From #Un-Occupied Boston (#Un-Tomemonos Boston)-What Happens When We Do Not Learn The Lessons Of History- The Pre-1848 Socialist MovementMarxism And The Jacobin Communist Tradition-Part Five-Karl Marx Before 1848 ("Young Spartacus"-September 1976)

Click on the headline to link to the Occupy Boston General Assembly Minutes website. Occupy Boston started at 6:00 PM, September 30, 2011.

Markin comment:

I will post any updates from that Occupy Boston site if there are any serious discussions of the way forward for the Occupy movement or, more importantly, any analysis of the now atrophied and dysfunctional General Assembly concept. In the meantime I will continue with the “Lessons From History ’’series started in the fall of 2011 with Karl Marx’s The Civil War In France-1871 (The defense of the Paris Commune). Right now this series is focused on the European socialist movement before the Revolutions of 1848.
****
An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend The Occupy Movement And All Occupiers! Drop All Charges Against All Occupy Protesters Everywhere!

********
Fight-Don’t Starve-We Created The Wealth, Let's Take It Back! Labor And The Oppressed Must Rule!
********
A Five-Point Program As Talking Points

*Jobs For All Now!-“30 For 40”- A historic demand of the labor movement. Thirty hours work for forty hours pay to spread the available work around. Organize the unorganized- Organize the South- Organize Wal-Mart- Defend the right for public and private workers to unionize.

* Defend the working classes! No union dues for Democratic (or the stray Republican) candidates. Spent the dough instead on organizing the unorganized and on other labor-specific causes (good example, the November, 2011 anti-union recall referendum in Ohio, bad example the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall race in June 2012).

*End the endless wars!- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops (And Mercenaries) From Afghanistan! Hands Off Pakistan! Hands Off Iran! U.S. Hands Off The World!

*Fight for a social agenda for working people!. Quality Healthcare For All! Nationalize the colleges and universities under student-teacher-campus worker control! Forgive student debt! Stop housing foreclosures!

*We created the wealth, let’s take it back. Take the struggle for our daily bread off the historic agenda. Build a workers party that fights for a workers government to unite all the oppressed.

Emblazon on our red banner-Labor and the oppressed must rule!

***********
Marxism And The Jacobin Communist Tradition-Part Five-Karl Marx Before 1848 ("Young Spartacus"-September 1976)

By Joseph Seymour

Past issues of Young Spartacus have featured the first four installments of "Marxism and the Jacobin Communist Tradition." The first part of the series was devoted to the Great French Revolution and its insurrectionary continuity through the Jacobin Communists Babeuf and Buonarroti. The second part treated the Carbonari Conspiracy, the French Revo­lution of 1830 and Buonarroti, the Lyons silk weavers uprising and the Blanquist putsch of 1839. The next article analyzed British Chartism in detail, and the fourth part discussed the origins of the Communist League. Back issues may be obtained for 25 cents per issue. Send your check or money order to Spartacus Youth Publishing Company, Box 825, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013.

Most of you know that the "young Marx" had something to do with the Young Hegelians and with Hegel's phil­osophy. The relation of Marx to the Young Hegelians and Hegelian philoso­phy actually involves two very differ­ent questions, and only the second is difficult, obscure and interesting Marx's relation to the Young Hegelians', which was a literary/ideological/ political movement among the radical intelligentsia, is actually quite straight-forward and easy to comprehend.

The Young Hegelians

Hegel lived through the epoch of revolution and counter-revolution, and he was probably the only really great thinker to be profoundly influenced by both the French Revolution and also the Metternichian reaction. He attempted to mediate on an ideological level between the revolutionary Europe of 1789-1815 and the reactionary Europe thereafter. Politically, he was a liberal, or consti­tutional monarchist.

Therefore, one aspect of Hegel's thought was an attempt to mesh the traditionalist ideology of post-1815 absolutism with elements of the En­lightenment of the French Revolution­ary epoch. This was obviously impossi­ble. As a result, even to this day there are those who claim that Hegel really was an orthodox Lutheran Christian, and those who claim that he really was an atheist. His writings had sufficient ambiguity making him appear to be both at a certain level of abstraction. Once Hegel died—and could no longer say what he meant—it was obvious that these tensions and contradictions in*his philosophy would blow up among his followers. And the blow-up came on the religious front.

There was enough in Hegel to indi­cate that he did, not take Christianity as the literal, gospel truth, but rather regarded the story of Christ as symbolic and allegorical. In 1836 a young Hegel­ian, David Strauss, wrote The Life of Jesus, arguing that Christ had "never existed but rather was only a popular myth. Since Prussia had a quasi -state religion, this book caused a big furor. The Hegelian school blew up and Strauss initiated the "left" Hegelians-the terms "left," "center" and "right" referring to the attitude toward religious orthodoxy.

The further evolution of the "left," or Young Hegelians is quite logical. From the rationalist criticism of re­ligious orthodoxy of David Strauss developed the outright atheism of Bruno Bauer: if God doesn't exist, it follows that nature and the material environ­ment shape humanity. From atheism, then, springs the naturalistic human­ism of Ludwig Feuerbach: In the l830's, those who believed that man makes so­ciety also believed that he could con­struct an ideal society. So the natural­istic humanism of the Young Hegelians led logically to communism, a step first
taken by Moses Hess.

Basically the Young Hegelians rep­resented in Metternichian Germany what the Enlightenment philosophes represented in pre-1789 France, a similarity which they fully recognized. However, around 1840 communism was not simply an idea, but in France was a movement which had acquired a mass artisan, working-class base.

The Rheinische Zeitung

In 1840 the king of Prussia died, and his death created certain expecta­tions of liberalization. However, it turned out that the new king was more reactionary than his father. In response the liberal big bourgeoisie, centered in the Rhineland (then the most econom­ically advanced part of Germany), a-adopted a more aggressive oppositional posture. They looked for writers to agitate and propagandize against ab­solutism, and they found the Young Hegelians.

The liberal bourgeoisie with their Young Hegelian ideologues founded the Rheinisctie Zeitung in Cologne. It is important to realize that the Rheinische Zeitung was supported by very promi­nent bourgeois forces. One of its leading backers, Ludwig Camphausen, became head of the Prussian government during the revolution of 1848.

Karl Marx, who was a respected member of the Young Hegelian circle, enters history as a literary contribu­tor, staff writer and finally editor of the Rheinische Zeitung. Thus, Marx's, first political experience was as a propagandist for the liberal big bourg­eoisie in the period when it had made a short-lived left turn against absolu­tism. At that time Marx was by no means the most left wing of the Young Hegelians; in fact, he was rather right -of-center.

The most radical wing of the Young Hegelians was an anarcho-communist circle called "The Free," which in­cluded Bruno Bauer, the extreme liber­tarian Max Stirner, a young Russian exile named Mikhail Bakunin and' a callow youth named Friedrich Engels. Members of "The Free" kept smuggling communist propaganda into the Rheinische Zeitung, much to the dismay of its wealthy liberal backers.

Marx's first political fight was against these anarcho-communists, whom he purged from the pages of the Rheinische Zeitung. In one of his letters of the period Marx wrote:

"But I have allowed myself to throw out as many articles as the censor, for Meyen and Co. sent us heaps of scribblings, pregnant with revolution­izing the world and empty of ideas, written in a slovenly style and seasoned with a. little atheism and communism(which these gentlemen have never
studied)."

-letter to Arnold Huge, 30 Novem­ber 1842

While Marx made the transition from liberal bourgeois democracy to com­munism the following year, this early faction fight reveals certain attitudes that would remain with him throughout his life. Marx was always contemptu­ous of petty-bourgeois radicalism, with' its desire to shock conventional opinion above all else. Conversely, Marx always took seriously the liberal big bourgeoisie whenever it opposed reaction; for example, his attitude toward Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party during the American Civil War.

Marx Becomes a Communist

In early 1843 the Rheinische Zeitung was suppressed, and Marx went into exile in Paris, where he encountered communism as a mass, artisan working-class movement. By late 1843 we know that Marx considered himself a communist and associated with the League of the Just, at that time under the influence of Cabet.

The period 1843-46 is now undoubtedly the most studied period of Marx's life. If you had fourteen lifetimes, you couldn't read all the works written about the young Marx. The older social-democratic and Stalinist traditions assume that when Marx became a communist in 1843, he was already in some sense a Marxist; that his refusal to join the League of the Just revealed that he was more advanced and had rejected its utopianism. I do not be­lieve this proposition can be defended.

What kind of communist was Marx in 1843? This is a difficult question to answer for a number of reasons.

First, Marx himself didn't know. Even geniuses like Marx go" through transitional periods where they do not have a fully consistent outlook. A careful reading of his writings during this period produce different interpre­tations, perhaps because his early works are not internally consistent. In later life Marx didn't think it worth­while to republish his earliest writings, because he considered them to have been largely self-clarification.

The early Marx rejected communal experiments and the notion of barracks communism which was prevalent at the time, promoted, for example, by Cabet and Weitling. Communism is not mechanical equality; it is not modelling society on the Prussian army. Com­munism is the full realization of in­dividual potential based on the highest development of society. Marx adhered to this vision from the day he became a communist until his death. But again, he was not unique in rejecting primitive egalitarianism: Karl Schapper, Julian Harney and also Auguste Blanqui shared a similar vision of communist society.

The essential element of utopianism which Marx shared with contemporary communists in 1843-45 was the belief that the triumph of communism was based on the triumph of the communist idea. An objective reading of the early Marx shows a belief in the imminence of communism arising from its growing support among the masses. Marx did not reject violent revolution against the state. But he believed that with the mass acceptance of communism, such a revolution and the creation of a com­munist society would follow necess­arily—easily and quickly.

Hegel and the Origins of Marxism

In 1844 one could not have been a follower of Marx; it wouldn't have meant anything. In 1846 one could, and there were "Marxists."- By 1846 Marx had developed a unique conception of history and derived from this a distinct revolu­tionary strategy for Germany.

