirement’.

83. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Friedrich Engels’, 23–24 December 1859, MECW, vol. 40, pp. 574–5. The conflict was made worse by the fact that Jenny suspected this was part of a plan to cheat her part of the Westphalen family out of an anticipated legacy.

84. ‘Eleanor Marx-Aveling to Wilhelm Liebknecht’, 15 April 1896, cited in Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen, p. 342.

3 BERLIN AND THE APPROACHING TWILIGHT OF THE GODS

1. Ernst Dronke (1822–91), from Coblenz, studied at Bonn, Marburg and Berlin. As a result of his book on Berlin, in 1847 he was sentenced to two years’ confinement. He managed to escape to Brussels, where he became acquainted with Engels and Marx and joined the Communist League. In 1848, he accompanied them to Cologne, where he played a prominent part in the editorial team which produced the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. He participated in the 1849 rising and then escaped, first to Switzerland and then to England, where he spent the rest of his life. In 1852, he withdrew from politics and became an agent for a copper-mining company.

2. Ernst Dronke, Berlin, Darmstadt, Neuwied Luchterhand, 1974 [Frankfurt am Main, J. Rütten, 1846], p. 67; Friedrich Sass, Berlin in seiner neuesten Zeit und Entwicklung, Leipzig, Koffka, 1846, pp. 12, 134; and see Robert J. Hellman, Berlin, the Red Room and White Beer: The ‘Free’ Hegelian Radicals in the 1840s, Washington, DC, Three Continents Press, 1990, pp. 5–25.

3. Henry Vizetelly, Berlin under the New Empire: Its InstitutionsInhabitants, Industry, Monuments, Museums, Social Life, Manners, and Amusements, 2 vols, London, Tinsley, 1879, vol. 1, pp. 14–16, cited in Hellman, Berlin, p. 22.

4. Edgar Bauer, Bruno Bauer und seine Gegner, Jonas, Berlin, 1842, pp. 80–81, cited in Hellman, Berlin, p. 14.

5. Vizetelly, Berlin, vol. 2, p. 314; Hellman, Berlin, p. 9.

6. As a result of defeat at Jena and Auerstadt, Prussia lost half of its territory and was made to pay a massive indemnity. In order to pay it, the state was compelled to undergo a radical process of rationalization; and this brought to the fore reformers eager to implement a programme of reforms, based upon Enlightenment ideals. Serfdom was abolished, guild monopolies were removed, the military and educational systems transformed, and Jews accorded partial emancipation, and city government was reorganized on a representative basis. The reforms were carried out under the direction of von Stein (1807–10) and subsequently von Hardenberg (1810–22). The period of reform came to an end in 1819 with a conservative reaction highlighted by the Carlsbad Decrees.

7. Berlin and other Prussian universities benefited from the remarkable expansion of educational provision during the ‘Reform Era’ (1807–22). Between 1816 and 1846, the percentage of children attending school between six and fourteen rose from 61 to 82 per cent. The population of elementary schools rose by 108 per cent, that of Gymnasiums by 73 per cent and that of universities by 40 per cent. Together with this went a remarkable expansion of social mobility. In the 1830s, for example, it was estimated that one third of the students enrolled at Halle were the sons of peasants, artisans and lower officials. See John R. Gillis, The Prussian Bureaucracy in Crisis, 1840–1860: Origins of an Administrative Ethos, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1971.

8. Eduard Meyen, in Hallische Jahrbücher für deutsche Wissenschaft und Kunst, Leipzig, Verlag von Otto Wigard, no. 193, 12 August 1840, p. 1542, cited in Hellman, Berlin, p. 10.

9. ‘Karl Marx to Heinrich Marx’, 10–11 November 1837, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 10–21. The following quotations are from the same source.

10. He eventually filled 168 notebooks, providing subsequent scholars with an in invaluable guide to his intellectual development and its sources.

11. ‘Heinrich Marx to Karl Marx’, 28 December 1836, MECW, vol. 1, p. 664; ibid., 12 August 1837, p. 674; ibid., 16 September 1837, pp. 682–3; ibid., 17 November 1837, p. 684; ibid., 9 December 1837, p. 689.

12. Ibid., 28 December 1836, pp. 664–5, 666; ibid., 3 February 1837, p. 668.

13. Ibid., 28 December 1836, p. 664; ibid., 2 March 1837, pp. 670, 671.

14. Ibid., pp. 675, 691.

15. Ibid., p. 688.

16. Ibid., pp. 680, 690, 692.

17. Ibid., pp. 674, 678, 691–3, 694.

18. Dronke, Berlin, pp. 19, 21.

19. Hellman, Berlin, pp. 11, 18–22.

20. The German Historical School of Law came into prominence as part of the conservative reaction to the universal language of the rights of man associated with the French Revolution. It had originated in Göttingen before 1789 as a riposte to the stylized quasi-histories of Roman Law, which assumed that private property was coterminous with human nature and human history. After 1815, it became a central issue in the debate about the elaboration of a uniform legal code in the German Confederation. Savigny attacked the (rationalist and Enlightenment) idea of a universal code and championed instead a gradual, peaceful and non-political path to the peasant emancipation from feudalism. Gans in contrast considered that the validity of law derived from its coherence as a system of relations and obligations. In 1838, he attacked Savigny’s view, defending codification as a means of reinforcing the law’s universality and of marginalizing the discretionary role played by a conservative professorial elite.

21. Now spelt Stralau. This is a tongue of land between the River Spree and the Rummelsburger Sea. Since 1920 it has been part of Greater Berlin, but in the middle of the nineteenth century it was a separate village, which in 1855 counted 143 inhabitants.

22. Hegel’s concern was the conscious mind. He had no time for symbolic and poetic intimations of the Absolute supposedly made possible by Schelling’s idea of ‘Intellectual intuition’. It was perhaps for that reason that Karl had first been repelled by ‘the grotesque craggy melody’. In later years, Hegel had also come to consider that art was of subordinate importance. It was no longer capable of portraying freedom or the divine, as it once had when Greek art through the gods had produced a unique vision of human freedom. With the advent of Jesus, a man rather than a mythical god, religion supplanted art, while in the modern period, with the growth of freedom and rational institutions, Dutch paintings of bourgeois life and domesticity were ‘the greatest truth of which art is capable’.

23. Insofar as terms like idealism and materialism impinged upon the outlook of the educated laity in the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth, materialism at least in the Anglo-French tradition was associated with various forms of naturalism, primarily with the notion that man was an animal who pursued pleasure and avoided pain and therefore should seek to create an environment in which the possibilities of happiness were maximized. This was the position pursued by Helvetius, Bentham and the followers of Owenite socialism. It was particularly important as a rejoinder to the Evangelical Christian emphasis upon original sin. Its drawback was the passivity of its conception of man as a creature governed by instincts and interest. On the other hand, idealism in the broadest sense emphasized the ability of man through the employment of reason to resist passions and instinctive drives. In Kant, an ethical employment of reason could be made universal through the use of an ethical injunction urged upon each individual – the categorical imperative (‘act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law’). In Hegel, the advance of a rational ethics was conjoined with a notion of historical progress, in which ethical injunctions become progressively institutionalized in systems of law and religion, thus making possible ever more adequate conceptions of ‘ethical life’. For the development of idealism in Kant, see below, pp. 71ff. For a more detailed discussion of the attempted actualization of these different positions in the respective theoretical approaches of Marx and Engels in the mid-1840s, see Chapter 6, section 5.

24. Friedrich Karl von Savigny, The History of the Roman Law in the Middle Ages, trans. E. Cathcart, Edinburgh, A. Black, 1829, pp. vi, xv.

25. Friedrich Karl von Savigny, Von Savigny’s Treatise on Possession, or The Jus Possessionis of the Civil Law, trans. Erskine Perry, London, Sweet, 1848, p. 3.

26. Savigny, Roman Law, p. xii.

27. Herder’s position originally derived from J. G. Hamann, who had attacked Kant’s conception of reason in 1783. Reason, he had argued, had no autonomous existence, except insofar as it was embodied in language and action. Reason therefore could not be treated as if it existed beyond the constraints of time and space. Reason had a history and it was embodied in language and culture. Languages and cultures changed over time and differed across space. Thus reason could not be treated as a formal criterion of judgement, but rather as something embodied in more or less developed form in the spirit of a particular people. In contrast to Savigny, however, Herder also believed that national communities existed alongside each other in a pre-existing harmony, and in this sense looked back to the rationalism of Leibniz. See Frederick Beiser, The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1987.

28. Friedrich Karl von Savigny, Of the Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence, trans. Abraham Hayward, London, Littlewood & Co., 1828, p. 24.

29. Savigny, Roman Law, p. xiv.

30. It has often been assumed that Gans must have exerted a considerable impact upon the young Karl. The basis of this assumption is that in the early 1830s Gans had visited Paris, interested himself in modern poverty and ‘the social question’, and had written about the Saint-Simonians. But this is contested. While it is true that Gans was one of the first to produce a progressive reading of Hegel, and edited the posthumous publication both of The Philosophy of Right and of The Philosophy of History, the trajectory of his thinking was quite distinct from that of the principal Young Hegelians. While he was sympathetic to the Saint-Simonian critique of competition, he was hostile towards Saint-Simonian ideas about religion and Enfantin’s notion of ‘the rehabilitation of the flesh’. He contested the Saint-Simonian assumption of the primacy of society over the state. When combined with the Saint-Simonian slogan, ‘to each according to his capacities’, Gans considered that there was a real risk of creating a new ‘slavery’, a ‘slavery of surveillance’. While it is highly likely that Karl respected Gans as a counterweight to the arguments of Savigny, even in his early years in Berlin there are no references to Gans in Karl’s letters or writings; and there are few unambiguous traces of the influence of his ideas. By 1842–3, it is clear that (had Gans lived) there was a wide divergence between Gans’s ideas and those of Karl. Karl criticized Hegel’s Philosophy of Right precisely on the basis of the primacy of society over the state. He amended the Saint-Simonian formula from ‘to each according to his capacities’ to ‘to each according to his needs’, and used it both in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) and much later in The Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875). But this change of wording, although important in other ways, would not have obviated Gans’s objection, which was to the authoritarian implications of the Saint-Simonian proposal. On Gans’s criticism of Saint-Simonianism, see Myriam Bienenstock, ‘Between Hegel and Marx: Eduard Gans on the “Social Question” ’, in Douglas Moggach (ed.), Politics, Religion and Art: Hegelian Debates, Evanston, Ill., Northwestern University Press, 2011, pp. 164–79.

31. The term ‘party of movement’ was current in the 1830s and 1840s. It is particularly useful because it captures the fact that at the time liberals, radicals, republicans and to some extent even socialists were not clearly distinguished. On Gans’s membership of the Friends of Poland, see Auguste Cornu, Karl Marx et Friedrich Engels: Leur vie et leur oeuvre, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1955, vol. 1, p. 87.

32. Saint-Simon (1760–1825), often thought of as one of the founders of socialism, considered that the French Revolution had failed because it had failed ‘to combine the interests of men … by opening a path common to the particular and to the general interest’. This was the path of science. He also agreed with conservative critics of the Revolution that the Revolution had not been able to establish a new form of pouvoir spirituel (spiritual power) capable of displacing the Catholic church. Religion was essential since it was the ultimate source of a law which could bind together a community. In his early writings, he believed that Christianity could no longer play this role since it was scientifically obsolete. He had therefore proposed ‘the religion of Newton’. But with the return of the French monarchy after 1815, he modified his argument, and in his last major work, New Christianity, argued that the Christian religion could be reconciled with science, by boiling it down to two premisses – that all men must treat each other as brothers, and that all must concern themselves with the improvement of the lot of the poorest and most numerous class.

After his death in 1825, his followers formed themselves into a collective group, and in 1829 produced The Doctrine of Saint-Simon, with the ambition of establishing a Saint-Simonian church. This made a sensational impact upon European intellectuals and, theoretically, was one of the defining sources of all thought about the ‘social question’ after 1830.

33. Discussion of the ‘social question’ became current in Western Europe in the early 1840s. It originated in the debates which occurred in the aftermath of the 1830 Revolution in France and the 1832 Reform Bill in Britain. The prominent participation of workers on the barricades in Paris in the three days which led to the abdication of Charles X, and in the Reform crisis in Britain, raised the question both of their continued subordinate constitutional status and of the new forms of poverty that afflicted them. In Germany, the discussion was further complicated by the difficulty of placing the new urban workers and rural migrants into the official categories of estate society. Sismondi in his New Principles of Political Economy of 1819 had introduced the term ‘proletariat’ to describe this novel phenomenon. Hegel, in The Philosophy of Right, had referred to this grouping as das Pöbel (the mob). Gans had originally accepted this terminology, but in the light of his visits both to France and to England adopted the term proletariat’. See Norbert Waszek, ‘Eduard Gans on Poverty and on the Constitutional Debate’, in D. Moggach (ed.), The New Hegelians: Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 24–50.

34. On Gans’s position on the history and philosophy of law, see Michael H. Hoffheimer, Eduard Gans and the Hegelian Philosophy of Law, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.

35. Savigny, Of the Vocation, pp. iv, 9, 18, 20, 22.

36. See Hoffheimer, Gans, pp. 35, 46. It is important to note, however, that Savigny’s position was that of a ‘conservative reformist’ rather than of a straightforward reactionary. In relation to the gradual shift from feudal relations to possessory interests in the countryside, he contended that Roman Law could be adapted to new situations. In his view, gradual reform of property relations in the countryside should be led by legal scholarship rather than by legislation. See James Q. Whitman, The Legacy of Roman Law in the German Romantic Era: Historical Vision and Legal Change, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1990, pp. 183–5.

37. See Hoffheimer, Gans, pp. 42–6.

38. Ibid., pp. 19–21.

39. See Donald Kelley, ‘The Metaphysics of Law: An Essay on the Very Young Marx’, American Historical Review, 83/2 (1978), pp. 350–67; Warren Breckman, Marx, the Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 261.

40MECW, vol. 1, p. 679.

41. Within the state administration itself, political reforms once thought imminent, like the promise to summon a representative assembly, were not carried through. One of the king’s closest advisers, the Huguenot preacher Jean Pierre Ancillon, was convinced that the summoning of such an assembly would spark off a sequence of events which would replicate the actions of the French National Assembly in 1789 and end in the abolition of the monarchy. Instead, the government had established a series of provincial Diets, summoned along the lines of the traditional estates and denied any power over taxation. See Christopher Clark, Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947, London, Allen Lane, 2006, pp. 402–3.

42. G. W. F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, ed. A. W. Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991 [1821], p. 20. For a less guarded statement of his political philosophy before the Carlsbad Decrees, see G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on Natural Right and Political Science: The First Philosophy of Right, trans. J. Michael Stewart and Peter C. Hodgson, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1995. Hegel’s position remained ambivalent. According to Heine, having listened to the lectures on The Philosophy of Right, and being shocked by Hegel’s notorious claim about the identity of the ‘rational’ and the ‘actual’, Heine went up and asked him to explain the meaning of his statement. Hegel is alleged to have smiled furtively and said quietly, ‘It may also be expressed thus: all that is rational must be.’ See G. Nicolin, Hegel in Berichten seiner Zeitgenossen, Hamburg, F. Meiner, 1970, p. 235.

43. In Kant’s analysis in the first Critique, human sensory intuitions became representations of objects of nature when combined with non-intuitive conceptual forms (categories of thought). These representations took the form of judgements, which were structured by rules followed by all rational agents. Objects of which we could become conscious had to be objects of possible experience. They had to have an existence in space and time. This ruled out non-sensible entities such as God or the immortal soul, since these could not be forms of any possible intuition.

44. Kant’s theory of moral autonomy required that we only submit to laws which we ourselves have made. Morality, the moral law, was articulated in the form of a categorical imperative whereby we only apply to others that which we would apply to ourselves as an act of universal legislation. The problem created by this position was that if as natural beings our behaviour is solely determined by our interests (the pursuit of ‘happiness’) how was morality to find a place?

45. Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and Other Writings, eds. Allen Wood and George di Giovanni, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 105–12.

46. The final end was introduced as an extension of the moral law, brought about by ‘the natural characteristic of man that, for all his actions, he must conceive of an end over and above the law’. See W. Jaeschke, Reason in Religion: The Foundations of Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion, trans. J. Michael Stewart and Peter C. Hodgson, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990, p. 80; and see also pp. 72–3, 76–7.

47. Ibid., p. 82.

48. This was the position adopted by Kant’s most immediate successor, Fichte. As a result in 1798 he was accused of atheism. See Yolanda Estes (ed.) and Curtis Bowman (ed., tr.), J. G. Fichte and the Atheism Dispute (1798–1800), Farnham, Ashgate, 2010.

49. Hölderlin was both a poet and a philosopher responsible for some of the earliest formulations of the idea of the ‘Absolute’. Schelling was the most precocious and prolific pioneer of post-Kantian idealism. After Tübingen, he left for Jena, where he became a leading light in a famous circle of Romantic writers, which included the Schlegel brothers and Schleiermacher. In 1800, he invited Hegel to join him and for a number of years they jointly edited a philosophy journal. Their friendship was brought to an end by the publication in 1807 of Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit, in which Hegel sharply criticized Schelling’s intuitional conception of the Absolute. In the 1830s and 1840s, radicals remained in awe of Schelling’s youthful pantheism and his philosophy of nature, but heavily critical of his return to a form of Christianity and renunciation of his philosophical past.

50. In his Education of the Human Race of 1780, Lessing incorporated the revealed story of Christianity into a chapter in the larger story about the progress of humanity towards a state of moral perfection. See H. B. Nisbet (ed.), Lessing: Philosophical and Theological Writings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 217–40. Like Kant, Lessing had looked forward to the advent of a new and more enlightened form of religion, in which morality was no longer tied to prudential calculations about life after death. Rousseau’s conception of ‘civil religion’ was developed in his Social Contract. See J.-J. Rousseau, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, ed. Victor Gourevitch, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 150–51; on Hegel’s conception of the ethical harmony of Ancient Greece, see G. W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979, paras 699–704.

51. ‘The Earliest System-programme of German Idealism’ (Berne, 1796), H. S. Harris, Hegel’s Development: Toward the Sunlight, 1770–1801, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972, pp. 511–12.

52. Self-consciousness did not mean individual self-awareness, but the conjunction of particular and universal consciousness in the development of spirit. For the use of the term by Marx and Bruno Bauer, see Chapter 4, here.

53. Hegel insisted that his conception of the Absolute was different from Spinoza’s ‘substance’, Deus sive Natura (God or Nature). Whether imagined in mechanical or, following Herder, in organic terms, Spinoza’s substance unlike the Christian God was not a person or a subject. Hegel’s God, by contrast, was at the level of religion a person, and at the philosophical level ‘the Concept’. Unlike Spinoza’s notion of substance, therefore, Hegel’s Absolute was not something underlying the phenomenal world, but the conceptual system embedded within it. This conceptual system was not static; it developed with the advance of human knowledge and development. For this reason, Hegel’s Absolute claimed to be an advance from ‘substance’ to ‘subject’.

54. See Warren Breckman, ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the Political Theology of Restoration’, History of Political Thought, vol. 13/3, 1992, pp. 437–62; also Breckman, Marx, the Young Hegelians, chs. 2 and 3.

55. Hegel’s conception of the world began with thought (logic). Schelling’s refutation was considered to be the first proclamation of what became the existentialist assertion proclaimed by Jean-Paul Sartre that ‘existence precedes essence’. Or, as Kierkegaard argued, Schelling had located in the original passage from nothing to being the inability of ‘all purely rational systems’ to include ‘the empirical, the existent, the real’.

56. See Breckman, ‘Ludwig Feuerbach’, pp. 445–51.

57. Strauss’s book was a turning point, not just in Prussian intellectual history, but in the history of nineteenth-century Europe. Its impact upon Christian belief was as momentous as that later made by Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. In 1846, a three-volume English edition appeared, translated by Mary Ann Evans (later better known as George Eliot). According to the Evangelical social reformer the Earl of Shaftesbury, this book was ‘the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell’.

58. The idea of the Gospels as composite mythical structures created by a later tradition out of sayings belonging to different times and circumstances owed nothing to Hegel, and was in fact closer to the earlier works of Schelling.

59. Clark, Iron Kingdom, pp. 419–22.

60. Karl’s father, Heinrich, made his last attempt at a public intervention in the rough draft of a short article defending the action of the state in relation to the church. His point was that the actions taken by the crown were a political and not a legal matter. Any ruler, when confronted by a serious threat to the security of the realm, would act beyond the law, and this had nothing to do with the difference between constitutional and absolutist forms of rule. Confronted by an analogous threat, an English minister would not have hesitated to act in a similar fashion. Karl later edited the manuscript. See ‘Entwurf einer Broschüre über den Kölner Kirchenstreit zur Verteidigung der Haltung des Königs von Preußen’, MEGA, I, i (2), 1927, pp. 231–3.

61. See Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, para 270, pp. 290–304.

62. Arnold Ruge (1802–80) was an activist in the student movement, Burschenschaft, in the early 1820s, for which he was imprisoned for six years. In the 1830s, he taught as a Privatdozent at the University of Halle, where in 1837 he set up the Hallische Jahrbücher, followed from 1841 to 1843 by the Deutsche Jahrbücher, once censorship had forced him to move to Saxony. With the enforced closure of this journal in 1843 at the behest of the Prussian government, he moved to Paris. He broke with Marx over the question of socialism. In 1848, he was a radical member of the Frankfurt assembly, after which he stayed in exile in England, settling in Brighton. In later years, however, he was a strong supporter of the Bismarckian unification of Germany.

63. For an account of the political development of the Hallische Jahrbücher around the end of the 1830s, see, especially, James D. White, Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1996, ch. 3.

64. Pietism was a German reform movement within Lutheranism, particularly strong in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It had affinities with Methodism in eighteenth-century England.

65. On Köppen, see especially Helmut Hirsch, ‘Karl Friedrich Köppen: Der intimste Berliner Freund Marxens’, International Review of Social History, vol. 1, 1936, pp. 311–70; and see also Hellman, Berlin, pp. 121–31.

66. Karl Friedrich Köppen, ‘Friedrich der Grosse und seine Widersacher. Eine Jubelschrift’, in Heinz Pepperle (ed.), Ausgewählte Schriften in zwei Bänden, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 156–7.

67. Friedrich von Schlegel, Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe, Munich, F. Schöningh, 1961, vol. vi, pp. 252–3, cited in White, Karl Marx, pp. 122–3.

68. Karl Marx, doctoral dissertation: ‘Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, March 1841, MECW, vol. 1, p. 30. The Epicurean, Stoic and Sceptic philosophies represented ‘the nerve muscles and intestinal system of the antique organism whose immediate, natural unity conditioned the beauty and morality of antiquity, and which disintegrated with the decay of the latter’: ibid., p. 735.

69. Ibid., pp. 30, 52–3.

70. Ibid., p. 106.

71. Karl Marx, ‘Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy’, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 491, 492.

72. Marx, doctoral dissertation, p. 86.

73. Ibid., pp. 29, 52, 58, 71.

74. Ibid., pp. 50, 51, 52, 70, 71, 72, 73; Marx, ‘Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy’, p. 414.

75. Marx, doctoral dissertation, pp. 66–7, 70, 30, 73.

76. G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1995, vol. 2, p. 234.

77. Marx, doctoral dissertation, pp. 45, 51, 62.

78. Ibid., pp. 73, 74–6, 417–18; on the challenge represented by Schelling and Stahl, see Breckman, ‘Ludwig Feuerbach’, pp. 438–42.

79. Marx, doctoral dissertation, pp. 85, 86; Marx, ‘Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy’, p. 498.

4 REBUILDING THE POLIS

1. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx’, 24 June 1838, MEGA, III, i, pp. 332–3.

2. ‘Henriette Marx to Karl Marx’, 29 May 1840, MEGA, III, i, pp. 347–8.

3. ‘Sophie Marx to Karl Marx’, March 1841, MEGA, III, i, p. 351.

4. ‘Bruno Bauer to Karl Marx’, 12 April 1841, MEGA, III, i, pp. 358–9.

5. ‘Karl Friedrich Köppen to Karl Marx’, 3 June 1841, MEGA, III, i, p. 361.

6. ‘Bruno Bauer to Karl Marx’, early April 1841, MEGA, III, i, p. 356.

7. Her death in addition to that of Ludwig put the family under severe financial pressure, and as a result Jenny and her mother moved for a time to Kreuznach.

8. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 9 July 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 389. In the middle of these troubles, Karl’s sister Sophie married (12 July 1842). She had been close to Jenny, and had acted as a sort of go-between, and she also remained close to her mother, whom she later described as ‘small, delicate and very intelligent’. Sophie’s move to Maastricht during the middle of these family troubles may have made the conflict worse. See Jan Gielkens, Karl Marx und seine niederländischen Verwandten: Eine kommentierte QuelleneditionSchriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus, Trier, no. 50, 1999, p. 33.

9. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 25 January 1843, MECW, vol. 1, p. 397.

10. See Gielkens, Karl Marx, pp. 36–7. The only concession she was prepared to make was to enable Karl to pay off old debts. In 1861, he reported to Lassalle that a visit to Trier had enabled him to destroy some IOUs. But, however estranged, channels of communication continued to exist. Henriette lived the last part of her life at Fleisch Street with Karl’s sister Emilie Conradi and her family. It seems from the condolences Eleanor received on the death of her father that Emilie’s family remained in regular touch with that of Karl. See Heinz Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen der Entwicklung zu Leben und Werk, Trier, Verlag Neu, 1973, p. 237.

11. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 8 May 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 283.

12. Preoccupied with his financial worries, Karl had expressed only the most cursory condolences to Friedrich Engels about the death of his companion, Mary Burns, before going on to complain about his need for money. But, in a bizarre attempt to commiserate, he then added, ‘Instead of Mary, ought it not to have been my mother, who is in any case a prey to physical ailments and has had her fair share of life …? You can see what strange notions come into the heads of “civilised men” under the pressure of certain circumstances.’ ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 8 January 1863, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 442–3.

13. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx’, n.d., 1839, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 697–8.

14. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx’, 13 September 1841, MEGA, III, i, p. 368.

15. Ibid., after 10 May 1838, p. 331.

16. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx’, n.d., 1839, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 696–7.

17. Ibid., p. 696.

18. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx’, 13 September 1841, MEGA, III, i, p. 366.

19. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx’, n.d., 1839, MECW, vol. 1, p. 698.

20. Ibid., 10 August 1841, pp. 707–8.

21. Ibid., p. 708.

22. ‘Bruno Bauer to Karl Marx’, 11 December 1839, MEGA, III, i, pp. 335–6; 1 March 1840, MEGA, III, i, p. 341.

23. Ibid., 12 April 1841, pp. 357–8.

24. The University of Jena retained great intellectual prestige in the aftermath of its association with Goethe, Schiller, Fichte and the early Romantics. But it remained small and poorly financed, and therefore interested in fees as a method of supplementing its income. According to its statutes of 1829, those intending to pursue a teaching career at either a university or a Gymnasium were required to be examined in person by the assembled faculty and to submit a dissertation in Latin, while those aspiring to the highest award, Magister der freyen Künste (Master of Liberal Arts), were required in addition to submit themselves to a public examination. But if this higher status was not required, it was possible for the candidate to be examined in absentia, provided that he submitted, together with the dissertation, a detailed curriculum vitae recording university courses previously attended, and certificates of competence in Latin and of good behaviour, together with a fee of twelve Louis d’Or. Despite frequent criticisms from Prussian authorities, standards in this neighbouring state, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, remained high. In the year previous to Marx, Robert Schumann secured a doctoral qualification by similar means. The second and higher qualification necessary for academic employment, the Habilitation, Marx intended to attain in Bonn. See Erhard Lange, Die Promotion von Karl Marx, Jena 1841. Eine Quellenedition, Berlin, Dietz Verlag, 1983, pp. 185 ff.; Joachim Bauer et al., ‘Ich präsentiere Ihnen Herrn Carl Heinrich Marx aus Trier …’, Kabinettausstellung an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 13–19 April 2011 (an exhibition item).

25. Karl Marx, doctoral dissertation: ‘Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, March 1841, MECW, vol. 1, p. 30.

26. Originally part of the early Romantic circle and friend of Friedrich Schlegel, in 1810 Friedrich Schleiermacher became Professor of Theology at the newly founded University of Berlin and remained there until his death in 1834. He was politically liberal, and his basic theological idea was that religion could not be apprehended rationally. What mattered was not creed, scripture or philosophical rationalization, but feeling. Religious feeling was the sense of absolute dependence upon God, communicated through Jesus to the church. Antagonism between Hegel and Schleiermacher was already evident from the aftermath of the Kotzebue assassination and the persecution of ‘demagogues’ in 1819. But it was made irremediable by Hegel’s introduction to Hinrichs’s Religion in Its Inner Relation to Science in 1822. Hegel sarcastically observed about the association of religion with the feeling of absolute dependence – a position known by everyone to be associated with Schleiermacher – that this would mean that a dog would make the best Christian; furthermore, that ‘a dog even has feelings of salvation, when its hunger is satisfied by a bone’. Schleiermacher himself was deeply offended, and his friends never forgave Hegel for this insult. See Terry Pinkard, Hegel: A Biography, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 500–502. In the 1830s and 1840s there was considerable and sometimes acrimonious rivalry between the followers of Hegel and those of Schleiermacher. It was therefore a misfortune for Bauer when he was transferred from Berlin to Bonn in 1839, since Bonn was a stronghold of Schleiermacher supporters, who had no intention of granting him tenure there.

27. Cited in John E. Toews, Hegelianism: The Path toward Dialectical Humanism, 1805–1841, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980, pp. 292–3.

28. Bruno Bauer, The Trumpet of the Last Judgement against Hegel the Atheist and Anti-Christ: An Ultimatum, trans. Lawrence Stepelevich, Lewiston, Edwin Mellen Press, 1989 [1841], pp. 189–90.

29. Bauer was forced to sell his library, and to experience the humiliation of having to ask Hegel’s widow for remuneration for his editorial work on the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Frustration induced him to burn his correspondence with Altenstein and Schulze; and when in 1840 Friedrich Wilhelm III died, Bauer was forced to accept that his chances of paid academic employment were over. Toews, Hegelianism, pp. 308–9; Douglas Moggach, The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 63.

30. See especially Moggach, Bruno Bauer, ch. 3.

31. On Friedrich Wilhelm IV, see David E. Barclay, Frederick Wilhelm IV and the Prussian Monarchy 1840–1861, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995.

32. Letter 22, Briefwechsel zwischen Bruno Bauer und Edgar Bauer während den Jahren 1839–1842 aus Bonn und Berlin, Charlottenburg, Verlag von Egbert Bauer, 1844, cited in Gustav Mayer, ‘Die Anfänge des politischen Radikalismus im vormärzlichen Preussen’, in Gustav Mayer, Radikalismus, Sozialismus und bürgerliche Demokratie, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1969, p. 20.

