Political Review (August 1859)

From Marxists-en
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Author(s) Karl Marx
Wilhelm Liebknecht
Written 19 August 1859


First published in Das Volk, No. 16, August 20, 1859
Printed according to the newspaper
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 16
Collection(s): Das Volk

Political reviews (politische Rundschauen) were published in each issue of Das Volk. They were presumably written by Elard Biscamp and Wilhelm Liebknecht.

When Marx became the virtual editor of the newspaper, he also began to take part in editing this section. The passage on Jones in this review was written and inserted in the text by Marx himself. This can be proved by comparing this passage with Marx’s letters to Engels of November 24, 1857 and September 21, 1858 and to Weydemeyer of February 1, 1859 (MECW, Vol. 40).

London. The strike of the building workers, or, more correctly, the lockout by the builders, is continuing[1] without any essential change in the positions of the two opposed sides. On Tuesday the workers’ delegates held a meeting, which was also attended by representatives from the other trades, at which it was decided unanimously not to take up work with any master who demanded a promise not to join the “society”.[2] At the same time the “associated” masters got together in the Freemasons’ Tavern, no reporters being allowed. It was learned later that the lightshunning gentlemen, after a stormy debate, agreed that no member of the association should open his establishment until the building workers had formally broken with the “society” and before “Mr. Trollope’s hands had put an end to their strike”.[3] The last point might well be settled shortly, since Mr. Trollope recently engaged in negotiations with the workers and gave most positive assurances that the complaints made against him (discharge of a worker who handed the nine-hour petition, etc.) were based on a misunderstanding. As for the other condition, however, the “locked-out” men will not consent to it by any means unless forced to by extreme distress; they feel that breaking with the “society”, renouncing any organisation, would mean making themselves downright serfs of the capitalists and abandoning the last bit of independence left to the modern proletarian. The brutal obstinacy of the masters, who are arrogating for themselves the same authority over their “hands” as the American planter over his slaves, has aroused the disapproval even of a section of the bourgeois newspaper writers. Naturally, we have no reason to be displeased with the masters; they are doing everything in their power to make the already deep rift between labour and capital even wider and to produce that concentrated, conscious class hatred that is the surest guarantee of a social revolution.

London has a total of over 1,000 building establishments. Of them only 88, but the largest, are locked out. The number of “locked-outs” comes to 19,000-20,000, not 40,000, as was asserted at first. Money contributions are pouring into the “society” plentifully from every part of the country, but up to now the unemployed workers have declined to draw relief. Honour to the brave! Would the bourgeoisie be capable of such sacrifice in its class interest?

In the last days of the session, which ended on Saturday, the Lower House was concerned almost exclusively with election scandals, which have sprung up like mushrooms out of the ground and covered every wall of the Houses of Parliament. There was a fearful stench of corruption, which harmonised excellently with the odours of the Thames’ and would have nauseated the honorable members if they had not been accustomed to such things. In some cases it was a question of individuals who had bought or sold herds of British voters openly (and that was the offence) like so many herds of sheep; in other cases it was some poor wight who voluntarily gave up his dearly-paid seat because he could not afford to defend it against a petition that would have cost at least £3,000,—but let us leave this. Why wallow in the filth? We will only add that almost all the members who were proved guilty of bribery belong to the “Liberal” Party.[4]

There is almost nothing to be said about the speech from the throne. It is a completely vapid document. On the projected European congress it states that Her Majesty has not yet arrived at any definite decision.[5]

That is a lie. Immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Villafranca Lord Palmerston declared to the Russian Government that he was prepared to send representatives to the congress Russia had proposed. That is, he had already “arrived at a definite decision” four weeks earlier.

