Category | Template | Form |
---|---|---|
Text | Text | Text |
Author | Author | Author |
Collection | Collection | Collection |
Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
Template | Form |
---|---|
BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Preface to Marx-Engels Collected Works Volume (41)
Volume 41 of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels contains their letters to each other and to third persons from January 1860 to September 1864. This material provides an irreplaceable insight into their life and work, enabling us to follow the composition of their writings, and to build up a picture of their practical revolutionary activities.
This period saw the continuous rise of the bourgeois democratic and national liberation movements which had been growing in Europe and America ever since the world economic crisis of 1857. The rapid development of capitalism in Britain, France, Germany and some other European countries accelerated the liquidation of the political and social survivals of feudalism. In Germany and Italy, where the bourgeois revolution had not yet been completed, the movement for national unification once more got into its stride. In Russia, even after the abolition of serfdom in February 1861, peasant disturbances continued, and revolutionary tendencies were growing among the progressive intelligentsia. In 1863, a national liberation uprising began in Poland. In the USA, the Civil War was being fought between the capitalist North and the slave-owning South. There was growing opposition in France to the Bonaparte regime. The struggle of the oppressed peoples under the Austrian monarchy was gathering momentum. In Mexico, the bourgeois revolution triumphed.
As a result of the industrial revolution, serious changes were taking place in the proletariatâs numerical strength, composition and class consciousness. In 1859-60 the London building workersâ strike, which had repercussions far beyond Britain, vividly demonstrated the irreconcilability of proletarian and bourgeois class interests. The working-class movement had set out on a course of independent struggle, which testified to its gradual emancipation from the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie. In the first half of the 1860s, these processes became manifest, in England, with the further growth of trade-unionism and the workersâ awakening to political activity; in France, with the growing class awareness of the proletariat; in Germany, with the establishment of the General Association of German Workers (1863). In addition, there was the active participation by workers of various nationalities in the revolutionary struggle for freedom and democracy in the American Civil War and in Garibaldiâs detachments in Italy. The realisation by progressive workers that their interests ran counter to those of the ruling classes, the increased feeling of class solidarity and the strengthening of international contacts led to the foundation, on 28 September 1864, of the International Working Menâs Association (the First International).
In 1860-64, Marx and Engels regarded as the main task the further elaboration of economic theory, which was of crucial importance for the development of the working-class revolutionary movement. They were also close followers of current events, which they analysed in their articles for progressive bourgeois newspapers. The rise of the working-class and democratic movement highlighted the need for establishing a proletarian party and promoting international contacts between proletarian revolutionaries.
Marx considered it his principal duty to write an economic work which would arm the proletariat with a knowledge of the laws of capitalist societyâs development and would provide economic proof of the historical necessity for a proletarian revolution. On 15 September 1860, he wrote to Lassalle that his work had an âexpressly revolutionary functionâ (p. 193). In June 1859, the first instalment of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy was published (see present edition, Vol. 29). Early in 1860, Marx began preparing the second instalment which, in his own words, was to contain the âquintessenceâ of his economic theory (p- 12).
Marx wanted to finish this work as soon as possible. Engels, too, considered the early appearance of Marxâs work âof paramount importanceâ (p. 14). However, Marx interrupted his work in order to publish a repudiation of the libellous attacks on him made by Karl Vogt. Not until a year and a half later, at the beginning of June 1861, was he able to resume his economic studies (p. 292). True, they were often interrupted subsequently because of recurring material difficulties and ill health (see, e.g., pp. 353 and 435). Moreover, Marx was constantly widening the scope of his study, perfecting its structure and developing its propositions. Although Marx worked hard and with the utmost dedication, the project, which was to be his masterpiece, Capital, stretched out over many years.
Marxâs and Engelsâ letters make it possible to follow the different stages in the writing of Capital and to see how, in the process of preparing the second instalment of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx exceeded the original planned limits of the manuscript so that by the summer of 1863 he had written a far bigger second rough draft of the future work (the first version of Capital was the manuscript of 1857-58; see present edition, Vols. 28 and 29). The manuscript of 1861-63, which Marx called A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, consists of 23 notebooks (present edition, Vols. 30-34). The problems of the future Volume I of Capital are here worked out in detail, and some important propositions in Volumes II and III are expounded. The greater part of the manuscript is taken up by a historical-critical section (Theories of Surplus Value).
In a letter to Ludwig Kugelmann of 28 December 1862, Marx mentions for the first time his intention of calling his work Capital and of using the original title, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, solely as a subtitle. He decided to use the manuscript of 1861-63 for a book which was to deal with âcapital in generalâ (p. 435). Its new structure had, in the main, taken shape by January 1863. In a letter to Engels of 29 May 1863, he wrote that he intended to âmake a fair copy of the political economy for the printers (and give it a final polish)â (p. 474). Evaluating his own work, Marx noted in a letter to Engels dated 15 August 1863 that he had âhad to demolish everything and even build up the historical section out of what was in part quite unknown materialâ (p. 488).
Late in July or in August 1863, the work on Capital entered a new stage.. Marx revised the manuscript of 1861-63, the result of which was the third rough draft of the theoretical part of Capital, consisting of three books (the manuscripts of 1863-65). He worked on the first book (the future Volume I of Capital) until the summer of 1864.