To understand this, it is necessary to digress on the relation of Hegel to Marx. In developing what later came to be called historical or dialectical mater­ialism, Marx in some ways went back to Hegel. He turned the weapons of Hegel against the naturalistic human­ism of the Young Hegelians, whose greatest spokesman was Feuerbach.

Generally speaking, the world view of early nineteenth-century communism was derived from the Rousseauean concept of natural "rights. Marx incorporated Hegel's criticism of Rousseauean naturalism and of En­lightenment rationalism. The core of Enlightenment rationalism was be­lief in the sovereignty of the intel­lect and its capacity to master external reality. From this certitude derived a particular' and extreme form of pol­itical voluntarism—the belief that so­ciety could be made to conform to an ideal model. All tendencies of early nineteenth-century socialism were based on intellectual constructs ap­pealing to natural rights, primitive pre-class society, scientific rationality or early Christianity.

In one sense Hegel's philosophy is an attack on the notion of the autonomy of thought, on the free-wheeling play of the intellect. He asserted that at any given time consciousness is shaped, limited and constrained by a long his­torical development. New ideas arise from the contradictions embodied in existing consciousness and, therefore, have a definite progression.
Marx accepted this conception and used it to attack the voluntarism of
contemporary communism. As Marx put it some years later:

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under con­ditions directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living." —The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte (1852)

In the dispute over "the young Marx" versus "the old Marx," we support the mature, more Hegelian and less Feuerbachian Marx. However, both the pre-1914 Social Democratic and Stalinist traditions have transformed the Marx­ist dialectic into a crude, mechanical evolutionism associated with a two-stage theory of revolution. On the other hand, the New Left cult of the early Marx, & la 'Marcuse, is- a reversion to moralistic utopianism and the belief in the immediate realization of human liberation through petty-bourgeois intellectualism.

The new Marxist strategy was first sketched out in "The State of Germany" by Engels, published in early 1846 in the Chartist Northern Star:

"The political dominion of the middle classes is, therefore, of an essentially liberal appearance. They destroy all the old differences of several estates co-existing in a country, all arbitrary privileges and exemptions; they are obliged to make the elective principle the foundation of government—to recog­nize equality in principle, to free the press from the shackles of monarchical censorship...

"The working classes are necessarily the instruments in the hands of the middle classes, as long as the middle classes are themselves revolutionary or progressive.... But from that very day when the middle classes obtain full political power... from the day on which the middle classes cease to be progressive and revolutionary, and become stationary themselves, from that very day the working-class movement takes the lead and becomes the national movement." [emphasis in original]

The year 1846, then, is when Marx­ism comes into being as a distinct communist tendency. That year saw the creation of the first Marxist organiza­tion—the Communist Correspondence Committee in Brussels;/ the compre­hensive exposition of the newly de­veloped Marxist worldview in a polemic against Young Hegelian naturalistic humanism—The German Ideology; and the first statement of a new revolution­ary strategy for German communism— "The State of Germany."

The Communist Correspondence Committee was a very small circle created to propagate the new Marxist doctrines, centrally but by no means exclusively among the German left. At one time or another, the Committee attempted to contact virtually every prominent socialist in Europe. This first Marxist organization was unsuc­cessful except in England, where Engels had long-standing ties to the left Chart­ist Julian Harney and through him to the Schapper wing of the League of the Just.

The Schapper group had not yet broken from its passive and pacifistic propagandism. However, Harney stood programmatically quite close to Marx and Engels. Harney had great respect for Schapper as a tested and heroic workers' leader, while remaining had not yet traversed the same path as Marx. Marx's belief that communism was the logically necessary outcome of naturalistic humanism comes through clearly in his letter to Feuerbach dated 11 August 1844. Marx says:

"In these writings you have provided— I don't know whether intentionally— a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately un­derstood them in this way. The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down to earth, what is this but the concept of society'."

Marx's 1843-45 writings contained a defense of the general principles of communism against bourgeois criti­cism. They do not develop "or explicate a unique concept of communism. Refer­ences to prominent socialists are either uncritical or laudatory. Thus, both Weitling and Proudhon are praised to the skies in 1843.

I will argue that between 1843 and late 1845 Marx had not yet broken with the Utopian aspects of con­temporary communism. This statement requires further clarification, since Marx did have fundamental differences with some contemporary socialist schools. What we need is greater pre­cision about the Utopian aspects of early communism—a term I much prefer to Utopian socialism, which implies a too-great doctrinal coherence.

Utopian socialism is sometimes identified with the rejection of class struggle in favor of a trans-class so­cialist movement. Some socialist lead­ers in the 1840's, notably Robert Owen and Etienne Cabet, were consciously class collaborationist and appealed to universal brotherhood.

In contrast, upon embracing com­munism Marx also adopted a working-class orientation. However, he cer­tainly was not unique in this. There was the workerist messianism of Weitling; and Julian Harney of the left Chartists and Karl Schapper of the league of the Just had been leading working-class struggles long before Marx came on the scene. Marx inher­ited his proletarian orientation. He did not develop it.

Toward the Leadership of German Communism

From his newly developed theory of history, Marx derived a unique revolutionary strategy for German communism. At that time the central tradition in German society was between the bourgeoisie and the 11 underdeveloped proletariat, her, it was between the economic-ascendant bourgeoisie and the sluggish state bureaucracy, which depended on the landed nobility, ''or the bourgeoisie to acquire governmental power required a demo­cratic revolution like the French Revolution of 1789-93, but more radical, given the advanced state of European society. Such a revolution was a neces­sary precondition for the economic and political ascendancy of the proletariat. Marx maintained that communists should not deny, ignore or abstain from the coming bourgeois-democratic revo­lution, but participate in it supporting its most radical tendencies.




They somewhat mistrustful of Marx and Engels as inexperienced, literary in­tellectuals, however persuasive their ideas might be. Thus, Harney refused to affiliate with the Communist Cor­respondence Committee until Schapper had been won over.

In early 1846, the workerist, re­ligious messianic Wilhelm Weitling, having been factionally defeated by Schapper in London, crossed the Chan­nel to Brussels. There he was smashed by Marx in a famous confrontation where Marx shouted at the veteran workers' leader and martyr, "Ignor­ance never did anybody any good." Common battles against the messianic, revolutionary phrase-mongerer Weitling drew Schapper closer to Marx.

In late 1846, Engels went on a re­cruiting mission to Paris, where he was unsuccessful, but managed to con­sole himself through physical pleasure. The Paris groupings of the League of the Just were Cabetian pacifists, and Engels made little headway among them.

When politics wasn't going so well, Engels still knew how to enjoy life. He wrote to Marx that he had become acquainted with "several cute grisettes and much pleasure," and in­vited Marx to join him in Paris. Now you know why Mrs. Marx never liked Engels that much.

What was the new doctrine which the Brussels-based Communist Cor­respondence Committee was propa­gating throughout Europe? In a report from Paris to the Brussels center (23 October 1846) Engels summarizes the pre-1848 Marxist line:

"So I therefore defined the object of the Communists in this way: 1) to achieve the interests of the proletariat in opposition to those of the bour­geoisie; 2) to do this through the abolition of private property and its replacement with a community of goods; and 3) to recognize no means for carry­ing out these objects other than a demo­cratic revolution by force.”

The first two points were not par­ticularly controversial and in no sense uniquely Marxist. It was the third point that really defined the Marxist tendency. Many contemporary socialists—for ex­ample, Schapper and Louis Blanc in France—considered a democratic gov­ernment a necessary precondition for the triumph of communism, but they rejected revolution. The prominent ad­vocates of violent revolution, like Weitling and the infinitely superior Auguste Blanqui, looked to a minority dictator­ship of the communist party. Marxism was unique in espousing a democratic government—a sovereign parliament based on universal suffrage and achieved through a popular revolution.

In 1847 the bourgeois liberal opposi­tions in both Germany and France became more aggressive. The King of Prussia got into financial trouble and had to call the Assembly to raise taxes. Everybody's mind leapt back to the •calling of the Estates General in France in 1789. Metternich in Vienna wrote to the Prussian monarch advising him to dismiss the Assembly and collect the needed taxes willy-nilly. He followed Metternich's advice and as a result drove the liberals into an anti-monarchical fury. In France one also had the beginning of a bourgeois liberal oppositional campaign, which eventually led to the toppling of Louis Phillipe. So Marx's strategy of an alliance with the bourgeois liberal opposition ap­peared more realistic and, therefore, more attractive to German communists.

The Communist League and Manifesto

During 1847 the Schapper group, prodded by Harney, came over to Marx. In early 1847 the London-based League of the Just sent an emissary, Joseph Moll, to Marx.

Moll said the League was in general agreement with the Marxist position, having at most secondary differences. He invited Marx to join the League and to fight for his complete program. Marx agreed. It was through this regroupment that Marx became a leader of the hegemonic organization of Ger­man communists.

That same year witnessed the trans­formation of the League of the Just into the Communist League and its accept­ance of Marxist principles. Marx maintained that between the victory of a democratic revolution in Germany and the creation of a communist so­ciety on a European scale, there must be a transitional period. In the begin­ning the German proletariat would be neither politically nor economically dominant. Consequently, the Communist League must ally itself with the bourgeois-liberal opposition, while maintaining its own organization—as public as real security precautions permitted—and its own anti-bourgeois propaganda and agitation.

The transformation of the League of the Just into the Communist League was symbolized by a change in its main slogan, "All Men Are Brothers." Marx objected to this slogan on the grounds that there were many men whose brother he did not wish to be ... like Metternich. So the slogan of the Communist League was, "Prole­tarians of All Lands, Unite." Inciden­tally, Marx did not author this slogan; we don't know who did.

In terms of strategic perspectives, Marx divided Europe into three parts and formulated radically different revolutionary perspectives for each. In Britain, and only in Britain, did Marx contend that a proletarian revo­lution was immediately possible and that a democratic government would lead directly to the rule of the workers party. Only Britain had a mass, working-class party: the Chartists.

In Germany and France, where the majority of the population were peas­ants, there would be a bourgeois-democratic revolution. A radical demo­cratic party might come to power, but
not the communists.