33. It is also true that, as a follower of Schleiermacher, he had no reason to continue Altenstein’s policy. See Moggach, Bruno Bauer, pp. 80–82, 234.

34. Mayer, Radikalismus, pp. 54–6.

35. ‘Bruno Bauer to Karl Marx’, 11 December 1839, MEGA, III, i, p. 336; ibid., 1 March 1840, p. 341; ibid., 5 April 1840, pp. 345–6; ibid., 31 March 1841, p. 354.

36. Ibid., 28 March 1841, p. 353.

37. Ibid., 31 March 1841, p. 354.

38. ‘Bruno Bauer to Arnold Ruge’, 6 December 1841, in A. Ruge, Arnold Ruges Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter aus den Jahren 1825–1880, ed. Paul Nerrlich, vol. 1, Berlin, Weidmann, 1886, p. 239.

39. Bauer, Trumpet, p. 62.

40. Ibid., pp. 61, 94, 114.

41. Moggach, Bruno Bauer, pp. 114–15, 107–12.

42. Bauer, Trumpet, pp. 136, 137, 140.

43. Karl Marx, ‘Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction’, January/February 1842, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 116, 117.

44. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 10 February 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 381; ‘Arnold Ruge to Karl Marx’, 25 February 1842, MEGA, III, i, p. 370.

45. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 5 March 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 382.

46. Ibid., 27 April 1842, p. 387.

47. For Karl’s notes in preparation for his ‘Treatise’, see MEGA, I, ii, pp. 114–18.

48. See the book of verse Karl sent to his father in 1837, which included ‘the first elegy of Ovid’s Tristia freely rendered’, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 548–57; Loers had written a treatise on Ovid.

49. Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58 (Grundrisse), MECW, vol. 28, pp. 47, 48.

50. Bauer, Trumpet, pp. 155–6.

51. Johann Winckelmann (1717–68) was a pioneer art historian and archaeologist, who in his History of Art in Antiquity for the first time clearly distinguished between Greek, Greco-Roman and Roman together with Egyptian and Etruscan art. Art was treated as an expression of a particular civilization (its climate, freedom, craft). His work was decisive in the rise of the neo-classical movement in the late eighteenth century and its adulation of the art and civilization of Ancient Greece. His admirers included Lessing, Goethe, Herder and Heine.

52. For Bauer’s radical reshaping of Hegel’s position, see Margaret Rose, Marx’s Lost Aesthetic: Karl Marx and the Visual Arts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 59–60.

53. Bauer, Trumpet, p. 157.

54. Carl Friedrich von Rumohr, Italienische Forschungen, Berlin and Stettin, Nicolai’sche Buchhandlung, 1827, p. 124, cited in Mikhail Lifshitz, The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx, London, Pluto Press, 1973 [Moscow, 1933], p. 35.

55. See Charles de Brosses, Du culte des dieux fétiches, Paris, 1760; citations from de Brosses in Lifshitz, Philosophy of Art, pp. 36–8. Charles de Brosses (1709–77) was born in Dijon and was a friend of the naturalist Buffon. De Brosses wrote numerous essays on ancient history, philology and linguistics, some of which were used by Diderot and D’Alembert in the Encyclopédie. His 1760 work provided a materialistic theory of the origins of religion based upon a comparison between the religion of Ancient Egypt and that current in the region of the Niger.

56. See Rose, Lost Aesthetic, pp. 65–8.

57. J. J. Grund, Die Malerei der Griechen, vol. 1, Dresden, 1810, p. 15, cited in Lifshitz, Philosophy of Art, p. 37.

58. See Rose, Lost Aesthetic, pp. 1–34.

59. In his dissertation, Karl described the attempt of Gassendi to reconcile Catholicism with the heathen philosophy of Epicurus, ‘as though someone had tried to cast a Christian nun’s habit around the gaily luxuriant body of the Greek Lais’: Marx, ‘Foreword’ to doctoral dissertation, p. 29; and see S. S. Prawer, Karl Marx and World Literature, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1976, pp. 30–31.

60. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 20 March 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 385–6.

61. Ibid., p. 386. At the beginning of April, Karl tried moving to Cologne, since he found the proximity of the Bonn professors ‘intolerable’: ibid., p. 385. But he found the atmosphere too distracting and moved back to Bonn.

62. ‘Bruno Bauer to Edgar Bauer’, in Briefwechsel zwischen Bruno Bauer und Edgar Bauer, p. 192.

63The Catholic World, vol. 6, issue 34, 1868, p. 504.

64. Daniel O’Connell (1775–1847) was often known as ‘the Liberator’ or ‘the Emancipator’. He campaigned for Catholic Emancipation – the right of Catholics to sit in the Westminster Parliament – and for the repeal of the Act of Union, which combined Great Britain and Ireland. Due to the crisis situation in Ireland, Catholic Emancipation was conceded in 1829, thus bringing to an end ‘the Protestant Constitution’. Possible parallels with the confrontation between the Catholic Rhineland and Protestant Prussia were not hard to make.

65. For details of the conflict, see Chapter 3, here.

66. Friedrich List (1789–1846) was one of the leading German economists of the nineteenth century. In his National System of Political Economy (1841), he developed a strategy of national economic development based upon the protection of infant industries as opposed to the ‘cosmopolitan’ political economy of Adam Smith. Karl wrote, but did not publish, an article on List’s book around 1845.

67. For discussion between members of the government on how to handle the Rheinische Zeitung, see Mayer, Radikalismus, pp. 35–52.

68. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 27 April 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 387.

69. Ibid., 5 March 1842, pp. 382–3. Res Publica literally meant ‘public thing’ and originated in reference to the Ancient Roman republic.

70. This was a major issue in the poor forest regions around the Moselle and the Hunsrück.

71. Karl Marx, ‘Debates on Freedom of the Press’, 12 May 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 154.

72. Karl Marx, ‘The Leading Article in No. 179 of Kölnische Zeitung’, 14 July 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 195.

73. But the process was partial and halting, especially in the years after the ‘Reform Era’. The experience of Karl’s father, Heinrich, and of his Professor of Law in Berlin, Eduard Gans, shows how contradictory the process could be in the case of law and the academy.

74. See Chapter 1, here.

75. Karl Ludwig von Haller (1768–1854) was a Swiss jurist from Berne and author of Restoration of the Science of the State, an uncompromisingly counter-revolutionary treatise. For this reason he was one of the chief targets of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. His book was also burnt at the Hambach Festival of May 1832.

76. According to Warren Breckman, Prussia during this time was characterized not so much by its ‘feudal vestiges’ as by ‘its extreme social fragmentation’ and this was rationalized by a philosophy, which Breckman calls ‘personalism’ and ‘atomism’. See Warren Breckman, Marx, the Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, ch. 7.

77. This was the point made by Karl in his ‘Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction’, pp. 109–31.

78. Marx, ‘Leading Article in No. 179 of the Kölnische Zeitung’, 10 July 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 189.

79. Marx, ‘Debates on the Freedom of the Press’, 10 May 1842, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 145, 151.

80. Karl Marx, ‘Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly. Third Article. Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood’, 3 November 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 262.

81. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 20 March 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 384.

82. Marx, ‘Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood’, 25 October 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 231.

83. Ibid., 3 November 1842, p. 262.

84. Gustav Hugo (1764–1844) was Professor of Law at Göttingen in the Anglophile Electorate of Hanover. In the 1780s in reaction against the stylized treatment of the history of Roman Law, Hugo issued a translation and commentary on the chapter on Roman Law in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In place of its treatment as an unchanging corpus of law in Heineccius and other legal commentaries, Gibbon showed how the law had adapted itself to changes in Roman society.

85. Karl Marx, ‘The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law’, 9 August 1842, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 204, 206.

86. Ibid., p. 209.

87. Marx, ‘Leading Article in No. 179 of the Kölnische Zeitung’, pp. 199, 192, 193; ‘Debates on Freedom of the Press’, p. 155.

88. ‘Debates on Freedom of the Press’, pp. 155, 162.

89. Marx, ‘Leading Article in No. 179 of the Kölnische Zeitung’, p. 202.

90. Karl Marx, ‘On the Commissions of the Estates in Prussia’, 20 December 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 299.

91. Ibid., 31 December 1842, p. 306.

92. Ibid.

93. See Chapter 6, n. 11.

94. The term ‘civil society’ existed before Hegel but at that point referred to society as a whole. For Hegel’s redefinition of the term, see Manfred Riedel, Between Tradition and Revolution: The Hegelian Transformation of Political Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984, ch. 7.

95. Throughout the early modern period, Aristotle’s view survived in the presumed contrast between the political virtue embodied in the independent landowner as opposed to the self-interest which was likely to shape the pursuits of the ordinary subject; and it was still present in the implicit distinction between man and citizen in the French Revolution’s declaration of rights in 1789.

96. Breckman, Marx, the Young Hegelians, pp. 204–5.

97. Karl Marx, ‘Renard’s letter to Oberpräsident von Schaper’, 17 November 1842, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 282–6.

98. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 9 July 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 391.

99. Ibid., 30 November 1842, pp. 393–4.

100. ‘Karl Marx to Dagobert Oppenheim’, 25 August 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 392.

101. Marx, ‘Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood’, p. 262.

102. ‘Karl Marx to Dagobert Oppenheim’, 25 August 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 392.

103. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 9 July 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 390.

104. ‘Georg Herwegh to the Rheinische Zeitung’, 22 November 1842, MEGA, III, i, p. 379. Herwegh was the most popular of the radical poets at the time, especially on account of his Gedichte eines Lebendigen (Poems of a Living Man).

105. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 30 November 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 381.

106. Ruge also complained about reports of fighting and drinking involving the ‘Free’. He called the whole affair a ‘calamity’, which could compromise Bauer and his cause: ibid., 4 December 1842, pp. 381–3.

107. ‘Bruno Bauer to Karl Marx’, 13 December 1842, MEGA, III, i, p. 386.

108. The moderating of Strauss’s position since 1835 meant that it could accommodate transcendent conceptions, both of God and of humanity.

109. ‘Bruno Bauer to Karl Marx’, 16 March 1842, MEGA, III, i, p. 371; ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 20 March 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 383.

110. ‘The Insolently Threatened Yet Miraculously Rescued Bible or: the Triumph of Faith’, 1842, MECW, vol. 2, pp. 313–52.

111. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 30 November 1842, MECW, vol. 1, p. 394.

112. See Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], pp. 62–4.

113. Mayer, Radikalismus, pp. 50–52.

114. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 25 January 1843, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 397–8.

5 THE ALLIANCE OF THOSE WHO THINK AND THOSE WHO SUFFER

1. For a definition of ‘communism’ during the years of the July Monarchy, see here.

2. Georg Herwegh (1817–75), born in Stuttgart, proceeded to the University of Tübingen as a theology student, moved briefly to law and then to journalism. Called up for military service, he was insubordinate and forced to flee to Switzerland. In Zurich, 1841–3, he published Gedichte eines Lebendigen (Poems of a Living Man), combining a popular style with revolutionary sentiment. He became an idol among the radical youth of the 1840s. His journey through Germany in 1842 attracted much attention and culminated in an audience with the Prussian king. In 1848, in Paris, he was one of the leaders of the Romantically conceived, disastrously amateur German Legion, which aimed to march into the Odenwald and proclaim the German Republic (see Chapter 8, here). In 1842, he had married Emma Siegmund, daughter of a Berlin Jewish merchant, but in 1848, having abandoned the Legion, he became passionately involved with Herzen’s wife, Natalie. (See E. H. Carr, The Romantic Exiles: A Nineteenth-Century Portrait Gallery, London, Victor Gollancz, 1933.) In later life, he supported and wrote songs for the German Social Democratic Party, otherwise devoting himself to the translation of Shakespeare plays.

3. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 25 January 1843, MECW, vol. 1, p. 397; ibid., 13 March 1843, p. 399. Jenny’s ‘pietistic aristocratic relatives’ clearly referred to her brother, Ferdinand, and his sisters. The identity of the ‘priests and other enemies of mine’ has not been discovered, but it is clear that the family had not finally abandoned the attempt to entice Karl back to a more secure livelihood. At Kreuznach he was visited by Esser, a friend of Karl’s father and a Revisionsrat (state official), with the offer of government work. See Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 71.

4. See Heinz Monz, Karl Marx: Grundlagen der Entwicklung zu Leben und Werk, Trier, Verlag Neu, 1973, p. 349. Jenny complained that Bettina had robbed her of the company of her betrothed to roam the area from early morning until late at night, and this despite the fact that she and Karl had not seen each other for six months.

5. Jenny Marx, ‘A Short Sketch of an Eventful Life’, in Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957, p. 19.

6. ‘Arnold Ruge to Karl Marx’, 1 February 1843, MEGA, III, i, pp. 390–91.

7Anekdota zur neuesten deutschen Philosophie und Publicistik was published in two volumes. The collection also included Karl’s unsigned essay on the censorship instruction and, in addition, contributions from all the major Young Hegelians, Bruno Bauer, Köppen, Nauwerck and Ruge himself.

8. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (Das Wesen des Christentums), trans. Marian Evans (later called George Eliot), London, J. Chapman, 1854.

9. Ludwig Feuerbach, ‘Preliminary Theses on the Reform of Philosophy’, in The Fiery Brook: Selected Writings of Ludwig Feuerbach (trans. with an intro by Zawar Hanfi), New York, Doubleday, 1972, p. 157.

10. See Ludwig Feuerbach, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 2, Leipzig, Otto Wigand, 1846, pp. 280, 304. In German, this read ‘entäussert und entfremdet’ – terms whose meanings were often at issue in twentieth-century debates about ‘alienation’.

11. Arnold Ruge, ‘Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and the Politics of our Times’, in Lawrence S. Stepelevich (ed.), The Young Hegelians: An Anthology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 211–36.

12. Ruge, ‘Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’, pp. 215, 223–4. In an image which recalled Heine’s criticism of the political complacency of Goethe, Ruge mocked Hegel’s ‘Olympian repose’, which in turn recalled the account in Genesis of God’s creation of the world: ‘he looked at everything that reason had made, and it was good’.

13. Ibid., pp. 211–36.

14. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 13 March 1843, MECW, vol. 1, p. 400.

15. This remained one of the most enduring parts of Karl’s debt to Feuerbach. It was not only employed in the section on the ‘Fetishism of Commodities’ in Capital, but also discussed in Karl’s letters on Maurer and the interpretation of the ‘mark’ in 1868. See ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 25 March 1868, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 558–9.

16. Feuerbach, ‘Preliminary Theses’, p. 154.

17. Karl Marx, ‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law’, 1843, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 21–2. The translation of ‘Recht’ in MECW is ‘Law’ rather than ‘Right’. Both are possible, but standard usage is ‘Right’.

18. Ibid., pp. 29, 61, 75.

19. Ibid., pp. 14, 39, 10. Hegel’s Science of Logic, which appeared between 1812 and 1816, is arguably best understood as an attempt to extend what Kant had intended in his ‘transcendental deduction of the categories’ in his Critique of Pure Reason. This consisted of an attempt to derive a list of those non-empirical concepts, the categories, which he believed were presupposed by all finite, discursive knowers like ourselves. Whether these categories are to be understood as ontological (the structure of being), as in Aristotle, or as revealing the necessary structure of thought, as in Kant, is a matter of dispute among philosophers. For an extended discussion, see George di Giovanni’s Introduction in G. W. F. Hegel, The Science of Logic, trans. and ed. George di Giovanni, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. xi–lxii; see also Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2015, http://plato.stanford.edu/.

20. Karl Marx, ‘Afterword to the Second German Edition’, 24 January 1873, in Capital, vol. I, MECW, vol. 35, p. 19.

21. Marx, ‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law’, pp. 63, 33, 49, 31.

22. Ibid., pp. 32, 79–80.

23. Ibid., p. 29.

24. Ibid., pp. 32, 110–11.

25. Ibid., p. 31.

26. Ibid., pp. 42, 50, 98, 108, 106, 45.

27. Ibid., pp. 115–16.

28. Ibid., pp. 117–19.

29. Ibid., p. 121.

30. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 13 March 1843, MECW, vol. 1, p. 400.

31. Karl Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’, 1844, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 154, 151, 156.

32. Ibid., pp. 155, 152, 158.

33. Ibid., pp. 163, 164.

34. Ibid., p. 168.

35. Republicanism also gained some support among organizations of silk workers in Lyons, where the struggle between the silk merchants and the canuts – the weavers (both masters and journeymen) – culminated in insurrectionary strikes in 1831 and 1834.

36. The followers of Cabet were called ‘Icarians’, after the novel, and were the largest grouping of ‘communists’ in France. In November 1847, Cabet announced the migration of the Icarians to the Promised Land – next to the Red River in Texas; and in February 1848 an advance party set off from France, but the community ended in disarray at the end of 1848. Other branches, however, were formed in Nauvoo, Illinois; Cheltenham, St Louis; Corning, Iowa; and elsewhere. For the history of the Icarians in France in the 1840s, see Christopher H. Johnson, Utopian Communism in France: Cabet and the Icarians, 1839–1851, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1974.

37. Thomas Carlyle, Chartism, London, James Fraser, 1839, ch. 1.

38. See the anonymous contributions of Friedrich Engels, ‘The Internal Crises’, 9/10 December 1842, MECW, vol. 2, p. 374.

39. Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Die Kommunisten in der Schweiz nach den bei Weitling vorgefundenen Papieren (Communists in Switzerland According to Papers Found in Weitling’s Possession), Glashütten im Taunus, Auvermann, 1973 [Zurich, Druck von Orell, 1843], p. 5.

40. On Stein and the reaction to his book, see Diana Siclovan, ‘Lorenz Stein and German Socialism, 1835–1872’, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 2014; see also David Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1997; Keith Tribe, Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750–1840, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988.

41. Moses Hess, ‘Sozialismus und Kommunismus’ (1843), in Wolfgang Mönke (ed.), Moses Hess: Philosophische und sozialistische Schriften 1837–1850. Eine Auswahl, Vaduz, Topos Verlag, 1980, pp. 197–210.

42. The historical significance of Stein’s book has generally been misunderstood. He has been described as a pioneer ‘sociologist’ and it has sometimes been suggested that Karl might have acquired his conception of the proletariat from Stein’s book. This is extremely improbable, given Karl’s increasingly hostile attitude towards ‘the political state’. It is far more likely that he shared the hostility expressed by Hess.

43. Moses Hess, ‘Die europäische Triarchie’, in Mönke (ed.), Philosophische und sozialistische Schriften, pp. 159–60.

44. Karl Marx, ‘Communism and the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung’, 15 October 1842, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 220–21.

45. Ibid.

46. Feuerbach, ‘Preliminary Theses’, p. 165.

47. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Feuerbach’, 3 October 1843, MECW, vol. 3, p. 349.

48. Moses Hess, ‘The Philosophy of the Act’ (1843), in Albert Fried and Ronald Sanders (eds.), Socialist Thought: A Documentary History, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1964, pp. 261, 264, 266.

49. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 13 March 1843, MECW, vol. 1, pp. 398–9.

50. ‘Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx’, March 1843, MECW, vol. 1, p. 728.

51. ‘Arnold Ruge to Karl Marx’, 11 August 1843, MEGA, III, i, pp. 409–10.

52. ‘Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher’, March–September 1843, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 133–4.

53. ‘Arnold Ruge to Karl Marx’, March 1843, MEGA, III, i, pp. 402–5.

54. Ibid.

55. By the nineteenth century, the term ‘philistine’ (originally the biblical enemies of the Israelites) came to refer in Matthew Arnold to ‘ignorant ill-behaved persons, lacking in culture or artistic appreciation, and only concerned with materialistic values’. Its early modern usage derived from the German, der Philister, and began with town vs gown clashes in the University of Jena in 1689.

56. ‘Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher’, March–September 1843, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 134, 137, 140, 141.

57. Ibid., pp. 141, 143, 144.

58. For details of the Parisian workforce in the 1840s, see Mark Traugott, Armies of the Poor: Determinants of Working-Class Participation in the Parisian Insurrection of June 1848, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985, ch. 1; for details of the German migrant population in Paris, see Jacques Grandjonc, Marx et les Communistes allemands à Paris, Vorwärts 1844: Contribution à l’étude de la naissance du Marxisme, Paris, F. Maspero, 1974, pp. 9–18.

59. ‘Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher’, March–September 1843, MECW, vol. 3, p. 142.

60. Arnold Ruge, Zwei Jahre in Paris: Studien und Erinnerungen, Leipzig, W. Jurany, 1846, part 1, pp. 48–9.

61Le Globe was founded in 1824, moved towards the liberal opposition in 1828, and became the official voice of the Saint-Simonians in 1830. It was the most famous French newspaper around the time of the 1830 Revolution.

62. P. Leroux, ‘De l’Individualisme et du Socialisme’, Revue encyclopédique, vol. LX, pp. 94–117, Paris, October 1833, reprinted in David Owen Evans, Le Socialisme romantique: Pierre Leroux et ses contemporains, Paris, M. Rivière, 1948, pp. 223–38.

63. See Edward Berenson, Populist Religion and Left-Wing Politics in France, 1830–1852, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984.

64. Ruge was an admirer of Louis Blanc and was preparing an edition of his History of Ten Years; see Lucien Calvié, ‘Ruge and Marx: Democracy, Nationalism and Revolution in Left Hegelian Debates’, in Douglas Moggach (ed.), Politics, Religion and Art: Hegelian Debates, Evanston, Ill., Northwestern University Press, 2011, pp. 301–20. Karl on the other hand puzzled one of his Cologne admirers, Georg Jung, by expressing his disapproval of Blanc. It may be that he was offended by Blanc’s reference to Ruge as Karl’s ‘master’ in the Revue indepéndante. See ‘Georg Jung to Karl Marx’, 31 July 1844, MEGA, III, i, p. 438.

65. Hess,‘Philosophy of the Act’, pp. 262–4.

66. Ruge, Zwei Jahre in Paris, pp. 137–8.

67. Despite his enthusiasm for Feuerbach, Karl never warmed to attempts to conceive humanism in religious terms. In this respect, his attitude towards religion remained much closer to Bauer than to Feuerbach.

68. ‘Arnold Ruge’, in McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, p. 9.

69. F. Engels, ‘Progress of Social Reform on the Continent’, New Moral World, 4 November 1843, MECW, vol. 3, p. 399. Citing an account of a visit to a Parisian Communist Club almost a year later, he wrote that members of the Club, in reaction to attempts to persuade them of the merits of Feuerbach, had declared that the question of God was a secondary matter, that ‘to all practical intents [they] agreed with us, and said, “Enfin, l’Athéisme, c’est votre religion” [so in the end, atheism is your religion]’: F. Engels, ‘Continental Socialism’, 20 September 1844, MECW, vol. 4, p. 213.

70. See Marcel Herwegh (ed.), Briefe von und an Georg Herwegh, 2nd edn, Munich, A. Langen, 1898, p. 328.

71. ‘Ludwig Feuerbach to Karl Marx’, 6–25 October 1843, MEGA, III, i, pp. 416–17.

72. M. Hess, ‘Über das Geldwesen’, in Mönke (ed.), Philosophische und sozialistische Schriften, pp. 331–45.

73. Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’, p. 174.

74. Hostility towards Jews was common among French socialists in the 1840s. Both Fourier and Proudhon suspected that indebtedness and pauperism had been made worse by the emancipation of the Jews during the French Revolution. Complaints about the financial power of the Jews despite the incompleteness of their emancipation were frequent, and were made an object of comment both by Karl and by Bruno Bauer. This form of socialist anti-Semitism reached its peak in Alphonse Toussenel’s Les Juifs, rois de l’époque: histoire de la féodalité financière, Paris, G. de Gonet, 1845. Toussenel was a one-time editor of the main Fourierist journal, La Démocratie pacifique, and this book attacked just as fiercely the English, the Dutch and the Genevans: ‘For he who says Jew, says Protestant.’ The attack was directed at the centres of high finance, which he compared to a congregation of vampires. After 1848, he applied Fourierism to the animal world. In his most famous work, Le Monde des oiseaux, he developed his theory that ‘birds are the precursors and the revealers of harmony’; see Sarane Alexandrian, Le Socialisme romantique, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1979, pp. 226–35.

75. Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’, p. 172.

76. Ibid., p. 173.

77. Ibid., p. 174.

78. Karl Marx, ‘Introduction’ to ‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law’, 1844, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 175, 176, 178, 182.

79. Ibid., pp. 176, 178, 179, 185.

80. Ibid., pp. 186–7.

81. Ibid., pp. 183, 187; the distinction between ‘heart’ and ‘head’ came from Feuerbach’s ‘Preliminary Theses’, p. 165.

82. A. Ruge, Arnold Ruges Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter aus den Jahren 1825–1880, ed. P. Nerrlich, Berlin, Weidmann, 1886, p. 350.

83. Anon., ‘Berichte über Heines Verhältnis zu Marx’ (‘Reports on Heine’s Relationship with Marx’), Die Neue Zeit, XIV, pt 1 (1895–6). The author was probably Mehring or Kautsky: see McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, p. 10.

84. Ibid.

85. Ruge, Arnold Ruges Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter, p. 343, cited in McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, p. 8.

86. Ruge, Zwei Jahre in Paris, pp. 138–40.

87. Ruge, Arnold Ruges Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter, p. 346.

88. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Feuerbach’, 11 August 1844, MECW, vol. 3, p. 354.

89. For an account of Vorwärts!, and Karl’s relations with it, see Grandjonc, Marx et les Communistes allemands.

90. Adalbert von Bornstedt (1807–51) was the son of a military family. In 1831 he joined the exile community in Paris, and took part in the conquest of Algeria, where he was badly wounded. In Paris, he worked as an editor or journalist on several publications, notably Vorwärts!, but was expelled from France in 1845. From Paris he went to Brussels, where in 1846 he founded the Deutsche Brüsseler Zeitung. In 1848, he moved back to Paris, where he was one of the leaders of the German Legion together with Georg Herwegh.

Heinrich Börnstein (1805–92) was born in Lemberg (now L’viv, Ukraine). After half-hearted study at Lemberg and Vienna he became a touring actor in Germany together with his wife, and then a successful theatrical entrepreneur. In 1842, he attempted to take a German Opera Company to Paris; he then managed an Italian opera company. He was a friend of Franz Liszt, Alexandre Dumas and Giacomo Meyerbeer. In 1844–5, he published Vorwärts!, originally intended primarily as a cultural journal, but it was closed down by the authorities at the beginning of 1845. He was correspondent for the New York Tribune and in 1848 helped to organize Herwegh’s German Legion. He left for the United States in 1849, where he was active as a journalist in St Louis, a prominent supporter of Lincoln, and, during the American Civil War, the American consul in Bremen.

91. Heinrich Börnstein, Fünfundsiebzig Jahre in der Alten und Neuen Welt. Memoiren eines Unbedeutenden, cited in Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 89.

92. See Ruge, Zwei Jahre in Paris, pp. 142–6.

93. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, c.21 June 1844, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 574–5, 577–8.

94. Ibid., pp. 574–7.

95. After the Paris insurrection and the capture of the Tuileries of 10 August 1792, the Legislative Assembly decided to elect a Convention, which would draw up a constitution on the basis of the abolition of the monarchy. The Convention met from 21 September 1792 through to 26 October 1795. It was a period which included revolt in the Vendée, organized defence of national frontiers and ‘terror’ in the interior. Revolutionary government was in the hands of the Committee for Public Safety.

96. Philippe-Joseph-Benjamin Buchez and Pierre-Célestin Roux-Lavergne, Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, 40 vols., Paris, Libraire Paulin, 1833–8. This was the standard left-wing account of the revolutionary events during this period. It was also one of the main sources of Thomas Carlyle’s The French Revolution, London, James Fraser, 1837. See François Furet, Marx et la Révolution française, Paris, Flammarion, 1986, ch. 1.

97. These manuscripts are discussed in the following chapter.

98. This work, completed at the end of November, was published as The Holy Family, or, Critique of Critical Criticism against Bruno Bauer and Company. All but a few pages were written by Karl. The reasons for Karl’s continuing preoccupation with Bauer are discussed in the next chapter.

99. For an account of the Silesian events, see Christina von Hodenberg, Aufstand der Weber: die Revolte von 1844 und ihr Aufstieg zum Mythos, Bonn, Dietz, 1997.

100Vorwärts!, no. 54, 6 July 1844, and no. 55, 10 July 1844. Heine’s curse on God, King and Country was an inversion of the Prussian national slogan of the patriotic war of 1813: ‘With God for the King and the Fatherland’; see Grandjonc, Marx et les Communistes allemands, pp. 44–8, 131–5.

101. ‘A Prussian’, ‘The King of Prussia and Social Reform’, Vorwärts!, no. 60, 27 July 1844.

102. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, 4–10 August 1844, MECW, vol. 3, p. 580.

103. ‘Moses Hess to Karl Marx’, 3 July 1844, MEGA, III, i, p. 434.

104. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Feuerbach’, 11 August 1844, MECW, vol. 3, p. 355.

105. Karl Marx, ‘Critical Marginal Notes on the Article “The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian” ’, Vorwärts!, no. 63, 7 August 1844, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 189–206.

106. ‘Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge’, 13 March 1843, MECW, vol. 1, p. 400.

107. Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’, pp. 173–4.

108. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 282; ‘Karl Marx to Antoinette Philips’, 24 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 271.

109. ‘Karl Marx to Jenny Longuet’, 7 December 1881, MECW, vol. 46, pp. 157–8.

6 EXILE IN BRUSSELS, 1845–8

1. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, MEGA, I, v, p. 449.

2. Heinrich Bürgers, ‘Erinnerungen an Ferdinand Freiligrath’, Vossische Zeitung, 1876, cited in Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 105.

3. Jenny Marx, ‘A Short Sketch of an Eventful Life’, in Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957, p. 222; ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, 24 August 1845, MECW, vol. 38, p. 528.

4. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, 24 August 1845, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 527–8. Clearly Max Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own, which would replace duty or vocation by the pursuit of individual desire, was a topic of household banter. On Stirner’s book and the critical response of Hess, Engels and Karl, see pp. 188–90.

5. Caroline died on 13 January 1847.

6. ‘Sophie Schmalhausen to Karl Marx’, 25 September 1846, MEGA, III, ii, pp. 311–12.

7. For the argument between Say and Sismondi about globalization and ‘the industrial revolution’ in the 1820s, see Gareth Stedman Jones, An End to Poverty?: A Historical Debate, London, Profile Books, 2004, ch. 4.

8. J.-C.-L. Simonde de Sismondi, Nouveaux principes d’économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population, 2 vols., Paris, Chez Delaunay, 1819, vol. 2, p. 262.

9. See M. Hess, ‘Über das Geldwesen’, in Wolfgang Mönke (ed.), Moses Hess: Philosophische und sozialistische Schriften 1837–1850. Eine Auswahl, Vaduz, Topos Verlag, 1980, pp. 329–48.

10. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844MECW, vol. 4, p. 297.