The letters reflect the titanic work done by Marx in those years: the study and analysis of a mass of factual material (official reports, press publications), and the critical interpretation of works by the classic bourgeois political economists and by representatives of vulgar political economy. In his letter to Lassalle of 16 June 1862, Marx attacks the eclecticism of the German vulgar economist Roscher, who âmerely goes snuffling round amidst the wealth of set answers ... always with an eye to the prejudices and the interests of his paymastersâ (p. 379).
Not only do the letters illustrate the various stages of Marxâs work on Capital; they also contain some of the conclusions at which he was arriving in the course of his research. Thus, in his letters to Engels of 2 and 9 August 1862, he outlines âa lengthy and complex affairâ (p. 394)âthe formation, as the result of competition and the flow of capital from one branch to another, of the average rate of profit, and the proof of the possibility of absolute ground rent âwithout infringing the law of valueâ (p. 403). He also indicates the practical revolutionary significance of this problem for substantiating the need to abolish private landed property from the viewpoint of the proletariatâs interests (p. 398). Lenin commented that these letters give âa remarkably popular, concise, and clear exposition of the theory of the average rate of profit on capital and of absolute ground rentâ (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 68).
In a letter to Engels of 28 January 1863, Marx mentions the âconsiderable controversyâ about the way in which the machine differs from the tool (p. 449), gives a brief historical outline of the growth of machine production and, finally, formulates the concept of the industrial revolution: âThe industrial revolution,â he writes, âbegan as soon as mechanical means were employed in fields where, from time immemorial, the final result had called for human labour..., where, by the nature of things and from the outset, man has not functioned purely as powerâ (p. 451).
Worthy of special attention is the letter from Marx to Engels of 6 July 1863. In it, Marx formulates the basic theses of his theory of social reproduction, which he also presents in the form of an economic table (pp. 490-91). This analysis of the reproduction and circulation of the aggregate social capital was to be expounded later in detail and at a higher theoretical level in Section III of the second volume of Capital.
Marx carried on his economic studies in close and fruitful contact with his friend Engels. He not only obtained from him data on the organisation of production, but also kept him advised of the progress he was making in his research and consulted him on many important matters. âCanât you come down for a few days?â he wrote to Engels on 20 August 1862. âIn my critique I have demolished so much of the old stuff that there are a number of points I should like to consult you about before I proceedâ (p. 411).
The letters in the present volume bear evidence to the encyclopaedic knowledge of Marx and Engels and the vast scope and diversity of their scientific interests. They enthusiastically welcomed Charles Darwinâs On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. Both Marx and Engels valued it highly as a work that affirmed the idea of development in nature, refuted the idealistic interpretation of its laws, and bore out materialist dialectics. In 1863-64, Marx and Engels read and exchanged views on books by Sir Charles Lyell, Thomas Henry Huxley, Perceval Barton Lord, Theodor Schwann, Mathias Jakob Schleiden and others. Marx was also studying mathematics with a view to substantiating differential and integral calculus in terms of dialectics.
A number of letters testify to the interest taken by Marx and Engels in ancient history, the history of religion, and law. Marx read in the original Greek, âfor recreationâ, Appian on the civil wars in Rome. Appian attracted him because âhe probes the material basisâ of those wars (p. 265). Marx liked the way Appian described his favourite hero, Spartacus, as a âgreat general..., of noble characterâ. Marxâs letters to Lassalle of 11 June and 22 July 1861, and Engelsâ letter to Marx of 2 December 1861 contain a critique of Lassalleâs work, Das System der erworbenen Rechte. In this connection Marx and Engels discussed Roman law, particularly its application in West European countries, and raised the general philosophical problem of the relationship between form and content (p. 318); Criticising Lassalleâs idealistic approach to the legal categories, his faith âin the âidea of lawâ, absolute lawâ (p. 330), they demonstrated that the law is conditioned by the production and property relations (pp. 294, 317-18).
As before, Engels pursued his special interest in languages (he had resumed his studies of Russian and Serbian), and in the theory and history of the art of war. The letters reflect the wide range of military problems with which he concerned himself at the time. Engels analysed, from the standpoint of historical materialism, the military aspects of current international affairs (with special reference to the US Civil War), and also wrote about his articles for newspapers and The New American Cyclopaedia.
The letters of Marx and Engels from 1860 to 1864 give a detailed picture of their work as journalists. They continued contributing, until March 1862, to the progressive American newspaper, the New-York Daily Tribune, of which Marx was an official correspondent for eleven years. At the beginning of the 1860s, it spoke for the Republican party and actively opposed slavery in America. Although nominally only Marx was correspondent for the Tribune, he continued writing for it in collaboration with Engels. Engels also contributed to The Volunteer Journal, for Lancashire and Cheshire and to the Allgemeine Militär-Zeitung in Darmstadt.
In May 1861, Marx was invited to write for the liberal Viennese newspaper Die Presse, which was popular not only in Austria, but also in Germany. Marx set great store by the opportunity to publish articles in the European periodical press. He accepted the offer of Die Presse and began, in October 1861, sending articles to Vienna; however, for political reasons the editors did not always publish them. âThe rotten Presse is printing barely half my articles,â he wrote to Engels on 27 December 1861. In December 1862, Marx had to give up contributing to this newspaper altogether.
The letters of Marx and Engels are an important supplement to their journalism, making it possible to reconstruct how the articles were written and how, by exchanging opinions, they arrived at a common view on various matters. The letters often contain more abrasive, emotional judgments on various personalities than the articles. They reflected the spontaneous reaction of Marx or Engels to this or that instance of personal behaviour and were not intended for publication.