Then there was the Russian Empire, where a bourgeois-democratic revolu­tion was not possible; tsarist Russia could only be a counter-revolutionary force. A victorious democratic revo­lution in France and Germany would require a revolutionary war against the Empire of the Tsar. This was the Marxist strategic schema on the eve of 1848.

Pre-1848 Marxism insisted that the realization of communism had to pass through bourgeois-democratic rule. However, there were a number of dif­ferent reasons given for this assertion, which implied different periodicities in the transition to proletarian class rule. One argument was that bourgeois-democratic freedoms were absolutely necessary to organize a mass workers party. In Britain where such freedoms existed, there was a mass workers party, the Chartists. In the Germany of Metternich1 s Holy Alliance, the workers were passive and atomized, while the Communist League was small and largely in exile.

Another argument focused on the subjective development of the prole­tariat. As long as the bourgeoisie was' out of power, in opposition to monar­chical absolutism, the proletariat would have illusions in trans-class, popular democratic rule. Only when faced with bourgeois political rule would the work­ers in the mass recognize the funda­mentally hostile class antagonism.

Marx and Engels also indicated that they considered Germany and even France too economically backward to establish proletarian rule. This notion implies a relatively long transitional period between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the prole­tariat's accession to power.

The Marxist strategic s c h e m a is most clearly stated in Engels' second draft for the Communist Manifesto written in October 1847 and later pub­lished under the title, "Principles of Communism." Composed in the form of a revolutionary catechism, Engels' draft makes explicit concepts which are only implicit in the Manifesto, and is therefore important in -understanding the strategic concepts underlying the latter.

Referring to the course of the revo­lution, Engels -writes:

"In the first place it will inaugurate a democratic constitution and thereby, directly or indirectly, the political rule of the proletariat. Directly in England, where the proletariat already consti­tutes the majority of the people. In­directly in France and in Germany, where the majority of the people con­sists not only of proletarians but also of small peasants and urban petty bourgeois, who are only now being proletarianized and in all their political interests are becoming more and more dependent on the proletariat and there­fore soon will have to conform to the demands of the proletariat. This will perhaps involve a second fight, but one
that can only end in the victory of the proletariat." \emphasis in original]

The Revolutions of 1848 ended in the greatest defeat for the proletariat and socialist movement in the nineteenth century. The defeated revolutions showed that the strategic conceptions expressed in the Communist Manifesto were, in a number of fundamental ways, wrong.

First, the German liberal bourgeoi­sie turned out to be far more cowardly than the English, much less the French. They capitulated to Prussian absolutism with hardly a fight.

Second, the French peasantry turned out to be far more reactionary than expected. Universal suffrage in France resulted in a reactionary bourgeois regime which slaughtered the vanguard of the Paris proletariat. After this ex­perience, Marx became more sympa­thetic to Blanqui's position that a vic­torious revolutionary Parisian proletariat should not give the peasants the vote until they had been "re­educated."

And third, the 1850's showed that the bourgeois revolution in an economic and social sense could proceed under a bonapartist government, namely, Louis Napoleon in France and Bismarck in Germany. The unification of Germany did not in fact require the overthrow of absolutism.

It is an indication of the real strength of Marxism that the Communist Mani­festo, despite specific flawed strategic conceptions, retained and retains to this day its validity. Marx and Engels were not the only, or even the most prominent communists to fight in the revolutions of 1848. However, they were among the very few "red 48ers" to remain faithful to the communist cause after this truly epochal defeat. As such, Marx and Engels were able to transmit their revolutionary experience and their wis­dom to a new proletarian generation when the pall of reaction began to lift in the early 1860's.

From #Un-Occupied Boston (#Un-Tomemonos Boston)-What Happens When We Do Not Learn The Lessons Of History- The Pre-1848 Socialist Movement-Marxism And The Jacobin Communist Tradition-Part Four-The Origins Of The Communist League ("Young Spartacus-July-August 1976)

Click on the headline to link to the Occupy Boston General Assembly Minutes website. Occupy Boston started at 6:00 PM, September 30, 2011.

Markin comment:

I will post any updates from that Occupy Boston site if there are any serious discussions of the way forward for the Occupy movement or, more importantly, any analysis of the now atrophied and dysfunctional General Assembly concept. In the meantime I will continue with the “Lessons From History ’’series started in the fall of 2011 with Karl Marx’s The Civil War In France-1871 (The defense of the Paris Commune). Right now this series is focused on the European socialist movement before the Revolutions of 1848.
****
An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend The Occupy Movement And All Occupiers! Drop All Charges Against All Occupy Protesters Everywhere!

********
Fight-Don’t Starve-We Created The Wealth, Let's Take It Back! Labor And The Oppressed Must Rule!
********
A Five-Point Program As Talking Points

*Jobs For All Now!-“30 For 40”- A historic demand of the labor movement. Thirty hours work for forty hours pay to spread the available work around. Organize the unorganized- Organize the South- Organize Wal-Mart- Defend the right for public and private workers to unionize.

* Defend the working classes! No union dues for Democratic (or the stray Republican) candidates. Spent the dough instead on organizing the unorganized and on other labor-specific causes (good example, the November, 2011 anti-union recall referendum in Ohio, bad example the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall race in June 2012).

*End the endless wars!- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops (And Mercenaries) From Afghanistan! Hands Off Pakistan! Hands Off Iran! U.S. Hands Off The World!

*Fight for a social agenda for working people!. Quality Healthcare For All! Nationalize the colleges and universities under student-teacher-campus worker control! Forgive student debt! Stop housing foreclosures!

*We created the wealth, let’s take it back. Take the struggle for our daily bread off the historic agenda. Build a workers party that fights for a workers government to unite all the oppressed.

Emblazon on our red banner-Labor and the oppressed must rule!

***********
Marxism And The Jacobin Communist Tradition-Part Four-The Origins Of The Communist League ("Young Spartacus-July-August 1976)

By Joseph Seymour

EDITOR'S NOTE: As a special feature Young Spartacus has been serializing the lectures on "Marxism and the Jac­obin Communist Tradition" presented by Spartacist League Central Commit­tee member Joseph Seymour at the re­gional educational conferences of the Spartacus Youth League during the past year. The talk reproduced in this issue was given at the SYL Midwest Educational held in Chicago over the weekend of April 16-18. The first part of the series, which appeared in our Febru¬ary issue, was devoted to the Great French Revolution and its insurrection­ary continuity through the conspirator­ial Jacobin communists Babeuf and Buonarroti. The next section, appearing the following month, discussed the Carbonari Conspiracy, the French Revolu­tion of 1830 and Buonarroti, the Lyons silk weavers uprising and the Blanquist putschin!839. The third installment in the April Young Spartacus analyzed Chartism in Britain. The concluding portion of the presentation on the ori­gins of the Communist League will ap­pear in our next issue. To preserve the character of the verbal presentation stylistic alterations have been reduced to a minimum.
*************
This talk is the fourth part of a projected seven-part SYL class series, entitled "Marxism and the Jacobin Communist Tradition." As such, the full significance of this presentation today cannot be understood without knowing something about the first three, which have been encapsulated in Young Spartacus, and then hearing the next three.

The basic theme, of the talk is how the communist movement was gen­erated and conditioned by the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; how Marx assimilated that tradition, how Marxism was tested and in many ways found faulty by the revolutions of 1848, after which the bourgeois-democratic revolution in West Europe was off the historical agenda, and how Marx fundamentally changed his con­ception of political strategy between 1850 and 1853. This talk, therefore, deals with the origins of Marxism, the development of Marx' political strategy up to the eve of 1848 and its encapsula­tion and codification in the Communist Manifesto, which was published a few months before the outbreak of the February revolution in Paris in 1848.

First I'm going to discuss the gen­eral character of the European left in the 1840's. Next I'm going to go back [to the 1830'sJ and trace the history of the League of the Just, which, becoming the Communist League in 1847, was the inclusive organization of all German communist activists and which was the organization through which Marx be­came a communist leader in 1847. Then we're going to go back again to the ever-popular question of the "young Marx" and the origins of Marxism in the narrow sense—Hegel and all that. And finally I'll try to tie it all to­gether in 1846, when Marx became a Marxist and found himself on the polit­ical stage as a communist factionalist.

Now, before we get into this talk, I want to make one point about method. As both political activists and living human beings we tend to have a fairly good natural sense of the importance of time in politics. You know that the American political scene looked somewhat different five years ago than today; that Maoism, for example, represented something rather different in 1971 than Maoism today.

But when we reflect on the revolu­tionary movement of Europe in 1815, in 1820, in 1830, in 1840, we lose the sensitivity to time of a working poli­tician. Unless one struggles to think contemporaneously, then I believe the origins of Marxism will appear very obscure, simply because the French political alignment was very different in 1840, say, than in 1844, and again very different than in 1847. The period before 1848 was an extremely volatile period, during which politics was much more unstable than in the U.S. or even West Europe today and in which the po­litical alignments on the left, including Marx1 opponents, changed. Marx praised Proudhon in 1842 and polemicized against him in 1847, because in that short period Proudhon's politics had radically changed. So, while some of my talk may seem antiquarian—you know, this happened in 1843 and then that happened in 1844—you should re­alize that a year is a long time in a faction fight, no less so in 1846.

Revolutionary Politics Before Marx

Marxism developed in a period of relative depression throughout the in­ternational workers and revolutionary movement. The period 1830 to 1842— that is, the period beginning with the successful bourgeois-democratic revolution in France and ending with the suppression of the Chartist general strike in Britain—represents a certain kind of cycle of revolution and counter­revolution. It began with a series of relatively successful bourgeois -democratic revolutions or revolution­ary movements and it ended with the communist-centered proletarian movements, even the massive Chartist movement, going against the bourgeoi­sie and getting smashed.