11. The term political economy was first used in 1615. ‘Economy’ derived from the Greek oikos, meaning pertaining to the household, and nomos, meaning law. The term political economy initially explored the parallel between managing a household and managing a polity (Greek polis) or a state. From the later eighteenth century, following Adam Smith, the term referred in particular to the laws or regularities pertaining to a commercial society. Critics in the first half of the nineteenth century, like Engels, objected to the theory of human nature which supposedly underlay prevalent analyses of commercial society.

12. Friedrich Engels, ‘Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy’, MECW, vol. 3, p. 421.

13. Ibid., pp. 434, 436–7.

14. Robert Owen (1771–1858) was the founder and pioneer in Britain of what in the first half of the nineteenth century came to be called ‘socialism’. He first became famous for the enlightened and innovatory reforms he introduced into the management of a textile mill co-owned with David Dale in New Lanark, just outside Glasgow. In particular, he reduced factory hours, provided new forms of education for the children employed there and transformed the sanitation and housing of employees. In 1817, in response to the post-war depression and unemployment, he proposed the establishment of ‘villages of cooperation’, which he also believed would inaugurate the transition to the millennium. In the 1820s, he spent most of his fortune in establishing the community of New Harmony in Indiana. The project failed. But in the meantime a movement had developed in support of his principles, gaining widespread support among artisans and sections of the middle class. In the early 1830s, the movement pioneered the development of labour exchanges, trade unionism and cooperative production. In 1839–45 he made a final but also unsuccessful attempt to establish a socialist community at Queenwood Farm in Hampshire.

Much of Owenite practice was based upon an environmental theory of human behaviour. He admired the optimistic vision of development associated with William Godwin, and defended his approach against the attacks made by Malthus. In major cities, Owenites set up ‘Halls of Science’ with secular Sunday services. Lectures, demonstrating scientific progress, attended by Engels, were regularly held in Manchester, including a demonstration of the possibilities of soil chemistry delivered by Justus Liebig. The Owenites attacked the endorsement of competition associated with political economy, developed a systematic critique of political economy articulated by John Watts, but also built upon the criticism associated with Thomas Hodgskin, William Thompson and John Francis Bray.

15. Engels, ‘Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy’, pp. 420–24.

16. Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, The Holy Family, or, Critique of Critical Criticism against Bruno Bauer and CompanyMECW, vol. 4, p. 31. Sieyès attacked the categories employed in the calling of the Estates General in 1789. He proposed the abolition of the first two estates – the clergy and the nobility – while redefining the ‘Third Estate’ as ‘the Nation’, since the ‘Nation’ was composed of those who worked.

17. Karl Marx, MEGA, IV, ii, pp. 301–480. For a description and an analysis of the character of Karl’s engagement with these economic texts, I am greatly indebted to Keith Tribe, ‘Karl Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy”: A Critique’, in The Economy of the Word: Language, History and Economics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, ch. 6.

18. Marx, MEGA, IV, ii, pp. 318–19. These reflections were written in German; the notes were taken in French.

19. On the debate on Ricardo and his own changes in reaction to it in relation to the labour theory of value, see Terry Peach, Interpreting Ricardo, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, chs. 1, 4 and 5.

20. Marx, MEGA, IV, ii, p. 405; and see Tribe, Economy of the Word, p. 263.

21. Marx, MEGA, IV, ii, p. 453; Karl Marx, ‘Comments on James Mill, Élémens d’économie politique’, MECW, vol. 3, p. 217, but note that MECW misleadingly translates fixiert as ‘defines’ rather than ‘fixates’.

22. Marx, ‘Comments on James Mill’, p. 219.

23. In MECW, vol. 3, pp. 235–70, and other editions of the 1844 Manuscripts, the columns dealing with wages, capital and rent are misleadingly presented as consecutive chapters. The falsity of this arrangement was first pointed out in Margaret Fay, ‘The Influence of Adam Smith on Marx’s Theory of Alienation’, Science and Society, 47/2 (Summer 1983), pp. 129–51; for the complex history of the publication of the manuscripts, see Jürgen Rojahn, ‘Marxismus – Marx – Geschichtswissenschaft. Der Fall der sog. “Ökonomisch-philosophischen Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844” ’, International Review of Social History, 28/01 (April 1983), pp. 2–49.

24. See Tribe, Economy of the Word, pp. 192–3. Antoine-Eugène Buret (1810–42) was a follower of Simonde de Sismondi, the first to highlight the broader national and international implications of industrialization and proletarianization in the years following 1815. His study of the condition of the working classes in England and France (2 vols., 1840) was the first to highlight many of the themes developed by Engels in his study of the working classes in England in 1844. His theoretical work is further discussed in Chapter 10, ‘The Critique of Political Economy’.

25. Eugène Buret, De la misère des classes laborieuses en Angleterre et en France, Paris, Paulin, 1840, vol. 1, pp. 49–50, cited in Tribe, Economy of the Word, p. 193.

26. Marx, MEGA, IV, ii, pp. 551–79. As Keith Tribe points out, the first hundred pages of Buret were spent examining approaches to the wage contract, but out of nearly thirty pages of notes, these issues merited less than one. See Tribe, Economy of the Word, 2015, ch. 6.

27. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, p. 270.

28. Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, p. 31; Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, p. 241.

29. Marx, ‘Comments on James Mill’, p. 220.

30. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, pp. 275, 276, 278, 280.

31. What is called the ‘Preface’ and printed at the beginning of what twentieth-century editors called Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (MECW, vol. 3, pp. 231–4) originally appeared without a title in the third notebook. However, it is reasonable to believe that by late summer 1844 Karl was beginning to think of this work as a book. He announced in this passage (here) that ‘in contrast to the critical theologian of our day’ (Bruno Bauer) he intended that the ‘concluding chapter of this work’ could contain ‘a critical discussion of Hegelian dialectic and philosophy as a whole’. What remains unclear is whether the notebooks were drafts of this book or simply preparatory notes. See Tribe, Economy of the Word, pp. 216–17.

32. The German title was Kritik der Politik und National Ökonomie. For details, see MECW, vol. 4, p. 675. Karl received an advance of 3,000 francs, the second half to be paid when the volume was printed. In March 1846, however, worried by the probability of censorship, Leske suggested Karl find another publisher, and if he did find one, to return the advance. He was unable to find another publisher or to deliver the book. The contract with Leske was therefore cancelled in February 1847, but the advance was not repaid.

33. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, pp. 231–4.

34. Ibid., p. 272. The origin of this motif was to be found in the Lutheran rendering of the term Entäusserung. Karl wrote that ‘the human being had to be reduced to this absolute poverty in order that he might yield his inner wealth to the outer world’ (ibid., p. 300). Its original usage stemmed from Luther’s translation of St Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (2:6–9), in which Jesus, ‘though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself [sich geäussert], taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the cross.’ See Georges Cottier, L’athéisme du jeune Marx: ses origines hégéliennes, Paris, Vrin, 1969.

35. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, pp. 317, 217, 276, 307.

36. Ibid., pp. 322, 219.

37. On the difficulties besetting this argument, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Introduction’, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, London, Penguin Books, 2002, pp. 120–39.

38. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, pp. 303, 293–4.

39. Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, p. 36.

40. This was the significance of what Engels, following French commentators like Jean-Baptiste Say and Adolphe Blanqui, called ‘the industrial revolution’; see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘National Bankruptcy and Social Revolution: European Observers on Britain, 1813–1844’, in Donald Winch and Patrick K. O’Brien (eds.), The Political Economy of British Historical Experience, 1688–1914, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 61–92; Stedman Jones, An End to Poverty?, pp. 133–99.

Following on from the debate between Say and Sismondi in the 1820s, an increasing number of social critics, including Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Thomas Carlyle, Moses Hess and Engels himself, all in different ways pointed out that the old conditions of famine and scarcity had given way to a new form of crisis. This was what Fourier called ‘plethoric crisis’, the crisis of ‘overproduction’. For communists, this became a sign of the discordance between the new possibilities of abundance and outmoded forms of property ownership. During the 1820s and 1830s for the first time, contemporaries also became aware of the relationship between factory production and the trade cycle. Investment in factory production and automatic machinery created the possibility of crises of overcapacity. The trade crises of 1825, 1837 and 1842 were each accompanied by the conspicuous presence of large quantities of unsold goods. See R. C. O. Matthews, A Study in Trade-Cycle History: Economic Fluctuations in Great Britain 1833–1842, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1954.

41. Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England: From Personal Observation and Authentic SourcesMECW, vol. 4, pp. 295–584.

42. Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, p. 36.

43. On Engels’ life, see Tristram Hunt, The Frock-Coated Communist: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels, London, Allen Lane, 2009; and see also the still classic account, Gustav Mayer, Friedrich Engels: Eine Biographie, 2 vols., Berlin, Dietz, 1970 [1919, 1932].

44. F. Oswald, ‘Siegfried’s Home Town’, December 1840, MECW, vol. 2, pp. 132–6. During this period, Engels used the pseudonym ‘Frederick Oswald’.

45. The Freien (the ‘Free’) were a group which gathered around Bruno Bauer after his return to Berlin in 1842. They frequented particular cafés, took the anti-Christian argument to extremes and were associated with a Bohemian life style. The group included Max Stirner and Bruno’s brother, Edgar.

46. Friedrich Engels, ‘Über eine in England bevorstehende Katastrophe’, Rheinische Zeitung, no. 177, 26 June 1842, in W. Mönke (ed.), Moses Hess: Philosophische und sozialistische Schriften 1837–1850. Eine Auswahl, Vaduz, Topos Verlag, 1980, pp. 183–5; Friedrich Engels, ‘The Internal Crises’, Rheinische Zeitung, no. 343, 9 December 1842, MECW, vol. 2, pp. 370–72.

47. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Progress of Social Reform on the Continent’, October–November 1843, MECW, vol. 3, 406.

48. Ibid., pp. 393, 407.

49. Engels, ‘Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy’, pp. 418–44.

50. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century’, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 475–6.

51. Engels, ‘Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy’, pp. 423, 424; Engels, ‘The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century’, pp. 476, 485.

52. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Condition of England: The English Constitution’, MECW, vol. 3, p. 513.

53. Engels, ‘The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century’, pp. 475–6.

54. Ibid., p. 464; Friedrich Engels, ‘The Condition of England: Past and Present by Thomas Carlyle’, MECW, vol. 3, p. 487.

55. Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England p. 526.

56. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 18 April 1863, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 468–9. He went on: ‘re-reading your work has made me unhappily aware of the changes wrought by age. With what zest and passion, what boldness of vision and absence of all learned or scientific reservations, the subject is still attacked in these pages!’

57. Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, p. 7.

Eugène Sue (1804–57) was one of the most popular novelists of the nineteenth century, most famous for Les Mystères de Paris (The Mysteries of Paris), published as a weekly serial in 1842–3. Sue was inspired by socialist writing and highlighted the dark side of city life. The novel was built upon the contrast between the high life of the nobility and the rich and harsh existence of the underclass. The Chartist sympathizer and publisher G. W. M. Reynolds brought out an English version: The Mysteries of London. Sue followed up the Mysteries with another global success, Le Juif errant (The Wandering Jew), which appeared in ten volumes between 1844 and 1845.

58. ‘Georg Jung to Karl Marx’, 18 March 1845, MEGA, III, i, pp. 458–9.

59. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 17 March 1845, MECW, vol. 38, p. 28.

60. Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, p. 41.

61. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Rapid Progress of Communism in Germany’, MECW, vol. 4, p. 235.

62. Friedrich Engels, ‘Speeches in Elberfeld’, MECW, vol. 4, pp. 243–65.

63. Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, ed. David Leopold, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995 [1845], p. 323.

64. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 19 November 1844, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 11–12.

65. Moses Hess, ‘The Recent Philosophers’ (1845), in Lawrence S. Stepelevich (ed.), The Young Hegelians: An Anthology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 359–60, 373.

66. In 1844, he had written in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher that ‘the criticism of religion’ ended with ‘the teaching that man is the highest being for man, hence with the categorical imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, forsaken, despicable being’. Karl Marx, ‘Introduction’ to ‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law’, 1844, MECW, vol. 3, p. 182.

67. ‘Karl Marx to Heinrich Börnstein’, late December 1844, MECW, vol. 38, p. 14; and see Jacques Grandjonc, Marx et les Communistes allemands à Paris, Vorwärts 1844: Contribution à l’étude de la naissance du Marxisme, Paris, F. Maspero, 1974, p. 94.

68. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, c.20 January 1845, MECW, vol. 38, p. 16. Moses Hess had already written to Karl noting their critical consensus on 17 January 1845; see MEGA, III, i, p. 450.

69. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 222.

70. As early as 1801, for example, Louis-Sébastien Mercier in his Néologie, ou Vocabulaire de mots nouveaux (Paris, Moussard) had noted in reference to the ‘proletarians’, ‘Woe to a nation divided into two necessarily enemy classes, that of the property owners and that of the proletarians.’ Cited in Pierre Rosanvallon, Le Sacre du citoyen: Histoire du suffrage universel en France, Paris, Gallimard, 1992, p. 257. Karl himself made no claim to originality in resorting to the notions of class and class struggle. As he wrote to Joseph Weydemeyer in 1852, ‘long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of the struggle between the classes, as had the bourgeois economists their economic anatomy’. His claim to originality was ‘to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production’. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 5 March 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 62.

71. Karl Marx, ‘Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism’, 1845–7, MECW, vol. 5, p. 49. This passage was formerly considered to form part of what was called The German Ideology. But there are now strong reasons for doubting the existence of such a text. See, n. 80.

72. See Frederick Beiser, ‘Max Stirner and the End of Classical German Philosophy’, in Douglas Moggach (ed.) Politics, Religion and Art: Hegelian Debates, Evanston, Ill., Northwestern University Press, 2011, pp. 281–301. Stirner did not, of course, directly answer Karl’s criticisms, because Karl’s polemic was never published.

73. Friedrich Engels, ‘On the History of the Communist League’, October 1885, MECW, vol. 26, p. 318.

74. Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, p. 7.

75. Engels’ theoretical insufficiencies did not go unnoticed at the time. According to Karl’s companion from Cologne, Heinrich Bürgers, Engels’ ‘aversion to philosophy and speculation derive much less from an insight into their nature than from the discomfort which they have produced in his not very persevering mind’. Bürgers claimed that he probably resolved to protect himself from this discomfort in the future by ‘the exorcism of contempt’ and setting himself a descriptive task. ‘Heinrich Bürgers to Karl Marx’, February 1846, MEGA, III, i, pp. 506–7.

76. Friedrich Engels, ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy’, 25 February 1886, MECW, vol. 26, p. 366.

77. G. Plekhanov [N. Beltov], The Development of the Monist View of History, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956 [1895], ch. 1.

78. ‘Learned’ because Karl used his doctoral research on ‘Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’ to challenge Bruno Bauer’s findings.

79. On David Riazanov, see ‘Epilogue’, n. 20.

80. See Terrell Carver, ‘The German Ideology Never Took Place’, History of Political Thought, 31 (Spring 2010), pp. 107–27, and see further Terrell Carver and Daniel Blank, A Political History of the Editions of Marx and Engels’s ‘German Ideology Manuscripts’, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. The so-called German Ideology, as it was published in 1932, consists of an assortment of unedited or partly edited manuscripts, some of which were originally intended for publication elsewhere. Much of the early parts was written or transcribed by Karl or Engels; some of the later essays (‘volume two’) were originally composed or transcribed by Joseph Weydemeyer or Moses Hess. For these reasons, I have avoided citing any references in a form that implies that there existed such a book or integral text as The German Ideology.

81. These were published by Engels as an appendix to the 1888 edition of his essay. He made various editorial alterations, and provided it with the more portentous title, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’.

82. Karl Marx, ‘Ad Feuerbach’, MECW, vol. 5, p. 3.

83. Ibid., pp. 39–40.

84. Not all the observations made by Karl were accurate. While a criticism of the association of ‘sensuousness’ with passivity was justified, to criticize Feuerbach’s view of man as that of ‘an abstraction inherent in each single individual’ rather than as part of an ‘ensemble of social relations’ – a point once made much of by Louis Althusser – makes little sense, given that one of Feuerbach’s principal claims was to have replaced ‘the solitary ego’ as the starting point in philosophy by ‘the unity of I and Thou’.

Incidentally, it is also quite wrong to infer from Karl’s criticisms that Feuerbach was in some sense apolitical. Feuerbach declared that ‘in the region of practical philosophy’ he remained an idealist. His model of a republic was not that of Ancient Greece, but a German version of the United States. He also remained practically engaged in politics throughout his life, from his youthful association with the Burschenschaften through to his membership of the Democratic Congress in June 1848. See David Leopold, The Young Karl Marx: German Philosophy, Modern Politics and Human Flourishing, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 203–18.

85. Marx, ‘Ad Feuerbach’, p. 3.

86. Karl Marx, ‘The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof’, in Capital, vol. I, MECW, vol. 35, pp. 81–94; on abstraction see below and also p. 199.

87. ‘Karl Marx to Pavel Annenkov’, 28 December 1846, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 100, 102.

88. Karl Marx, ‘Direct Results of the Production Process’, MECW, vol. 34, p. 398.

89. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 25 March 1868, MECW, vol. 42, p. 558.

90. In emphasizing Karl’s relationship with the idealist tradition, I am deeply indebted to the insights of Douglas Moggach and his idea of ‘post-Kantian perfectionism’. See D. Moggach, ‘Post-Kantian Perfectionism’, in D. Moggach (ed.), Politics, Religion and Art, pp. 179–203; and for Marx’s relationship with this tradition, see in particular the essay by Douglas Moggach, ‘German Idealism and Marx’, in John Walker (ed.), The Impact of Idealism: The Legacy of Post-Kantian German Thought, vol. II: Historical, Social and Political Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013.

91. Karl Marx, ‘Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole’, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 332–3. Hegel had reached this position in his years at Jena (1800–1807). In his lectures from 1803 onwards, he reversed the classical priority of activity (praxis) over labour (poiesis); work was no longer presented as a subordinate component of practical philosophy, confined to ‘the relativity of a working class’, but now became a central moment in the constitution of ‘Spirit’. Practical behaviour was no longer confined to the concept of interaction with others or, as in Kant and Fichte, to the inner workings of moral subjectivity in interaction with its own sensuousness as object. For Hegel, this interaction between the self and the not-self was now extended through a new concept of labour to incorporate the whole of mankind’s struggle with nature. Work and development were brought together in a transcendental history of consciousness, activity was objectified in work. See Manfred Riedel, Between Tradition and Revolution: The Hegelian Transformation of Political Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984, chs.1 and 5.

92. Karl Marx, ‘Estranged Labour’, MECW, vol. 3, p. 280.

93. Immanuel Kant, ‘Conjectural Beginning of Human History’ (1786), in Lewis White Beck (ed.), Kant: On History, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merril, 1980, pp. 59–60.

94. As Karl later wrote in his initial draft of Capital, the so-called Grundrisse, ‘Labour obtains its measure from outside, through the aim to be attained and the obstacles to be overcome in attaining it. But Adam Smith has no inkling whatever that this overcoming of obstacles is in itself a liberating activity – and that, further, the external aims become stripped of the semblance of merely external natural urgencies, and become posited as aims which the individual himself posits – hence as self-realization, objectifications of the subject, hence real freedom’: Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58 (Grundrisse), MECW, vol. 28, p. 530.

95. ‘Ethical life’ is an imperfect rendering of the German, Sittlichkeit, because the German word not only refers to morality, but equally to custom. The German word Sitte means custom. Thus Sittlichkeit refers to a mode of conduct habitually practised by a social group such as a nation, a class or a family, and regarded as a norm of decent behaviour. See Michael Inwood, A Hegel Dictionary, Oxford, Blackwell, 1992, pp. 91–3.

96. Marx, ‘Ad Feuerbach’, p. 4.

97. Ibid., pp. 294–5, 296–7.

98. Plekhanov, Development of the Monist View, p. 166.

99. Karl Kautsky, Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, Chicago, C. H. Kerr & Company, 1914 [1906], pp. 96–7, 102.

100. G. W. F. Hegel, The Science of Logic, trans. and ed. George di Giovanni, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 657–69. Karl’s application of Hegel’s treatment of ‘external teleology’ to an analysis of the labour process in the 1844 Manuscripts has been argued by Douglas Moggach in ‘German Idealism’, pp. 19–21.

101. Moggach, ‘German Idealism’, pp. 21–3.

102. Karl Marx, ‘Production and Intercourse: Division of Labour’, MECW, vol. 5, pp. 33–4. Apart from the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ this list was very similar to that employed by Karl in 1859 in his preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyMECW, vol. 29, p. 263. For the use made of the historical and legal studies of the German Historical School of Law – Savigny, Niebuhr, Hugo and Pfister – see Stedman Jones (ed.), Communist Manifesto, pp. 153–7. See also N. Levine, ‘The German Historical School of Law and the Origins of Historical Materialism’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 48/3 (July–Sept. 1987), pp. 431–51.

103. Karl Marx, MECW, vol. 5, p. 50.

104. Ibid., p. 50.

105. ‘Karl Marx to Pavel Annenkov’, 28 December 1846, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 96–7.

106. In The Poverty of Philosophy, Karl berates Proudhon for mechanically attempting to apply Hegelian categories. ‘Once [reason] has managed to pose itself as a thesis, this thesis, this thought, opposed to itself, splits up into two contradictory thoughts – the positive and the negative … The struggle between these two antagonistic elements comprised in the antithesis constitutes the dialectic movement’: Karl Marx, The Poverty of PhilosophyMECW, vol. 6, p. 164. This hints at the dialectical inspiration of Karl’s own approach in the 1844 Manuscripts, where labour as property and non-property develops into the antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat.

107. Marx, Poverty of Philosophy, p. 132.

108. Stedman Jones (ed.), Communist Manifesto, pp. 222–3.

109. Ibid., p. 226.

110. Marx, ‘Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic’, pp. 332–3.

111. Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, p. 37.

112. Ibid.

113. Karl’s first encounters with flesh-and-blood workers, more precisely ‘communist Handwerker’ (artisans), occurred after he arrived in Paris in October 1843. He witnessed meetings of workers, and was plainly stirred. In the so-called Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, he wrote, ‘the brotherhood of man is no empty phrase, but a reality, and the nobility of man shines forth upon us from their toil-worn bodies’, MEGA, I, ii, p. 289; MECW, vol. 3, p. 313. But his account did not move beyond stylized generality; there was no sense of one-to-one encounters with individual workers in the way made famous by Henry Mayhew in London Labour and the London Poor between 1848 and 1851. The one worker with whom he became more than superficially acquainted was the tailor Wilhelm Weitling. After praising him lavishly in Vorwärts! in August 1844 – as part of the ‘brilliant literary debut of the German workers’, MECW, vol. 3, p. 201 – he rapidly became exasperated with him, and in March 1846, in Brussels, angrily denounced his approach – see Chapter 7, here.

114. Douglas Moggach, The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 44–5.

115. Ibid.

7 THE APPROACH OF REVOLUTION

1Vormärz literally means ‘before March’, i.e. before the March Revolution of 1848 in the German Confederation (including the Austrian Empire as well as present-day Germany). The period of Vormärz referred to the years between 1815 and 1848, a period dominated by conservative restoration following the defeat of Napoléon. During this period, states in the German Confederation resisted liberal reform and managed to avoid the revolutionary upheavals in France and Belgium in 1830. Policies of internal political repression were accompanied by a strongly anti-revolutionary external policy led by Metternich, the Chancellor of the Austrian Empire.

2. For an impressively broad analysis of this question, see Warren Breckman, ‘Diagnosing the “German Misery”: Radicalism and the Problem of National Character, 1830 to 1848’, in David E. Barclay and Eric D. Weitz (eds.), Between Reform and Revolution: German Socialism and Communism from 1840 to 1990, New York/Oxford, Berghahn, 1998, pp. 33–61. And see also Dieter Langewiesche, ‘Revolution in Germany: Constitutional State – Nation State – Social Reform’, in D. Dowe, H.-G. Haupt, D. Langewiesche and J. Sperber (eds.), Europe in 1848: Revolution and Reform, New York/Oxford, Berghahn, 2001, ch. 5.

3. I. Kant, ‘On the Common Saying: “This may be true in theory, but it does not apply in practice” ’ [1793], in Hans Reiss (ed.), Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 61–93; see also Jacques Droz, L’Allemagne et la Révolution française, Paris, Presses Universitaires de Paris, 1949.

4. Elizabeth M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby (eds.), F. Schiller: On the Aesthetic Education of Man, in a Series of Letters, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982, p. 25.

5. See Michael Rowe, From Reich to State: The Rhineland in the Revolutionary Age 1780–1830, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

6. Madame de Staël, De l’Allemagne, Paris, Firmin Didot Frères, 1860, p. 18. On the shift away from politics among the early Romantics, see Frederick C. Beiser, The Romantic ImperativeThe Concept of Early German Romanticism, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2003.

7. On the character of democratic nationalist sentiment in the Vormärz period, see Hagen Schulze, The Course of German Nationalism: From Frederick the Great to Bismarck, 1763–1867, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

8. Heinrich Heine, On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany and Other Writings, ed. Terry Pinkard, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 111, 116; see also Harold Mah, ‘The French Revolution and the Problem of German Modernity: Hegel, Heine and Marx’, New German Critique, no. 50 (Spring–Summer 1990), pp. 3–20.

9. Cited in Breckman, ‘Diagnosing the “German Misery” ’, p. 39. Ludwig Börne, a democratic writer and a lapsed Jew, went into exile in Paris at the same time as Heine. He was one of the heroes of the young Friedrich Engels, especially because of his attack on the anti-French German nationalism of Wolfgang Menzel, in his 1837 Menzel der Franzosenfresser. Heine fell out with him and denounced him after his death in Ludwig Börne: Eine Denkschrift (1840), a book which Engels regarded as ‘despicable’.

10. See Christina von Hodenberg, Aufstand der Weber: die Revolte von 1844 und ihr Aufstieg zum Mythos, Bonn, Dietz, 1997, pt III.

11. It is important to get away from the twentieth-century connotations of the word ‘communism’. According to Stefan Born, one of the organizers of the Workers’ Brotherhood (the Arbeiterverbrüderung) in Berlin in 1848, and an associate of Karl in the 1845–8 period, ‘communism and communists were not binding words. Indeed people hardly talked about them.’ At the left end of the spectrum, the line between communism and democracy was quite blurred. Stefan Born, Erinnerungen eines Achtundvierzigers, Leipzig, G. H. Meyer, 1898, p. 72.

12. Karl Grün, Ausgewählte Schriften, 2 vols., ed. Manuela Köppe, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 2005, vol. 1, p. 100.

13. See Diana Siclovan, ‘The Project of Vergesellschaftung, 1843–1851’, M.Phil. dissertation, Cambridge University, 2010, p. 21.

14. See Pierre Haubtmann, Proudhon, Marx et la pensée allemande, Grenoble, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1981, pp. 70–73.

15. Ibid., pp. 32, 33, 41.

16. Karl Marx, ‘Statement’, 18 January 1846, MECW, vol. 6, p. 34.

17. ‘Karl Marx to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’, 5 May 1846, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 39–40.

18. Karl Marx, ‘Critical Marginal Notes on the Article “The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian” ’, Vorwärts!, no. 60, 7 August 1844, MECW, vol. 3, p. 201.

19. On the changes of position within the London League of the Just, see Christine Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees: German Socialism in Britain, 1840–1860, London, Routledge, 2006, ch. 2. On Hess’s communist humanism, see Moses Hess, ‘A Communist Credo: Questions and Answers’, in Moses Hess: The Holy History of Mankind and Other Writings, ed. and trans. Shlomo Avineri, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 116–27.

20. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, 24 March 1846, MEGA, III, i, p. 518.

21. Cited in Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 125.

22. Pavel V. Annenkov, The Extraordinary Decade: Literary Memoirs, ed. Arthur P. Mendel, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1968, pp. 169–71.

23. ‘Wilhelm Weitling to Moses Hess’, 31 March 1846, in Edmund Silberner (ed.), Moses Hess: Briefwechsel, The Hague, Mouton, 1959, p. 151.

24. ‘Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Circular against Kriege’, 11 May 1846, MECW, vol. 6, p. 35. There was no Communist Party at the time.

25. ‘Hermann Kriege to Karl Marx’, 9 June 1845, MEGA, III, i, pp. 470–72.

26. ‘Hermann Ewerbeck to Karl Marx’, June 1845, MEGA, III, i, p. 477; ‘George Julian Harney to Friedrich Engels’, 30 March 1846, MECW, vol. 38, p. 537.

27. ‘P.-J. Proudhon to Karl Marx’, 17 May 1846, MEGA, III, ii, pp. 203–5.

28. ‘Communist Correspondence Committee in London to Karl Marx’, 6 June 1846, MEGA, III, ii, p. 223; ‘Joseph Weydemeyer to Karl Marx’, 14 May 1846, MEGA, III, ii, p. 193.

29. ‘Hermann Ewerbeck to Karl Marx’, 15 May 1846, MEGA, III, ii, pp. 202–3.

30. See Siclovan, ‘Vergesellschaftung’, pp. 42–3.

31. ‘Hermann Ewerbeck to Karl Marx’, 31 August 1845, MEGA, III, i, pp. 482–3.

32. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Système des contradictions économiques, ou Philosophie de la misère, 2 vols., Paris, Guillaumin, 1846, vol. 1, p. 164, 166.

33. Cited in Keith Tribe, The Economy of the Word: Language, History and Economics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 227.

34. Karl Grün, ‘Einführung’, in Ausgewählte Schriften, vol. 1 p. 508; see also Siclovan, ‘Vergesellschaftung’, pp. 42–3.

35. ‘Karl Marx to C. J. Leske’, 1 August 1846, MECW, vol. 38, p. 51.

36. ‘C. J. Leske to Karl Marx’, 2 February 1847, MEGA, III, ii, p. 329.

37. Karl Marx, ‘Karl Grün: Die Soziale Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien, Darmstadt 1845’, or ‘The Historiography of True Socialism’, MECW, vol. 5, pp. 484–530. Most of the essay is taken up with a recital of the alleged plagiarisms and shoddy translations committed by Grün in relation to the accounts of socialism found in Lorenz von Stein and Louis Reybaud. The most interesting point was Karl’s contrast between the consequences of the adoption by Grün and Proudhon of ‘consumption’ as a starting point in contrast to his own insistence upon the primacy of production: ibid., pp. 516–19.

38. ‘Karl Schapper to Karl Marx’, 6 June 1846, in Der Bund der Kommunisten, Berlin, Dietz, 1983, vol. 1, p. 348.

39. Gareth Stedman Jones (ed.), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, London, Penguin Books, 2002, p. 244.

40. Within radical and socialist circles, this view seems to have been widely held. The Chartist leader, Julian Harney, wrote to Engels, ‘I heard that you [the literary characters in Brussels] had formed a society confined to yourselves into which you admitted no working man.’ It was already known and ‘has excited prejudice among the good men’. ‘George Julian Harney to Friedrich Engels’, 30 March 1846, MEGA, III, i, p. 526.