Marx and Engels gave much attention at the time to the national liberation movement in Italy. They followed in detail the heroic campaign of Garibaldiâs âThousandâ in Sicily and in South Italy in 1860 and had a high opinion of his revolutionary tactics (p. 205). They identified themselves with the Italian peopleâs revolutionary war, which was making possible the unification of the country by revolutionary means, and attributed an all-European significance to the Italian problem, as relevant to unmasking the true aims of Napoleon Illâs European policyâthe exploitation of the national liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples in his own selfish interests. âGaribaldi is a veritable godsend. Otherwise, Bonaparte would have been restored to popularity and sustained by the Russo-Prussian-Austrian Holy Alliance,â Marx wrote to Engels on 15 September 1860. The leaders of the working class exposed the policy of the Piedmontese government of Cavour, who was trying to unite Italy under the aegis of the Savoy dynasty. This was objectively leading to the subordination of Italy to Bonapartist France. âCavour is actually Bonaparteâs tool,â Marx wrote to Lassalle on 2 October 1860. Marx also noted the dangerous flagging of the revolutionary spirit jn Garibaldiâs army (pp. 203-04), the causes of which he disclosed more fully in his articles on Italy (see present edition, Vol. 19).
Marx and Engels also regarded the problem of Germanyâs unification as closely connected with the revolutionary struggle of the Italian people. This struggle, in their opinion, was reducing the threat to Germany from Bonapartist France (p. 132). Two factors, they believed, could create conditions for the unification of Germany by revolutionary-democratic means in the first half of the 1860s: first, the constitutional conflict that had developed in 1860 between the Prussian government and the bourgeois liberal majority of the Diet (Landtag) over the problem of reorganising the Prussian army; second, the national liberation struggle of Schleswig and Holstein against Danish domination in 1863-64. His visit to Germany in 1861 convinced Marx of the growing mood of opposition, the revolutionary ferment and the disillusion of the German people with the ânew eraâ proclaimed by âhandsome Williamâ (p. 312).
Right up to the outbreak of the Austro-Prussian war in 1866, Marx and Engels retained their hopes of the countryâs unification by revolutionary-democratic means. They severely criticised the indecision and cowardice of the German liberal bourgeoisie and the reactionary policy of Bismarck, who was using the Danish War of 1864 as a first step on the road to the unification of Germany âfrom aboveâ by âiron and bloodâ.
With unfailing attention, Marx and Engels followed the maturing crisis in the social and political system of the Second Empire in France. They stressed in their letters that Napoleon III was seeking a way out of it in foreign policy adventures and trying to use in his own interests the aspirations of the Italian and German peoples for unification. They denounced the demagogic subterfuges to which he was resorting in order to camouflage his predatory policy. Bonaparte, wrote Marx on 29 March 1864 to Lion Philips, âset his troupiers up in business as âfreedomâ exportersâ (p. 513). In 1861, Britain, France and Spain launched their armed intervention in Mexico, where the bourgeois revolution had triumphed. On the part of Napoleon III, the Mexican expedition, openly colonial in character (pp. 349-50), was an attempt to strengthen his position by victories overseas (p. 453). Marx foresaw the inevitable failure of the expedition and the fall of Napoleonâs empire. âI myself am in no doubt,â he wrote to Engels on 15 August 1863, âthat Mexico will be the hurdle at which heâll break his neckâ (p. 489). Marx derided the Bonapartist methods of political demagogy, which, under conditions of colonial war, had assumed particularly grotesque forms. He also pointed out another danger of the British-French-Spanish intervention. Napoleon III and Palmerston wanted to use Mexico as a base for intervention in the US Civil War on behalf of the slave-owning Confederacy (see, e.g., p. 489).
One of the key issues in the correspondence between Marx and Engels during this period was the US Civil War. In their letters, as in their articles, they analysed its causes, disclosed its true nature and motive forces and pointed out its significance not only for the United States but for Europe. Marx and Engels were only able to throw light in the press on the early stage of the war, as their contributions to the New-York Daily Tribune and Die Presse ended in 1862. The letters are particularly valuable, since they interpreted the course of the Civil War from beginning to end. They furnish a methodological basis for studying the history of that war and many problems of the United Statesâs subsequent development.
The letters show that, even before the outbreak of the Civil War, Marx and Engels were following the growing antagonism between North and South closely, and were aware that a clash was unavoidable. They regarded it as a result of the irreconcilable struggle between two social systems, capitalist production developing in the North and the plantation system in the South, based on slave labour. The preservation of slavery was incompatible with the capitalist development of the country as a whole. The problem of whether the American farmers would be given access to land in the West, or if slavery would spread all over the States, was at the root of the Civil War. Realising that hostilities were already imminent, Engels wrote to Marx on 7 January 1861: âThe least irruption of irregulars from the North might result in a general conflagration. At all events, one way or another, slavery would appear to be rapidly nearing its endâ (p. 242).