As a consequence, all the leading revolutionary cadres and all the political tendencies in the mid-1840's, when Marx and Engels first came on the scene, were profoundly shaped by these defeats. Etienne Cabet—a leader of the Society for the Rights of Man [formed 1832] and the most important socialist in France in the 1840's, had been sent into exile after the 1834 Lyons silk-weavers' uprising. Feargus O'Connor, the leader of the Chartists, was sent into exile after 1839 [the Chartist agi­tation to petition Parliament, leading to isolated uprisings] and imprisoned after 1842 [the Chartist insurrectionary general strike]. Karl Schapper, who was the leading cadre of the League of the Just, had also been sent into exile as a result of his role in the Blanquist putsch of 1839. So that unless one understands that the leadership of the principal revolutionary tendencies in the 1840's were rebounding against a series of defeated minority actions, that their attitudes and ideologies were profoundly shaped by that experience, then the political world that Marx en­tered and what Marx contributed be­come essentially incomprehensible.

Moreover, you need to realize the scale of the revolutionary movements at that time. Before 1848 there were only two mass movements of the left: the movement of Etienne Cabet in France and Chartism in Britain. All the other tendencies were either prop­aganda groups, such as the League of the Just; or literary sects, such as German True Socialism; or simply literary figures, such as Proudhon. These two mass organizations, there­fore, exerted a profoundly shaping in­fluence upon the League of the Just, whose main cadres were in exile in France and Britain. It is important, then, to have at least a working know­ledge of the Cabet movement and Chart­ism in the 1840's.

Reaction to the Reaction

Etienne Cabet, as I said, was a lead­er of the Society of the Rights of Man who was forced into exile following the repression of 1835. Cabet returned to France at a time when all the revolutionary communist sects had been
driven underground in the wake of the 1839 Blanquist putsch. Cabet built a mass utopian-socialist movement on the basis of class collaborationist!!, pacifist anti-revolutionism and bourgeois philanthropism. Known as "Father Cabet" for his appeals to Christianity, he espoused "communism with a human face."

Above all Cabet was consciously anti-violent. Week after week his paper, Le Populaire, carried letters, for example, £rom wives of the Lyons silk-weavers who said,

"In the old days our husbands were communists and they believed in violence. We had to worry about the police coming at night and arresting our husbands. Now they have been converted to your kind of com­munism and we don't have to worry about that anymore."

Among the inner circle of Cabet was Herman Ewerbach, who was one of the leaders of the League of the Just, translated Cabet's writings into German and sought to give his movement an international dimension.

The other mass movement was Chartism, which during the 1840's was an extremely complex political phe­nomenon. Between 1839 and 1842 Chart­ism had been both an inclusive mass organization and, in its basic thrust, a revolutionary movement. After the defeat of the general strike of 1842 the Chartist movement moved to the right, became more exclusive and its leadership—around Feargus O'Connor —became bonapartist. O'Connor degen­erated into cooperativism—raising, and apparently mismanaging, money to buy all the land in England in order that the workers could become small­holders. His schemes were not only Utopian but also downright shoddy.

Now, Chartism is complex largely because O'Connor was by no means the most right-wing leader arising out of the reaction to revolutionary Chart­ism. On the contrary, there were a whole series of Chartist leaders who wanted to liquidate Chartism entirely and form a political bloc with the liberal bourgeoisie. O'Connor staunchly opposed that. So, in one sense, he stood for class independence, even though relative to the earlier period he had moved far to the right and abandoned an insurrectionary perspective for petty-bourgeois cooperativism.

Chartism also contained a con­sciously Jacobin communist left wing led by Julian Harney. Yet in the 1840's Harney was reduced to being the left-wing lieutenant of O'Connor. Neverthe­less, I would argue that in some ways Harney during this period [1843-44] was the most advanced socialist of his day; he believed in a mass or­ganization of the proletariat, class independence and violent revolution. The problem was that Harney was not a factional politician. Or, to use a Spartacist characterization, he did not draw the proper organizational conclusions from his political ideas. Instead of fighting O'Connor—a fight he might well have lost—Harney at­tempted to placate O'Connor and do his own thing, which was mainly acting as an honest broker to the left-wing exiles in London. In particular, with the left wing of the Polish immigrants, some French Babouvists and German com­munists, he put together something in 1845 called the Fraternal Demo­crats, which, its name to the contrary, represented communism, although not Jacobin communism.

League of the Just

Now we come to the League of the Just and the Communist League. And again we must double back in time to the 1830's in Paris. At that time Paris had an enormous German population, and there was an inclusive ^organization closely affiliated with the French Society for the Rights of Man known as the League of Exiles. Just as during 1832-34 in the Society for the Rights of Man there was a parallel factional struggle in the League of Exiles be­tween the Jacobin communists led by Buonarroti and the revolutionary bour­geois democrats. The factional strug­gle in the Society for the Rights of Man was arrested by the state sup­pression of that organization. But the German group was clandestine to begin with, since they were worried about being deported back to Germany. So that factional struggle- went to a con­clusion in a split; the communists, the German artisan and communist intel­lectuals, took the majority, while Jacob Venedy, who was later a liberal delegate to the Frankfurt parliament of 1848, led the minority.

The German Jacobin communists reorganized as a secret paramilitary organization called the League of the Just. The organization, of course, con­tained a large number of German ar­tisans, who were not steeped in the rationalist tradition of the French com­munist movement, so that the League of the Just remained impregnated with religious fundamentalism. There were not only atheists and rationalists and materialists but also Utopian Christian socialists such as Wilhelm Weitling, who wrote revolutionary propaganda couched in the language of Christian messianism. A self-taught tailor, Weitling wrote psalms and nursery rhymes such as "I want to be like Jesus who was also a communist, "for which Weitling was arrested for blasphemy. It was very powerful propaganda, for Weitling believed it himself. And it was effective in recruiting to communism backward German workers who had been raised as Lutherans and still believed in the Bible.

When Buonarroti died, his base was taken over by the young Auguste Blanqui. The leading cadres of the League of the Just participated in the Blanquist putsch of 1839, and as a result of the ensuing repression many of them were banished from France. So he remained in Paris, but others went to London and Switzerland. This exile tended to color very strongly the political groupings.

The Paris section of the League of the Just fell under the influence of the Cabet movement and, therefore, re­jected the insurrectionary traditions of Blanquism in favor of goody-goody class collaborationism of the worst
kind. In Switzerland—which was kind of the Berkeley of Metternich's Europe-there were all sorts of odd communist sects, and Weitling degenerated into setting up study circles to preach the secret gospel about how Jesus Chris really wants you to be a communist Weitling genuinely believed communism was the Second Coming, but he was not a pacifist. He ran somewhat amok yet he had great authority. In 1843 Man declared that Weitling was the great representative of German worker communism.

The London branch of the-League of the Just was by far the most important. It was led by Karl Schapper, who has a fascinating history. While a student in 1834 Schapper was won to revolutionary democracy and soon thereaftei joined a small German revolutionary organization. Then, with about 20 01 30 other guys Schapper attempted to seize a police station in Frankfurt It didn't work. He was on the lam ii Switzerland, where he joined with the democratic-nationalist Mazzini, am with about 300 others they attempted to invade Italy. It didn't work. Got to Paris, joined the League of the Just allied with Blanqui, and this time, with a thousand men, attempted to overthrow the French state. It didn't work. He was on the lam again, and made his way to< Britain. Now, I would like to say that upon arriving in London he and 1500( guys attempted to overthrow Queen Victoria, but he changed his line Schapper was a genuinely heroic figure Engels writes that he and his partners had fights, and they took on 300 guys. But in any case Schapper decided that his politics were not working very well. He was not an intellectual, but he was a thoughtful man, and he asked himself, "Why have all these move¬ments failed?" Obvious question. He created an organization called the Ger­man Workers Educational Society and arrived at a position which I would characterize as between Cabet and Chartism. Schapper concluded that in order for a revolution to succeed the revolutionaries had first to win over the masses. He in fact denied the struggle for revolution, arguing that once the communists had their demo­cratic rights to organize and educate the masses, that would be adequate to bring about communism. Schapper thus wrote, "The German communists agree with English socialists in thinking that communism could be obtained by peaceful means and free discussion alone." The London-based section of the League of the Just led by Schapper thus was influenced, on the one hand, by the Cabet movement and, on the other, by British Chartism. From the Cabet movement they derived their re­jection of revolution, which Schapper tended to associate with putschism, that is, with the only historic experience which they had. Also, from the Cabet movement Schapper acquired an em­phasis on propaganda and education— virtually the linear recruitment of the working masses, one by one, to com­munism through enlightenment. Indeed, his organization was called the German Workers Educational Society. From the Chartist movement Schapper derived a strong rejection of class collaborationism, which characterized the Cabet movement in France. So his movement was very much the German Workers Educational Society, although they were certainly willing to asso­ciate with bourgeois radical intellec­tuals who had come over to commun­ism—like Engels. Moreover, the German Workers Educational Society broadly embraced the traditions of French enlightenment and rejected Christianity. They were pacifists and propagandists, but proletarian pacifists and propagandists. In that sense Schapper and his followers were closer to Barney. They completely rejected bar­racks socialism, communalism and the equality of want. Again and Once Again Factional Struggle In 1844 Weiting, the overwhelmingly prominent political personality in German communism, was released from prison in Switzerland and went into exile in London. Weitling at once joined his old comrades now in the German Workers Educational Society. Well, they soon discovered that they were old comrades in the League of the Just but they were no longer comrades now. A factional struggle developed in 1845 pitting Weitling against Schapper. This faction fight involved only a very small group of individuals, but they were poli¬tical personalities who had not only enormous capacity but also great repu­tations. Interestingly enough, this fac­tional struggle was recorded in writing, mainly because these people were very concerned with doctrine and ideas. And we in the Spartacist League owe thanks to comrade Vladimir Zelinski for translating from the German the dis­cussion within the London branch of the League of the Just. It is a very interesting discussion that without propaganda you get nothing: It begins with Schapper asserting that everything must be based on reason. At that time there was among the workers a very strong sense that they were deprived of access to bour­geois culture. The workers’ educa¬tional organizations, such as the Ger­man Workers Educational Society, were not simply front groups to secure legal functioning. Rather, they provided the workers in the age before mass public education with a means to learn. (In fact, the origins of the massive German Social Democratic Party were a small educational society of workers who wrote to Ferdinand Lassalle, “Would you teach us what you know?" > Lassalle came, and mat's the beginning of the German Social Democracy.)