41. ‘A Circular of the First Congress of the Communist League to the League Members’, 9 June 1847, MECW, vol. 6, p. 590.

42. Born, Erinnerungen, p. 49.

43. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 25 October 1847, MECW, vol. 18, pp. 138–9.

44. For the general character of Karl’s argument in the Manifesto, see the more detailed account of the construction of the Manifesto and its prehistory in Stedman Jones (ed.), Communist Manifesto, pp. 3–185.

45. A fuller discussion of the Manifesto is given in the next chapter.

46. Stedman Jones (ed.), Communist Manifesto, pp. 251 and 248–51.

47. ‘Demands of the Communist Party in Germany’, 21–24 March 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 3.

48. See Siclovan, ‘Vergesellschaftung’, pp. 50–51.

49. ‘Joseph Weydemeyer to his fiancée’, 2 February 1846, cited in Nicolaievsky and Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx, pp. 140–41.

50Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, 6 January 1848, cited in Luc Somerhausen, L’Humanisme agissant de Karl Marx, Paris, Richard-Masse, 1946, p. 157.

51. Born, Erinnerungen, p. 68.

52. Wilhelm Liebknecht, ‘Reminiscences of Karl Marx’, in David McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, London, Macmillan, 1981, p. 115; Jenny Marx, ‘A Short Sketch of an Eventful Life’, in Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957, p. 229.

53. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 222.

54. Perhaps Engels broke into French to convey more exactly the status he ascribed to himself in this conversation. In English, it reads, ‘You can regard Monsieur Marx as the head of our party (i.e. the most advanced fraction of German democracy, which I represent in relation to him) and his recent book against Proudhon as our programme.’ ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 25–26 October 1847, MECW, vol. 38, p. 143.

55. Annenkov, Extraordinary Decade, pp. 167–8.

56. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 17 March 1845, MECW, vol. 38, p. 29.

57. ‘Frau’ H. referred to Hess’s companion, Sybille. The sarcastic use of inverted commas referred to the fact that they were not married. According to Cologne police reports, Sybille, née Pesch, was a former prostitute turned seamstress, whom Hess rescued as an act of philanthropy. This may be why Engels referred to her in such insulting language. For an account of this affair in relation to Engels’ activities in the 1840s, see Tristram Hunt, The Frock-Coated Communist: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels, London, Allen Lane, 2009, pp. 143–6 and passim.

58. ‘Roland Daniels to Karl Marx’, 7 March 1846, MEGA, III, i, pp. 513–14.

59. ‘Heinrich Bürgers to Karl Marx’, end of February 1846, MEGA, III, i, pp. 506–7.

60. Ibid.

61. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, 24 March 1846, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 529–32. In writing that ‘all cats are of the same colour’, Jenny was alluding to Hegel’s famous reproach against Schelling’s conception of the Absolute in the preface to the Phenomenology as ‘the night in which all cows are black’.

62. ‘Moses Hess to Karl Marx’, 29 May 1846, MEGA, III, i, p. 211.

63. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 19 August 1846, MECW, vol. 38, p. 56.

64. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 27 July 1846, MECW, vol. 38, p. 46; ‘Engels to the Correspondence Committee’, 16 September 1846, MECW, vol. 38, p. 65; ibid., 23 October 1846, p. 81; ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 15 January 1847, MECW, vol. 38, p. 108.

65. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 14 January 1848, MECW, vol. 38, p. 153.

66. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, November/December 1846, MECW, vol. 38, p. 91.

67. Ibid., 9 March 1847, p. 115.

68. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Marx’, after 24 August 1845, MECW, vol. 38, p. 529; ‘Hermann Ewerbeck to Karl Marx’, 31 October 1845, MEGA, III, i, pp. 489–90.

69. ‘Georg Jung to Karl Marx’, 18 March 1845, MEGA, III, i, pp. 458–9.

70. ‘Joseph Weydemeyer to Karl Marx’, 30 April 1846, MEGA, III, i, p. 532.

71. ‘Moses Hess to Karl Marx’, 28 July 1846, in Silberner (ed.) Moses Hess: Briefwechsel, p. 165.

72. Shelved and modified, but not abandoned. He continued to consider ‘the economic’ as a distortion of ‘the human’, and to assume that ‘abstraction’ was the means by which humanity subjected itself to inhuman goals. These themes reappeared in explicit form in the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, the so-called Grundrisse.

73. Karl Marx, The Poverty of PhilosophyMECW, vol. 6, p. 125.

74. Ibid., p. 138.

75. On these theories, which generally had little to do with the theories of Ricardo, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Rethinking Chartism’, in Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History, 1832–1982, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 128–45.

76. Marx, Poverty of Philosophy, pp. 189–90.

77. Karl Marx, ‘Wages’, MECW, vol. 6, p. 419. These were notes made for the lectures he gave to the German Workers’ Educational Association in the autumn of 1847.

78. Karl Marx, ‘Wage Labour and Capital’, MECW, vol. 9, pp. 212–13. Karl’s intention to publish his lectures of 1847 was interrupted by the outbreak of the revolution. Most of them were published in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1849.

79. Ibid., p. 214.

80. Ibid., pp. 219–20.

81. Ibid., pp. 215, 225–6.

82. Marx, ‘Wages’, p. 432.

83. ‘From our German Correspondent [Karl Marx], the Free Trade Congress at Brussels’, September 1847, MECW, vol. 6, p. 290; Karl Marx, ‘Speech on the Question of Free Trade’, 9 January 1848, MECW, vol. 6, p. 465.

84. Louis Blanc, The History of Ten Years, 1830–1840, 2 vols., London, 1845, vol. 1, pp. 27 and 33.

85. Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections, ed. J. P. Mayer and A. P. Kerr, trans. G. Lawrence, London, Macdonald, 1970, pp. 52, 92.

86. Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England: From Personal Observation and Authentic SourcesMECW, vol. 4, p. 304. For international comparisons, see M. Riedel, ‘Bürger, Staatsbürger, Bürgertum’, in O. Brunner, W. Conze and R. Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta, 1972, vol. 1, pp. 672–725; R. Koselleck, U. Spree and W. Steinmetz, ‘Drei bürgerliche Welten? Zur vergleichenden Semantik der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft in Deutschland, England und Frankreich’, in Hans-Jürgen Puhle (ed.), Bürger in der Gesellschaft der NeuzeitWirtschaft, Politik, Kultur, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, pp. 14–58; Reinhart Koselleck and Klaus Schreiner, Bürgerschaft: Rezeption und Innovation der Begrifflichkeit vom Hohen Mittelalter bis ins 19. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta, 1994; Jürgen Kocka, ‘Das europäische Muster und der deutsche Fall’, in Jürgen Kocka (ed.), Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert: Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich, 3 vols., Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 9–75; Pamela M. Pilbeam, The Middle Classes in Europe 1789–1914: France, Germany, Italy and Russia, Basingstoke, Macmillan Education, 1990.

87. See Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England, pp. 295–596.

88. See John M. Maguire, Marx’s Theory of Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 203.

89. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 28 December 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 435; and see my discussion in ‘The Young Hegelians, Marx and Engels’, in Gareth Stedman Jones and Gregory Claeys (eds.), The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 579–85.

90. ‘George Julian Harney to Friedrich Engels’, 30 March 1846, MEGA, III, i, p. 523.

91. ‘Hermann Kriege to Karl Marx’, 9 June 1845, MEGA, III, i, p. 470.

92. ‘Carl Bernays to Karl Marx’, 7 April 1846, MEGA, III, i, p. 529.

93. ‘Heinrich Burgers to Karl Marx’, 30 August 1847, MEGA, III, ii, p. 351.

94. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Movements of 1847’, Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, 23 January 1848, MECW, vol. 6, pp. 521–9.

95. For a biography of von Bornstedt, see p. 627, n. 90.

96. See this chapter, pp. 220–22.

97. See this chapter, pp. 210–22.

98. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 23–24 November 1847, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 146–9.

99. ‘New Year’s Eve Celebration’, 31 December 1847, Deutsche-Brüsseler-ZeitungMECW, vol. 6, p. 639.

100Le Débat social, 6 February 1848, cited in Somerhausen, L’Humanisme agissant, pp. 172–4.

101. Karl Marx, ‘The Débat social of 6 February on the Democratic Association’, MECW, vol. 6, pp. 536–9.

102. Marx, ‘Speech on the Question of Free Trade’, pp. 463, 465.

103. Karl Marx, ‘Speech on Poland’, 29 November 1847, MECW, vol. 6, pp. 388–9.

104. Karl Marx, ‘On the Polish Question’, 22 February 1848, MECW, vol. 6, p. 546.

105. Friedrich Engels, ‘Speech on Poland’, 29 November 1847, MECW, vol. 6, p. 389.

106. Somerhausen, L’Humanisme agissant, pp. 183–200.

107. Karl Marx, ‘Letter to the Editor of La Réforme’, 6 March 1848, MECW, vol. 6, p. 565.

8 THE MID-CENTURY REVOLUTIONS

1. On the events of the February Revolution in Paris, see below.

2. Hanna Ballin Lewis (ed.), A Year of Revolutions: Fanny Lewald’s Recollections of 1848, Providence, RI/Oxford, Berghahn, 1997, p. 41.

3. At this time, Engels believed Ledru-Rollin and Flocon and ‘the men of the Réforme … are communists without knowing it’. ‘Friedrich Engels to Emil Blank’, 28 March 1848, MECW, vol. 38, p. 168. In a letter to his lawyer in 1860, accounting for his political career in answer to the accusations of Karl Vogt, Karl wrote, ‘Flocon offered to help myself and Engels finance the founding of the N. Rh. Z. We refused because, as Germans, we did not wish to take subsidies from a French government, even if friendly.’ ‘Karl Marx to J. M. Weber’, 3 March 1860, MECW, vol. 41, p. 102.

4. Gustave Flaubert, A Sentimental Education, ed. and trans. Douglas Parmée, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 317.

5. Sebastian Seiler, Das Komplott vom 13 Juni 1849oder der letzte Sieg der Bourgeoisie in Frankreich, Hamburg, Joffman und Campe, 1850, p. 21, cited in Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 160.

6. ‘Report of the Speeches made by Marx and Engels at the General Meeting of the Democratic Committee in Cologne on 4 August 1848’, MECW, vol. 7, p. 556.

7. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 5 March 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 62.

8. Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections, ed. J. P. Mayer and A. P. Kerr, trans. G. Lawrence, London, Macdonald, 1970, p. 18.

9. The suffrage under the July regime was extremely narrow, 166,000 in 1831 rising to 241,000 in 1846. But the proposal to extend the suffrage was insignificant in comparison with the manhood suffrage decreed by the February Revolution. 8,221,000 were entitled to vote in the election for the Constituent Assembly on 23 April 1848.

10. Cited in Georges Duveau, 1848: The Making of a Revolution, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967, p. 8.

11. Habitually described as ‘the worker Albert’, stressing the novelty of a government including a worker, his real name was Alexandre Martin. He was a leader of a secret society, a mechanic and one of the members of the Luxembourg Commission (established to discuss solutions to the labour question), and was elected a member of the National Assembly. He was compromised by his participation in the attempted coup of 15 May and arrested.

12. Christopher Clark, Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia 1600–1947, London, Allen Lane, 2006, p. 469.

13. The dangers of misunderstanding or over-reaction on the part of the forces of order, when confronted by urban crowds, and the high fatality attending street battles, in France, Austria and Germany, pointed to the dangers of leaving crucial questions of crowd control in the hands of an armed military. In Britain, by contrast, a civilian police force had existed since the 1820s.

14. ‘Roland Daniels to Karl Marx’, 21 March 1848, MEGA, III, ii, pp. 403–4. According to Daniels, ‘only bankers and merchants receive private newsletters, and Camphausen declared the day before yesterday in the city council that he could not divulge details from his newsletters, since it would arouse too much unrest among the people’.

15. ‘Georg Weerth to Karl Marx’, 25 March 1848, MEGA, III, ii, p. 414.

16. See Oscar J. Hammen, The Red ’48ers: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, New York, Scribner, 1969, p. 218.

17. ‘Andreas Gottschalk to Hess’, 26 March 1848, in Edmund Silberner (ed.), Moses Hess: Briefwechsel, The Hague, Mouton, 1959, pp. 175–6.

18. ‘Gottschalk to Hess’, in Silberner (ed.), Moses Hess: Briefwechsel, p. 175; and see Karl Stommel, ‘Der Armenarzt, Dr. Andreas Gottschalk, der erste Kölner Arbeiterführer, 1848’, Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein, 166 (December 1964), p. 81.

19. Karl’s friend George Weerth, writing from Cologne in March, had expressed the same thought. ‘Although everything that is accomplished here is quite democratic, people nevertheless shudder at the mention of the word republic.’ By contrast, he also noted, however, that towards Coblenz and the Upper Rhine ‘opinion is said to be in favour of a republic’. ‘Georg Weerth to Karl Marx’, 25 March 1848, MEGA, III, ii, p. 414.

20. Friedrich Engels, ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany’, August 1851–March 1853, MECW, vol. 11, p. 37. This collection of essays was originally written for the New-York Daily Tribune, under Karl’s name.

21. Stommel, ‘Der Armenarzt’, pp. 84, 91.

22. ‘Minutes of the Meeting of the Cologne Community of the Communist League’, 11 May 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 542.

23. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 25 April 1848, MECW, vol. 38, p. 173.

24. See editorial announcement, Neue Rheinische Zeitung (henceforward abbreviated to NRhZ), 1 June 1848, no. 1, p. 1.

25. How much of his own inheritance Karl put into the paper remains in doubt. Traditional accounts state that he put the whole sum of 6,000 thalers into the paper. But, for a more qualified assessment, see Hammen, The Red ’48ers, p. 269.

26. ‘The First Trial of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung’, a speech by Karl Marx, 7 February 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 316. Also see below p. 291.

27. ‘Statement of the Editorial Board’, 1 June 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 15.

28. (Karl Marx) ‘Camphausen’s Statement at the Session of 30 May’, NRhZ, no. 3, 2 June 1848, p. 2, MECW, vol. 7, p. 33.

29. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Assembly at Frankfurt’, NRhZ, no. 1, 1 June 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 16.

30. Karl Marx, ‘The Programmes of the Radical-Democratic Party and of the Left at Frankfurt’, NRhZ, no. 7, 7 June 1848, MECW, vol. 7, pp. 49, 50.

31. ‘Deutschland’, NRhZ, no. 18, 18 June 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 89.

32. ‘The Downfall of the Camphausen Government’, NRhZ, supplement no. 22, 22 June 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 106. There is no reason to believe that the Auerswald-Hansemann government which followed the fall of Camphausen was more pro-Russian than its predecessor. But German radicals were quite right to be suspicious of Russian intentions, especially since the czar was married to Friedrich Wilhelm’s sister.

33. Charles Greville, The Greville Memoirs. Second Part: A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1852, London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1885, vol. 3, pp. 202–3. Mark Traugott argues that it was the use of the semi-military form of hierarchy and organization which had been developed within the National Workshops that was responsible for the disciplined character of the uprising. See Mark Traugott, Armies of the Poor: Determinants of Working-Class Participation in the Parisian Insurrection of June 1848, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985, esp. chs. 5 and 6.

34. See Henri Guillemin, La Première Résurrection de la République: 24 février 1848, Paris, Gallimard, 1967, pp. 346–7. Aloysius Huber, who declared the Assembly dissolved, was a secret agent.

35. Maurice Agulhon, 1848, ou L’Apprentissage de la République, 1848–1852, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1973, p. 64.

36. Approximately 500 insurgents and 1,000 soldiers and guardsmen lost their lives in the fighting. But in its aftermath 3,000 more insurgents were hunted down in the city and killed in cold blood, 12,000 were arrested and around 4,500 of them imprisoned or deported to labour camps in Algeria. Peter N. Stearns, The Revolutions of 1848, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1974, p. 92.

37. Karl Marx, ‘The June Revolution’, NRhZ, no. 29, 29 June 1848, MECW, vol. 7, pp. 144, 147–8.

38. Ibid., p. 149.

39. ‘Report of the Speeches made by Marx and Engels at the General Meeting of the Democratic Society in Cologne on 4 August 1848’, pp. 556–7.

40. For Karl’s attempt to contest this decision, see ‘The Conflict between Marx and Prussian Citizenship’, NRhZ, no. 94, 5 September 1848, MECW, vol. 7, pp. 407–10.

41. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte (1808–73), nephew of Napoléon, believed himself destined to re-establish the glories of the First Empire. Brought up largely in Switzerland, in 1836 and 1840 he made two unsuccessful attempts to seize power. The principles of Bonapartism, as he understood them, were based upon two ideas: universal male suffrage and the primacy of the national interest. While in prison, he wrote his most famous book, L’Extinction du pauperisme (1844), saluting the virtues of the French working class, and proposing various reforms guided by ideas of association, education and discipline. In 1846, he escaped jail and lived in London through to the summer of 1848. His popularity was not simply based upon his name. His programme combined a strong commitment to order, the family and the church together with supposedly progressive ideas on the social question. The extent of his appeal was revealed in the presidential election of December 1848, in which he won 5,572,834 votes or 74.2 per cent of votes cast. Bonaparte’s politics, invoking the army and the nation, and drawing upon ideas both from the right and from the left, was a novel phenomenon. It inaugurated what came to be called populism, combining democracy and authoritarian rule. It disconcerted radicals and socialists, and found important imitators on the post-Legitimist right.

42La Montagne (‘The Mountain’) referred to those who sat on the high benches to the left of the chair in the newly elected Convention in 1792. Following the fall of the monarchy and declaration of a republic, the question that initially divided the Montagnards from the Girondins was the fate of Louis XVI. It was Montagnard pressure that resulted in the trial and execution of the king.

43. Martial law was lifted on 3 October, but financial difficulties prevented the paper resuming publication until 12 October.

44. ‘German Foreign Policy and the Latest Events in Prague’, NRhZ, no. 42, 12 July 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 212.

45. ‘In respect of social development, we Germans had only now arrived at the point which the French had already reached in the year 1789.’ ‘Report of the Speeches made by Marx and Engels at the General Meeting of the Democratic Society in Cologne on 4 August 1848’, p. 556.

46. Karl Marx, ‘The Crisis and the Counter-Revolution’, NRhZ, no. 102, 14 September 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 432. The Vendée in the west of France was the area in which the most serious rebellion against the Revolution took place on the occasion of the call-up of 300,000 men by the Convention in 1793.

47. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 8–9 March 1848, MECW, vol. 38, p. 160.

48. Karl Marx, ‘The Crisis and the Counter-Revolution’, NRhZ, no. 101, 13 September 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 428.

49. Karl Marx, ‘The Government of the Counter-Revolution’, NRhZ, no. 110, 23 September 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 448.

50. Karl Marx, ‘The Downfall of the Camphausen Government’, NRhZ, no. 23, 23 June 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 107.

51. Marx, ‘The Crisis and the Counter-Revolution’, NRhZ, no. 102, 14 September 1848, MECW, vol. 7, p. 431.

52. Clark, Iron Kingdom, p. 479.

53. Karl Marx, ‘The Counter-Revolution in Berlin’, NRhZ, no. 142, 14 November 1848, MECW, vol. 8, p. 19.

54. After the summoning of the Estates General by the (bankrupt) French government in May 1789, there were frequent disputes between the first two estates (clergy and nobility) and the ‘Third Estate’ (commoners), particularly on the question of whether voting should be by order or by head. On 17 June, the ‘Third Estate’ decided to break away from the Estates General and draw up their own constitution. As a result, on 20 June, they were locked out from their meeting place. They therefore made their way to a nearby tennis court, named themselves the National Assembly and resolved not to disperse until they had established a new constitution for France.

55. Karl Marx, ‘The Counter-Revolution in Berlin’, NRhZ, no. 141, 12 November 1848, MECW, vol. 8, p. 15.

56. In relation to the campaign for tax refusal, in an ‘Appeal’ sent out in the name of ‘The Rhenish District Committee of Democrats’ and signed by Karl Marx, Karl Schapper and Schneider II on 18 November 1848, it was stated that that ‘forcible collection’ of taxes had to be ‘resisted everywhere and in every way’. It also enjoined that ‘a people’s militia must be organised everywhere’. ‘Appeal’, 18 November 1848, MECW, vol. 8, p. 41. But three days later the same committee appealed that ‘you conduct yourselves calmly’. See the ‘Appeal’ sent out to ‘Democrats of the Rhine Province’ in the name of ‘Karl Marx, Karl Schapper and Schneider II’, NRhZ, no. 148, 21 November 1848, MECW, vol. 8, p. 46.

57. Karl Marx, ‘The Counter-Revolution in Berlin’, NRhZ, no. 141, 12 November 1848, MECW, vol. 8, p. 17.

58. Karl Marx, ‘The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna’, NRhZ, no. 136, 7 November 1848, MECW, vol. 7.

59. Karl Marx, ‘The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution’, NRhZ, no. 183, 31 December 1848, MECW, vol. 8, p. 178.

60. Jonathan Sperber, Rhineland Radicals: The Democratic Movement and the Revolution of 1848–1849, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 383.

61. Friedrich Engels, ‘From Paris to Berne’, unpublished in his lifetime, MECW, vol. 7, pp. 519, 528–9.

62. ‘August Ewerbeck to Moses Hess’, 14 November 1848, in Silberner (ed.), Moses Hess: Briefwechsel, p. 209.

63. Cited in Hammen, The Red ’48ers, p. 316.

64. Stommel, ‘Der Armenarzt’, p. 99.

65. Karl Marx, ‘Montesquieu LVI’, NRhZ, no. 202, 22 January 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 266; in this essay, for once, instead of endlessly reiterating his denunciation of ‘the bourgeoisie’, Karl was prepared, like the Chartists in England and the Démoc-Socs in France, to distinguish between its different social and political components. Apart from ‘the commercial and industrial sections of the bourgeoisie’ who ‘throw themselves into the arms of the counter-revolution for fear of the revolution’, there were also ‘financial magnates, big creditors of the state, bankers and rentiers, whose wealth increases proportionately to the poverty of the people, and finally men whose business depends on the old political structure’: ibid., p. 267.

66. ‘Gottschalk to Hess’, 22 March 1849, in Silberner (ed.), Moses Hess: Briefwechsel, pp. 216–17.

67. ‘The First Trial of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung’, speech by Karl Marx, 7 February 1849, MECW, vol. 8, pp. 304–17.

68. ‘The Trial of the Rhenish District Committee of Democrats’, speech by Karl Marx, 8 February 1849, MECW, vol. 8, pp. 323–39.

69. Karl Marx, ‘The Revolutionary Movement’, NRhZ, no. 184, 1 January 1849, MECW, vol. 8, pp. 214–15.

70. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Magyar Struggle’, NRhZ, no. 194, 13 January 1849, MECW, vol. 8, pp. 230, 238.

71. Marx, ‘Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution’, p. 178.

72. Marx, ‘Revolutionary Movement’, p. 213.

73. Karl Marx, ‘Stein’, NRhZ, no. 225, 18 February 1849, MECW, vol. 8, p. 390.

74. Karl Marx, ‘The Frankfurt March Association and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung’, NRhZ, no. 248, 17 March 1848, MECW, vol. 9, pp. 84–5.

75. Dieter Dowe, Aktion und Organisation: Arbeiterbewegung, sozialistische und kommunistische Bewegung in der preussischen Rheinprovinz 1820–1852, Hanover, Verlag für Literatur und Zeitgeschehen, 1970, pp. 221–4.

76. Sperber, Rhineland Radicals, pp. 351–3.

77. ‘Report of the Speeches Made by Marx and Engels at the General Meeting of the Democratic Society in Cologne on 4 August 1848’, pp. 556–7.

78. ‘Report on the Convocation of the Congress of Workers’ Associations’, NRhZ, no. 282, 26 April 1849, MECW, vol. 9, p. 502.

79. ‘The 18th of March’, NRhZ, no. 249, 18 March 1849, MECW, vol. 9, p. 108.

80. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 June 1849, MECW, vol. 38, p. 200.

81. David McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, London, Macmillan, 1981, p. 15.

82. Flaubert, Sentimental Education, p. 322.

83. Alexander Herzen, My Past and Thoughts: The Memoirs of Alexander Herzen, trans. C. Garnett, New York, A. A. Knopf, 1968, vol. 2, pp. 671–2.

84. Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850MECW, vol. 10, p. 106; what is true is that, given his ambivalent role in February and June 1848, Ledru-Rollin was not entirely trusted as a popular leader in Paris. See Agulhon, 1848, pp. 93–5.

85. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 June 1849, MECW, vol. 38, p. 199.

86. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Freiligrath’, 31 July 1849, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 205–6.

87. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, end of July 1849, MECW, vol. 38, p. 209.

88. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 17 August 1849, MECW, vol. 38, p. 211.

89. This is based upon the testimony of the cigar-maker Peter Röser, who was a member of the Communist League in Cologne. But his testimony must be treated with some caution, since it was given in a police investigation, and Röser had every incentive to stress Karl’s emphasis on education and propaganda rather than upon revolutionary action. See Nicolaievsky and Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx, pp. 414–17 (appendix III).

90. Nicolaievsky and Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx, p. 223.

91. Marx, ‘Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna’, p. 506; Marx, ‘Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution’, pp. 154, 178.

92. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘Address of the Central Authority to the League’, March 1850, MECW, vol. 10, p. 277.

93. Ibid., p. 281.

94. Ibid., pp. 283, 284, 285–7.

95. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘Address of the Central Authority to the League’, June 1850, MECW, vol. 10, pp. 371–2, 377. Unlike the March Address, it has been questioned whether this Address was written by Karl. See Christine Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees: German Socialism in Britain, 1840–1860, London, Routledge, 2006, p. 60.

96. ‘Universal Society of Revolutionary Communists’, mid-April 1850, MECW, vol. 10, p. 614.

97. See the letter of Friedrich Engels and the statement of Henryk Miskowsky (Schramm’s second), in Karl Marx, ‘The Knight of the Noble Consciousness’ (a pamphlet attacking Willich), 28 November 1853, MECW, vol. 12, pp. 489–96; there is a lively account of the duel in Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, London, Fourth Estate, 1999, pp. 164–5.

98. ‘Meeting of the Central Authority’, 15 September 1850, MECW, vol. 10, pp. 625–30. The positions adopted by Willich and Schapper have often been treated as one. This is not true since, unlike Willich, Schapper was generally very wary of insurrectionary politics. Schapper’s main concern in the meeting of the Central Authority was to try to mediate between the two sides. But even more important, he considered, was the need to keep the Workers’ Association united; see Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, pp. 72–80.

99. ‘Jenny Marx to Adolf Cluss’, 30 October 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 578.

100. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 23 August 1849, MECW, vol. 38, p. 213.

101. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Freiligrath’, 5 September 1849, MECW, vol. 38, p. 216; ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Freiligrath’, 11 January 1850, MECW, vol. 38, p. 224.

102. ‘Jenny Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 20 May 1850, MECW, vol. 38, p. 555. The familial life of Karl during these early years in London is discussed in Chapter 9.

103. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘Gottfried Kinkel’, NRhZ – Politisch-Ökonomische Revue, no. 4, 1850, MECW, vol. 10, pp. 345–7; and see Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, pp. 59–60.

104. ‘Announcement of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-Ökonomische Revue’, 15 December 1849, MECW, vol. 10, p. 5.

105. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘Review, May to October 1850’, MECW, vol. 10, p. 510.

106. McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, p. 25.

107. This text is discussed in detail in Chapter 9.

108. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 5 March 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 62.

109. See E. A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988; Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, vol. 1: Industrialisation, 1700–1860, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

110. See Gareth Stedman Jones, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History, 1832–1982, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 1–25, 90–179.

111. Karl Marx, ‘The German Ideology’, MECW, vol. 5, p. 49; Gareth Stedman Jones (ed.), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, London, Penguin Books, 2002, p. 235.

112. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844MECW, vol. 3, p. 241.

113. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Condition of England: The English Constitution’, March 1844, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 512, 513.

114. For the discussion of the contrasting images of industriels or classe moyenne, see Shirley M. Gruner, Economic Materialism and Social Moralism: A Study in the History of Ideas in France from the Latter Part of the 18th Century to the Middle of the 19th Century, The Hague, Mouton, 1973, part III; Sarah Maza, The Myth of the French Bourgeoisie: An Essay on the Social Imaginary, 1750–1850, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2003.

115. On Guizot’s initial confidence in the reputed rational capacities of the classe moyenne, see Pierre Rosanvallon, Le Moment Guizot, Paris, Gallimard, 1985.

116. See J.-C.-L. Simonde de Sismondi, Nouveaux principes d’économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population, 2 vols., Paris, Chez Delaunay, 1819. Overproduction was seen as the result of mechanization and the growth of a world market. See Gareth Stedman Jones, An End to Poverty?: A Historical Debate, London, Profile Books, 2004, ch. 4.

117. Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘The Mid-Century Crisis and the 1848 Revolutions: A Critical Comment’, in Theory and Society, 12/4 July 1983; Mark Traugott, Armies of the Poor: Determinants of Working-Class Participation in the Parisian Insurrection of June 1848, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985, ch. 1.

118. See Peter Kriedte, Hans Medick and Jürgen Schlumbohn, Industrialisierung vor der Industrialisierung: Gewerbliche Warenproduktion auf dem Land in der Formationsperiode des Kapitalismus, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, esp. ch. 6.

119. Marx, Class Struggles in France, p. 66.

120. The Garde Mobile was a special force called into being by the Republic, both as a form of employment and as a protection for the regime. It was composed of young unemployed workmen, from exactly the same social strata as the workmen in the National Workshops. Lumpen means ‘rag’ or ‘rags and tatters’. Lumpenproletariat, the rag-picking proletariat, was a pejorative term referring to the classe dangereuse, a semi-criminal class: riff-raff or beggars. For the use of the term around 1850, see Chapter 9’s discussion of Karl’s essay The Eighteenth Brumaire and the discussion of Bonapartism, here onwards.

121. Cited in Traugott, Armies of the Poor, p. 30.

122. Ibid., pp. 150–51.

123. Marx, Class Struggles in France, p. 69.

124. In Engels’ case, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Voir sans entendre: Engels, Manchester et l’observation sociale en 1844’, Genèses, vol. 22 (1996), pp. 4–17.

125. Thomas Carlyle, Chartism, London, James Fraser, 1839, ch. 1.

126. Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 63, 3 May 1842.

127. Tocqueville, Recollections, p. 199.

128. Daniel Stern, Histoire de la Révolution de 1848, Paris, André Balland, 1985 [1850–52], p. 241. ‘Daniel Stern’ was the pen-name of the Comtesse d’Agoult. Born of a German-French aristocratic family, she lost caste by running off with the composer Franz Liszt, with whom she lived for some years. Deserted by Liszt, she supported herself by becoming a journalist, writing under the name ‘Daniel Stern’. Her Histoire has been generally considered one of the best accounts of the Revolution in Paris in 1848.