Marx and Engels regarded the Civil War in the USA as a specific form of bourgeois-democratic revolution whose victory would open the way to the rapid development of capitalism in North America. They therefore vigorously supported the North, objectively the vehicle of social progress. They assessed the significance of the Civil War in the context of the overall outlook: for the revolutionary movement in Europe and America, considering that it could give a powerful stimulus to social struggle and the development of the working-class movement. âThe slavery crisis in the United States,â Marx wrote to Lassalle on 16 January 1861, even before the beginning of the war, âwill bring about a terrible crisis in England...; the Manchester cotton lords are already beginning to trembleâ (p. 246). Later, in a letter to Engels of 29 October 1862, Marx pointed out that events in America âare such as to transform the worldâ (p. 421).
As the letters show, Marx studied the history of the secession of the Southern states very carefully and revealed its true nature and aims. Drawing on American sources, he refuted the claims of the British bourgeois press about its âpeaceful natureâ. He demonstrated that secession was not an act of self-defence, but a predatory war for the expansion of slavery. For fifty years, the slave-owners had been waging a steady offensive struggle against the North. After the election of Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860, they went over to open military operations and on 12 April 1861 unleashed a war against the Union. Marx described secession as âusurpations without exceptionâ by a handful of slave-owners, a policy that was at odds with the interests of the vast majority of the population even in the southern states and met the âstrongest oppositionâ there (pp. 301, 305-09).
Marx, and especially Engels, followed the course of military operations in the USA. Engels summed up the major battles and analysed the strategy and tactics of the two sides (see Engelsâ letters to Marx of 12 June and 3 July 1861, 5 and 23 May and 30 July 1862, 11 June 1863, 9 June and 4 September 1864 and many others). While noting the progressive nature of the war on the part of the Northerners, Marx and Engels severely criticised the methods of the Federal government, which was afraid to give the war a nationwide revolutionary character and proclaim the abolition of slavery. They also deplored the professional incompetence, indecision, cowardice and instances of outright treachery on the part of the Federal government ministers and generals in the army of the North who were associated, through material interests, with the slaveowners of the South (pp. 307, 386-87, 414 and others). Marx stressed in 1862 that âthe way in which the North is waging the war is none other than might be expected of a bourgeois republic, where humbug has reigned supreme for so longâ (p. 416).
The military failures of the North sometimes made Engels doubt the possibility of its winning, and he confided this to Marx (pp. 386-88, 414-15 and others). Marx pointed out in his replies that, in assessing the prospects of the war, consideration must be taken not only of the strength of the armies on both sides, but of the totality of economic, socio-political and military factors (pp. 400, 420-21). He wrote to Engels on 10 September 1862: âIt strikes me that you allow yourself to be influenced by the military aspect of things a little too muchâ (p. 416).
In the letters of this period, the fundamental proposition of Marxist military science is developed: that the character of a war and the methods of its conduct are mutually determined. â...Unless the North instantly adopts a revolutionary stance, it will get the terrible thrashing it deserves,â Engels wrote to Marx on 30 July 1862. Marx also emphasised that âwars of this kind ought to be conducted along revolutionary lines, and the Yankees have so far been trying to conduct it along constitutional onesâ (p. 400). He was certain that sooner or later the people would compel the government to change its mode of waging the war.
Subsequent events confirmed Marxâs predictions. In the middle of 1862, having realised the need for decisive action, Lincoln put through a series of revolutionary-democratic measures, the main ones being the emancipation of the slaves, and the Homestead Act, which gave great numbers of American farmers access to the land. These measures, described by Marx as of âhistorical importâ (p. 421), became a turning-point in the history of the Civil War and ensured the ultimate victory of the North. âThe fury with which the Southerners are greeting Lincolnâs acts is proof of the importance of these measures,â Marx wrote to Engels on 29 October 1862.
As early as during the Civil War, Marx and Engels noted the socio-economic factors that favoured the preservation of racial discrimination and of national and social oppression in the USA after the Republicansâ victory and the abolition of slavery. As fighters for the proletarian revolution, they denounced American bourgeois democracy, describing the USA as the âarchetype of democratic humbugâ (p. 562). âThe people have been cheated,â wrote Engels, and the bourgeoisie is always ready to compromise with the slave-owners for the sake of âthe almighty dollarâ (p. 457). The record of the Civil War bore out Marxâs and Engelsâ conclusion that the bourgeois-democratic republic was only a stage on the road to proletarian revolution. As Engels wrote to Marx on 15 November 1862, â...the bourgeois republic should be utterly discredited..., so that ... it may never again be preached on its own merits, but only as a means towards, and a form of transition to social revolutionâ (p. 428).
During the period in question, Marx and Engels were keeping a close watch on the revolutionary events in Russia and Poland. As can be seen from their letters, it was at this time that they began to regard a peasant revolution in Russia as a potential stimulus to proletarian revolution in Europe. They envisaged support for the general European revolutionary movement in the campaign for the abolition of serfdom in Russia which, in the late 1850s and early 1860s, had produced a revolutionary situation there. âIn my view,â Marx wrote to Engels on 11 January 1860, âthe most momentous thing happening in the world today is the slave movementâon the one hand, in America, ... and in Russia, on the other... Thus, a âsocialâ movement has been started both in the West and in the East. Together with the impending downbreak in Central Europe, this promises great thingsâ (p. 4; see also p. 7). Even after the abolition of serfdom, Marx and Engels continued studying the unceasing actions of the peasants, robbed by the 1861 reform.