So this is Schapper:

"The reason for the failure of com­munism is lack of knowledge, lack of enlightenment. It was only the French Revolution which began to create a certain degree of enlightenment. Only through the struggle of opinion will communism develop firm roots."

But Weitling, the fundamentalist rabble-rouser, replies:

"Reason will play a pitiful role. The greatest deeds will result from the power of emotion. The crown of thorns of the martyrs wins more adherents than the moral needs of poets and orators."

In response Schapper emphasizes that without propaganda you get nothing:

"Communism could hitherto not be created because understanding was not sufficient. Our generation will no more realize communism than did the pre­vious ones. Our activity is for the coming generation. These will carry through in practice what we have hitherto been able to propagate only by means of enlightened propaganda ... Let us build our guard against revo­lutions, where through them mankind is brought back again into servitude."

Weitling replies simply by praising revolution: "Revolutions come like a thunderstorm. No one can foretell their effects."

Now, with historical hindsight, we can discern that the Schapper tendency was more serious, even though Weitling aptly criticizes Schapper for relegating the revolutionary struggle to the distant future.

In 1845, therefore, the German com­munist movement had arrived at a Hobson's choice: either passive and pacifistic propagandist!! seeking to edu­cate the entire working class, or revo­lutionary communist messianism, which did not even have the virtue of good military organization. Weitling never organized any unsuccessful putsches, because he was incapable of organizing anything.


In 1845, therefore, the German com­munist movement had arrived at a Hobson's choice: either passive and pacifistic propagandist!! seeking to edu­cate the entire working class, or revo­lutionary communist messianism, which did not even have the virtue of good military organization. Weitling never organized any unsuccessful putsches, because he was incapable of organizing anything.

It is at this point that Marx enters the history of the communist movement. And—to sort of give the show away— Marx is important and became a leader because he found a way out of that dilemma, that false counterposition of propaganda and revolutionary action.

From The Pens Of Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels-Their Struggles To Build Communist Organizations-The Early Days-Frederick Engels-On The History of the Communist League-(1885)

Click on the headline to link to the Marx-Engels Internet Archives for an online copy of the article mentioned in the headline.

Markin comment:

The foundation article by Marx or Engels listed in the headline goes along with the propaganda points in the fight for our communist future mentioned in other posts in this space. Just below is a thumbnail sketch of the first tentative proceedings to form a communist organization that would become a way-station on the road to building a Bolshevik-type organization in order fight for the socialist revolution we so desperately need and have since Marx and Engels first put pen to ink.
*************
Marx/Engels Internet Archive-The Communist League

A congress of the League of the Just opened in London on June 2, 1847. Engels was in attendance as delegate for the League's Paris communities. (Marx couldn't attend for financial reasons.)

Engels had a significant impact throughout the congress -- which, as it turned out, was really the "inaugural Congress" of what became known as the Communist League. This organization stands as the first international proletarian organization. With the influence of Marx and Engels anti-utopian socialism, the League's motto changed from "All Men are Brothers" to "Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"

Engels: "In the summer of 1847, the first league congress took place in London, at which W. Wolff represented the Brussels and I the Paris communities. At this congress the reorganization of the League was carried through first of all. ...the League now consisted of communities, circles, leading circles, a central committee and a congress, and henceforth called itself the 'Communist League'."

The Rules were drawn up with the participation of Marx and Engels, examined at the First Congress of the Communist League, and approved at the League's Second Congress in December 1847.

Article 1 of the Rules of the Communist League: "The aim of the league is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the proletariat, the abolition of the old bourgeois society which rests on the antagonism of classes, and the foundation of a new society without classes and without private property."

The first draft of the Communist League Programme was styled as a catechism -- in the form of questions and answers. Essentially, the draft was authored by Engels. The original manuscript is in Engels's hand.

The League's official paper was to be the Kommunistische Zeitschrift, but the only issue produced was in September 1847 by a resolution of the League's First Congress. It was First Congress prepared by the Central Authority of the Communist League based in London. Karl Schapper was its editor.

The Second Congress of the Communist League was held at the end of November 1847 at London's Red Lion Hotel. Marx attended as delegate of the Brussels Circle. He went to London in the company of Victor Tedesco, member of the Communist League and also a delegate to the Second Congress. Engels again represented the Paris communities. Schapper was elected chairman of the congress, and Engels its secretary.

Friedrich Lessner: "I was working in London then and was a member of the communist Workers' Educational Society at 191 Drury Lane. There, at the end of November and the beginning of December 1847, members of the Central Committee of the Communist League held a congress. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels came there from Brussels to present their views on modern communism and to speak about the Communists' attitude to the political and workers' movement. The meetings, which, naturally, were held in the evenings, were attended by delegates only... Soon we learned that after long debates, the congress had unanimously backed the principles of Marx and Engels..."

The Rules were officially adopted December 8, 1847.

Engels: "All contradiction and doubt were finally set at rest, the new basic principles were unanimously adopted, and Marx and I were commissioned to draw up the Manifesto." This would, of course, become the Communist Manifesto.
************
Markin comment on this series:

No question that today at least the figures of 19th century communist revolutionaries, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, are honored more for their “academic” work than their efforts to build political organizations to fight for democratic and socialist revolutions, respectively, as part of their new worldview. Titles like Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, The Peasants Wars In Germany, and the like are more likely to be linked to their names than Cologne Communist League or Workingmen’s International (First International). While the theoretical and historical materialist works have their honored place in the pantheon of revolutionary literature it would be wrong to neglect that hard fact that both Marx and Engels for most of their lives were not “arm chair" revolutionaries or, in Engels case, smitten by fox hunts. These men were revolutionary politicians who worked at revolution in high times and low. Those of us who follow their traditions can, or should, understand that sometimes, a frustratingly long sometimes, the objective circumstances do not allow for fruitful revolutionary work. We push on as we can. Part of that pushing on is to become immersed in the work of our predecessors and in this series the work of Marx and Engels to create a new form of revolutionary organization to fight the fights of their time, the time from about the Revolutions of 1848 to the founding of various socialist parties in Europe in the latter part of the 19th century.
**************
Frederick Engels-On The History of the Communist League-1885

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Published: Nov 12-26, 1885 in Sozialdemokrat;
Source: Marx and Engels Selected Works, Volume 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1970;
Transcribed by: zodiac@io.org.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

London
October 8, 1885

With the sentence of the Cologne Communists in 1852, the curtain falls on the first period of the independent German workers’ movement. Today this period is almost forgotten. Yet it lasted from 1836 to 1852 and, with the spread of German workers abroad, the movement developed in almost all civilized countries. Nor is that all. The present-day international workers’ movement is in substance a direct continuation of the German workers’ movement of that time, which was the first international workers’ movement of all time, and which brought forth many of those who took the leading role in he International Working Men’s Association. And the theoretical principles that the Communist League had inscribed on its banner in the Communist Manifesto of 1847 constitute today the strongest international bond of the entire proletarian movement of both Europe and America.

Up to now there has been only one source for a coherent history of that movement. This is the so-called Black Book, The Communist Conspiracies of the Nineteenth Century, by Wermuth and Stieber, Erline, two parts, 1853 and 1854. This crude compilation, which bristles with deliberate falsifications, fabricated by two of the most contemptible police scoundrels of our century, today still serves as the final source for all non-communist writings about that period.

What I am able to give here is only a sketch, and even this only in so far as the League itself is concerned; only what is absolutely necessary to understand the Revelations. I hope that some day I shall have the opportunity to work up the rich material collected by Marx and myself on the history of that glorious period of the youth of the international workers’ movement.

* In 1836 the most extreme, chiefly proletarian elements of the secret democratic-republican Outlaws’ League, which was founded by German refugees in Paris in 1834, split off and formed the new secret League of the Just. The parent League, in which only sleepy-headed elements à la Jakobus Venedey were left, soon fell asleep altogether; when in 1840 the police scented out a few sections in Germany, it was hardly even a shadow of its former self. The new League, on the contrary, developed comparatively rapidly. Originally it was a German outlier of the French worker-Communism, reminiscent of Babouvism and taking shape in Paris at about this time; community of goods was demanded as the necessary consequence of “equality”. The aims were those of the Parisian secret societies of the time: half propaganda association, half conspiracy, Paris, however, being always regarded as the central point of revolutionary action, although the preparation of occassional putsches in Germany was by no means excluded. But as Paris remained the decisive battleground, the League was at that time actually not much more than the German branch of the French secret societies, especially the Societe des saisons led by Blanqui and Barbes, with which a close connections was maintained. The French went into action on May 12, 1839; the sections of the League marched with them and thus were involved in the common defeat.

Among the Germans arrested were Karl Schapper and Heinrich Bauer; Louis Philippe’s government contented itself with deporting them after a fairly long imprisonment. Both went to London. Schapper came from Weilburg in Nassau and while a student of forestry at Giessen in 1832 was a member of the conspiracy organized by Georg Buchner; he took part in the storming of the Frankfort constable station on April 3, 1833, escaped abroad and in February 1834 joined Mazzini’s march on Savoy. Of gigantic stature, resolute and energetic, always ready to risk civil existence and life, he was a model of the professional revolutionist that played an important role in the thirties. In spite of a certain sluggishness of thought, he was by no means incapable of profound theoretical understanding, as is proved by his development from “demagogue” to Communist, and he held then all the more rigidly to what he had once come to recognize. Precisely on that account his revolutionary passion sometimes got the better of understanding, but he always afterwards realized his mistake and openly acknowledged it. He was fully a man and what he did for the founding of the German workers’ movement will not be forgotten.

Heinrich Bauer, from Franconia, was a shoemaker; a lively, alert, witty little fellow, whose little body, however, also contained much shrewdness and determination.