129. Conversely, the continued exclusion of or discrimination against the working classes through the three-class suffrage provided an important reason why in Germany workers remained a class apart.

9 LONDON

1. G. A. Sala, Gaslight and Daylight with Some London Scenes They Shine Upon, London, Chapman & Hall, 1859, pp. 88–91. On the political character of the German ‘emigration’, see also Karl’s description in 1852: ‘this hotchpotch of former members of the Frankfurt Parliament, the Berlin National Assembly, and Chamber of Deputies, of gentlemen from the Baden campaign, giants from the comedy of the Imperial Constitution, writers without a public, loudmouths from the democratic clubs and congresses, twelfth-rate journalists and so forth’. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Great Men of the ExileMECW, vol. 11, p. 259. For a more general account the 1848 German exiles and refugees, see Rosemary Ashton, Little Germany: Exile and Asylum in Victorian England, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986; and for an account focusing specifically upon revolutionary socialist organizations and groupings, see Christine Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees: German Socialism in Britain, 1840–1860, London, Routledge, 2006.

2. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 13 September 1854, MECW, vol. 39, p. 481.

3. Jenny Marx, ‘A Short Sketch of an Eventful Life’, in Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957, p. 225.

4. ‘Jenny Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 20 May 1850, MECW, vol. 38, p. 555.

5. Ibid., pp. 555, 556.

6. Ibid., p. 557. Doing a ‘moonlight flit’ was a well-known way of evading the payment of rent arrears. One of the most celebrated songs of the famous music hall performer Marie Lloyd – ‘My Old Man (Said Follow the Van)’ – was the story of a ‘moonlight flit’.

7. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 226.

8. ‘Prussian Spy’, in Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, p. 35.

9. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 6 January 1851, MECW, vol. 38, p. 257; ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 8 January 1851, MECW, vol. 38, p. 263.

10. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 31 March 1851, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 323–4.

11. Ibid., 2 April 1851, p. 325; ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 15 April 1851, MECW, vol. 38, p. 335; ibid., 6 May 1851, p. 346.

12. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 31 July 1851, MECW, vol. 38, p. 397.

13. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 15 October 1851, MECW, vol. 38, p. 477.

14. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 20 February 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 40.

15. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 27 February 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 50.

16. Ibid., 2 April 1851, vol. 38, p. 326.

17. Ibid., 14 April 1852, vol. 39, p. 78; ‘Friedrich Engels to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 16 April 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 79.

18. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 228.

19. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 8 September 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 181.

20. ‘Jenny Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 27 April 1853, MECW, vol. 39, p. 581; ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 8 October 1853, MECW, vol. 39, p. 385.

21. ‘Karl Marx to Moritz Elsner’, 11 September 1855, MECW, vol. 39, p. 550; Dr Freund was said to have gone bankrupt with debts of £3,000. In 1858, Karl wrote to Engels that ‘Dr Freund is said to be so down on his luck that he has allegedly approached people in the street for a shilling’: ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 29 November 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 357.

22. ‘Prussian Spy’, in D. McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, London, Macmillan, 1981, p. 36.

23. Jenny, the eldest child, survived into adulthood, and married Charles Longuet, but she died from tuberculosis at the age of thirty-eight in 1883.

24. ‘Jenny Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 20 May 1850, MECW, vol. 38, p. 556.

25. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 229.

26. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 3 March 1855, MECW, vol. 39, p. 524.

27. Ibid., 16 March 1855, p. 528.

28. Ibid., 27 March 1855, p. 529.

29. Ibid., 30 March 1855, p. 529.

30. Ibid., 6 April 1855, p. 530.

31. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 229.

32. ‘Jenny Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 9 April 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 570.

33. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 31 May 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 315.

34. ‘Prussian Spy’, p. 35. Werner Blumenberg, Portrait of Marx: An Illustrated Biography, trans. Douglas Scott, New York, Herder & Herder, 1972, pp. 112–13.

35. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 18 December 1857, MECW, vol. 40, p. 224; ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 21 December 1857, MECW, vol. 40, p. 226.

36. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 29 April 1858, MECW, vol. 40, pp. 309–10.

37. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 8 January 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 243; ibid., 18 January 1861, p. 247.

38. ‘Jenny Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht’, c.24 November 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 587.

39. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 December 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 497. According to Yvonne Kapp, Karl’s liver disease and his carbuncles could have been connected with a generalized staphylococcal infection which could not have been diagnosed as such until the late 1880s. Both complaints were aggravated by alcohol. Yvonne Kapp, Eleanor Marx, 2 vols., London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1972, vol. 1, p. 49.

40. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 27 December 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 503.

41. Ibid., 15 July 1852, vol. 39, p. 131.

42. Ibid., 18 September 1852, p. 186.

43. Ibid., 3 June 1854, p. 457.

44. Ibid., 23 November 1860, vol. 41, p. 216; ibid., 12 December 1860, p. 228.

45. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 17 June 1850, MECW, vol. 38, p. 238.

46. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 23 November 1850, MECW, vol. 38, p. 242.

47. Ibid., 31 March 1851, p. 324.

48. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 227.

49. Helene Demuth (1820–90) was the housekeeper and servant of Jenny and Karl. Born of peasant parents in the Saarland, as a teenage girl she was adopted into the von Westphalen household to work as a maid. After Karl and Jenny were married, and had moved to Brussels, Helene was sent by Jenny’s mother, Caroline, to help in April 1845. She stayed with the Marx family through to Karl’s death in 1883, and for a number of years in the early 1860s had been joined by her sister (see here and here). After Karl’s death, she moved to Engels’ home until her death from cancer in 1890. She appears to have been regarded by all members of the Marx and Engels household as an indispensable member of the family. In accordance with Jenny’s wishes, she was buried in the Marx family grave.

50. See the appendix to this chapter, pp. 373–4.

51. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 31 March 1851, MECW, vol. 38, p. 324; ibid., 2 April 1851, p. 325. Karl stayed with Engels in Manchester from around 17 to 26 April. When referring to sexuality or the physiological aspects of women, Karl would often employ French.

52. Ibid., 31 July 1851, p. 398.

53. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 2 August 1851, MECW, vol. 38, pp. 402–3.

54. In a letter to Louise Weydemeyer in 1861, Jenny wrote, ‘in the domestic sphere “Lenchen” still remains my staunch, conscientious companion. Ask your dear husband about her, and he will tell you what a treasure she has been to me. For sixteen years now she has weathered storm and tempest with us’: ‘Jenny Marx to Louise Weydemeyer’, 11 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 572.

55. See, for example, the letter he sent to her when she was visiting her ailing mother in Trier. The letter concluded by declaring that love, ‘not for Feuerbachian Man, not for Moleschottian metabolism, not for the proletariat, but love for a sweetheart and notably for yourself, turns a man back into a man again’: ‘Karl Marx to Jenny Marx’, 21 June 1856, MECW, vol. 40, p. 55. According to the contested testimony of Louise Freyburger, for Marx ‘the fear of a divorce from his wife, who was dreadfully jealous, was ever present’. See the appendix to this chapter, pp. 373–4.

56. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 228.

57. But Karl did not wholly trust Liebknecht, because he had remained in the Communistischer Arbeiter-Bildungsverein (Communist Workers’ Educational Association), despite the fact that the dominant faction within it was now that of Willich and Schapper.

58. From Wilhelm Liebknecht, Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs, London, Journeyman Press, 1975 [1901].

59. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 229.

60. Engels’ authorship of these articles did not become known until the beginning of the twentieth century. Eleanor Marx had attributed them to her father in her collection of his articles, The Eastern Question, published in London in 1897. See Chushichi Tsuzuki, The Life of Eleanor Marx, 1855–1898: A Socialist Tragedy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967, pp. 269–70.

61. See David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, London, Macmillan, 1973, pp. 286–7.

62. Tristram Hunt, The Frock-Coated Communist: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels, London, Allen Lane, 2009, pp. 193–4.

63. See McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, pp. 264–5, 277–8.

64. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, pp. 229–30.

65. ‘Jenny Marx to Louise Weydemeyer’, 11 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 570.

66. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 December 1856 and 20 January 1857, MECW, vol. 40, pp. 85, 94.

67. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 230.

68. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 15 July 1858, MECW, vol. 40, pp. 328–31.

69. Ibid., p. 360.

70. ‘Charles Dana to Karl Marx’, 6 April 1857, MEGA, III, viii, p. 384. Engels supplied the initial batch of military articles, leaving Karl with the embarrassing task of putting Dana off until Engels recovered: see ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 11 July 1857, MECW, vol. 40, p. 145. He pretended that the bulk of the contributions had ‘gone astray’. See ibid., 26 August 1857, pp. 159–60.

71. ‘Charles Dana to Karl Marx’, 6 April 1857, MEGA, III, viii, p. 384. ‘Charles Dana to Jenny Marx’, 28 March 1862, MEGA, III, xii, p. 47. Dana explained, ‘this they do, simply from the impossibility of making room for them in the paper, every column being required for domestic news relating to the war’. See also ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 5 May 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 359.

72. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 9 December 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 333.

73. Ibid., 19 December 1861, p. 335.

74. Ibid., 26 February 1862, pp. 340–41; ibid., 19 May 1862, p. 365.

75. Ibid., 18 June 1862, p. 380.

76. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 7 January 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 441; ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 8 January 1863, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 442–3.

77. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 13 January 1863, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 443–4.

78. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 24 January 1863, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 445–6.

79. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 26 January 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 447.

80. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 December 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 495.

81. On Wolff’s character and his life in Manchester, see Ashton, Little Germany, pp. 117–21.

82. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 July 1864, MECW, vol. 41, p. 546.

83. Ibid., 31 July 1865, vol. 42, p. 172.

84. Henry Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor, London, Griffin, Bohn, and Company, 1861, vol. 2, p. 323; and see Gareth Stedman Jones, Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971 (4th edn, London, Verso, 2013), part 1.

85. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 30 July 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 389. Karl called him a ‘Jewish Nigger’ because of the way his hair grew, and speculated that he was descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt. ‘The fellow’s importunity is also niggerlike’: ibid., p. 390.

86. Ibid., 31 July 1865, vol. 42, pp. 172–3.

87. Ibid., 22 July 1854, vol. 39, p. 469.

88. Blumenberg, Portrait of Marx, p. 121.

89. ‘Karl Marx to Lion Philips’, 25 June 1864, MECW, vol. 41, p. 543.

90. McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, pp. 264–6.

91. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Freiligrath’, 29 February 1860, MECW, vol. 41, p. 82.

92. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 3 December 1851, MECW, vol. 38, p. 505.

93. Following by-election defeats in March 1850, conservatives became anxious about the possibility of losing mass support. They therefore introduced a new electoral law, in May 1850, which removed one third of the poorest voters from the rolls, with much higher proportions in large towns and industrial centres. In Paris, the electorate was reduced from 225,192 to 80,894: cited in Roger Price, The French Second Empire: An Anatomy of Political Power, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 20.

94. In his Idées Napoléoniennes of 1839, he wrote of a ‘social idea’ in place of war. In L’Extinction du pauperisme of 1844, he advocated social reform.

95. Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850MECW, vol. 10, p. 65.

96. Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852, MECW, vol. 11, p. 108. In the People’s Paper review of literature on the coup d’état, Karl had Eccarius write, ‘French Democracy is not to be confounded with the English. In France it represents the small proprietors and tenants, but less their real wants than their imaginary wishes. In England, Democracy applies directly to the movement of the working class’: see ‘A Review of the Literature on the Coup d’État’, MECW, vol. 11, p. 598.

97. Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire, pp. 127–8.

98. More generally, Karl’s approach to modern French history had been shaped by the French historians of the 1815–30 period, especially the prolific historian and Orléanist Chief Minister, François Guizot. In order to explain the development of revolution in France and its displacement of semi-feudal rule by a new commercial society based on talent and moneyed wealth, these historians had employed an English model. They had drawn a historical parallel between 1640, Cromwell and 1688 on the one hand, and 1789, Napoléon and 1830 on the other. In both cases these sequences of revolution could be presented as conflicts between land and mobile capital, or between feudalism and commercial society. Such an approach had worked well for Restoration historians. But it offered little guidance in distinguishing between one political faction and another in 1848.

99. Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire, pp. 112–13.

100. Ibid., p. 130.

101. Ibid., pp. 183, 182.

102. Ibid., p. 185.

103. Ibid., pp. 187–8.

104. In the presidential election of 10 December 1848, Bonaparte gained 58 per cent of the vote, in Lyons 62 per cent. His support was highest in the popular quartiers, where there was much evidence of Bonapartist support even during the June days. See Price, French Second Empire, p. 18.

105. Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire, p. 188. Peasant political attitudes differed strongly according to region. In the Massif Central, Alps, Rhône-Saône, Alsace and pockets across the Midi, support was predominantly for the ‘Démoc-Socs’.

106. Ibid., p. 149.

107. Ibid.

108. Ibid.

109. Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor, vol. 3, p. 301.

110. Benjamin Constant, The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and Their Relation to European Civilization (1814), in B. Fontana (trans. and ed.), Constant: Political Writings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 54, 101, 105.

111. Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire, p. 193.

112. Ibid.

113. Ibid., p. 185. Karl was particularly fond of this Shakespearean metaphor. The idea of the ‘old mole’ was taken from Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5.

114. In England, an attempt to publicize the text was made by Karl and Engels through a review article by Karl’s follower and former member of the Communist League, the London tailor Johann Georg Eccarius. See ‘A Review of the Literature on the Coup d’État’, which appeared in the Chartist People’s Paper, between September and December 1852 (MECW, vol. 11, pp. 592–620). The review closely follows the arguments of Eighteenth Brumaire, and was clearly closely subedited by Karl himself.

115. Heinrich von Ofterdingen was a quasi-fictional poet and minstrel mentioned in the thirteenth-century epic Der Sängerkrieg (The Minstrel Contest). The legend was taken up in an unfinished romantic novel by Novalis in 1799–1800, and published by Ludwig Tieck in 1801. It is a symbolic tale, in which poetry and life become one. In the first chapter, the hero recounts a dream, the vision of a blue flower, which Heinrich ultimately plucks. In the nineteenth century the blue flower became the symbol of romantic longing and re-uniting of the dream world and the real world. The name was used in Richard Wagner’s Tannhäuser. On the brief life of Novalis, see the novel by Penelope Fitzgerald The Blue Flower, 1997.

116. The treatment of Kinkel may have been comparatively mild because the previous attack that they had made in Neue Rheinische Zeitung – Politisch-Ökonomische Revue, no. 4, in April 1850, had gone down badly even among their supporters: see ‘Gottfried Kinkel’, MECW, vol. 10, pp. 345–7.

117. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Great Men of the ExileMECW, vol. 11, p. 261.

118. Ibid., pp. 265, 267, 268.

119. McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, p. 287.

120. Jenny Marx, ‘Short Sketch’, p. 230.

121. ‘Charles Dana to Karl Marx’, 8 March 1860, MEGA, III, ix, p. 362.

122. Pan-Slavism, like German and Italian nationalism, originated as a cultural and political response to the challenge to dynastic Europe resulting from the French Revolution and the wars of Napoléon. The first Pan-Slav Congress was held in Prague in June 1848, after the Czechs had refused to send representatives to the Frankfurt Assembly, believing that the interests of the Slavs were distinct. Partly out of disappointment about the results of revolutions in Western Europe, the idea for some years attracted the support of Herzen and Bakunin. But liberal and socialist supporters always had to be careful to distinguish their position from conservative czarist versions of the idea. Some of the most apoplectic denunciations of the movement were written by Engels in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.

123. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 10 March 1853, MECW, vol. 39, pp. 284–5.

124. Karl Marx, ‘Lord Palmerston – Fourth Article’, People’s Paper, 12 November 1853, MECW, vol. 12, pp. 372–3.

125. Karl Marx, ‘Palmerston’s Resignation’, 16 December 1853, MECW, vol. 12, p. 545.

126. Karl Marx, Herr Vogt, 1860, MECW, vol. 17, p. 117.

127. Karl Marx, ‘In Retrospect’, 29 December 1854, MECW, vol. 13, p. 556.

128. Marx, Herr Vogt, p. 117; Karl Marx, Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th CenturyMECW, vol. 15, p. 87.

129. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 22 January 1852, MECW, vol. 39, pp. 11–12.

130. Karl Marx, ‘The American Difficulty – Affairs of France’, MECW, vol. 14, p. 604.

131. Karl Marx, ‘The French Crédit Mobilier’, 24 June 1856, MECW, vol. 15, pp. 14–15.

132. Karl Marx, ‘The Attempt on the Life of Bonaparte’, 5 February 1858, MECW, vol. 15, p. 458; Karl Marx, ‘Political Parties in England – Situation in Europe’, 11 June 1858, MECW, vol. 15, p. 569.

133. Karl Marx, ‘The Money Panic in Europe’, 1 February 1859, MECW, vol. 16, p. 164. In relation to Bonaparte and Italy, Dana wrote to Karl in 1860, ‘I had as little confidence as you in the sincerity of the French emperor, and believed as little as you that Italian liberty was to be expected from him; but I did not think that Germany had any such ground for alarm as you, in common with other patriotic Germans, thought she had’: ‘Charles Dana to Karl Marx’, 8 March 1860, MEGA, III, x, p. 362.

134. Marx, Herr Vogt, p. 150.

135. Karl Marx, ‘Preparations for Napoleon’s Coming War on the Rhine’, 2 May 1860, MECW, vol. 17, p. 377.

136. ‘Charles Dana to Karl Marx’, 26 June 1856, MEGA, III, viii, p. 281; the flavour of these pieces might be inferred from an article by Engels on ‘Germany and Pan-Slavism’ published in the Neue-Oder Zeitung, 21 April 1855: ‘Pan-Slavism has now developed from a creed into a political programme, with 800,000 bayonets at its service. It leaves Europe with only one alternative: subjugation by the Slavs, or the permanent destruction of the centre of their offensive force – Russia’, MECW, vol. 14, p. 157.

137. For the speech of John Bright in relation to ‘taxes on knowledge’, i.e. the Stamp and Advertisement Duty on newspapers, see Karl Marx, ‘The Turkish War Question – The New-York Tribune in the House of Commons – The Government of India’, 5 July 1853, MECW, vol. 12, pp. 175–6.

138. See Miles Taylor, ‘The English Face of Karl Marx, 1852–1862’, Journal of Victorian Culture, 1/2 (1996), issue 2. I have found this essay, which contains a detailed examination of Karl’s relationship with English politics and the press, in particular its coverage in the Tribune, especially illuminating.

139. For example, initially, on the basis of what he had heard from Harney, he assumed that there was widespread republican hostility to the monarchy among the middle classes. See Karl Marx, ‘The Chartists’, People’s Paper, 10 August 1852, MECW, vol. 11, p. 334.

140. Ibid., 25 August 1852, p. 333.

141. Karl Marx, ‘Letter to the Labour Parliament’, 9 March 1854, MECW, vol. 13, p. 57.

142. Karl Marx, ‘Speech at the Anniversary of The People’s Paper’, People’s Paper, 14 April 1856, MECW, vol. 14, p. 655.

143. Karl Marx, ‘Parliamentary Debates – The Clergy against Socialism – Starvation’, New York Daily Tribune, 25 February 1853, MECW, vol. 11, p. 527.

144. Karl Marx, ‘Forced Emigration’, 4 March 1853, MECW, vol. 11, p. 529.

145. Karl Marx, ‘Pauperism and Free Trade – The Approaching Commercial Crisis’, 15 October 1852, MECW, vol. 11, pp. 359, 360.

146. Ibid., p. 361.

147. Karl Marx, ‘Revolution in China and in Europe’, 20–21 May 1853, MECW, vol. 12, pp. 99–100.

148. Karl Marx, ‘The British Constitution’, 2 March 1855, MECW, vol. 14, pp. 54–6.

149. Karl Marx, ‘The Monetary Crisis in Europe’, 3 October 1856, MECW, vol. 15, pp. 113–14.

150. Henry Charles Carey, The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign: Why It Exists, and How It May be Extinguished, London, Sampson Low, Son & Co., 1853, p. 214.

151. ‘Charles Dana to Karl Marx’, 15 July 1850, MEGA, III, iii, p. 591.

152. Ibid., 20 April 1852, v, p. 327.

153. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 August 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 145; Karl’s unfamiliarity with the Tribune is less surprising than it might seem. The paper was not available in London except to private subscribers, and Karl was forced to ask Weydemeyer in New York to procure a run of back numbers.

154. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 5 August 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 146.

155. Karl Marx, ‘Draft of an Article on Friedrich List’s Book, Das Nationale System der politischen Ökonomie’, MECW, vol. 4, pp. 265–95.

156. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 6 August 1852, MECW, vol. 39, p. 147.

157. Marx, ‘The Chartists’, p. 333.

158. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 14 June 1853, MECW, vol. 39, pp. 345–6. This was to underestimate or ignore the extent to which protectionism was not simply a position associated with the ‘industrial bourgeoisie’. It was also of interest to the republicanism of American labour at the time. See Adam Tuchinsky, Horace Greeley’s New-York Tribune: Civil War-Era Socialism and the Crisis of Free Labor, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2009. See also Alex Gourevitch, From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015. The position adopted towards protectionism in the Tribune formed an important component of the free-soil, free-labour position espoused by radical American republicans. In the Grundrisse, Karl dwelt upon the ahistorical character of Carey’s contrast between the harmonious development of bourgeois relations from itself in America and the distorting effect of the emergence of bourgeois relations of production from the antagonistic relations of feudalism in England and its projection onto the rest of the world through its domination of the world market. But he also praised him as ‘the only original economist among the North Americans’ and acknowledged ‘the scientific value of his researches’: Karl Marx, ‘Bastiat and Carey’, in Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58 (Grundrisse), MECW, vol. 28, pp. 5–11. The affinity between the Marxian picture of the world market and that of the protectionists was evident in the one sympathetic view of Capital, singled out by Karl, when the book first appeared. It was written by the Berlin academic Eugen Dühring, who was a disciple of Carey (see here). In the 1870s, Dühring’s protectionist social analysis was popular among German Social Democrats at a time when German industry was facing mounting competition from the United States. It may be surmised that part of the purpose of Engels’ Anti-Dühring was to smother the appeal of Dühring’s approach beneath a grandiose elaboration of ‘scientific socialism’.

159. Karl Marx, ‘The Vienna Note – The United States and Europe – Letters from Shumla – Peel’s Bank Act’, 9 September 1853, MECW, vol. 12, pp. 296–7.

160. Karl Marx, ‘The Crisis in England’, 2 March 1855, MECW, vol. 14, pp. 60–61.

161. Karl Marx, ‘The British Revulsion’, 13 November 1857, MECW, vol. 15, p. 387.

162. Karl Marx, ‘Commercial Crises and Currency in Britain’, 10 August 1858, MECW, vol. 16, p. 8.

163. ‘Charles Dana to Karl Marx’, 13 October 1857, MEGA, III, viii, p. 496.

164. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 14 June 1853, MECW, vol. 39, p. 346.

165. For a more detailed study of Marx’s writings on empire and the extra-European world, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Radicalism and the Extra-European World: The Case of Karl Marx’, in Duncan Bell (ed.), Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-Century Political Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 186–214; see also Kevin. B. Anderson, Marx at the Margins: On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2010.

166. Karl Marx, ‘The East India Company – Its History and Results’, 24 June 1853, MECW, vol. 12, pp. 149, 151, 154.

167. Marx, ‘The Turkish War Question – The New-York Tribune in the House of Commons – The Government of India’, p. 178.

168. Ibid., pp. 181, 184.

169. Karl Marx, ‘The British Rule in India’, 10 June 1853, MECW, vol. 12, p. 128; Karl Marx, ‘The Future Results of British Rule in India’, 22 July 1853, MECW, vol. 12, p. 217.

170. Karl Marx, ‘Chinese Affairs’, 7 July 1862, MECW, vol. 19, p. 216.

171. Marx, ‘British Rule in India’, pp. 125–6, 132.

172. Ibid., p. 128.

173. ‘In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society’: Karl Marx, ‘Preface’ to A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyMECW, vol. 29, p. 263. However, the search for common features shared by societies and states allegedly defined by this mode of production turned out to be in vain; and it is notable that after 1859 Marx never again explicitly referred to the concept.

174. Marx, ‘British Rule in India’, p. 132.

175. Gareth Stedman Jones (ed.), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, London, Penguin Books, 2002, p. 224.

176. Marx, ‘British Rule in India’, pp. 131–2.

177. Karl Marx, ‘The Indian Revolt’, 16 September 1857, MECW, vol. 15, p. 353.

178. Karl Marx, ‘The Indian Question’, 14 August 1857, MECW, vol. 15, p. 313.

179. Marx, ‘Chinese Affairs’, p. 216.

180. Marx, ‘Chartists’, pp. 333, 335.

181. Ibid.

182. Karl Marx, ‘War – Strikes – Dearth’, 1 November 1853, MECW, vol. 12, p. 437.

183. Karl Marx, ‘Panic on the London Stock Exchange – Strikes’, 27 September 1853, MECW, vol. 12, p. 334.

184. Marx, ‘British Constitution’, pp. 55–6.

185. Karl Marx, ‘Anti-Church Movement – Demonstration in Hyde Park’, 25 June 1855, MECW, vol. 14, p. 303.

186. Marx, ‘Future Results of British Rule in India’, p. 222.

187. Marx, ‘Speech at the Anniversary of The People’s Paper’, pp. 655–6.

188. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 15 September 1860, MECW, vol. 41, p. 194.

189. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 January 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 242.

190. ‘Jenny Marx to Louise Weydemeyer’, 16 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 576.

191. Ibid., p. 575.

192. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 25 January 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 253. For an account of the subsequent lives of Karl’s circle, see Ashton, Little Germany, pp. 112–28.

193. In October 1858, Wilhelm, the Crown Prince of Prussia, became regent for his ailing brother, Friedrich Wilhelm IV. In 1848, he had been notorious for advocating royal withdrawal from Berlin, followed by bombardment and military reconquest of the city. By the end of the 1850s, the influence of his consort, Augusta, and a spell of exile in England had led him to modify his position. He proclaimed a ‘new era’ in liberalism and appointed a ministry containing liberals as well as hard-line conservatives. For the changed political climate among the German exiles in London, see Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, chs. 7 and 8.

194. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 10 March 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 400.

195. Ibid., 18 May 1859, MECW, vol. 40, pp. 435–6.

196. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 22 November 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 537.

197Risorgimento (the Resurgence) was the name given to the process of Italian unification, the result of a political and social movement aiming to consolidate the various different states of the Italian peninsula into a single state (or kingdom) of Italy. The process began in 1815 after the fall of Napoléon and the Congress of Vienna, and ended in 1871, when Rome became the capital of the Italian Kingdom.

198. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 22 November 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 538.

199. For an excellent account of this complicated episode, see Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, ch. 8.

200. Wilhelm Liebknecht, eventually, together with August Bebel, leader of the German Social Democratic Party, had been brought up in Giessen, and studied philosophy, theology and philology at the universities of Giessen, Berlin and Marburg. After getting into trouble as a student radical, Liebknecht decided to emigrate to the United States, but was diverted by the invitation to teach in a progressive school in Switzerland, where he became a journalist and reported on the Swiss civil war of 1847 for the Mannheimer Abendzeitung. In 1848, he went to Paris and joined Herwegh’s German Legion and was arrested in Baden. Released in a crowd action, he participated in the Campaign for the Federal Constitution in Baden as an adjutant of Gustav Struve. He escaped to Switzerland, where he met Engels, and then after being expelled from Switzerland fled to London, where he and his family lived from 1850 until 1862, when an amnesty for participants in the 1848 revolution enabled him to return to Germany. He had become a member of the Communist League and he and his wife became close to the Marx family, taking in their children when Jenny Marx went down with smallpox in 1860. Despite this, Karl did not wholly trust him, because of his independent-mindedness. In the face of Karl’s disapproval he had rejoined the CABV after the split of 1850, maintaining his ‘right to serve the party in a way that seemed most appropriate to me’. Liebknecht had considered it ‘crazy tactics for a working men’s party to seclude itself away up above the workers in a theoretic air castle; without working men, no working men’s party, and the labourers we must take as we find them’. See Liebknecht, Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs, p. 72.

201. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 6 November 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 518.

202. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 12 February 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 393.

203. Karl Marx, ‘The French Disarmament’, Das Volk, 30 July 1859, MECW, vol. 16, p. 443.

204. Karl Marx, ‘Invasion!’, Das Volk, 30 July 1859, MECW, vol. 16, p. 441.

205. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2 vols., London, J. Murray, 1871, vol. 1, pp. 1, 4, 230.

206. Marx, Herr Vogt, p. 134.

207. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 14 November 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 525.

208. Cited in Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, p. 211.

209. Marx, Herr Vogt, p. 26.

210. Marx, Herr Vogt, pp. 117, 152, 178.

211. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 19 December 1860, MECW, vol. 41, p. 231.

212. Liebknecht, Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs, p. 75.

213. See Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, p. 212; Marx, Herr Vogt, p. 117. After the fall of the Second Empire, the French republican government in 1871 published documents showing that, in August 1859, Vogt had received 40,000 francs from the emperor’s private fund. See Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 266.

214. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Freiligrath’, 23 February 1860, MECW, vol. 41, p. 54.

215. One of the Saint-Simonians’ main slogans, adopted from Saint-Simon’s New Christianity (1825), was ‘the speediest amelioration of the moral, physical and intellectual lot of the poorest and most numerous class’.

216. ‘Ferdinand Freiligrath to Karl Marx’, 28 February 1860, MEGA, III, x, p. 320. Eduard von Müller-Tellering, a lawyer and a democrat, worked as Vienna correspondent for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The general tenor of his articles was anti-Slav and anti-Semitic. After the revolution, he emigrated, first to England and then to the USA. He criticized Marx and his Party in the press. Charles Fleury (real name Carl Krause) was a London merchant, Prussian spy and police agent.

217. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 11 December 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 359.

218. On the politics of the Schiller Festival, see Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, pp. 215–17.

219. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Freiligrath’, 29 February 1860, MECW, vol. 41, p. 87.

220. Kapp, Eleanor Marx, vol. 1, p. 291.

221. Ibid., pp. 289–97.

222. Ibid.

223. Terrell Carver, Friedrich Engels: His Life and Thought, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1991, pp. 164–5.

224. Paul Thomas, Karl Marx, London, Reaktion Books, 2012, pp. 120–22.

225. Heinrich Gemkow and Rolf Hecker, ‘Unbekannte Documente über Marx’ Sohn Friedrich Demuth’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung, 4/1994, pp. 43–59. For current assessments of the evidence, see Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, London, Fourth Estate, 1999, pp. 170–77; Jonathan Sperber, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life, New York, Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2013, pp. 262–3.

10 THE CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

1. The term ‘Grundrisse’ means ‘outline’ or ‘sketch’.

2. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 8 December 1857, MECW, vol. 40, p. 217.

3. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 22 February 1858, MECW, vol. 40, pp. 270–71; ibid., p. 27.

4. Karl Marx, Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, GrundrisseMECW, Passim.

5. Ibid., 12 November 1858, p. 354.

6. ‘Jenny Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 9 April 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 569.

7. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 31 May 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 318.

8. See Locke’s comparison between the position of the day labourer in England and that of American tribes, cited in Gareth Stedman Jones, An End to Poverty?: A Historical Debate, London, Profile Books, 2004, pp. 11–12; and see Istvan Hont, ‘An Introduction’, in Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the Nation-State in Historical Perspective, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2005. On ‘oriental despotism’, see François Bernier, Voyages contenant la description des états du Grand Mogol, Paris, 1830. What was later perceived as the economic stagnation of ‘oriental’ regimes was particularly attributed to the lack of intermediate institutions between ruler and subject and a corresponding lack of adequate legal recognition of private property.

9. I have preferred to follow Karl’s own terminology – ‘bourgeois economy’ or ‘bourgeois society’ – since these terms retain the ambiguity of the German – bürgerliche Gesellschaft, which can either mean ‘bourgeois’ or ‘civil’ society, and was the term employed by Hegel in The Philosophy of Right to describe what is rendered in English as ‘civil society’. Hegel’s separation between civil society and the state had been the initial focus of Karl’s critique in 1843. ‘Capitalism’ – in German, Kapitalismus – was a neologism which came into existence around 1900 and was associated with Georg Simmel.

10. David Ricardo, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London, John Murray, 1817. Ricardo had argued that relative prices were determined by the amount of labour time embodied in them.

11. Karl Marx, The Poverty of PhilosophyMECW, vol. 6, pp. 138 and 139–44.

12. Karl’s notes on Ricardo in 1850–51 are to be found in MEGA, IV, vii, pp. 316–28 (mainly concerned with money); MEGA, IV, viii, pp. 17, 40, 190–99, 326–32, 350–73, 381–96, 402–5, 409–26 (this involved a substantial re-reading of the Principles with excerpts mainly on value, rent and wages, machinery); MEGA, IV, ix, pp. 159–63 (on low price of corn and agricultural protection). Keith Tribe observes that the way in which Marx moves back and forth in his note-taking strongly suggests that ‘he is seeking material for a line of thought he has already formed’: Keith Tribe, ‘Karl Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy”: A Critique’, in The Economy of the Word: Language, History and Economics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 208.

13. Marx, Poverty of Philosophy, p. 132.

14. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 April 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 298.

15. Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58 (Grundrisse), MECW, vol. 28, p. 523.

16. Andrew Ure, The Philosophy of Manufactures: or, An Exposition of the Scientific, Moral and Commercial Economy of the Factory System of Great Britain, London, Charles Knight, 1835; Charles Babbage, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures, London, Charles Knight, 1832.

17. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, p. 131.

18. Ibid., p. 133.

19. Ibid., p. 134 (capitals in original text).

20. Ibid., vol. 28, p. 230.

21. Ibid., p. 334.

22. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. Edwin Cannan, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1976 [1776], book 1, ch. 11, p. 17.

23. Marx, ‘Introduction’ to Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, pp. 17–18.

24. Ibid., p. 18.

25. Ibid.

26. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, pp. 413, 420.

27. Ibid., pp. 409–10.

28. Ibid., vol. 29, p. 126.

29. Ibid., p. 233.

30. Ibid., vol. 28, pp. 410, 417.

31. Ibid., p. 465.

32. ‘Among the Germanic peoples where the individual family chiefs settled in forests, separated by long distances, the commune exists even outwardly merely by virtue of the periodic gatherings of its members, although their unity in-itself is posited in descent, language, common past and history, etc.’: ibid., p. 407. At this point, Karl reiterated the interpretation of early German history found in Justus Möser. But in the late 1860s, after reading the work of Maurer, he changed his position quite dramatically. See Chapter 12.

33. In Karl’s words, although the determination of (commodity) form was simple, they were ‘not posited’ in this determination. Ibid., p. 160.

34. The choice of ‘the commodity’ as the starting point of his analysis both in 1859 and in 1867 was a practical way of resolving his indecision about how to begin his account in 1857–8. If ideas were originally the articulations of forms of activity found in the world of everyday practice, should the exposition be ordered according to a sequence of concepts, arranged according to their importance in bourgeois society or in terms of their historical order of appearance? In the ‘Introduction’, although thinking derived from concrete empirical problems, such as those concerning states and populations in the seventeenth century, starting from abstract general relations, like division of labour, money, value, etc., as was the custom in the following century, was ‘obviously the correct scientific method’. Marx, ‘Introduction’ to ibid., pp. 37–8.

35. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, p. 158.

36. Ibid., pp. 99–100.

37. Ibid., pp. 156–8.

38. Ibid., pp. 430–34.

39. Ibid., pp. 185, 206–7, 431, 433.

40. Ibid., pp. 433–4.

41. Ibid., pp. 186–7.

42. Marx, ‘Introduction’ to ibid., p. 42. This incidentally emphasizes Karl’s proximity to Hegel rather than Darwin. Darwinists would surely have turned the statement around: the anatomy of the ape is the key to the anatomy of man.

43. See, for example, his conceptual organization of capital according to ‘generality’, ‘particularity’ and ‘singularity’: Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, pp. 205–6.

44. Ibid., p. 89.

45. Karl Marx, ‘Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole’, MECW, vol. 3, pp. 332–3.

46. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 16 January 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 249.

47. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, p. 197.

48. Ibid., pp. 31, 36.

49. Ibid., p. 464.

50. Ibid., p. 17.

51. Alfred Darimon, De la réforme des banques, Paris, Guillaumin, 1856; Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, pp. 51–78.

52. Ibid., p. 349.

53. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. I: A Critique of Political Economy, 1867, MECW, vol. 35, p. 186.

54. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, p. 185.

55. Ibid., p. 186.

56. Ibid., p. 438; ibid., vol. 29, p. 233.

57. Ibid., vol. 28, p. 245.

58. Ibid., p. 433.

59. Ibid., p. 94.

60. Ibid., pp. 381–2.

61. Ibid., pp. 131–3; ibid., vol. 29, p. 8.

62. Ibid., vol. 28, p. 459.

63. Ibid., p. 337.

64. Ibid., p. 342.

65. Ibid., vol. 29, pp. 82–3, 94.

66. Ibid., p. 133.

67. Ibid., vol. 28, pp. 390–91.

68. Ibid., vol. 29, pp. 91, 97.

69. Ibid., p. 91.

70. Ibid., vol. 28, p. 466.

71. Although he conceded that ‘really free work, e.g. the composition of music, is also the most damnable difficult, demanding the most intensive effort’: ibid., p. 530.

72. Marx, ‘Introduction’ to ibid., pp. 46–8. But he was unable to come up with an analogous explanation of the relationship between Roman civil law and modern production: ibid., p. 46.

73. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58, vol. 28, p. 411.

74. Ibid., p. 337.

75. The importance of Carey was somewhat greater than was implied in the discussion in the Grundrisse. See Chapter 9.

76. John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, first edition 1848, was the most influential economic treatise of the age. It was notable in particular for its argument that political argument must concern distribution rather than production, and for its critical but sympathetic treatment of socialism. Thomas Tooke (1774–1858) was famous for his six-volume History of Prices, which appeared between 1838 and 1857. It traced the financial and commercial history of Britain between 1793 and 1856. Originally a supporter of bullionism and the currency theory – the thinking that underlay Peel’s Bank Charter Act of 1844 – he came to support the ready convertibility of paper money on demand.

77. The aim of the Land Tenure Reform Association was to abolish primogeniture and entailment. The Land and Labour League, whose aim to achieve the nationalization of the land, was closely connected with the International.

78. See Terry Peach, Interpreting Ricardo, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 173–4.

79. David Ricardo, Des principes de l’économie politique et de l’impôt, Paris, J. P. Aillaud, 1835, pp. 17–19, cited in Tribe, Economy of the Word, ch. 6, pp. 25, 28. This edition included a translation of McCulloch’s Memoir of the Life and Writings of David Ricardo, Esq. M.P., which originally appeared in London in 1825.

80. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58MECW, vol. 28, p. 483.

81. Ibid., p. 484.

82. For a clarifying discussion of the issue, see G. A. Cohen, ‘The Labour Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation’, in G. A. Cohen, History, Labour and Freedom: Themes from Marx, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 209–39. For a contemporary nineteenth-century discussion of the issue see Anton Menger, The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour: The Origin and Development of the Theory of Labour’s Claim to the Whole Product of Industry, trans. M. E. Tanner, London, Macmillan, 1899 [1886].

Menger believed that unlike his German rival Rodbertus, who had repeated the thoughts of French socialists, of the Saint-Simonians and Proudhon, ‘Marx is completely under the influence of the earlier English socialists, and more particularly of William Thompson. Leaving out of account the mathematical formulae by which Marx rather obscures than elucidates his argument, the whole theory of surplus value, its conception, its name and the estimates of its amount are borrowed in all essentials from Thompson’s writings’: Menger, Right to the Whole Produce of Labour, p. 101.

83. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 46.

84. Ibid., p. 48.

85. As Gerry Cohen observed, ‘If anything is the paradigm of exploitation for Marx, it is the exploitation of the feudal serf, who does not, according to Marx, produce value, since his product is not marketed and is therefore not a commodity’: Cohen, History, Labour and Freedom, p. 231.

86. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58MECW, vol. 28, pp. 249–50. Nor was the question addressed in more depth in Capital, see Chapter 11.

87. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 22 July 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 473. The original comment in French, ‘À quoi bon?’, was attributed by Karl to Elard Biscamp, the editor of Das Volk, the journal founded as the official organ of the German Workers’ Educational Association. Biscamp was a radical republican journalist, originally with connections to both Kinkel and Ruge: see Christine Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees: German Socialism in Britain, 1840–1860, London, Routledge, 2006, pp. 203–6. The journal ran from 7 May to 20 August 1859, and in its last six weeks came under Karl’s control.

88. ‘Jenny Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 9 April 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 569.

89. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 21 January 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 369.

90. Ibid., 15 July 1858, p. 328.

91. Ibid., 11, 16 and 17 December 1858, 21 January 1859, pp. 359, 361, 363, 369.

92. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 22 February 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 270.

93. Ibid., 11 March 1858, p. 287.

94. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 29 March 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 295.

95. Ibid., 2 April 1858, pp. 303–4.

96. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 9 April 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 304.

97. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 31 May 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 315.

98. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 29 November 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 358.

99. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 12 November 1858, MECW, vol. 40, pp. 354–5.

100. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 13–15 January 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 368 (bold in the original).

101. Ibid.

102. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 1 February 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 376.

103. Ibid., p. 377.

104. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 22 July 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 473.

105. Ibid., p. 473.

106. Ibid., 25 May 1859, p. 450.

107. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 15 July 1859, MECW, vol. 4., p. 465; ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 19 July 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 471.

108. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 3 August 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 478.

109. Ibid., 14 February 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 386; ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 22 February 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 389.

110. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 6 November 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 518.

111. It was not mentioned in Albert Schäffle’s Quintessence of Socialism of 1874; nor was it referred to in Edward Aveling’s The Student’s Marx of 1892.

112. Karl Marx, ‘Preface’ to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859, MECW, vol. 29, p. 263.

113. For the importance of the Historical School of Law and its relevance to Karl’s work, see Gareth Stedman Jones (ed.), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, Penguin Books, London, 2002, pp. 148–61.

114. Friedrich Engels, ‘Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’, MECW, vol. 16, pp. 469, 473, 474–5.

115. Marx, ‘Preface’ to Contribution to the Critique, p. 263.

116. Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1861–63 (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: Third Chapter)MECW, vol. 30, p. 93.

117. Ibid., p. 313.

118. Ibid., pp. 92–3.

119. Ibid., pp. 95–6.

120. Kautsky rearranged the order in which theories were discussed. The original and unedited manuscript was published in 1977 as part of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe. The translations which appeared in volumes 30, 31 and 33 of the Marx–Engels Collected Works were taken from the MEGA edition.

121. For Lassalle, see Chapter 11, pp. 437–48.

122. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 28 December 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 435. Kugelmann had been put in touch with Marx by Freiligrath.

123. The plan is to be found in the concluding section of Theories of Surplus ValueMEGA, XI, iii.v, pp. 1861–2.

124. Karl Marx, ‘Chapter Six. Results of the Direct Production Process’, MECW, vol. 34, pp. 359, 362.

125. Ibid., pp. 427, 431.

126. Ibid., p. 398.

127. Ibid., p. 399.

128. Ibid., pp. 429, 439, 440.

129. Ibid., pp. 463, 460.

130. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 13 October 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 328.

131. Marx, ‘Chapter Six. Results of the Direct Production Process’, pp. 362, 375.

132. Ibid., pp. 362–3.

133. Ibid., p. 384.

134. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of His System: A Criticism, trans. Alice M. Macdonald, London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1898.

135. See David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, London, Macmillan, 1973, pp. 337–8.

136. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 31 July 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 173.

137. Ibid., 5 August 1865, p. 175.

138. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 10 February 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 226; ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 13 February 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 228.

139. ‘Jenny Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 26 February 1866, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 573–4.

140. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 22 June 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 382.

141. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 27 June 1867, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 390–91; ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 13 July 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 396; and Marx, ‘Preface to the First German Edition’, in Capital, vol. I, p. 7. The appendix was published in the first edition. See Karl Marx, ‘Anhang zu Kapital I, 1. Die Werthform’, in Das Kapital, vol. I: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, Hildesheim, Gerstenberg, 1980 (this is a facsimile of the first German edition, Hamburg, Verlag von Otto Meissner, 1867), pp. 764–84.

142. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 49.

143. Ibid., pp. 58, 74.

144. Ibid., pp. 86–7.

145. Ibid., pp. 176–7 (‘Rhodes is here, leap here and NOW!’). The quotation is from one of Aesop’s fables – an answer to someone who claimed they had once made an immense leap in Rhodes.

146. Ibid., Part VII: p. 564.

147. Marx, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58MECW, vol. 28, pp. 381–2.

148. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 705.

149. Marx, ‘Preface to the First German Edition’, in Capital, vol. I, p. 9.

150. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 750.

151. Marx, ‘Afterword to the Second German Edition’, 1873, in Capital, vol. I, pp. 12–20.

152. Ibid., pp. 18–19.

153. G. W. F. Hegel, The Encyclopaedia: Logic, trans. T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting and H. S. Harris, Indianapolis, Hackett, 1991, paras 217–18, p. 292.

154. G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on Natural Right and Political Science: The First Philosophy of Right, trans. J. Michael Stewart and Peter C. Hodgson, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1995, para 123, p. 222.

155. Hegel uses the notion of ‘subsumption’ in relation to his argument for the identity of subject and predicate. ‘Subsumption … is only the application of the universal to a particular or singular posited under it in accordance with an indeterminate representation, one of lesser quantity’. G. W. F. Hegel, The Science of Logic, trans. and ed. George di Giovanni, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 555.

156. Marx, ‘Afterword to the Second German Edition’, in Capital, vol. I, p. 19.

157. Ibid.

158. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 707.

159. Ibid., pp. 623–34; the term ‘reserve army of labour’ was first used by the Chartists.

160. Ibid., p. 507.

161. Ibid., p. 723.

162. Nassau Senior in his Letters on the Factory Act in 1837 claimed that the whole net profit was derived from the last hour of the working day, based on the mistaken assumption that the turnover period was invariable. The wage fund doctrine assumed that the amount of capital available in a given year to pay wages was unchanging. Therefore, if population changed, so would the wages of the workers. If population is increased, but the amount of money available to pay as wages stayed the same, workers might earn less.

163. One of the more immediate effects of the impact made by his work was its central role in initiating a debate upon the origins and nature of the industrial revolution in Britain. It was as a result of reading Capital in French translation that Arnold Toynbee was inspired to begin work on what was posthumously published as Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England, London, Rivingtons, 1884. On Toynbee’s intellectual formation, see Alon Kadish, Apostle Arnold: The Life and Death of Arnold Toynbee, 1852–1883, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1986.

11 CAPITAL, SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE INTERNATIONAL

1. I have used the term ‘transnational’, following the usage by Marcel van der Linden in his Transnational Labour History: Explorations, Studies in Labour History, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2003, ch. 2, as a term preceding the consolidation of the new nation-states in Europe from the 1870s.

2. ‘Jenny Marx to Friedrich Engels’, beginning of November 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 585.

3. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 July 1864, MECW, vol. 41, p. 546.

4. Ibid., 4 November 1864, vol. 42, p. 12; ibid., 14 November 1864, p. 22; ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 16 November 1864, MECW, vol. 42, p. 23; ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 December 1864, MECW, vol. 42, p. 51.

5. The supposed similarity between the Blanquist position and that espoused by Karl was more imaginary than real. Blanquists were more concerned about the divisions of 1792–3 between the Hébertistes and the Robespierrists than about Karl’s conception of the modern class struggle. The only known contact between Karl and Blanqui occurred in 1864, when, at Blanqui’s request, his follower Dr Watteau sent Karl a copy of Gustave Tridon, Les Hébertistes, Paris, 1864. See Alan B. Spitzer, The Revolutionary Theories of Louis Auguste Blanqui, New York, Columbia University Press, 1957, pp. 114–15.

6. On the decline of Chartism, see Margot C. Finn, After Chartism: Class and Nation in English Radical Politics, 1848–1874, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993; Miles Taylor, The Decline of British Radicalism 1847–1860, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995; Jonathan Parry, The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain, New Haven/London, Yale University Press, 1993, Part III.

7. On the changing politics of Ernest Jones, see Miles Taylor, Ernest Jones, Chartism and the Romance of Politics 1819–1869, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 137–210.

8. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 24 November 1857, MECW, vol. 40, p. 210.

9. Ibid., 9 April 1863, vol. 41, p. 468.

10. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 8 April 1863, MECW, vol. 41, p. 465.

11. Its reappearance was made possible because of its use by the prosecution in the trial of the Social Democratic leaders Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, for their ‘treasonous’ opposition to Prussia’s war with France. The prosecution claimed that their treachery had been fuelled by the Manifesto’s assertion that ‘the working men have no country’. However, by that stage, the Manifesto was no longer seen, even by its authors, as contemporary political polemic, but rather as a ‘historical document’. It was only in the twentieth century, as a result of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the foundation of the Comintern, that the pronouncements of the Manifesto acquired an actuality which they had never possessed in the previous century.

12. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 22 November 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 538.

13. Ibid., 23 February 1860, vol. 41, pp. 58–9. The rumour suggested that Lassalle had betrayed the workers of Düsseldorf and had embezzled funds. This distrust had been endorsed by Engels, who appears to have feared Lassalle, both because he was independent-minded and because he feared that Lassalle’s charm might win Karl over.

14. ‘Ferdinand Lassalle to Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx’, 26–29 February 1860, MEGA, III, ix, p. 162.

15. Karl was obsessed by the fear that Lassalle would plagiarize his work. But Lassalle’s approach was quite distinct. His economic thinking drew upon Karl’s work, but combined it with a Hegelian conception of the state, a French-based advocacy of state-supported cooperatives and scepticism about trade union action, derived from what he construed to be Ricardo’s ‘iron law of wages’. He drew also upon the Prussian Staatswissenschaft tradition, particularly the writings of Johann Karl Rodbertus, for his portrayal of capitalism as a harsh exploitative system. See David Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1997, pp. 186–7.

16. ‘Ferdinand Lassalle to Karl Marx’, 6 March 1859, MEGA, III, ix, pp. 336–8.

17. Ferdinand Lassalle, Die Philosophie Herakleitos des Dunkeln von Ephesos, Berlin, F. Duncker, 1858.

18. ‘Ferdinand Lassalle to Karl Marx’, 6 March 1859, MEGA, III, ix, pp. 336–8.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid., 11 September 1860, MEGA, III, xi, p. 147; ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 15 September 1860, MECW, vol. 41, p. 193.

21. ‘Ferdinand Lassalle to Karl Marx’, 11 March 1860, MEGA, III, x, p. 372.

22. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 29 January 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 252.

23. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 15 February 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 263; ibid., 7 March 1861, pp. 267–8.

24. Ibid., 15 February 1861, p. 263.

25. ‘Karl Marx to Antoinette Philips’, 24 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 269–72.

26. Pfuel had been Prime Minister of Prussia in 1848 and responsible for the harsh suppression of the revolt in Posen. Since then, however, he had become radicalized. According to Karl, Pfuel was now eighty-two, ‘but still mentally alert and become very radical. He has, by the by, fallen out of favour and is ranked by the Court with the Jacobins, atheists etc.’: ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 May 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 280.

27. Ibid., 10 May 1861, pp. 286–7.

28. ‘Karl Marx to Antoinette Phillips’, 24 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 271–2.

29. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 8 May 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 283. For once, he referred to her in generous terms – ‘the old woman … intrigued me by her exceedingly subtle esprit and unshakeable equanimity’.

30. Ibid., pp. 283–4.

31. Ibid., 29 May 1861, p. 291.

32. ‘Jenny Marx to Friedrich Engels’, beginning of April 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 579.

33. Ferdinand Lassalle, Die Theorie der erworbenen Rechte und der Collision der Gesetze: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Römischen, Französischen und Preussischen Rechts, Leipzig, Brochaus, 1861; ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 11 June 1861, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 293–4.

34. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 10 May 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 289; ibid., 7 May 1861, p. 280.

35. ‘Karl Marx to Antoinette Philips’, 24 March 1861, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 271–2.

36. Ibid., 17 July 1861, p. 313.

37. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 28 April 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 356.

38. The Exhibition, an international trade fair in which thirty-six countries were represented, was held on the ground which now houses the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum in South Kensington. It ran from 1 May to 1 November 1862. After the Exhibition was over, the iron and glass structure was dismantled and much of the material reused in the construction of Alexandra Palace.

39. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 16 June 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 379.

40. ‘Jenny Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 5 May 1861, in Ferdinand Lassalle, Nachgelassene Briefe und Schriften, 3 vols., ed. Gustav Mayer, Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1921–5, vol. 3, pp. 358–9.

41. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 30 July 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 389.

42. Ibid., p. 390.

43. Jenny Marx, ‘A Short Sketch of an Eventful Life’, in Institut Marksizma–Leninzma, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957, p. 000.

44. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 30 July 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 390.

45. Ibid., p. 389.

46. ‘Ferdinand Lassalle to Karl Marx’, 6 November 1862, MEGA, III, xii, p. 264.

47. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 7 November 1862, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 424–5.

48. Ferdinand Lassalle, ‘Über Verfassungswesen’, April 1862, in Reden und Schriften: Aus der Arbeiteragitation 1862–1864, ed. F. Jenaczek, Munich, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1970, p. 80.

49. Édouard Bernstein, Ferdinand Lassalle: Le Réformateur social, Paris, Rivière, 1913, p. 121.

50. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 23 February 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 101.

51. ‘Karl Marx to Johann von Schweitzer’, 13 October 1868, MECW, vol. 43, p. 133.

52. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 23 February 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 102.

53. Friedrich Engels, ‘The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers’ Party’, February 1865, MECW, vol. 20, pp. 77–9; and see Roger Morgan, The German Social Democrats and the First International, 1864–1872, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1965, pp. 1–12.

54. ‘Karl Liebknecht to Karl Marx’, 3 June 1864, in Georg Eckert (ed.), Wilhelm Liebknecht: Briefwechsel mit Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, The Hague, Mouton, 1963, pp. 33–4.

55. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 June 1864, MECW, vol. 41, p. 537.

56. ‘Karl Marx to Sophie von Hatzfeldt’, 12 September 1864, MECW, vol. 41, p. 563.

57. Ibid., p. 560.

58. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 30 January 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 71; ibid., 18 February 1865, p. 97.

59. ‘Johann von Schweitzer to Karl Marx’, 11 February 1865, MEGA, III, xiii, p. 229. But by 1867 their differences had narrowed, in the light of Bismarck’s alliance with the liberals.

60. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 September 1864, MECW, vol. 41, p. 561.

61. See Alan B. Spitzer, Old Hatreds and Young Hopes: The French Carbonari against the Bourbon Restoration, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1971, chs. 2 and 3.

62. Ludwig Börne, Lettres écrites de Paris pendant les années 1830 et 1831, trans. F. Guiran, Paris, Paulin, 1832, p. 19.

63. On the religious basis of Mazzini’s anti-clericalism and its proximity to English traditions of ‘rational dissent’, see Eugenio Biagini, ‘Mazzini and Anticlericalism: The English Exile’, in C. A. Bayly and E. F. Biagini (eds.), Giuseppe Mazzini and the Globalisation of Democratic Nationalism 1830–1920, Proceedings of the British Academy, no. 152, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 145–66.

64. See Karma Nabulsi, ‘Patriotism and Internationalism in the “Oath of Allegiance” to Young Europe’, European Journal of Political Theory, 5/1 (January 2006), pp. 61– 70; Karma Nabulsi, Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance, and the Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 177–241; Stefano Recchia and Nadia Urbinati (eds.), A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini’s Writings on Democracy, Nation Building, and International Relations, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2009.

65. The aftermath of this debacle is memorably described in E. H. Carr, The Romantic Exiles: A Nineteenth-Century Portrait Gallery, London, Victor Gollancz, 1933.

66. Dieter Langewiesche, ‘Revolution in Germany: Constitutional State – Nation State – Social Reform’, in D. Dowe, H.-G. Haupt, D. Langewiesche and J. Sperber (eds.), Europe in 1848: Revolution and Reform, New York/Oxford, Berghahn, 2001, pp. 120–43.

67. Giuseppe Garibaldi, An Autobiography, trans. William, London, Routledge, Warne and Routledge, 1861, p. 37; Garibaldi derived his cosmopolitan republican nationalism from a blending of the ideals of Mazzini’s Young Italy with the global gospel propagated in The Doctrine of Saint-Simon. His position on the republic was not stable. After 1860, he turned away from a monarchical and Piedmontese solution for Italy, becoming increasingly anti-clerical and socialist. See Lucy Riall, Garibaldi: Invention of a Hero, New Haven/London, Yale University Press, 2007, p. 2.

68. Negative views of the role played by nationalism in the twentieth century led to a neglect of its nineteenth-century transnational dimensions and to a downplaying of its importance as part of republican and socialist sentiment. During the 1860s, apart from Karl and his friends, the only radical grouping that adopted a hostile attitude towards the politics of subject nations was that of Cobden, Bright and the ‘Manchester School’. See Finn, After Chartism, ch. 1; Derek Beales, ‘Garibaldi in England: The Politics of Italian Enthusiasm’, in John A. Davis and Paul Ginsborg (eds.), Society and Politics in the Age of the Risorgimento: Essays in Honour of Denis Mack Smith, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 184–216.

69. Finn, After Chartism, pp. 217–24.

70. See Duncan A. Campbell, English Public Opinion and the American Civil War, London, Royal Historical Society/Boydell Press, 2003.

71. ‘Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer’, 29 November 1864, MECW, vol. 42, p. 44; Yvonne Kapp, Eleanor Marx, 2 vols., London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1972, vol. 1, p. 34.

72. Henry Collins and Chimen Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement: Years of the First International, London, Macmillan, 1965, p. 24. On the O’Brienites, see Stan Shipley, Club Life and Socialism in mid-Victorian London, History Workshop Pamphlets, no. 5, Oxford, 1973.

73. Cited in Finn, After Chartism, p. 214.

74. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 November 1864, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 16, 17.

75. See van der Linden, Transnational Labour History, ch. 1.

76. See Peter Hall, The Industries of London since 1861, London, Hutchinson University Library, 1962; Gareth Stedman Jones, Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971 (4th edn, London, Verso, 2013), part 1.

77. On the importance of the new ‘amalgamated’ trade unions, see Thomas Jones, ‘George Odger, Robert Applegarth, and the First International Working Men’s Association’, unpublished MA dissertation, King’s College London, 2007; Alastair Reid, United We Stand: A History of Britain’s Trade Unions, London, Penguin Books, 2005, pp. 95–101.

78. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The History of Trade Unionism, London, Longmans, 1902, chs. 4 and 5.

79. ‘Rules of the London Trades Council’, cited in F. M. Leventhal, Respectable Radical: George Howell and Victorian Working Class Politics, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971, p. 37.

80. Cited in George Howell, ‘The History of the International Association’, Nineteenth Century, vol. IV, July 1878, p. 24.

81. Collins and Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement, pp. 18, 35. Much to Mazzini’s annoyance, however, admiration for his notions of duty and the ‘union of labour and capital’ did not get in the way of an enthusiastic reception by the International’s General Council of the ‘Inaugural Address’ and its admixture of Mazzinian sentiment with a class-specific appeal to ‘proletarians’. See here.

82. Howell, ‘History of the International Association’, p. 25.

83. Compare the ease and speed of a journey by rail and steamer with the eighteenth-century difficulties of journeys between London and Paris described in A Tale of Two Cities.

84. The scale and extent of the cosmopolitan ambition of the English Trade Society leaders, both social and political, has been highlighted in Jones, ‘George Odger, Robert Applegarth’. His dissertation provides a corrective to previous interpretations, which tended to categorize the views of English trade unionists as limited, ignorant or in need of Karl’s theoretical guidance.

85. David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, London, Macmillan, 1973, p. 363. The minority consisted of three Frenchmen, two Italians and two Germans.

86. Edward Spencer Beesly, ‘The International Working Men’s Association’, Fortnightly Review, 1 November 1870, reprinted in MEGA, I, xxi, p. 1069.

87. Howell, ‘History of the International Association’, p. 31. According to Howell, ‘Its enormous strength was a fiction existing only in the brain of some of those who had been terrified into the belief of its vast power and resources, with ramifications in every part of the world, and paid agents ready for every emergency.’

88. ‘Meeting of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association’, 20 August 1867, MEGA, I, xx, p. 587. His particular worry was that disarmament in the rest of Europe would ‘leave Russia alone in the possession of the means to make war on the rest of Europe’, ibid., p. 586.

89. ‘The Fourth Annual Report of the General Council’, 1868, MEGA, I, xxi, p. 86.

90. On Bakunin, see below, pp. 510–29.

91. Beesly, ‘International Working Men’s Association’, p. 1078; ibid.

92. See Julian P. W. Archer, The First International in France 1864–1872Its Origins, Theories and Impact, Lanham, Md Oxford, University Press of America, 1997, pp. 96–7.

93. Beesly, ‘International Working Men’s Association’, p. 1072; and van der Linden, Transnational Labour History, ch. 1.

94. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 November 1864, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 16–19.

95. This part of the ‘Address’ drew extensively upon the sources he was at the same time researching for Section 5 of Chapter XXV of Volume I of Capital, ‘Illustrations of the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation’, MECW, vol. 35, pp. 642–703.