Marx and Engels also discussed the implications of the peasant movement in Russia for the national liberation struggle in Poland, which they regarded as being of general European significance and which, given the favourable development of events, could become the starting-point of a revolution in Europe. They considered that an uprising in Poland could call forth mass peasant actions in Russia which, in their turn, would benefit the movement in Poland. An alliance of the Russian and Polish revolutionary movements could ensure the success of an uprising in Poland. On learning of the Polish insurrection, which began in January 1863, Marx wrote to Engels: âWhat do you think of the Polish business? This much is certain, the era of revolution has now fairly opened in Europe once more... This time, let us hope, the lava will flow from East to West and not in the opposite direction...â- (p. 453).
Marx and Engels also hoped that the Polish insurrection and the peasant revolution in Russia would lead to a revolutionary upsurge in Germany, and above all in Prussia, which was undergoing an acute political crisis. Deprived of support from Russian tsarism, the Prussian monarchy would lose its hegemony in Germany. Engels wrote to Marx on 17 February 1863: âMonsieur Bismarck knows that it will be a matter of life and death for him if thereâs revolution in Poland and Russiaâ (p. 456).
In view of the vast importance of this question for Germanyâs future, Marx and Engels felt something had to be done to stimulate democratic circles in Germany to take resolute action in defence of the insurgent Poles and oppose the internal reaction. With this aim in view, they decided, as early as in February 1863, to write a pamphlet, Germany and Poland (pp. 455, 457-59), in which they would trace, on the strength of concrete historical material, Prussiaâs predatory policy towards Poland and the rise of the Hohenzollern dynasty. The idea was to demonstrate the absolute incompatibility of Germanyâs interests with those of âthe Hohenzollernsâ own stateâ (p. 462), i.e. of reactionary Prussia, which was the main obstacle to the unification of Germany by democratic means. Just as scathingly they denounced (also on the historical plane) the hypocritical policy of the British and French governments which, while posing as Polandâs protectors, were pursuing their own selfish ends (see, for example, pp. 462-63). Marx and Engels also disclosed the treacherous role of the Polish nobility where their own peopleâs interests were concerned (pp. 470-71).
In analysing the motive forces of the insurrection and its prospects, Marx and Engels agreed that it could only succeed given the broad participation of the peasant masses (p. 483). They therefore attached special importance to the movement in Lithuania, where an active part was being played by the peasantsâa movement which extended beyond the bounds of the Kingdom of Poland, to other provinces of the Russian empire (p. 464). However, as early as in the summer of 1863 it was clear that the chances of success were slight. The movement in Poland did not develop into an agrarian revolution, and the struggle of the peasants in Russia was by this time on the wane. The tsarist government not only quelled the Polish insurrection but used it as a pretext for suppressing the revolutionary movement at home, thereby slowing down its further development.
The main cause of the insurrectionâs failure, Marx and Engels held, was that the leadership had been taken over by the bourgeois-landowner party of âwhitesâ. These were afraid to rely on the popular masses and placed all their hopes on support from the government of Napoleon III and Palmerston. Marx and Engels noted with alarm the growth of Bonapartist illusions among the Polish democrats. On 15 August 1863 Marx wrote to Engels: âThe Polish affair has gone completely off the rails because of ... Boustrapa [Napoleon III.â Ed.], and the influence his intrigues have given the Czartoryski partyâ (p. 489). The same social and political factors, in Engelsâ opinion, were behind the military failures of the insurgents. He also pointed out the weak sides of their military organisationâthe lack of experienced commanders, the shortage of arms, and the low standard of leadership, which led to considerable losses at the very beginning of the uprising (pp. 461, 464, 466, 476, 483, 492).
Marx and Engels endeavoured to give practical support to the Polish revolutionaries. They considered that sympathy for the Polish liberation movement among the workers and democratic circles in the West European countries should be used to organise aid to the insurgents, and to strengthen the internationalism of the workers of different countries. In their letters, Marx and Engels wrote with outrage of the âfoul conductâ of the Prussian government, which gave every possible assistance to Russian tsarism in crushing the insurrection. They also denounced the treacherous behaviour of the German liberal bourgeoisie, which had become an accomplice of reaction. Marx wrote to Engels on 7 June 1864 that the âPrussian liberal press is too cowardly even so much as to remark on the continued surrender of Polish refugees by the Prussiansâ (p. 538).
The late 1850s and early 1860s marked a new stage in the practical revolutionary activities of Marx and Engels, aimed at setting up a revolutionary proletarian party. They had no plan specifying the organisational forms of such a party as yet; the structure of the Communist League was ill-suited for the needs of a mass workersâ movement. During this period, Marx and Engels were endeavouring to rally round them and educate the most advanced representatives of the proletariat, and to protect them from libel and harassment by class enemies.
The letters show how determinedly Marx and Engels sought ways and means of influencing the working-class movement (pp. 9, 13-14, 261, 455 and others). They widened their personal ties with members of the working-class and democratic movements, resuming old contacts and getting to know representatives of the new generation of workers in Britain, Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium and the USA. Their closest associates were their old comrades-in-arms, Johann Georg Eccarius, Wilhelm Wolff, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Victor Schily, Wilhelm Eichhoff, Carl Pfänder and others, many of whom had been members of the Communist League. In 1859, Marx rejoined the German Workersâ Educational Society in London (p. 11); his lectures helped to imbue its members with a spirit of proletarian solidarity and taught them the rudiments of a revolutionary scientific world outlook.