Arrived in London, where Schapper, who had been a compositor in Paris, now tried to earn his living as a teacher of languages, they both set to work gathering up the broken threads and made London the centre of the League. They were joined over here, if not already earlier in Paris, by Joseph Moll, a watchmaker from Cologne, a medium-sized Hercules — how often did Schapper and he victoriously defend the entrance to a hall against hundreds of onrushing opponents! — a man who was at least the equal of his two comrades in energy and determination, and intellectually superior to both of them. Not only was he a born diplomat, as the success of his numerous trips on various mission proved; he was also more capable of theoretical insight. I came to know all three of them in London in 1843. There were the first revolutionary proletarians whom I met, and however far apart our views were at that time — for I still owned, as against their narrow-minded equalitarian Communism [by equalitarian Communism I understand, as stated, only that Communism which bases itself exclusively or predominantly on the demand for equality], a goodly does of just as narrow-minded philosophical arrogance — I shall never forget the deep impression that these three real men made upon me, who was then still only wanting to become a man.

In London, as in a lesser degree in Switzerland, they had the benefit of freedoms of association and assembly. As early as February 7, 1840, the legally functioning German Workers’ Educational Association, which still exists, was founded. This Association served the League as a recruiting ground for new members, and since, as always, the Communists were the most active and intelligent members of the Association, it was a matter of course that its leadership lay entirely in the hands of the League. The League soon had several communities, or, as they were then still called, “lodges”, in London. The same obvious tactics were followed in Switzerland and elsewhere. Where workers’ associations could be founded, they were utilized in like manner. Where this was forbidden by law, one joined choral societies, athletic clubs, and the like. Connections were to a large extent maintained by members who were continually travelling back and forth; they also, when required, served as emissaries. In both respects the League obtained lively support through the wisdom of the governments which, by resorting to deportation, converted any objectionable worker — and in nine cases our of ten he was a member of the League — into an emissary.

The extent to which the restored League was spread was considerable. Notably in Switzerland, Weitling, August Becker (a highly gifted man who, however, like so many Germans, came to grief because of innate instability of character) and others created a strong organization more or less pledged to Weitling’s communist system. This is not the place to criticize the Communism of Weitling. But as regards its significance as the first independent theoretical stirring of the German proletariat, I still today subscribe to Marx’s words in the Paris Vorwarts of 1844:

“Where could the (German) bourgeoisie — including its philosophers and learned scribes — point to a work relating to the emancipation of the bourgeoisie — its political emancipation — comparable to Weitlings’ Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom? If one compares the drab mealy-mouthed mediocrity of German political literature with this immeasurable and brilliant debut of the German workers, if one compares these gigantic children’s shoes of the proletariat with the dwarf proportions of the worn-out political shows of the bourgeoisie, one must prophesy an athlete’s figure for this Cinderella.”

This athlete’s figure confronts us today, although still far from being fully grown.

Numerous sections existed also in Germany; in the nature of things they were of a transient character, but those coming into existence more than made up for those passing away. Only after seven years, at the end of 1846, did the police discover traces of the League in Berlin (Mentel) and Magdeburg (Beck), without being in a position to follow them further.

In Paris, Weitling, who was still there in 1840, likewise gathered the scattered elements together again before he left for Switzerland.

The tailors formed the central force of the League. German tailors were everywhere: in Switzerland, in London, in Paris. In the last-named city, German was so much the prevailing tongue in this trade that I was acquainted there in 1846 with a Norwegian tailor who had travelled directly by sea from Trondhjem to France and in the space of eighteen months had learned hardly a word of French but had acquired an excellent knowledge of German. Two of the Paris communities in 1847 consisted predominantly of tailors, one of cabinetmakers.

After the centre of gravity had shifted from Paris to London, a new feature grew conspicuous: from being German, the League gradually became international. In the workers’ society there were to be found, besides German and Swiss, also members of all those nationalities for whom German served as the chief means of communication with foreigners, notably, therefore, Scandinavians, Dutch, Hungarians, Czechs, Southern Slavs, and also Russians and Alsatians. In 1847 the regular frequenters included a British grenadier of the Guards in uniform. The society soon called itself the Communist Workers’ Educational Association, and the membership cards bore the inscription “All Men Are Brothers”, in at least twenty languages, even if not without mistakes here and there. Like the open Association, so also the secret League soon took on a more international character; at first in a restricted sense, practically through the varied nationalities of its members, theoretically through the realization that any revolution to be victorious must be a European one. One did not go any further as yet; but the foundations were there.

Close connections were maintained with the French revolutionists through t he London refugees, comrades-in-arms of May 12, 1839. Similarly with the more radical Poles. The official Polish emigres, as also Mazzini, were, of course, opponents rather than allies. The English Chartists, on account of the specific English character of their movement, were disregarded as not revolutionary. The London leaders of the League came in touch with them only later, through me.

In other ways, too, the character of the League had altered with events. Although Paris was still — and at that time quite rightly — looked upon as the mother city of the revolution, one had nevertheless emerged from the state of dependence on the Paris conspirators. The spread of the League raised its self-consciousness. It was felt that roots were being struck more and more in the German working class and that these German workers were historically called upon to be the standard-bearers of the workers of the North and East of Europe. In Weitling was to be found a communist theoretician who could be boldly placed at the side of his contemporary French rivals. Finally, the experience of May 12th had taught us that for the time being there was nothing to be gained by attempts at putsches. And if one still continued to explain every event as a sign of the approaching storm, if one still preserved intact the old, semi-conspiratorial rules, that was mainly the fault of the old revolutionary defiance, which had already begun to collide with the sounder views that were gaining headway.

However, the social doctrine of the League, indefinite as it was, contained a very great defect, but one that had its roots in the conditions themselves. The members, in so far as they were workers at all, were almost exclusively artisans. Even in the big metropolises, the man who exploited them was usually only a small master. The exploitation of tailoring on a large scale, what is now called the manufacture of ready-made clothes, by the conversion of handicraft tailoring into a domestic industry working for a big capitalist, was at that time even in London only just making it appearance. On the one hand, the exploiters of these artisans was a small master; on the other hand, they all hoped ultimately to become small masters themselves. In addition, a mass of inherited guild notions still clung to the German artisan at that time. The greatest honor is due to them, in that they, who were themselves not yet full proletarians but only an appendage of the petty bourgeoisie, an appendage which was passing into the modern proletariat and which did not yet stand in direct opposition to the bourgeoisie, that is, to big capital — in that these artisans were capable of instinctively anticipating their future development and of constituting themselves, even if not yet with full consciousness, the party of the proletariat. But it was also inevitable that their old handicraft prejudices should be a stumbling block to them at every moment, whenever it was a question of criticizing existing society in detail, that is, of investigating economic facts. And I do not believe there was a single man in the whole League at that time who had ever read a book on political economy. But that mattered little; for the time being “equality”, “brotherhood” and “justice” helped them to surmount every theoretical obstacle.

Meanwhile a second, essentially different Communism was developed alongside that of the League and of Weitling. While I was in Manchester, it was tangibly brought home to me that the economic facts, which have so far played no role or only a contemptible one in the writing of history, are, at least in the modern world, a decisive historical force; that they form the basis of the origination of the present-day class antagonisms; that these class antagonisms, in the countries where they have become fully developed, thanks to large-scale industry, hence especially in England, are in their turn the basis of the formation of political parties and of party struggles, and thus of all political history. Marx had not only arrived at the same view, but had already, in the Deutsche-Französische Jahrbücher (1844), generalized it to the effect that, speaking generally, it is not the state which conditions and regulates the civil society at all, but civil society which conditions and regulates the state, and, consequently, that policy and its history are to be explained from the economic relations and their development, and not vice versa. When I visited Marx in Paris in the summer of 1844, our complete agreement in all theoretical fields became evident and our joint work dates from that time. When, in the spring of 1845, we met again in Brussels, Marx had already fully developed his materialist theory of history in its main features form the above-mentioned basis and we now applied ourselves to the detailed elaboration of the newly-won mode of outlook in the most varied directions.

This discovery, which revolutionized the science of history and, as we have seen, is essentially the work of Marx — a discovery in which I can claim for myself only a very insignificant share — was, however, of immediate importance for the contemporary workers’ movement. Communism among the French and Germans, Chartism among the English, now no longer appeared as something accidental which could just as well not have occurred. These movements now presented themselves as a movement of the modern oppressed class, the proletariat, as the more or less developed forms of its historically necessary struggle against the ruling class, the bourgeoisie; as forms of the class struggle, but distinguished from all earlier class struggles by this one thing, that the present-day oppressed class the proletariat, cannot achieve its emancipation without at the same time emancipating society as a whole from division into classes and, therefore, from class struggles. And Communism now no longer meant the concoction, by means of the imagination, of an ideal society as perfect as possible, but insight into the nature, the conditions and the consequent general aims of the struggle waged by the proletariat.

Now, we were by no means of the opinion that the new scientific results should be confided in large tomes exclusively to the “learned” world. Quite the contrary. We were both of us already deeply involved in the political movement, and possessed a certain following in the educated world, especially of Western Germany, and abundant contact with the organized proletariat. It was our duty to provide a scientific foundation for our view, but it was equally important for us to win over the European and in the first place the German proletariat to our conviction. As soon as we had become clear in our own minds, we set about the task. We founded a German workers’ society in Brussels and took over the Deutsche Brüsseler Zeitung, which served us as an organ up to the February Revolution. We kept in touch with the revolutionary section of the English Chartists through Julian Harney, the editor of the central organ of the movement, The Northern Star, to which I was a contributor. We entered likewise into a sort of cartel with the Brussels democrats (Marx was vice-president of the Democratic Society) and with the French social-democrats of the Réforme, which I furnished with news of the English and German movements. In short, our connections with the radical and proletarian organizations and press organs were quite what one could wish.

Our relations with the League of the Just were as follows: The existence of the League was, of course, known to us; in 1843 Schapper had suggested that I join it, which I at that time naturally refused to do. But we not only kept up our continuous correspondence with the Londoners but remained on still closer terms with Dr Ewerbeck, then the leader of the Paris communities. Without going into the League’s internal affairs, we learnt of every important happening. On the other hand, we influenced the theoretical views of the most important members of the League by word of mouth, by letter and through the press. For this purpose we also made us of various lithographed circulars, which we dispatched to our friends and correspondents throughout the world on particular occasions, when it was a question of the internal affairs of the Communist Party in process of formation. In these, the League itself sometimes came to be dealt with. Thus, a young Westphalian student, Hermann Kriege, who went to America, came forward there as an emissary of the League and associated himself with the crazy Harro Harring for the purpose of using the League to turn South America upside down. He founded a paper in which, in the name of the League, he preached an extravagant Communism of love dreaming, based on “love” and overflowing with love. Against this we let fly with a circular that did not fail of its effect. Kriege vanished from the League scene.