Paris. We spare our readers an account of the victory celebration in Paris. Despite the complicated machinery set in motion to make people forget the defeat at Villafranca, to divide the attention of the population of Paris and to bring the throats of the interested parties to shouting, the Emperor personally is said to have been so little pleased with his reception that he took the desperate step of the amnesty, even though his Decembrist advisers urgently advised against it. The Paris press also received an amnesty; all “warnings” have been revoked.[6]

From Berlin nothing but the old empty phrases and continuation of the woebegone agitation for reform of the Confederation under Prussian hegemony. The merging of the Gotha party with the democrats is now an accomplished fact, as will be seen from the following notices.—The condition of the King[7] has not improved.

In Eisenach another meeting of “German patriots” was held on August 14, to proclaim, with the approval of the high authorities, that Gothaism is the only means of salvation.[8] Among the assembled celebrities we find mentioned: Herr von Bennigsen from Hanover; Zabel from Berlin (seest thou how thou art?); Siegel, editor of the Sächsische Konstitutionelle Zeitung; Titus from Bamberg; Schulze from Delitzsch, etc. Of course, the programme drawn up for the newly formed German Party contains: reform of the Confederation, Prussian hegemony, repeal of the Federal Diet’s decrees against freedom of the press and assembly, etc. Finally, Frankfurt was chosen to be the venue of the next assembly, probably in order to be near St. Paul’s Church.[9]

On the other hand, it is reported from Hanover that the government there, in order to compete with its Prussia-loving patriots, against whom it is beginning to take police action, has raised the question of Schleswig-Holstein again.

  1. ↑ In the summer of 1859 a mass movement for a nine-hour working day began in England. In London it embraced the building workers organised in trade unions. At the end of July 1859, when the employers refused to satisfy their demands for a shorter working day for the same pay, the building workers of the Trollop firm went on strike. The strike movement in London and other towns gained in strength, especially after the employers declared open war on the workers’ unions at a joint meeting on July 27 by unanimously deciding not to employ workers belonging to trade unions and on August 6 declared a lockout of more than twenty thousand workers. The builders on strike and those affected by the lockout were aided by other workers, not only in London but in eighty other towns throughout the country. The strike continued until February 1860 and ended in a compromise: the employers agreed to employ workers belonging to trade unions, but the workers had to give up their demand for a nine-hour working day.
  2. ↑ "Meeting of Trades' Delegates", The Times, No. 23387, August 17, 1859 — Ed.
  3. ↑ "The Nine Hours Movement", The Times, No. 23387, August 17, 1859.— Ed.
  4. ↑ In the late 1850s and early 1860s there emerged in England a Liberal Party composed of Whigs, Manchesterites (representatives of the industrial bourgeoisie) and Peelites (moderate Tories). The Liberals, who replaced the Whigs in the English two-party system, were opposed by the Conservative Party, which also took shape at this period and replaced the Tory Party.
  5. ↑ Queen’s speech in the House of Lords, August 13, 1859, The Times, No. 23385, August 15, 1859.— Ed.
  6. ↑ Napoleon Ill's decree of August 16, 1859 on the amnesty of those condemned for criminal and political offences, Le Moniteur universel, Nos. 228 and 229, August 16 and 17, 1859; Napoleon Ill's decree of August 16, 1859 revoking administrative warnings to the press, Le Moniteur universel, No. 230, August 18, 1859.— Ed.
  7. ↑ Frederick William IV.— Ed
  8. ↑ "Eisenach (die Kundgebung für preussische Hegemonie)", Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 242, August 30, 1859.— Ed.
  9. ↑ The reference is to a meeting of representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie from the states of Northern and Central Germany in Eisenach on August 14, 1859. It discussed the main points of the liberal bourgeoisie’s programme providing for a reform of the German Confederation, the establishment of a strong centralised government headed by the King of Prussia, the formation of united armed forces, etc. This programme served as the basis for the founding of a new party, called the National Union {Nationalverein), at a congress in Frankfurt on September 15-16, 1859. The nucleus of the Union was the Gotha party (see Note 87).
Retrieved from "https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/w/index.php?title=Political_Review_(August_1859)&oldid=90772"