With great attention and hope, Marx and Engels followed the renewed political activity of the British proletariat. As a result of the blockade by the Northernersâ- navy of the Southern ports in the USA, there was a âcotton famineâ in Europe, especially in Britain. Closely connected with this was a crisis in the British cotton industry, involving a sharp fall in production and a deterioration in the workersâ condition. British government circles, which were planning armed intervention in the USA on the side of the rebels, tried to win the support of the masses by trading on the plight of the workers. The British proletariat, however, came out resolutely against the bourgeoisieâs interventionist plans. Marx and Engels approved of the mass meetings held by workers in London, Manchester and other cities in 1862-63 to express their solidarity with the opponents of slavery in the USA (pp. 440, 468). On 26 March 1863, Marx attended one such meeting in St. Jamesâ Hall, and in his letter of 9 April 1863 to Engels he commented with satisfaction: âThe working men themselves spoke very well indeed, without a trace of bourgeois rhetoric or the faintest attempt to conceal their opposition to the capitalistsâ (p. 468). These meetings did much towards educating English workers in the spirit of internationalism. At the same time, Marx and Engels noted the âsheeplike attitudeâ and âservile Christian natureâ of the majority of the workers in England. They considered freeing these workers from the influence of bourgeois ideology a primary task. Through the German Workersâ Educational Society in London Marx established contacts with the English trades-union leaders who, in acknowledgment of his services to the working class, invited him as guest of honour to the inaugural meeting of the First International on 28 September 1864.
Marx corresponded actively with his old colleague Joseph Weydemeyer, whom he called âone of our best peopleâ (p. 117). He helped Weydemeyer to organise Stimme des Volkes, the newspaper of the Chicago Workersâ Society (pp. 115-19). Taking part in the campaign for the defence of Auguste Blanqui, who was in prison, Marx established âdirect links with the decidedly revolutionary party in Franceâ (p. 298). Marx and Engels saw that in France, as in Britain, there was a noticeable growth of political activity by the working class, although its forces were still very weak (p. 477).
Marx and Engels were also keeping a finger on the pulse of the working-class movement in Germany, drawing a great deal of information, in particular, from the letters of Wilhelm Liebknecht, who returned to his homeland in 1862. â...His continued sojourn in Berlin is most important to us,â Marx wrote to Engels on 7 June 1864 (p. 537). Liebknechtâs activities in the General Association of German Workers, guided by the advice and directions of Marx and Engels (pp. 537, 539), helped to disseminate the ideas of scientific communism among the German workers. The establishment of direct contacts with them was of great importance. In June 1864, a number of their representatives came from Solingen to visit Marx in London. â...Now as ever,â he informed Engels after a talk with them, âall were our resolute supportersâ (p. 533). At the end of 1862, Marx began corresponding with Ludwig Kugelmann, a participant in the revolution of 1848-49, and with Johann Philipp Becker, an eminent leader of the democratic and working-class movement, whom he considered âone of the noblest German revolutionariesâ (p. 356).
A vital task in the efforts to form a proletarian party was the defence of the proletarian fighters, of the party âin the broad historical senseâ (p. 87) from calumny and attacks by the ideologists and agents of the bourgeoisie. In the late 1850s, the petty-bourgeois democrat Karl Vogt launched a smear campaign against Marx and his associates. In December 1859, he brought out a pamphlet, Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung, a piece âfull of the most outrageous calumniesâ (p. 23). He resorted to falsification of the facts and to barefaced lies to libel the Communist League, portraying its members as conspirators in secret contact with the police and accusing Marx of personal motives. The libel was taken up by the European bourgeois press and also by a number of German papers published in the USA.
Marxâs and Engelsâ letters in 1860 testify to their correct assessment of the âVogtâs libellous workâ (p. 56) as an attempt to discredit the nature and objectives of the battle being fought by the proletarian revolutionaries. Marxâs steps against Vogt had ânothing to do with private interestsâ, he wrote to Ferdinand Freiligrath on 23 February 1860. Vogt, he emphasised, was indiscriminately slinging mud at the party (pp. 56, 57). Under these conditions Marx and Engels considered a fitting rebuff to Vogt to be âcrucial to the historical vindication of the party and its subsequent position in Germanyâ (p. 54). The answer to his pamphlet was Marxâs devastating exposĂŠ Herr Vogt (see present edition, Vol. 17).
The correspondence enables us to trace step by step the different stages in the writing of this book. Marx spent nearly a year on Herr Vogt, interrupting his economic research and the work on Capital. To obtain the necessary information, he sent out a great many letters to friends, acquaintances and others who could help in unmasking Vogt. He also consulted his personal archives and studied a vast quantity of other material. Herr Vogt was written in close collaboration with Engels, who helped Marx at every stage of the work. The preparations for the writing and the book itself played an important part in rallying the proletarian revolutionaries, especially the German ones (in Germany and Switzerland) and in consolidating their prestige with the masses.
When he began work on the pamphlet, Marx brought a lawsuit against the Berlin National-Zeitung, a bourgeois daily which in January 1860 had reproduced Vogtâs vilest insinuations in two leading articles. Marxâs aim in instituting the proceedings was the public unmasking of the libeller (pp. 21-22). However, as is clear from Marx s correspondence with Weber (his lawyer in Berlin) and others, the suit was dismissed. Marxâs complaint was successively rejected at four judicial levels on the pretext that âno discernible public interest was involvedâ. In his letters, Marx revealed the class nature of the Prussian legal system and the true reasons why the Berlin courts had rejected his case. âIt is, of course, âan issue of public importanceâ to the Prussian government that we should be traduced to the utmost,â he wrote sarcastically to Engels on 24 April 1860 (p. 129).