Later, Weitling came to Brussels. But he was no loner the naive young journeyman-tailor who, astonished at his own talents, was trying to clarify in his own mind just what a communist society would look like. He was now the great man, persecuted by the environs on account of his superiority, who scented rivals, secret enemies and traps everywhere — the prophet, driven from country to country, who carried a recipe for the realization of heaven on earth ready-made in his pocket, and who was was possessed with the idea that everybody intended to steal it from him. He had already fallen out with the members of the League in London; and in Brussels, where Marx and his wife welcomed him with almost superhuman forbearance, he also could not get along with anyone. So he soon afterwards went to America to try out his role of prophet there.

All these circumstance contributed to the quiet revolution that was taking place in the League, and especially among the leaders in London. The inadequacy of the previous conception of Communism, both the simple French equalitarian Communism and that of Weitling, became more and more clear to them. The tracing of Communism back to primitive Christianity introduced by Weitling — no matter how brilliant certain passages to be found in his Gospel of Poor Sinners — had resulted in delivering the movement in Switzerland to a large extent into the hands, first of fools like Albrecht, and then of exploiting fake prophets like Kuhlmann. The “true Socialism” dealt in by a few literary writers — a translation of French socialist phraseology into corrupt Hegelian German, and sentimental love dreaming (see the section on German of “True” Socialism in the Communist Manifesto — that Kriege and the study of the corresponding literature introduced in the League was found soon to disgust the old revolutionaries of the league, if only because of its slobbering feebleness. As against the untenability of the previous theoretical views, and as against the practical aberrations resulting therefrom, it was realized more and more in London that Marx and I were right in our new theory. This understanding was undoubtedly promoted by the fact that among the London leaders there were now two men who were considerably superior to those previously mentioned in capacity for theoretical knowledge: the miniature painter Karl Pfander from Heilbronn and the tailor Georg Eccarius from Thuringia.

[Engels footnote: Pfander died about eight years ago in London. he was a man of peculiarly fine intelligence, witty, ironical and dialectical. Eccarius, as we know, was later for many years Secretary of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association, in the General Council of which the following old League members were to be found, among others: Eccarius, Pfander, Lessner, Lochner, Marx and myself. Eccarius subsequently devoted himself exclusively to the English trade union movement.]

It suffices to say that in the spring of 1847 Moll visited Marx in Brussels and immediately afterwards me in Paris, and invited us repeatedly, in the name of his comrades, to enter the League. He reported that they were as much convinced of the general correctness of our mode of outlook as of the necessity of freeing the League from the old conspiratorial traditions and forms. Should we enter, we would be given an opportunity of expounding our critical Communism before a congress of the League in a manifesto, which would then be published as the manifesto of the League; we would likewise be able to contribute our quota towards the replacement of the obsolete League organization by one in keeping with the new times and aims.

We entertained no doubt that an organization within the German working class was necessary, if only for propaganda purposes, and that this organization, in so far as it would not be merely local in character, could only be a secret one, even outside Germany. Now, there already existed exactly such an organization in the shape of the League. What we previously objected to in this League was now relinquished as erroneous by the representatives of the League themselves; we were even invited to co-operate in the work of reorganization. Could we say no? Certainly not. Therefore, we entered the League; Marx founded a League community in Brussels from among our close friends, while I attended the three Paris communities.

In the summer of 1847, the first league Congress took place in London, at which W. Wolff represented the Brussels and I the Paris communities. At this congress the reorganization of the League was carried through first of all. Whatever remained of the old mystical names dating back to the conspiratorial period was now abolished; the League now consisted of communities, circles, leading circles, a Central Committee and a Congress, and henceforth called itself the “Communist League”.

“The aim of the League is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the proletariat, the abolition of the old, bourgeois society based on class antagonisms and the foundation of a new society without classes and without private property”

— thus ran the first article. The organization itself was thoroughly democratic, with elective and always removable boards. This alone barred all hankering after conspiracy, which requires dictatorship, and the League was converted — for ordinary peace times at least — into a pure propaganda society. These new Rules were submitted to the communities for discussion — so democratic was the procedure now followed — then once again debated at the Second Congress and finally adopted by the latter on December 8, 1847. They are to be found reprinted in Wermuth and Stieber, vol.I, p.239, Appendix X.

The Second Congress took place during the end of November and beginning of December of the same year. Marx also attended this time and expounded the new theory in a fairly long debate — the congress lasted at least ten days. All contradiction and doubt were finally set at rest, the new basic principles were unanimously adopted, and Marx and I were commissioned to draw up the Manifesto. This was done immediately afterwards. A few weeks before the February Revolution it was sent to London to be printed. Since then it has travelled round the world, has been translated into almost all languages and today still serves in numerous countries as a guide for the proletarian movement. In place of the old League motto, “All Men Are Brothers”, appeared the new battle cry, “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” which openly proclaimed the international character of the struggle. Seventeen years later this battle cry resounded throughout the world as the watchword of the International Working Men’s Association, and today the militant proletariat of all countries has inscribed it in its banner.

The February Revolution broke out. The London Central Committee functioning hitherto immediately transferred its powers to the Brussels leading circle. But this decision came at a time when an actual state of siege already existed in Brussels, and the Germans in particular could no longer assemble anywhere. We were all of us just on the point of going to Paris, and so the new Central Committee decided likewise to dissolve, to hand over all its powers to Marx and to empower him immediately to constitute a new Central Committee in Paris. Hardly had the five persons who adopted this decision (March 3, 1848) separated, before police forced their way into Marx’s house, arrested him and compelled him to leave for France the following day, which was just where he was wanting to go.

In Paris we all soon came together again. There the following document was drawn up and signed by all the members of the new Central Committee. It was distributed throughout Germany and many a one can still learn something from it even today:

Demands of the Communist Party in Germany
The whole of Germany shall be declared a single indivisible republic.
Representatives of the people shall be paid so that workers also can sit in the parliament of the German people.
Universal arming of the people.
The estates of the princes and other feudal estates, all mines, pits, etc., shall be transformed into state property. On these estates, agriculture is to be conducted on a very large scale and with the most modern scientific means for the benefit of all society.
Mortgages on peasant holdings shall be declared state property; interest on such mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.
In the districts where tenant farming is developed, land rent or farming dues shall be paid to the state as a tax.
All means of transport: railway, canals, steamships, roads, post, etc., shall be taken over by the state. They are to be converted into state property and put at the disposal of the non-possessing class free of charge.
Limitation of the right of inheritance.
Introduction of a steeply graded progressive taxation and abolition of taxes on consumer goods.
Establishment of national workshops. The state shall guarantee a living to all workers and provide for those unable to work.
Universal free elementary education.
It is in the interest of the German proletariat, of the petite Bourgeoisie and peasantry, to work with all possible energy to put the above measures through. For only by their education can the millions in Germany, who up to now have been exploited by a small number of people and whom it will be attempted to keep in further subjection, get their rights and the power that are their due as the producers of all wealth.

The Committee: Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff

At that time the craze for revolutionary legions prevailed in Paris. Spaniards, Italians, Belgians, Dutch, Poles and Germans flocked together in crowds to liberate their respective fatherlands. The German legion was led by Herwegh, Bornsted, Bornstein. Since immediately after the revolution all foreign workers not only lost their jobs but in addition were harassed by the public, the influx into these legions was very great. the new government saw in them a means of getting rid of foreign workers and granted them l'etape du soldat, that is, quarters along their line of march and a marching allowance of 50 centimes per day up to the frontier, whereafter the eloquent Lamartine, the Foreign Minister who was so readily moved to tears, quickly found an opportunity of betraying them to their respective governments.

We opposed this playing with revolution in the most decisive fashion. To carry an invasion, which was to import the revolution forcibly from outside, into the midst of the ferment then going on in Germany, meant to undermine the revolution in Germany itself, to strengthen the governments and to deliver the legionnaires — Lamartine guaranteed for that — defenceless into the hands of the German troops. When subsequently the revolution was victorious in Vienna and Berlin, the legion became all the more purposeless; but once begun, the game was continued.

We founded a German communist club, in which we advised the workers to keep away from the legion and to return instead to their homes singly and work there for the movement. Our old friend Flocon, who had a seat in the Provisional Government, obtained for the workers sent by us the same travel facilities as had been granted to the legionnaires. In this way we returned three or four hundred workers to Germany, including the great majority of the League members.

As could easily be foreseen, the League proved to be much too weak a lever as against the popular mass movement that had now broken out. Three-quarters of the League members who had previously lived abroad had changed their domicile by returning to their homeland; their previous communities were thus to a great extent dissolved and they lost all contact with the League. One part, the more ambitious among them, did not even try to resume this contact, but each one began a small separate movement on his own account in his own locality. Finally, the conditions in each separate petty state, each province and each town were so different that the League would have been incapable of giving more than the most general directives; such directives were, however, much better disseminated through the press. In short, from the moment when the causes which had made the secret League necessary ceased to exist, the secret League as such ceased to mean anything. But this could least of all surprise the persons who had just stripped this same secret League of the last vestige of its conspiratorial character.