96. Gladstone’s announcement was less callous than the ‘Inaugural Address’ made it sound. For Gladstone also claimed that ‘the augmentation’ was ‘of indirect benefit to the labourer’ and that ‘the average condition of the British labourer … has improved during the last twenty years to a degree that we know to be extraordinary’. A controversy later developed about whether Karl was guilty of misquotation. The attack was first made in 1872 by Lujo Brentano, a supporter of the German Historical School of Economics, and the issue was raised again in 1883, in a dispute between a Cambridge scientist and enthusiast for profit-sharing, William Sedley Taylor, and Karl’s daughter, Eleanor.

97. Karl Marx, ‘Address of the International Working Men’s Association’ (‘Inaugural Address’), October 1864, MEGA, I, xx, pp. 8–9.

98. Ibid., pp. 4–12.

99. Ibid.; ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 November 1864, MECW, vol. 42, p. 18.

100. Beesly, ‘International Working Men’s Association’, p. 1068.

101. Cited in Leventhal, Respectable Radical, p. 53.

102. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 750. This famous flight of rhetoric, enunciated in cryptic Hegelian phrases, bore little relation to the rest of the volume. It stood in place of what might have been a more substantive conclusion, had Karl been able to publish the complete work in 1867.

103. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 May 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 371.

104. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 29 January 1867, 15 August 1867, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 344, 402.

105. The importance of these passages has been highlighted in Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968, pp. 176–82.

106. In the first edition of 1867, it is stated, ‘In England ist der Umwälzungsprozess mit Händen greifbar’: Karl Marx, ‘Vorwort’, in Das Kapital, vol. I: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, Hildesheim, Gerstenberg, 1980 (this is a facsimile of the first German edition, Hamburg, Verlag von Otto Meissner, 1867), p. xi. The translation twenty years later by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling read, ‘In England the progress of social disintegration is palpable’: Capital, vol. I: A Critique of Political EconomyMECW, vol. 35, p. 9. This loses the immediacy of the sense of upheaval in the original text.

107. Karl Marx, ‘Speech at the Hague Congress of the International’, 18 September 1872, in H. Gerth (ed.), The First International: Minutes of the Hague Congress of 1872, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1958, p. 236.

108. Karl Marx, ‘Speech at the Polish Meeting’, 22 January 1867, MECW, vol. 20, pp. 200–201.

109. He attributed ‘the limitation of the working day’ to ‘legislative interference’, but this would never have happened ‘without the working men’s continuous pressure from without’. Karl Marx, ‘Draft for Value, Price and Profit’, MEGA, I, xx, p. 184.

110. Marx, Capital, vol. I, pp. 306–7. The Latin quotation comes from Virgil’s Aeneid, ‘What a great change from that time!’

111. Ibid., p. 706.

112. Ibid., p. 739.

113. ‘Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle’, 11 June 1861, MECW, vol. 41, p. 294.

114. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a WholeMECW, vol. 37, pp. 434–5.

115. Ibid., p. 436.

116. Ibid., p. 438.

117. Marx, ‘Address of the International Working Men’s Association’, p. 10.

118. Cited in Collins and Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement, p.123.

119. Beesly, ‘International Working Men’s Association’, p. 1078.

120. Karl summarized his argument in ‘Notes for the Report on Value, Price and Profit’, MECW, vol. 20, p. 338. It was published posthumously in 1898 by Edward Aveling and Eleanor Marx as Value, Price and Profit: see MECW, vol. 20, pp. 101–49.

121. ‘Central Council Meeting’, 20 June 1865, MEGA, I, xx, p. 334.

122. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 29 November 1864, MECW, vol. 42, p. 45.

123. Ibid., 15 January 1866, p. 221.

124. Karl Marx, ‘Marx über Gewerksgenossenschaften’, MEGA, I, xxi, p. 906; and see pp. 2141–3. The description of the encounter by four metalworkers was originally written up by one of them, Johann Hamann, in a trade union journal, Allgemeine Deutsche Metallarbeiterschaft, and then reprinted in Volksstaat. The importance of this discussion, which had always been omitted from previous editions of Marx–Engels Works, has been highlighted by Jürgen Herres, editor of the 2009 MEGA, I, xxi, which covers the period September 1867–March 1871; see the forthcoming publication of the Paris Conference on the 150th Anniversary of the International (150 Years Ago: The First International, Paris, 19–20 June 2014, forthcoming Brill).

125. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 23 February 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 105.

126. Ibid., 9 October 1866, p. 326.

127. Karl Marx, ‘Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council: The Different Questions’, August 1866, MECW, vol. 20, pp. 185–94.

128. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 April 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 253. These backers included the Christian Socialist, author of Tom Brown’s Schooldays and cooperator, Thomas Hughes, and the editor of the Nonconformist, Alfred Miall.

129. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 23 February 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 105.

130. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 25 February 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 108.

131. Ibid., 1 May 1865, p. 150.

132. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 15 January 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 221.

133. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 July 1866, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 289–90.

134. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 9 October 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 327.

135. Ibid., 13 October 1866, pp. 328–9.

136. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 11 September 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 424.

137. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 13 October 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 328.

138. It should be remembered that Max Weber constructed his concept of charisma with Gladstone in mind.

139. Frederic Harrison, ‘The Transit of Power’, Fortnightly Review, April 1868, pp. 384–5.

140. Cited in Royden Harrison, Before the Socialists: Studies in Labour and Politics 1861–1881, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965, pp. 86–7.

141. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 April 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 253; ibid., 27 July 1866, p. 300.

142. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 April 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 253.

143. ‘Karl Marx to Johann Philipp Becker’, 31 August 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 314.

144. On 6 May 1867, there was another flashpoint, in which a demonstration of over 100,000 assembled in the park, despite a government prohibition, and Walpole was forced to resign. But this seems quickly to have been forgotten. Karl was out the country at the time, and there was no mention of the event in his correspondence. See Harrison, Before the Socialists, pp. 97–9.

145. See ibid., pp. 78–137.

146. W. F. Moneypenny and G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, 2 vols., London, John Murray, 1929, vol. 2, p. 274.

147. Parry, Rise and Fall of Liberal Government, p. 216.

148. For the background to the emergence of Fenianism, see R. F. Foster, Modern Ireland: 1600–1972, London, Allen Lane, 1988, ch. 16.

149. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 14 December 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 501.

150. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 6 April 1868, MECW, vol. 43, p. 3.

151. See his preparatory notes, MECW, vol. 21, pp. 212– 317.

152. ‘Friedrich Engels to Laura Marx’, 23 September 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 431; ‘Friedrich Engels to Dr Kugelmann’, 12 October 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 444.

153. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 November 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 460; ibid., 28 November 1867, p. 478.

154. Ibid., p. 479; ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 29 November 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 483.

155. ‘Meeting of the General Council and of Members and Friends of the Association’, 19 November 1867, MEGA, I, xxi, p. 526.

156. Cited in Harrison, Before the Socialists, p. 141.

157. Compare Marx’s ‘Draft of a Speech on the “Fenian Question” for the Meeting of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association’, 26 November 1867, and ‘Entwurf des Vortrags über den Fenianismus im Deutschen Arbeiterbildungsverein London am 16. Dezember 1867’, MEGA, I, xxi, pp. 15–32.

158. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 2 November 1867, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 460–61.

159. Ibid., 30 November 1867, pp. 486–7.

160. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 6 April 1868, MECW, vol. 43, p. 3.

161. E. S. Beesly, 1867, cited in Harrison, Before the Socialists, p. 143.

162. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 6 April 1868, MECW, vol. 43, p. 4.

163. ‘Jenny Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 30 October 1869, MECW, vol. 43, p. 546.

164. ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 16 November 1869, MEGA, I, xxi, pp. 727–30.

165. Ibid., 23 November 1869, pp. 728–9, 731–4.

166. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 29 November 1869, MECW, vol. 43, p. 390.

167. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 10 December 1869, MECW, vol. 43, p. 397.

168. Collins and Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement, p. 169.

169. ‘The General Council to the Federal Council of Romance Switzerland’, 1 January 1870, MECW, vol. 21, pp. 84–91.

170. Karl Marx, ‘Circulaire du Conseil Général de l’Association Internationale des Travailleurs au Conseil Fédéral de la Suisse Romande du 1er janvier 1870’, Entstehung und ÜberlieferungMEGA, I, xxi (Apparat), pp. 1465–70.

171. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 10 April 1868, MECW, vol. 43, p. 4; pointing to the election of O’Donovan Rossa in the following year, Jenny made a similar assumption. ‘Religious fanaticism is dying a natural death, the hostility of Catholics and Protestants is at an end, there is a split in the Orange camp, and Orangemen, Ribbonmen and Fenians are uniting against their common enemy, the British government. Consequently, the influence of the Priests is vanishing; the Irish movement is no longer in their hands’: ‘Jenny Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 27 December 1869, MECW, vol. 43, p. 549.

172. ‘Karl Marx to Laura and Paul Lafargue’, 5 March 1870, MECW, vol. 43, p. 449.

173. The strikers and their spokesmen increasingly often justified their demands in the language, supplied by popular political economy, of supply and demand. Significantly, also, the state had kept discreetly in the background. So far as possible, it had avoided the use of troops and the making of arrests. There were no show trials or deportations of trade unionists, as there had been in the case of the ‘Tolpuddle Martyrs’ twenty years before, and no significant threats to stiffen anti-strike legislation. Furthermore, the toehold gained by striking Lancashire textile operatives in 1853–4 had grown by the end of the decade into elaborate bargaining procedures between employers and operatives across the cotton region and the beginnings of forms of arbitration in the Nottingham hosiery industry.

174. For references, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Some Notes on Karl Marx and the English Labour Movement’, History Workshop, 18 (Autumn 1984), pp. 124–37.

175. ‘Report of the Fourth Annual Congress of the International Working Men’s Association’, p. 18, cited in Collins and Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement, p. 98.

176. ‘Jenny Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 17 July 1870, MECW, vol. 43, p. 563.

177. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 20 July 1870, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 3–4, 13; Karl Marx to Paul and Laura Lafargue, 28 July 1870, MECW, vol. 44, p. 14.

178. ‘First Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association on the Franco-Prussian War’, 23 July 1870, MECW, vol. 22, pp. 3–8.

179. ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 2 August 1870, MEGA, I, xxi, p. 814; the emphasis upon peace was especially appreciated. The Peace Society supported the printing of 30,000 copies of the ‘Address’.

180. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 22 July 1870, MECW, vol. 44, p. 6.

181. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 17 August 1870, MECW, vol. 44, p. 51.

182. ‘Second Address on the Franco-Prussian War’, 9 September 1870, MECW, vol. 22, pp. 264, 267.

183. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Sorge’, 1 September 1870, MECW, vol. 44, p. 57.

184. See Christopher Clark, ‘From 1848 to Christian Democracy’, in Ira Katznelson and Gareth Stedman Jones (eds.), Religion and the Political Imagination, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 190–213.

185. Robert Tombs, The Paris Commune 1871, London, Longman, 1999, p. 57.

186. Cited in John Merriman, Massacre: The Life and Death of the Paris Commune of 1871, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2014, p. 45.

187. Tombs, Paris Commune, Appendix 1, pp. 219 and 78–9.

188. See Merriman, Massacre, p. 63.

189. Cited in Tombs, Paris Commune, p. 117.

190. Ibid., pp. 114–15.

191. See K. Steven Vincent, Between Marxism and Anarchism: Benoît Malon and French Reformist Socialism, Berkeley/Oxford, University of California Press, 1992, pp. 14–16.

192. Nineteenth-century claims about the numbers killed, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000, are excessive. Current estimates are based upon the records of morgues and other official sources. See Robert Tombs, ‘How Bloody was La Semaine sanglante of 1871?’, Historical Journal, 55/3 (2012), pp. 679–704.

193. ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 21 March 1871, MEGA, I, xxii, pp. 522–3.

194. ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 18 April 1871, MEGA, I, xxii, p. 537.

195. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 12 April 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 132. This judgement was similar to that put forward by Engels at the General Council on 11 April, but it did not take account of the fact that in the first week leading up to the elections of 26 March, the National Guard continued to hope that it would be possible to negotiate with Versailles. Secondly, given the failure of all their previous sorties from the city, it is not at all clear that the Parisians would have succeeded in overcoming Versailles.

196. Karl Marx, The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s AssociationMECW, vol. 22, p. 320.

197. Ibid., p. 328. It would be more accurate to say that these institutions had removed themselves with the retreat of the government to Versailles. It was also argued that ‘after every revolution marking a progressive phase in the class struggle, the purely repressive character of the State power’ stood out ‘in bolder and bolder relief’. Presented as an empirical claim, this was arguable. But presented as part of a tendential path accompanying the development of modern industry, it was wrong. State power during the Third Republic was less repressive than it had been under the Second Empire. For this reason, the argument that Bonaparte’s Empire was ‘the only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation’ (ibid., p. 330) was also shown to be unfounded.

198. This point is well made in Avineri, Social and Political Thought, pp. 241–2.

199. Marx, Civil War in France, pp. 334–5.

200. Ibid.

201. Karl Marx, ‘First Draft of The Civil War in France’, MECW, vol. 22, p. 499.

202. Marx, Civil War in France, pp. 348, 353.

203. Ibid., pp. 342–3.

204. Ibid., p. 341.

205. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 6 September 1870, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 64–5.

206. ‘Karl Marx to Edward Beesly’, 19 October 1870, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 88–9.

207. This was reported by the Austrian socialist, turned police agent, Heinrich Oberwinder in his Mémoires of 1887, cited in Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 347.

208. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 17 April 1871, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 136–7.

209. During the siege, Thiers had authorized a moratorium on the payment of bills and rents until 13 March, but he refused to renew it. Between 13 and 18 March, 150,000 claims for the payment of rent and bills were lodged. The Commune renewed the moratorium. See Avineri, Social and Political Thought, p. 247.

210. Marx, Civil War in France, p. 337. In the ‘First Draft’, he wrote, ‘for the first time petty and moyenne middle class has openly rallied round the workmen’s Revolution and proclaimed it the only means to its own emancipation and that of France. It forms with them the bulk of the National Guard, and sits with them in the Commune, it mediates for them in the Union Républicaine’: Marx, ‘First Draft’, p. 496.

211. Marx, ‘First Draft’, p. 496.

212. Marx, Civil War in France, p. 339.

213. Marx, ‘First Draft’, p. 498.

214. Ibid., p. 487.

215. He considered that ‘the empire, and Imperialism, with its mere mockery of Parliament, is the régime now flourishing in most of the great military states of the continent’. Karl Marx, ‘Second Draft of The Civil War in France’, MECW, vol. 22, p. 533.

216. Marx, Civil War in France, p. 332.

217. Ibid.

218. Ibid., p. 335. See also the ‘First Draft’, where the transition to associated labour is likened to ‘the long process of development of new conditions’ which had resulted in the transition from slavery to serfdom and from serfdom to free labour. ‘The working class know that they have to pass through different phases of class struggle. They know that the superseding of the economical conditions of the slavery of labour by the conditions of free and associated labour can only be the progressive work of time’: Marx, ‘First Draft’, p. 491.

219. McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, p. 400.

220. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 18 June 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 158.

221. Collins and Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement, pp. 211, 215.

222. Marx, Civil War in France, p. 355.

223. ‘Citizen Marx’ told the General Council, ‘the English press acted as police and bloodhounds for Thiers … The press knew full well the objects and principles of the International … and yet it circulated reports to the effect that the Association included the Fenian brotherhood, the Carbonari, ceased to exist 1830, the Marianne, Ditto 1854 and other secret Societies.’ ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 6 June 1871, MEGA, I, xxii, p. 560.

224. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 27 July 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 177.

225. Marx, Civil War in France, p. 324.

226. Ibid., p. 352.

227. Thomas Wright, Our New Masters, London, Strahan, 1873, pp. 194–9

228. ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 20 June 1871, MEGA, I, xxii, pp. 565–6.

229. ‘Eleanor Marx to the Aberdeen Socialist Society’, 17 March 1893, cited in Kapp, Eleanor Marx, pp. 134–6.

230. ‘Jenny Marx to Ludwig and Gertrud Kugelmann’, 21–22 December 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 566. In a more light-hearted vein, she also commented on her father’s efforts to help. Not only had he had to ‘fight with all the Governments of the ruling classes’, but ‘into the bargain, he has hand to hand combats with the “fat, fair and forty” landladies, who attack him, because this or that Communeux hasn’t paid his rent. Just as he has lost himself in the abstrakten Gedanken, in rushes Mrs Smith or Mrs Brown. If only the Figaro knew this – what a feuilleton would be offered to his readers!’: ibid.

231. ‘Declaration to the French People’, Tombs, Paris Commune, pp. 217–18.

232. James Guillaume, L’Internationale: Documents et souvenirs (1864–1878), Paris, Société nouvelle de librairie et d’édition, 1905, vol. 1, part II, p. 192.

233. The only reference was critical and historical. The ‘communal constitution’, he argued, ‘had been mistaken for an attempt to break up into a federation of small States, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins’. Marx, Civil War in France, p. 333.

234. Hence Karl’s hostility to the word; less than a year before, he had confided to Engels that he hoped for a Prussian victory in the war, because ‘centralisation of STATE POWER’ would be ‘beneficial for the centralisation of the German working class’ and ‘would also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon’s’. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 20 July 1870, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 3–4.

235. Archer, First International in France, p. 43.

236. César De Paepe (1841–90) was a doctor who had graduated at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. After initially siding with the Jura Federalists in the 1872 split in the International, he came to support the necessity of a social-democratic state for the provision of social services, especially a public health service. In 1877, he helped to establish Le Socialisme progressif, a journal which emphasized the role of trade unions and an evolutionary form of socialism. For the significance of his activities in the First International, see William Whitham, ‘César De Paepe and the Politics of Collective Property’, M.Phil. dissertation, Cambridge University, 2015.

237. Paul Thomas, Karl Marx and the Anarchists, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980, p. 278.

238. William Whitham, ‘Anarchism and Federalism in the International Working Men’s Association 1864–1877’, BA Thesis, Harvard University, 2014, pp. 48–9; Archer, First International in France, p. 196.

239. Whitham, ‘Anarchism and Federalism’, p. 29; G. M. Stekloff, History of the First International, London, M. Lawrence, 1928, pp. 141–2.

240. Alexander Herzen, My Past and Thoughts: The Memoirs of Alexander Herzen, trans. C. Garnett, New York, A. A. Knopf, 1968, vol. 3, pp. 1351–2. Aleksey Khomyakov was famous among the Moscow intelligentsia of the 1840s for his scepticism about Western Europe and his rehabilitation of Byzantine history and culture: see Pavel V. Annenkov, The Extraordinary Decade: Literary Memoirs, ed. Arthur P. Mendel, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1968 [1881], pp. 92–101.

241. Annenkov, Extraordinary Decade, p. 21.

242. In my approach to Bakunin, I have been greatly indebted to the research and findings of Diana Siclovan. She emphasizes the lasting importance of Bakunin’s pre-1848 beliefs, restated, but not fundamentally altered, in the 1860s. See Diana Siclovan, ‘Mikhail Bakunin and the Modern Republic 1840–1867’, History Dissertation, Cambridge University, 2009.

243. Herzen, My Past and Thoughts, vol. 3, p. 1351.

244. M. Bakunin, Le Catéchisme révolutionnaire, March 1866, cited in Siclovan, ‘Mikhail Bakunin and the Modern Republic’, p. 44.

245. Mikhail Bakunin, ‘La Question slave’, August 1867, p. 3, cited in Siclovan, ‘Mikhail Bakunin and the Modern Republic’, p. 44. As this passage shows, the term ‘anarchist’ was not one to which much weight should be attached during this period. For ‘anarchist’, in Bakunin’s writings, simply meant ‘federalist’, or elsewhere ‘socialist’.

246. See Whitham, ‘Anarchism and Federalism’.

247. Vyrubov, quoted by E. H. Carr in Michael Bakunin, London, Macmillan Press, 1975 [1937], p. 343; or James Joll, The Anarchists, London, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1964, p. 98.

248. Cited in Thomas, Marx and the Anarchists, pp. 303–4.

249. Ibid., p. 306.

250. The text of a letter written by Bakunin in 1872, cited in ibid. p. 305.

251. Ibid., pp. 318–19.

252. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 November 1864, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 18–19; ibid., 11 April 1865, p. 140.

253. See the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 5 July 1848. These allegations were withdrawn when George Sand intervened and declared them to have no basis.

254. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 4 October 1867, MECW, vol. 42, p. 434.

255. ‘Mikhail Bakunin to Karl Marx’, 22 December 1868, in Guillaume, L’Internationale, vol. 1, pp. 103. 170–79.

256. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 15 December 1868, MECW, vol. 43, p. 190.

257. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 14 March 1869, MECW, vol. 43, p. 240.

258. ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 8 August 1871, MEGA, I, xxii, p. 591

259. ‘Meeting of the General Council’, 25 July and 15 August 1871, MEGA, I, xxii, pp. 582, 594.

260. Ibid.

261. ‘Karl Marx to Jenny Marx’, 23 September 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 220.

262. For a first-hand account of the proceedings at Sonvilliers, see Guillaume, L’Internationale, vol. 2, 1907, part IV, pp. 232–44.

263. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘Fictitious Splits in the International’, 5 March 1872, MECW, vol. 23, p. 89.

264. For a compelling account of Bakunin’s relationship with Nechaev, and more generally the relationships between exiles after 1848, see Carr, Romantic Exiles, ch. 14.

265. See, for instance, Marx and Engels, ‘Fictitious splits in the International’, p. 89.

266. Ibid., pp. 79–123. The pamphlet failed to silence opponents and in Italy Carlo Cafiero accused its authors of ‘washing dirty linen in public’, while Bakunin considered that ‘Mr Marx’ had employed his ‘habitual weapon, a heap of filth’. See Thomas, Marx and the Anarchists, pp. 324–5.

267. ‘Karl Marx to César De Paepe’, 24 November 1871, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 263–4.

268. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 29 July 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 413.

269. Michael Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, ed. and trans. Marshall Shatz, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990 [1873], p. 3.

270. L. B. Namier, 1848: The Revolution of the Intellectuals, London, Oxford Unversity Press, 1971 [1944].

271. Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, p. 194.

272. Ibid.

273. Ibid., pp. 130–31, 140.

274. Ibid., pp. 181, 180, 142, 176.

275. Ibid., pp. 177–8, 23–4.

276. Ibid., pp. 23–4, 177–8.

277. Ibid., p. 141.

278. Ibid., pp. 177, 182, 189.

279. Karl Marx, ‘Notes on Bakunin’s Statehood and Anarchy’, April 1874–January 1875, MECW, vol. 24, p. 518.

280. Ibid., p. 519.

281. Ibid., pp. 520–521.

282. John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, London, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1873, p. 694.

283. ‘General Council to the Federal Council’, pp. 86–8.

284. ‘(On Trade Unions) Minutes of London Conference of the International’, 20 September 1871, MECW, vol. 22, p. 614.

285. Gerth (ed.), First International, p. 262; but he took a much harder line on the exclusion of ‘Section Twelve’, the one moment of possible encounter between the International and the representatives of American feminism. Karl considered it an organisation ‘got up primarily to forward the chances of Mrs Victoria Woodhull’ and to propagate ‘those pet doctrines of her party, such as free love, spiritualism, etc.’. He claimed that it was ‘composed exclusively of bogus reformers, middle class quacks and trading politicians’. Ibid., p. 264.

286. ‘Karl Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht’, 11 February 1878, MECW, vol. 45, p. 299.

287. Gerth (ed.), First International, p. 285.

288. ‘Karl Marx to César De Paepe’, 28 May 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 387.

289. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 17 August 1870, MECW, vol. 44, p. 51.

290. ‘Karl Marx to Sigfrid Meyer’, 21 January 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 102.

291. ‘Karl Marx to his Daughters Jenny, Laura and Eleanor’, 13 June 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 153.

292. Ibid.

293. For a full account of the sisters’ experiences in the Pyrenees, see Kapp, Eleanor Marx, vol. 1, pp. 126–32.

294. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 27 July 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 176.

295. ‘Friedrich Engels to Elizabeth Engels’, 21 October 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 229.

296. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 15 August 1870, MECW, vol. 44, p. 45.

297. ‘Karl Marx to Frederick Bolte’, 23 November 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 256.

298. ‘Karl Marx to Karl Liebknecht’, 17 November 1871, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 247–8.

299. ‘Karl Marx to César De Paepe’, 24 November 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 263.

300. ‘Karl Marx to Paul Lafargue’, 21 March 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 347

12 BACK TO THE FUTURE

1. Karl’s idea of the second volume encompassed both Book II on ‘The Process of Circulation of Capital’ and Book III on ‘The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole’. A third volume was to deal with the history of economic theory. Engels posthumously published Book II and Book III as separate volumes, while Kautsky published the putative third volume as Theories of Surplus Value.

2. See Engels, ‘Preface to the First German Edition of Capital, Book II: The Process of Circulation of Capital’, MECW, vol. 36, pp. 6–9; according to Eleanor Marx, Engels was ‘supposed to make something’ out of the material for Book II, ibid., pp. 9–10.

3. ‘Karl Marx to Maurice Lachâtre’, 18 March 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 344.

4. ‘Karl Marx to Laura Lafargue’, 28 February 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 327; ‘Karl Marx to Nikolai Danielson’, 28 May 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 385. Karl not only made stylistic changes to make the book more readable in French, but also attempted to make his book politically more appealing by making small but significant changes in his picture of capitalism, the factory and the nature of work. See Julia Catherine Nicholls, ‘French Revolutionary Thought after the Paris Commune, 1871–1885’, Ph.D. thesis, Queen Mary University of London, 2015, ch. 3.

5. ‘Friedrich Engels to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 1 July 1873, MECW, vol. 44, pp. 515–16.

6. Ibid., 28 April 1871, pp. 142–3. Kugelmann lived in Hanover.

7. The tensions were also generated by the failure of both Karl and Jenny to recognize the engagement of Eleanor (‘Tussy’) to the French Communard Lissagaray.

8. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Sorge’, 4 August 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 28. Friedrich Sorge (1828–1906) took part in the German Revolution of 1848 and afterwards emigrated, first to Switzerland, then to Belgium and finally, in 1852, to the USA. He was the organizer of the American section of the International.

9. ‘Karl Marx to Nikolai Danielson’, 12 August 1874, MECW, vol. 44, p. 522.

10. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a WholeMECW, vol. 37, p. 240.

11. This question is discussed in sections 5 and 6 of this chapter. The theory of universal development is plainly implied in the original ‘Preface to the First German Edition of Capital’, p. 9.

12. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 18 May 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 17.

13. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 18 September 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 46; ‘Eleanor Marx to Jenny Longuet’, 5 September 1874, cited in Olga Meier (ed.), The Daughters of Karl Marx: Family Correspondence 1866–1898, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1982, p. 117.

14. This passage from Franziska Kugelmann, Reminiscences, 1926, is reproduced in David McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, London, Macmillan, 1981, pp. 286–7. Marx apparently could not tolerate this ‘over-zealous’ stance ‘in a man so much younger than he and took [it] for an encroachment upon his freedom’.

15. ‘Friedrich Engels to Wilhelm Bracke’, 11 October 1875, MECW, vol. 45, p. 96.

16. ‘Friedrich Engels to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 20 October 1876, MECW, vol. 45, p. 162.

17. ‘Karl Marx to Nikolai Danielson’, 15 November 1878, MECW, vol. 45, p. 343.

18. ‘Karl Marx to Nikolai Danielson’, 10 April 1879, MECW, vol. 45, p. 354.

19. ‘Friedrich Engels to August Bebel’, 30 August 1883, MECW, vol. 47, p. 53.

20. ‘Friedrich Engels to Friedrich Sorge’, 12 September 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 44; it is estimated that at its height there were around 1,000–1,200 French refugees.

21. ‘Jenny Marx to Karl Liebknecht’, 26 May 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 580.

22. Yvonne Kapp, Eleanor Marx, 2 vols., London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1972, vol. 1, p. 184; this book remains the definitive study of the life of the Marx family. But see also the challenging recent biography by Rachel Holmes, Eleanor Marx: A Life, London, Bloomsburry, 2014.

23. Ibid., p. 217.

24. ‘Jenny Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht’, 26 May 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 581.

25. Ibid.

26. ‘Friedrich Engels to Laura Lafargue’, 11 March 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 339.

27. ‘Jenny Marx to Friedrich Sorge’, 20–21 January 1877, MECW, vol. 45, pp. 447–8.

28. ‘Friedrich Engels to Friedrich Sorge, 12–17 September 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 44.

29. See Leslie Derfler, Paul Lafargue and the Founding of French Marxism 1842–1882, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 154–5; see also Correspondence of Friedrich Engels and Paul and Laura Lafargue, 3 vols., Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959–60.

30. ‘Friedrich Engels to Paul Lafargue’, 12 September 1880, MECW, vol. 46, p. 32.

31. Lafargue later wrote, ‘the manifesto of the civil war drawn up by Marx for the General Council invested the Commune with a socialist character that it had certainly not possessed during its ephemeral existence. The Communist refugees thereafter took themselves quite seriously as representing a socialism of which they did not know a single letter.’ Paul Lafargue, ‘Socialism in France from 1876 to 1896’, Fortnightly Review, September 1897, cited in Chushichi Tsuzuki, The Life of Eleanor Marx, 1855–1898: A Socialist Tragedy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967, pp. 33–4.

32. ‘Eleanor Marx to Jenny Longuet’, 7 November 1872, in Meier (ed.), Daughters of Karl Marx, p. 113; it seems also that thereafter Eleanor and Laura were not on speaking terms.

33. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 23 May 1873, MECW, vol. 44, p. 496.

34. Ibid., 30 November 1873, pp. 342–3.

35. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 19 January 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 3.

36. Ibid., 18 May 1874, p. 17.

37. Bottigelli Archives, cited in Kapp, Eleanor Marx, vol. 1, pp. 153–4.

38. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 14 August 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 34. See also Rachel Holmes, Eleanor Marx: A Life, London, Bloomsbury, 2014, pp. 119–24. Eleanor’s symptoms appeared similar to those of anorexia nervosa, first fully analysed as a medical condition in Sir William Gull’s study Anorexia Nervosa in 1873. But it was not until the 1930s that doctors began to understand that eating disorders were in part psychological and emotional rather than wholly physical.

39. Ibid., 19 August 1876, p. 136.

40. Ibid., 23 July 1877, p. 245.

41. Ibid., 17 August 1877, p. 268.

42. ‘Karl Marx to Jenny Longuet’, 18 August 1881, MECW, vol. 46, p. 134.

43. ‘Eleanor Marx to Olive Schreiner’, 16 June 1884, cited in Kapp, Eleanor Marx, vol. 1, p. 221.

44. ‘Karl Marx to Laura Lafargue’, 4 January 1882, MECW, vol. 46, p. 169.

45. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 11 November 1882, MECW, vol. 46, p. 375.