Marxâs Herr Vogt, which came out on 1 December 1860, denounced Vogt as a paid Bonapartist agent (p. 132) and gave a true picture of the views and activities of the proletarian revolutionaries. Engels greeted its appearance enthusiastically. âThe thingâs splendid,â he wrote to Marx on 3 December 1860 (p. 222), and in his letter of 19 December, he described it as Marxâs âbest polemical workâ (p. 231).
The revolutionary theory of Marx and Engels affirmed its influence within the working-class movement in struggle against bourgeois ideology, reformism, opportunism and petty-bourgeois socialism. During the period covered by this volume, Marx and Engels considered that their main objective in this field was criticism of the reformist theory and opportunist tactics of Ferdinand Lassalle, . who claimed the role of organiser and theoretician of the working-class movement in Germany. Meanwhile, working out a truly scientific programme and tactics had become a matter of cardinal importance to the German workingclass movement in the early 1860s as it had grown numerically and adopted a course of independent political struggle, and needed, in particular, to define its position on the most urgent problem facing the country, that of unification.
Marx and Engels took a positive view of Lassalleâs efforts to free the German proletariat from the influence of the bourgeois Party of Progress and the cooperativistic ideas of Schulze-Delitzsch. It was his practical activity that they approved of. â...Itâs quite a good thing that an audience for anti-bourgeois stuff should be recaptured in this way,â Engels wrote to Marx on 20 May 1863 (p. 473). The foundation in May 1863, with Lassalleâs direct participation, of the General Association of German Workers initiated the recovery of the independent working-class movement in Germany. Marx and Engels saw this as a service by Lassalle.
However, Lassalleâs programme for the working-class movement encountered harsh criticism from Marx and Engels. In the summer of 1862, as a result of discussions with Lassalle in London, Marx became convinced that âall we had in common politically were a few remote objectivesâ (p. 400). He severely criticised âAn Open Reply to the Central Committee on the Convocation of the General German Workersâ Congress in Leipzigâ, drawn up by Lassalle as a platform for the Association. Lassalleâs programme created the illusion that it was possible to achieve socialism without a consistent revolutionary class struggle, by agitation for universal suffrage and by setting up production associations with state assistance. âHe solves the wages v. capital problem âwith delightful easeâ,â wrote Marx ironically (p. 467).
Marx and Engels stressed that Lassalle did not understand the true conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat as set forth and substantiated in their writings. On the subject of Lassalleâs âWorkersâ Programmeâ, Marx wrote to Engels on 28 January 1863: â...the thingâs no more nor less than a badly done vulgarisation of the Manifesto and of other things we have advocated so often that they have already become to a certain extent commonplaceâ (p. 452). In their letters, Marx and Engels repeatedly criticised Lassalle for his distortion of the ideas he had borrowed from them, his âhistorical and theoretical blundersâ (p. 479), his boastfulness and petty conceit (see pp. 389, 390, 440-41, 488-89, 534).
Marx and Engels were particularly worried by Lassalleâs tactics. With the constitutional conflict deteriorating, Lassalleâs attacks exclusively on the bourgeois-liberal Party of Progress were playing into the hands of reaction. Condemning this flirting with the government (Marx and Engels did not yet know of Lassalleâs direct negotiations with Bismarck), Engels wrote to Marx on 11 June 1863: âThe chapâs now operating purely in the service of Bismarckâ (p. 478). As early as in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Marx and Engels wrote that in fighting feudal reaction the German workers should seek an alliance with the bourgeoisie, âwhenever it acts in a revolutionary wayâ. They considered it necessary, however, to encourage among the workers âthe clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariatâ (present edition, Vol. 6, p. 519). Lassalle âcould have found out perfectly well from the Manifesto what attitude one ought to adopt towards the bourgeoisie at times such as theseâ, wrote Engels (p. 494).
The differences with Lassalle were over matters of principle, which is why Marx and Engels avoided joint political actions with him lest he compromise them (pp. 261, 399-400, 469-70). At the same time, they considered that any public criticism of Lassalle would be injudicious, since his agitation was contributing to the political unification of the German working class. They foresaw, however, that an open attack on his reformist and sectarian views was unavoidable. This is shown by a letter from Marx to Engels of 12 June 1863, in which he wrote that he was only waiting for an opportune moment to reply publicly to Lassalle in order â1) to show the public how and where he had cribbed from us; 2) how and where we differ from his stuff (p. 480). Meanwhile, however, having realised the futility of trying to influence him, they virtually broke with Lassalle in 1863-64 by gradually ceasing to correspond with him. At this time, Marx and Engels considered that their task was the theoretical elaboration and dissemination of a scientifically based strategy and tactics for the German working-class movement. They maintained a regular correspondence with their supporters in Germany, who were carrying on active revolutionary propaganda among the workers.
The letters that Marx and Engels wrote in September 1864 after receiving the news of Lassalleâs death give an objective assessment of his activity and his role in the German working-class movement. Marx stressed that Lassalle âwas one of the vieille souche [old stock] and the foe of our foesâ (p. 560). In a letter to Marx of 4 September Engels noted that as a political leader, Lassalle was undoubtedly âone of the most significant men in Germanyâ, and by way of a summing-up he continued: âFor us he was a very uncertain friend now and would, in future, most certainly have been our enemyâ (p. 558).