That, however, the League had been an excellent school for revolutionary activity was now demonstrated. On the Rhine, where the Neue Rheinische Zeitung provided a firm centre, in Nassau, in Rhenish Hesse, etc., everywhere members of the League stood at the head of the extreme democratic movement. The same was the case in Hamburg. In South Germany the predominance of petty-bourgeois democracy stood in the way. In Breslau, Wilhelm Wolff was active with great success until the summer of 1848; in addition he received a Silesian mandate as an alternate representative in the Frankfort parliament. Finally, the compositor Stephan Born, who had worked in Brussels and Paris as an active member of the League, founded a Workers’ Brotherhood in Berlin which became fairly widespread and existed until 1850. Born, a very talented young man, who, however, was a bit too much in a hurry to become a political figure, “fraternized” with the most miscellaneous ragtag and bobtail in order to get a crowd together, and was not at all the man who could bring unity into the conflicting tendencies, light into the chaos. Consequently, in the official publications of the association the views represented in the Communist Manifesto were mingled hodge-podge with guild recollections and guild aspirations, fragments of Louis Blanc and Proudhon, protectionism, etc.; in short, they wanted to please everybody [allen alles sein]. In particular, strikes, trade unions and producers’ co-operatives were set going and it was forgotten that above all it was a question of first conquering, by means of political victories, the field in which alone such things could be realized on a lasting basis. When, afterwards, the victories of the reaction made the leaders of the Brotherhood realize the necessity of taking a direct part in the revolutionary struggle, they were naturally left in the lurch by the confused mass which they had grouped around themselves. Born took part in the Dresden uprising in May, 1849 and had a lucky escape. But, in contrast to the great political movement of the proletariat, the Workers’ Brotherhood proved to be a pure Sonderbund [separate league], which to a large extent existed only on paper and played such a subordinate role that the reaction did not find it necessary to suppress it until 1850, and its surviving branches until several years later. Born, whose real name was Buttermilch, has not become a big political figure but a petty Swiss professor, who no longer translates Marx into guild language but the meek Renan into his own fulsome German.

With June 13, 1849, the defeat of the May insurrections in Germany and the suppression of the Hungarian revolution by the Russians, a great period of the 1848 Revolution came to a close. But the victory of the reaction was as yet by no means final. A reorganziation of the scattered revolutionary forces was required, and hence also of the League. The situation again forbade, as in 1848, any open organization of the proletariat; hence one had to organize again in secret.

In the autumn of 1849, most of the member of the previous central committees and congresses gathered again in London. The only ones still missing were Schapper, who was jailed in Wiesbaden but came after his acquittal, in the spring of 1850, and Moll, who, after he had accomplished a series of most dangerous missions and agitational journeys — in the end he recruited mounted gunners for the Palatinate artillery right in the midst of the Prussian army in the Rhine Province — joined the Besancon workers’ company of Willich’s corps and was killed by a shot in the head during the encounter at the Murg in front of the Rotenfels Bridge. On the other hand, Willich now entered upon the scene. Willich was one of those sentimental Communists so common in Western Germany since 1845, who on that account alone was instinctively, furtively antagonistic to our critical tendency. More than that, he was entirely the prophet, convinced of his personal mission as the predestined liberator of the German proletariat and as such a direct claimant as much to political as to military dictatorship. Thus, to the primitive Christian Communism previously preached by Weitling was added a kind of communist Islam. However, the propaganda of this new religion was for the first time being restricted to the refugee barracks under Willich’s command.

Hence, the League was organized afresh; the Address of march 1850 was issued and Heinrich bauer sent as an emissary to Germany. The Address, composed by Marx and myself, is still of interest today, because petite-bourgeois democracy is even now the party which must certainly be the first to come to power in Germany as the savior of society from the communist workers on the occasion of the next European upheaval now soon due (the European revolutions, 1815, 1830, 1848-52, 1870, have occurred at intervals of 15 to 18 years in our century). Much of what is said there is, therefore, still applicable today. Heinrich Bauer’s mission was crowned with complete success. The trusty little shoemaker was a born diplomat. He brought the former members of the League, who had partly become laggards and partly were acting on their own account, back into the active organization, and particularly also the then leaders of the Workers’ Brotherhood. The League began to play the dominant role in the workers’, peasants’ and athletic associations to a far greater extent than before 1848, so that the next quarterly address to the communities, in June 1850, could already report that the student Schurz from Bonn (later on American ex-minister), who was touring Germany in the interest of petty-bourgeois democracy, “had found all fit forces already in the hands of the League”. The League was undoutbedly the only revolutionary organization that had any significance in Germany.

But what purpose this organization should serve depended very substantially on whether the prospects of a renewed upsurge of the revolution were realized. And in the course of the year 1850 this became more and more improbable, indeed impossible. The industrial crisis of 1847, which had paved the way for the Revolution of 1848, had been overcome; a new, unprecedented period of industrial prosperity had set in; whoever had eyes to see and used them must have clearly realized that the revolutionary storm of 1848 was gradually spending itself.

“With this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgeois society develop as luxuriantly as is at all possible within bourgeois relationships, there can be no talk of a real revolution. Such a revolution is only possible in the periods when both these factors, the modern productive forces and the bourgeois productive forms, come in collision with each other. The various quarrels in which the representatives of the industrial factions of the continental party of order now indulge and mutually compromise themselves, far from providing the occassion for new revolutions are, on the contrary, possible only because the basis of the relationships is momentarily so secure and, what the reaction does not know, so bourgeois. From it all attempts of the reaction to hold up bourgeois development will rebound just as certainly as all moral indignation and all enthusiastic proclamations of the democrats”.

Thus Marx and I wrote in the “Revue of May to October 1850” in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Politisch-okonomische Revue, Nos.V and VI, Hamburg, 1850, p.153.

This cool estimation of the situation, however, was regarded as heresy among many persons, at a time when Ledru-Rollin, Louis Blanc, Mazzini, Kossuth and, among the lesser German lights, Ruge, Kinkel, Gogg and the rest of them crowded in London to form provisional governments of the future not only for their respective fatherlands but for the whole of Europe, and when the only still still necessary was to obtain the requisite money from America as a loan for the revolution to realize at a moment’s notice the European revolution and the various republics which went with it was a matter of course. Can anyone be surprised that a man like Willich was taken in by this, that Schapper, acting on his old revolutionary impulse, also allowed himself to be fooled, and that the majority of the London workers, to a large extent refugees themselves, followed them into the camp of the bourgeois-democratic artificers of revolution? Suffice it to say that the reserve maintained by us was not to the mind of these people; one was to enter into the game of making revolutions. We most decidedly refused to do so. A split ensued; more about this is to be read in the Revelations. Then came the arrest of Nothjung, followed by that of Haupt, in Hamburg. The latter turned traitor by divulging the names of the Cologne Central Committee and being slated as the chief witness in the trial; but his relatives had no desires to be thus disgraced and bundled him off to Rio de Janerio, where he later established himself as a businessman and in recognition of his services was appointed first Prussian and then German Consul General. He is now again in Europe.

[Engels footnote: Schapper in London at the end of the sixties. Willich took part in the American Civil War with distinction; he became Brigadier-General and was shot in the chest during the battle of Murfreesboro (Tennessee) but recovered and died about ten years ago in America. Of the other persons mentioned above, I will only remark that Heinrich Bauer was lost track of in Australia, and that Weitling and Ewerbeck died in America.]

For a better understanding of the Revelations, I give the list of the Cologne accused:

(1) P. G. Roser, cigarmaker; (2) Heinrich Burgers, who later died a progressive deputy to the Landtag; (3) Peter Nothjung, tailor, who died a few years ago a photographer in Breslau; (4) W. J. Reiff; (5) Dr. Hermann Becker, now chief burgomaster of Cologne and member of the Upper House; (6) Dr. Roland Daniels, physician, who died a few years after the trial as a result of tuberculosis contracted in prison; (7) Karl Otto, chemist; (8) Dr. Abraham Jacoby, now physician in New York; (9) Dr. I. J. Klein, now physician and town councillor in Cologne; (10) Ferdinand Freiligrath, who, however, was at that time already in London; (11) I. L. Ehrhard, clerk; (12) Friedrich Lessner, tailor, now in London.

After a public trail before a jury lasting from October 4 to November 12, 1852, the following were sentenced for attempted high treason: Roser, Burgers and Nothjung to six, Reiff, Otto and Becker to five, and Lessner to three years’ confinement in a fortress; Daniels, Klein, Jacoby and Ehrhard were acquitted.

With the Cologne trial the first period of the German communist workers’ movement comes to an end. Immediately after the sentence we dissolved our League; a few months later the Willich-Schapper separate league was also laid to eternal rest.

* A whole generation lies between then and now. At that time Germany was a country of handicraft and of domestic industry based on hand labor; now it is a big industrial country still undergoing continual industrial transformation. At that time one had to seek out one by one the workers who had an understanding of their position as workers and of their historico-economic antagonism to capital, because this antagonism itself was only just beginning to develop. Today the entire German proletariat has to be placed under exceptional laws, merely in order to slow down a little the process of its development to full consciousness of its position as an oppressed class. At that time the few persons whose minds had penetrated to the realization of the historical role of the proletariat had to forgather in secret, to assemble clandestinely in small communities of 3 to 20 persons. Today the German proletariat no longer needs any official organization, either public or secret. The simple self-evident interconnection of like-minded class comrades suffices, without any rules, boards, resolutions or other tangible forms, to shake the whole German Empire to its foundations. Bismarck is the arbiter of Europe beyond the frontiers of Germany, but within them there grows daily more threatening the athletic figure of the German proletariat that Marx foresaw already in 1844, the giant for whom the cramped imperial edifice designed to fit the philistine is even now becoming inadequate and whose mighty stature and broad shoulder are growing until the moment comes when by merely rising from his seat he will shatter the whole structure of the imperial constitution into fragments. And still more. The international movement of the European and American proletariat has become so much strengthened that not merely its first narrow form — the secret League — but even its second, infinitely wider form — the open International Working Men’s Association — has become a fetter for it, and that the simple feeling of solidarity based on the understanding of the identity of class position suffices to create and to hold together one and the same great party of the proletariat among the workers of all countries and tongues. The doctrine which the League represented from 1847 to 1852, and which at that time could be treated by the wise philistines with a shrug of the shoulders as the hallucinations of utter madcaps, as the secret doctrine of a few scattered sectarians, has now innumerable adherents in all civilized countries of the world, among those condemned to the Siberian mines as much as among the gold diggers of California; and the founder of this doctrine, the most hated, most slandered man of his time, Karl Marx, was, when he died, the ever-sought-for and ever-willing counsellor of the proletariat of both the old and the new world.