46. Derfler, Paul Lafargue, pp. 158–9.

47. ‘Friedrich Engels to Eduard Bernstein’, 2–3 November 1882, MECW, vol. 46, p. 356.

48. Eleanor Marx, ‘Introduction’ to History of the Commune of 1871 from the French of Lissagaray, New York, International Publishing Company, 1898.

49. Cited in Werner Blumenberg, Portrait of Marx: An Illustrated Biography, trans. Douglas Scott, New York, Herder & Herder, 1972, p. 123.

50. ‘Karl Marx to Maurice Lachâtre’, 12 October 1872, MECW, vol. 44, p. 438.

51. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Sorge’, 4 August 1874, MECW, vol. 45, p. 30.

52. See Patrick Hutton, The Cult of the Revolutionary Tradition: The Blanquists in French Politics, 1864–1893, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1981, chs. v–vii.

53. Henry Mayers Hyndman, The Record of an Adventurous Life, London, Macmillan, 1911, p. 272.

54. Ibid., p. 285; Hyndman’s book was written for the radical Democratic Federation, which he founded in 1881. In 1884, the Federation renamed itself the Social Democratic Federation, the first explicitly socialist political organization in Britain.

55. Guesde had to rebut claims that he and his colleagues were ‘submitting to the will of a man who lived in London outside any party control’: see Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter, trans. G. David and E. Mosbacher, London, Allen Lane, 1973 [1933], p. 402. There were also frequent allusions to Karl’s Prussian origins: see ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 30 October 1882, MECW, vol. 46, p. 339.

56Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, 12 August 1871, and see Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968, pp. 202–20.

57. Karl Marx, ‘On the Hague Congress: A Correspondent’s Report of a Speech Made at a Meeting in Amsterdam on September 8 1872’, MECW, vol. 23, p. 255.

58. Ferdinand Lassalle, ‘Arbeiterprogramm’, in Reden und Schriften: Aus der Arbeiteragitation 1862–1864, ed. Friedrich Jenaczek, Munich, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1970, p. 48.

59. Lassalle, ‘Was Nun?’, in Reden und Schriften, pp. 104, 110.

60. ‘Karl Marx to Johann Baptist von Schweitzer’, 13 October 1868, MECW, vol. 43, pp. 132–3.

61. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 7 August 1865, MECW, vol. 42, p. 178.

62. Karl Marx, The Civil War in FranceMECW, vol. 22, p. 334.

63. Cited in Susanne Miller and Heinrich Potthoff, A History of German Social Democracy from 1848 to the Present, Leamington Spa, Berg, 1986, p. 31.

64. August Bebel, My Life, London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1912, p. 278.

65. ‘Karl Marx to Wilhelm Bracke’, 5 May 1875, MECW, vol. 24, p. 77.

66. Karl Marx, ‘Marginal Notes on the Programme of the German Workers’ Party’, 1875, MECW, vol. 24, p. 95. ‘Dictatorship of the proletariat’ was a phrase much employed by twentieth-century Communists. Lenin declared it ‘the very essence of Marx’s teaching’ and it became the principal justification of the one-party state. But Karl’s use of the phrase was very infrequent – in fact he only made two public references to the term, both in 1850 – and was principally related to the question of sovereignty. This is best illustrated by the use he made of the notion of dictatorship in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1848: ‘From the beginning we reproached Camphausen [the liberal Prime Minister] for not acting dictatorially, for not shattering and eliminating the remnants of old institutions’ (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 14 September 1848 (no. 102), MECW, vol. 7, p. 431). The situation to which he was referring was that created by the 18 March uprising in Berlin, which resulted in the monarch being forced to convene a new Prussian Assembly elected on the basis of universal male suffrage. The question then was whether sovereignty now belonged to the Assembly or remained with the monarchy, still relying upon divine right and the undiminished material support of the army and the bureaucracy. In September 1848, this produced a ministerial crisis: the cabinet resigned after being instructed by the Assembly to curb the assaults of the army upon the popularly constituted militia. Ministers protested that this was a legislative incursion into the realm of executive prerogative and a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers. But Karl in his journalism protested that they were ‘still on revolutionary ground and the pretence we have already reached a stage of a constituted, an established constitutional monarchy only leads to collisions. Every provisional condition of state following a revolution’, he went on, ‘requires a dictatorship and an energetic dictatorship at that.’

Karl’s awareness of the choices posed by this extra-legal situation was especially well-informed as a result of his study of the history of the Convention of 1792. The conflict faced by the Camphausen ministry was not dissimilar to that of the early years of the French Revolution, notably the discussion of the ‘suspensive veto’, the power left to the king despite the election of the National Assembly. But, in the French case, the problem had been resolved by the king himself. In June 1791, two years into the Revolution, Louis XVI had attempted to escape, having reneged on all measures enacted by the National Assembly since the fall of the Bastille. Once the monarchy lost power and legitimacy, the sovereignty of the people was no longer contested. Crowd action resulted in the massacre of prisoners, the declaration of a republic, the trial and execution of the monarch, and the summoning of a Convention to establish a new constitution. In a private letter (only published by Engels in 1891 after Karl’s death) objecting to the Gotha Programme’s idea of a people’s state (Volksstaat), Karl’s picture continued the usage of 1848: ‘Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period, in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.’

67. Friedrich Engels, ‘A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891’, MECW, vol. 27, p. 227; and see Vernon Lidtke, ‘German Socialism and Social Democracy 1860–1900’, in Gareth Stedman Jones and Gregory Claeys (eds.), The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 804–5.

68. As Bebel remarked, the programme indeed ‘left much to be desired … yet it was all that could be achieved at the time’. And, he continued, ‘it will be seen that it was not an easy matter to satisfy the two old gentlemen in London. What was really a clever tactical move on our part and the result of prudent calculation they regarded as mere weakness’. Bebel, My Life, pp. 286–7.

69. Friedrich Engels, ‘Preface’ to Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, 21 February 1888, MECW, vol. 26, pp. 519–20.

70. Paradoxically, anti-socialist laws increased the prominence of the Party as an electoral organization. While leading officials had to move newspapers or journals abroad, Social Democrats were still able to stand in Reichstag, state and local elections.

71. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 8 January 1868, MECW, vol. 42, p. 513; ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 6 March 1846, MECW, vol. 42, p. 544.

72. David Riazanov, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: An Introduction to Their Lives and Work, London, Monthly Review Press, 1973 [1927], p. 210.

73. Benedikt Kautsky (ed.), Friedrich Engels’ Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky, Vienna, Danubia-Verlag, 1955, p. 477.

74. Friedrich Engels, Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in ScienceMECW, vol. 25, p. 27.

75. Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and ScientificMECW, vol. 24, p. 304.

76. Engels, Herr Eugen Dühring, pp. 145–6.

77. Ibid., p. 268.

78. Ibid., p. 265.

79. Ibid., p. 267.

80. Ibid., p. 268. As Shlomo Avineri has pointed out, there was a considerable difference between Engels’ idea of ‘Absterben des Staates’, a biological idea, and Karl’s use of the term ‘Aufhebung des Staates’, a Hegelian term which implied the abolition and transcendence of the distinction between state and civil society. This meant not that the state would shed one function after another, but that ‘the public power would lose its political character’. The choice of persons to perform particular functions would be no different from the choice of a craftsman to execute a particular task, like making a pair of shoes. See Avineri, Social and Political Thought, pp. 202–20. The idea that ‘the government of persons’ would be replaced by the ‘administration of things’ was Saint-Simonian in origin.

81. Cited in Lidtke, ‘German Socialism and Social Democracy’, p. 799.

82. ‘August Bebel to Friedrich Engels’, 28 March 1881, in Werner Blumenberg (ed.), August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels, The Hague, Mouton, 1965, p. 106.

83. ‘Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Erfurt 1891’, in Miller and Potthoff, History of German Social Democracy, p. 240.

84. Friedrich Engels, ‘Second Preface to Herr Dühring’, 23 September 1885, MECW, vol. 25, p. 11.

85. Ibid., p. 23.

86. Friedrich Engels, ‘Draft of a Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx’, 14–17 March 1883, MECW, vol. 24, p. 463.

87. Engels, Herr Eugen Dühring, p. 270.

88. Karl Kautsky, Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, Chicago, C. H. Kerr and Company 1914 [1906], pp. 96–7, 102. The ‘materialist conception of history’ provided insight into ‘the laws of development and of the movements of the social organism, its forces and organs’: ibid., p. 201.

89. Karl Marx, ‘Afterword to the Second German Edition’, in Capital, vol. I: A Critique of Political EconomyMECW, vol. 35, pp. 18–19. Among other claims cited with approval in that passage, it was stated: ‘Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence … That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point.’

90. Engels, Herr Eugen Dühring, Part II, ch. X, MECW, vol. 25, pp. 211–44. Apart from criticizing his treatment of the Greeks, Karl was mainly concerned to defend his view of the importance of William Petty, and to mock the arguments of David Hume.

91. Hyndman, Record of an Adventurous Life, p. 279.

92. ‘Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Erfurt 1891’, p. 240.

93. ‘Friedrich Engels to August Bebel’, 4 April 1885, MECW, vol. 47, p. 271.

94. Marx, Capital, vol. III, p. 245.

95. Friedrich Engels, ‘Karl Marx’s Funeral’, MECW, vol. 24, p. 467.

96. The claim originated in a misfiling in the archives at his family home at Down of one of the letters written by Darwin. The letter politely refusing a dedication was written not to Karl, but to Edward Aveling (Eleanor Marx’s partner). Karl did send a copy of the second, 1873 edition of Capital to Darwin, probably at the urging of Engels.

97. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 August 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 304.

98. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2 vols., London, J. Murray, 1871, vol. 1, pp. 96–7.

99. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844MECW, vol. 3, p. 337.

100. Ibid., pp. 275, 276.

101. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 18 January 1861, MECW, vol. 41, pp. 246–7.

102. Ibid., 18 June 1862, p. 381.

103. Ibid., 7 August 1866, MECW, vol. 42, pp. 304–5.

104. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 2 October 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 320; and see also ibid., 5 October 1866, pp. 323–4.

105. ‘Karl Marx to Dr Kugelmann’, 9 October 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 327.

106. Gareth Stedman Jones (ed.), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, London, Penguin Books, 2002, p. 224.

107. Karl Marx, ‘The British Rule in India’, 10 June 1853, MECW, vol. 12, p. 128.

108. Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859, MECW, vol. 29, p. 275; Karl Marx, Capital, vol. I: A Critique of Political EconomyMECW, vol. 35, p. 88.

109. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 November 1868, MECW, vol. 35, p. 9.

110. Karl Marx, Das Kapital, vol. I: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, Hildesheim, Gerstenberg, 1980 (this is a fascimile of the first German edition, Hamburg, Verlag von Otto Meissner, 1867), p. 763. Even in 1870, when he had first begun to read Russian, his attitudes towards the Populist view of the Russian village commune remained the same. In a critical note appended to his annotation of Flerovskii’s ‘Peasant Reform and the Communal Ownership of Land’, Karl wrote, ‘From this rubbish, it emerges that Russian communal property is compatible with Russian barbarism, but not with bourgeois civilisation’. Cited in H. Wada, ‘Marx and Revolutionary Russia’, in Teodor Shanin (ed.), Late Marx and the Russian Road, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983, p. 45.

111. For a detailed analysis of the changes of plan occurring in the successive drafts and plans of his critique of political economy, see James D. White, Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1996, ch. 4.

112. Karl Marx, ‘The So-Called Primitive Accumulation’, in Capital, vol. I, Part VIII, MECW, vol. 35, pp. 704–61.

113. Justus Möser, Osnabrückische Geschichte, 2nd edn, Berlin/Stettin, 1780 Nicolai, vol. 1, p. 10; and for a survey of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century German and French theories of early landownership, see Alfons Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations of European Civilization, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1937 [Vienna, 1923–4], ch. 1.

114. Justus Möser, ‘Preface’ to Osnabrückische Geschichte, Osnabrück, Schmid, 1768, pp. [ix–x].

115. Möser, Osnabrückische Geschichte, 2nd edn, vol. 1, p. 13.

116. K. F. Eichhorn, ‘Über den Ursprung der städtischen Verfassung in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, 1 (1815), p. 172, cited in Dopsch, Economic and Social Foundations, p. 7.

117. See Adam Kuper, The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion, London, Routledge, 1988, p. 22.

118. John Mitchell Kemble, The Saxons in England: A History of the English Commonwealth till the Period of the Norman Conquest, London, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1849, vol. 1, pp. 53–4.

119. William Stubbs, The Constitutional History of Englandin Its Origins and Development, 3 vols., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1874, vol. 1, p. 11; J. W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. 110.

120. Edward A. Freeman, The Chief Periods of European History: Six Lectures Read in the University of Oxford in Trinity Term, 1885, London, Macmillan, 1886, p. 64.

121. Cited in Burrow, Liberal Descent, p. 176, n. 106.

122. John Richard Green, A Short History of the English People, with Maps and Tables, London, Macmillan, 1874, p. 4.

123. This shift of position was registered in the successive editions of Eichhorn’s Deutsche Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte. Dopsch claimed that Eichhorn’s study, which went through many editions, gradually became the standard history of German law, and that ‘his Mark theory was destined to become the cornerstone of the whole constitutional and legal history of that country’. Dopsch, Economic and Social Foundations, p. 8.

124. On the findings of Olufsen and Hanssen, see Hans-Peter Harstick, Karl Marx und die zeitgenössische Verfassungsgeschichtsschreibung, Münster, 1974, pp. xxxviii–xlii.

125. August von Haxthausen, Über die Agrarverfassung in den Fürstenthümern Paderborn und Corvey und deren Conflicte in der gegenwärtigen Zeit: nebst Vorschlägen, die den Grund und Boden belastenden Rechte und Verbindlichkeiten daselbst aufzulösen, Berlin, Reimer, 1829. Haxthausen was from the Catholic nobility of Westphalia, and was an enthusiast for aristocratic paternalism and an ‘organic’ theory of society, of the kind advocated by Adam Müller. He was a critic of the spread of market relations into the countryside. In the 1830s, his work was greatly admired by the Crown Prince, Friedrich Wilhelm, who urged the Ministry of Justice to provide financial support for him to report on agrarian relations in the Prussian provinces. His work was strongly criticized in the western provinces, especially the Rhineland, where he was accused of ignorance of the law. The Interior Minister, von Schuckmann, considered his work mainly to be propaganda, supported by little more than anecdote. The ministry withdrew support for his work in 1842.

Since his work met with an increasingly frosty reception in Prussia, he shifted his attention to an allegedly primitive Slavic agrarian constitution which supposedly replicated patterns still existing in the more remote areas of Germany, including the uplands of Trier (though, as he admitted, his claims were only based on hearsay). See August von Haxthausen, Über den Ursprung und die Grundlagen der Verfassung in den ehemals slavischen Ländern Deutschlands, im Allgemeinen und des Herzogthums Pommern im Besondern: eine Einladungsschrift zur Erörterung und litterarischen Besprechung, Berlin, Krause, 1842.

On the strength of these findings, he was invited by the Russian imperial government to travel through the country and report on the state of the peasantry. He made the trip in the winter of 1843–4. Knowing no Russian, he worked through an interpreter; he stayed mainly in the towns, especially Moscow, where Russian Slavophil intellectuals predictably accepted his claims. He published the first two volumes of Studien über die inneren Zustände, das Volksleben und insbesondere die ländlichen Einrichtungen Russlands in 1846, with a final volume in 1852. It was translated into French, English and Russian. Despite its fanciful assumptions and its feeble basis in fact, the study was immediately accepted not only by Slavophils, but also by the radical intelligentsia, notably by Alexander Herzen and Nicolai Chernyshevsky. See Tracy Dennison and A. W. Carus, ‘The Invention of the Russian Rural Commune: Haxthausen and the Evidence’, Historical Journal, 46/03 (September 2003), pp. 561–82.

126. Harstick, Karl Marx und die zeitgenössische Verfassungsgeschichtschreibung, pp. xxxviii–xlii.

127. Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-, Hof-, Dorf- und Stadtverfassung und der öffentlichen Gewalt, Vienna, Brand, 1896 [1854].

128. Dithmarsch, north-east of Hamburg, possessed a high degree of autonomy. It was famous for its dykes and reclamation of land from the sea, and also for its resistance to feudalism and its establishment of an independent peasant republic in the fifteenth century.

129. Maurer, Mark-, Hof-, Dorf- und Stadtverfassung, pp. 1–6.

130. Henry Sumner Maine, Village-Communities in the East and West: Six Lectures Delivered at Oxford, London, J. Murray, 1871, p. 11.

131. Maine, Village-Communities, pp. 6–7.

132. Burrow, Liberal Descent, p. 169.

133. Kemble, Saxons in England, vol. 1, p. 74; Maine, Village-Communities, p. 9.

134. Ibid., p. 12.

135. Henry Sumner Maine, Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas, 1861, London, J. Murray, p. 170.

136. Henry Sumner Maine, ‘The Decay of Feudal Property in France and England’, Fortnightly Review, vol. 21 (new series), April 1877, pp. 465, 467.

137. See Kuper, Invention of Primitive Society, pp. 29–32; Karuna Mantena, Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2010, pp. 98–107.

138. Maine, Ancient Law, pp. 89, 120.

139. Maine, Village-Communities, pp. 76, 77.

140. See Erwin Nasse, On the Agricultural Community of the Middle Ages, and Inclosures of the Sixteenth Century in England, trans. Colonel H. A. Ouvry, London, Macmillan, 1871.

141. Henry Sumner Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, London, J. Murray, 1875, pp. 1–2.

142. The works in which Herzen developed his position were From the Other Shore, written in 1848 and 1849, the first German edition appearing in 1855, and The Russian People and Socialism: An Open Letter to Jules Michelet, written in French and published in 1851.

143. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 14 March 1868, MECW, vol. 42, p. 547.

144. Ibid., 25 March 1868, pp. 557–8.

145. Karl Marx, drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, ‘First Draft’, February/March 1881, MECW, vol. 24, p. 350. Vera Zasulich, on behalf of the members of Black Repartition, had written to Karl on 16 February 1881, asking about the future of the village commune. Karl wrote four drafts of a reply, finally sending a reply on 8 March 1881.

146. Maurer, Mark-, Hof-, Dorf- und Stadtverfassung, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii.

147. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 25 March 1868, MECW, vol. 42, p. 557.

148. August von Haxthausen, Studies on the Interior of Russia, ed. S. Frederick Starr, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1972, p. 281.

149. White, Karl Marx, p. 224.

150. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 90. What is translated as ‘direct relations of subjection’ in the German original reads ‘unmittelbaren Herrschafts- und Knechtschafts-verhältnissen’, terms which standardly referred to lordship and bondage: see Marx, Kapital, vol. I, p. 40. This would suggest that Karl included Russian serfdom in this list of ‘ancient Asian and other ancient modes of production’.

151. Even in 1870, when he had first begun to read Russian, his attitude towards the Populist view of the Russian village commune remained the same. In a critical note appended to his annotation of Flerovskii’s ‘Peasant Reform and the Communal Ownership of Land’, Karl wrote, ‘From this rubbish, it emerges that Russian communal property is compatible with Russian barbarism, but not with bourgeois civilisation’. Cited in Wada, ‘Marx and Revolutionary Russia’, p. 45.

152. Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918), a founder of the social-democratic movement in Russia. Originally an active Populist, he turned against the terrorist tactics of Populism, and formed a breakaway group, Chernyi Peredel (Black Repartition). In 1880, he was forced to leave Russia and spent the next thirty-seven years in exile in Geneva. It was there after a period of study in 1882–3 that he declared himself a ‘Marxist’. In September 1883, Plekhanov joined with Axelrod, Lev Dutsch, Vasily Ignatov and Vera Zasulich to found the first Russian Marxist political grouping, the Emancipation of Labour Group. Among those attracted to the group were Peter Struve, Iulii Martov and Vladimir Ulianov (Lenin).

Vera Zasulich (1849–1919), originally a supporter of Bakunin and acquaintance of Nechaev, in 1878 shot and seriously wounded Colonel Fyodor Trepov, the governor of St Petersburg. Acquitted at her trial she escaped to Geneva, where she co-founded the Emancipation of Labour Group.

153. Marx, drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, February–March 1881, pp. 353, 354, 363, 368.

154. Cited in Wada, ‘Marx and Revolutionary Russia’, p. 48. This essay is invaluable in its meticulous tracking of Karl’s changing position on Russia in the 1870s.

155. Marx, ‘Afterword to the Second German Edition’, in Capital, vol. I, p. 15. By contrast, Engels was not prepared to abandon the coupling of the village commune with despotism. In Anti-Dühring, he stated, ‘Where the ancient communities have continued to exist, they have for thousands of years formed the basis of the cruellest form of state, Oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It was only where these communities dissolved that the peoples made progress of themselves’: Engels, Herr Eugen Dühring, p. 168.

156. Karl drafted but did not send a letter to Nicolai Mikhailovsky, the editor of Otechestvenniye Zapiski. Mikhailovsky described Capital as a ‘historico-philosophical theory of universal progress’ which argued that every country would undergo the same process of peasant expropriation as that experienced by England and assumed that Karl’s attitude to Populism was summed up by his denunciation of Herzen. Karl referred him to the 1875 French edition and his praise of Chernyshevsky, implying that he shared the analysis of the Populists. See Wada, ‘Marx and Revolutionary Russia’, pp. 57–60. For the letter, see MECW, vol. 24, pp. 196–201.

157. Marx, drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, ‘First Draft’, pp. 357, 360.

158. Ibid., ‘Second Draft’, p. 361. But it should not be forgotten that this draft letter was never sent.

159. In the twentieth century, the story of Karl’s changing views about revolution in Russia, and ‘skipping a stage’, was generally treated as a particular response to the Russian situation and Russian interest in Capital. It was of particular interest since ‘Marxism’ in late-nineteenth-century Russia was associated with the rejection of the Populist position. This was true both of Plekhanov, the so-called ‘father of Russian Marxism’, and his Geneva-based Group for the Emancipation of Labour, and of Lenin, whose Development of Capitalism in Russia had appeared in 1899.

160. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Adolf Sorge’, 17 September 1877, MECW, vol. 45, p. 278.

161. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 14 June 1853, MECW, vol. 24, p. 352.

162. Marx, drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, ‘First Draft’, p. 352.

163. Karl Marx, ‘Excerpts from M. M. Kovalevsky, Obščinnoe Zemlevladenie. Pričiny, khod i posledstvija ego razloženija, Part One, Moscow 1879’, in Lawrence Krader, The Asiatic Mode of Production: Sources, Development and Critique in the Writings of Karl Marx, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1975, p. 406.

164. Marx, drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, ‘First Draft’ and ‘Third Draft’, pp. 359, 365.

165. As Karl had written to Kugelmann about his theoretical approach in 1862, ‘On the basis thus provided’, his argument ‘could easily be pursued by others … with the exception, perhaps, of the relationship between the various forms of state and the various economic structures of society’. ‘Karl Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann’, 28 December 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 435.

166. See Donald Kelley, ‘The Science of Anthropology: An Essay on the Very Old Marx’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 45 (1984), pp. 245–63.

167. Marx, drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, ‘First Draft’, p. 349.

168. Ibid., ‘Second Draft’, pp. 361, 362.

169. Ibid., ‘First Draft’, p. 360.

170. Ibid., pp. 358–9.

171. Karl’s comment in the original reads, ‘Dch. d. Grecian gens gukt d. Wilde (Iroquois z.B.) aber auch unverkennbar durch.’ Karl Marx, ‘Excerpts from Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society’, in Lawrence Krader (ed.), The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1974, p. 198.

172. Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilisation, London, Macmillan, 1877.

173. Marx, ‘Excerpts from Lewis Henry Morgan’, in Krader (ed.), Ethnological Notebooks, p. 120. For Fourier’s theory, see Gareth Stedman Jones and Ian Patterson (eds.), Charles Fourier: The Theory of the Four Movements, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 56–74.

174. Marx, ‘Excerpts from Lewis Henry Morgan’, in Krader (ed.), Ethnological Notebooks, p. 102. Here there was a clear contrast to be found with the approach of Darwin. Darwin’s only direct intervention in the debate about primitive society was to disagree with McLennan about ‘the promiscuity’ of ‘the horde’, and to argue that sexual jealousy among savages had from the beginning led to the inculcation of female chastity as a virtue and therefore to the establishment of orderly sexual relations: Darwin, Descent of Man, vol. 1, pp. 96–7.

175. For the position he had adopted in 1844, see especially Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844MECW, vol. 3, pp. 229–349.

176. Karl Marx, ‘Excerpts from Henry Sumner Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions’, in Krader (ed.), Ethnological Notebooks, p. 324.

177. Johann Jakob Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, Krais & Hoffmann, 1861; John Ferguson McLennan, Primitive Marriage: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies, Edinburgh, Adam and Charles Black, 1865; Morgan, Ancient Society.

178. Marx, ‘Excerpts from Henry Sumner Maine’, in Krader (ed.), Ethnological Notebooks, p. 326.

179. Ibid., p. 292.

180. Ibid., p. 329.

181. Marx, drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, ‘First Draft’, p. 350. Karl cited the argument of Morgan, ‘an American writer quite free from any suspicion of revolutionary tendencies’, that ‘ “the new system” towards which modern society tends “will be a REVIVAL IN SUPERIOR FORM of an archaic social type”. So we must not let ourselves be alarmed at the word “archaic”.’

182. Not least because the period of the ‘Great Depression’ was also a period in which wage-earners experienced a substantial increase in their standard of living. According to Karl Borchardt, between 1880 and 1895 German workers experienced their greatest rise in real wages in the nineteenth century.

183. ‘Karl Marx to Vera Zasulich’, 8 March 1881, MECW, vol. 46, p. 71. This was essentially the same as the fourth draft of this letter: see MECW, vol. 24, pp. 370–71. For further exploration of this theme, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Radicalism and the Extra-European World: The Case of Karl Marx’, in Duncan Bell (ed.), Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-Century Political Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 186–214.

184. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘Preface to the Russian Edition of 1882’, in Stedman Jones (ed.), Communist Manifesto, p. 196.

185. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 1 March 1882, MECW, vol. 46, p. 213.

186. David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, London, Macmillan, 1973, p. 450.

187. Eleanor Marx, ‘Illness and Death of Marx’, in McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Interviews and Recollections, p. 128.

EPILOGUE

1. François Guizot, Essais sur l’histoire de France … pour servir de complément aux observations sur l’histoire de France de l’Abbé Mably, Paris, J. L. J. Brière, 1823, p. 111.

2. Fustel de Coulanges, Le Problème des origines de la propriété foncière, Brussels, Alfred Vromant et Cie, 1889; an English translation appeared soon afterwards. See Fustel de Coulanges, The Origin of Property in Land, trans. Margaret Ashley, with an introductory chapter on the English manor by W. J. Ashley, London, Swan Sonnenschein, 1891.

3. Frederic Seebohm, The English Village Community – Examined in Its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry: An Essay in Economic History, London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1883; Ashley, ‘Introductory Essay’, in de Coulanges, Origin of Property in Land; Paul Vinogradoff, Villainage in England: Essays in English Medieval History, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968 [1892].

4. Simon J. Cook, ‘The Making of the English: English History, British Identity, Aryan Villages, 1870–1914’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 75/4 (October 2014), pp. 629–49; and for a more general study of Marshall’s early formation, see Simon J. Cook, The Intellectual Foundations of Alfred Marshall’s Economic ScienceA Rounded Globe of Knowledge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

5. de Coulanges, Origin of Property in Land, pp. 122, 127.

6. See Karl Lamprecht, Deutsches Wirtschaftsleben im Mittelalter, 4 vols., Leipzig, A. Dürr, 1885–6, vol. 1, pp. 451ff.; A. Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations of European Civilization, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1937 [Vienna, 1923–4], p. 27.

7. de Coulanges, Origin of Property in Land, pp. 110–11.

8. ‘Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx’, 15 December 1882, MECW, vol. 46, p. 400. This letter contains a fairly comprehensive demolition of Maurer’s approach.

9. Friedrich Engels, ‘Afterword’ (1894) to ‘On Social Relations in Russia’, 1875, MECW, vol. 27, pp. 424, 431. This was a postscript to the reissue of an attack by Engels on Petr Tkatchev, a follower of Herzen, Haxthausen and Bakunin.

10. Ibid., pp. 425–6.

11. Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilisation, ed. Eleanor Burke Leacock, Cleveland, World Pub. Co., 1963 [1877], p. 462.

12. On McIlvaine and his liberal Calvinist congregation, see Adam Kuper, The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion, London, Routledge, 1988, pp. 43–6.

13. Lewis Henry Morgan, The American Beaver and His Works, Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1868.

14. Kuper, Invention of Primitive Society, pp. 51–8.

15. George Grote, History of Greece, 3rd edition, London, John Murray, 1851.

16. Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 554.

17. ‘Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels’, 7 August 1866, MECW, vol. 42, p. 304; ibid., 3 October 1866, p. 322.

18. G. Plekhanov [N. Beltov], The Development of the Monist View of History, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956 [1895], pp. 129–30.

19. Ibid., p. 218.

20. David Riazanov (ed.), Marx–Engels Archiv: Zeitschrift des Marx–Engels-Instituts in Moskau, Frankfurt am Main, Marx-Engels Archiv Verlags-gesellschaft, 1928, vol. 1, pp. 309–45. All serious studies of Marx are hugely indebted to the pioneer work of collecting and editing the writings and correspondence of Marx accomplished by David Riazanov. The first volume of the Marx–Engels Gesamtausgabe began in 1927, and since 1991 has been continued by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

An outspoken critic of Stalin, Riazanov refused to compromise scholarly principles. He was dismissed from the Marx–Engels Institute, which he founded in Moscow in 1921, and was shot in Moscow in 1938. For an account of Riazanov’s scholarly achievements and career, see Jonathan Beecher and Valerii N. Formichev, ‘French Socialism in Lenin’s and Stalin’s Moscow: David Riazanov and the French Archive of the Marx–Engels Institute’, Journal of Modern History, 78/1 (March 2006), pp. 119–43.

21. As discussed earlier, where Karl had considered that the Russian village commune could provide a direct starting point or element of regeneration in Russian society. See also Vera Zasulich to Karl Marx, 16 February 1881. ‘This question is a question of life and death, in my opinion, especially for our socialist party. Even the personal destiny of our socialist revolutionaries will depend upon the way you decide to answer it’: ‘Vera Zasulich to Karl Marx’, 16 February 1881, Marx–Engels Archiv, vol. 1, p. 316.

22. Ibid., p. 309. According to the rumours circulating in Geneva at the time and for several years afterwards, it was claimed in 1879 that Karl had even offered to write a pamphlet on the question.

23. The letter was so completely forgotten that, for example, Axelrod, who was in Romania in the winter of 1880–81 (the time needing to be considered for the receipt of the letter), remembered nothing about the letter Vera Zasulich received, or conversation about this letter, which it undoubtedly occasioned – nor any other thing relating to it. Ibid., p. 310.