The letters in this volume show how, thanks to his theoretical and journalistic activities and expanding contacts with the working-class movement, Marxâs name had become known to a new generation by the time of the establishment of the International Working Menâs Association. The services he had rendered predetermined his role as leader of the First International, and its development on a Marxist ideological platform.
The correspondence during the period covered by the present volume is an important source of biographical information about Marx and Engels. It reveals their nobility of character and gives an insight into their domestic life and into their circle of friends. Marxâs letters testify to his abiding love and respect for his wife. Arriving in Trier in December 1863, he writes to her, remembering events of thirty years ago: âI have made a daily pilgrimage to the old Westphalen home (in the Neustrasse), which interested me more than any Roman antiquities because it reminded me of the happiest days of my youth and had harboured my greatest treasureâ (p. 499).
The years 1860-64 were a difficult period for both men. Late in 1860 Jenny Marx fell seriously ill, and illness struck Marx himself down early in January 1861. These troubles were followed by serious financial difficulties. Having ceased to contribute to the New-York Tribune and Die Presse, he had lost a small but steady source of income. To prevent himself and his family from âactually being relegated to the streetsâ, as Marx wrote to Ludwig Kugelmann on 28 December 1862 (pp. 435-36), he decided to work in a railway office, but was rejected because of his bad handwriting. He was rescued by Engelsâ consideration, unselfishness, and constant readiness to help a friend in need. âI canât tell you how grateful I am,-â Marx wrote to Engels on 28 January 1863, âalthough I myself... did not require any fresh proof of your friendship .to convince me of its self-sacrificing natureâ (p. 448).
Meanwhile, Engels continued working in the offices of the Ermen 8c Engels firm âas clerk with a percentage of the profits, in return for a guarantee that I shall become a partner in a few yearsâ timeâ (p. 134). He regularly sent Marx part of his income, also giving material aid to other comrades. In March 1860, Engels received the news of his fatherâs death. A little while later, his mother, whom he loved very much, fell dangerously ill. âI might acquire a hundred other businesses, but never a second mother,â he wrote to her on 27 February 1861. A heavy loss to Engels was the sudden death in January 1863 of Mary Burns, his faithful companion in life. âI simply canât convey what I feel,â he wrote to Marx on 7 January 1863 (p. 441). âI felt as though with her I was burying the last vestige of my youthâ (pp. 446-47).
Marx and Engels were always ready to come to the assistance of friends and fellow fighters who were having a hard time in emigration. In the summer of 1860, Marx, in spite of his own personal circumstances, rented a room for Eccarius, who was seriously ill, in an attempt to provide the conditions for his early recovery. Subsequently, both Marx and Engels stepped in to help their comrade and his family.
In May 1864, death claimed an old friend and close associate of Marx and EngelsâWilhelm Wolff, who had been living in Manchester since 1853. After Wolffâs death, Marx wrote to his wife: âIn him we have lost one of our few friends and fellow fighters. He was a man in the best sense of the wordâ (p. 523).
Marx and Engels bore their trials and tribulations with courage and fortitude. They were helped in this by their great friendship and their implicit faith in the historical justice of the cause of the working class. It was from this that they drew the strength to continue the struggle.
* * *
Volume 41 contains 340 letters written by Marx and Engels. Most of them were written in German, 17 were in English, 2 in French, and a number were written in two languages (9 in German and English, and one in German and Danish). The majority of these letters are being published in English for the first time. Only 114 have already appeared in English, of which 87 were abridged. All these publications are mentioned in the notes. The letters of Jenny and Laura Marx in the Appendices are being published in English for the first time.
Obvious slips of the pen have been corrected without comment. Proper names, geographical names and words abbreviated by the authors have been expanded, also without comment. Passages struck out by the authors are reproduced in footnotes only when they contain an important idea or shade of meaning.
Defects in the manuscript are explained in the footnotes, and passages in which the text has been lost or is indecipherable are indicated by three dots in square brackets. Wherever a presumable reconstruction has been possible, the restored passages have been enclosed in square brackets.
Foreign words and expressions have been retained in the language of the original, the translation being given in footnotes where necessary. Small caps have been used to indicate English words and expressions occurring in German-language letters. Longer passages written in English in the original are placed in asterisks.
The volume was compiled, the text prepared and the notes written by Galina Kostryukova (letters from January 1860 to mid-June 1861) and Galina Voitenkova (letters from mid-June 1861 to mid-September 1864). They also jointly wrote the Preface. Valentina Smirnova was the editor.Yelena Makarova in conjunction with Andrei Pozdnyakov prepared the indexes of names, quoted and mentioned literature, and periodicals (Institute of MarxismLeninism of the CC CPSU).
The translations were made by Peter and Betty Ross and edited by E. J. Hobsbawm and Nicholas Jacobs (Lawrence & Wishart), Glenys Ann Kozlov,Yelena Kalinina, Margarita Lopukhina, Mzia Pitskhelauri, Victor Schnittke and Andrei Skvarsky (Progress Publishers) and Norire Ter-Akopyan, scientific editor (USSR Academy of Sciences).
The volume was prepared for the press by the editors Nadezhda Rudenko and Anna Vladimirova.