7.2.3 Στο μυαλό του Marx

Ο επαναστατικός λόγος του Marx οδηγήθηκε με το πέρασμα των χρόνων σε ολοένα αυξανόμενο βαθμό στερεοτυπίας, κατά τη διαδικασία συγκρότησης της μαρξιστικής συλλογικότητας.

Ο μαρξισμός, από τη στιγμή που κατόρθωσε να κερδίσει ένα ευρύ κοινό και να εδραιώσει τη λειτουργία του στη δημόσια ζωή της Ευρώπης, να γίνει δηλαδή μαζικό κίνημα, αποτέλεσε το σημείο συνάντησης φιλοσοφικών, πολιτικών, κοινωνικών και οικονομικών ιδεών, οι οποίες στέκονται απέναντι στην άνοδο και την κυριαρχία της αστικής τάξης στο πεδίο της πολιτικής και της οικονομίας.

Τα έντυπα μέσα επικοινωνίας της εποχής, εφημερίδες και περιοδικά, γίνονται για πρώτη φορά βασικοί δίαυλοι της μαζικής επικοινωνίας του μαρξιστικού λόγου στα γραμματισμένα στρώματα του πληθυσμού. Τα πρόσωπα που διαμορφώνουν τους όρους της μαζικής επικοινωνίας είναι, αφενός τα επιτελεία που παράγουν τον ειδησεογραφικό και επιμορφωτικό λόγο, αλλά και πολλά άλλα είδη κειμένου, και αφετέρου τα ακροατήρια που τον προσλαμβάνουν και τον ερμηνεύουν. Η μεταξύ τους σχέση είναι ιδιόμορφη, καθώς υπαγορεύεται από την τεχνική φύση και τον κοινωνικό ρόλο των μέσων· η δυνάμει συλλογική παραγωγή του μαρξιστικού λόγου, η ρητή ή υπόρρητη έκφραση της ιδεολογικής ταυτότητας κάθε μέσου, το μεγάλο πλήθος και η διασπορά των ακροατηρίων, αλλά και η περιοδικότητα εκπομπής και λήψης μηνυμάτων, είναι οι κυριότερες συνιστώσες αυτής της πρώιμης μαζικής επικοινωνίας.

Σε αντιδιαστολή προς τις περισσότερες μορφές επικοινωνίας, όπου ο παραγωγός του λόγου είναι ένα πρόσωπο, ο μαρξιστικός λόγος υπό μελέτη εκπορεύεται από έναν πομπό πολυπρόσωπο και ιεραρχημένο.

Αυτό σημαίνει ότι ενυπόγραφα και ανυπόγραφα κείμενα που φαίνονται να ξεκινούν από τη γραφίδα ενός συντάκτη, στην πραγματικότητα ελέγχονται και πιθανόν τροποποιούνται από το επιτελείο του μέσου, είτε ως προς το περιεχόμενό τους, είτε ως προς το ύφος και την οργάνωσή τους. Έτσι, ο λόγος αυτός είναι στη βάση του πολυφωνικός· τόσο με την έννοια της διακειμενικότητας, καθώς το κείμενο τροφοδοτείται από άλλα κείμενα τεκμηρίωσης, όσο και με την έννοια της διαστρωμάτωσης, με τις τυχόν επανεγγραφές και παρεμβάσεις που έχει δεχθεί ως την τελική του μορφοποίηση.

Η ιδεολογική φόρτιση του μαρξιστικού λόγου διαμορφώνεται άλλοτε ως δηλωμένη προγραμματική πρόθεση των πιο μαχητικών κειμένων και άλλοτε ως φαινομενική αμεροληψία των κειμένων εκείνων που απευθύνονται σε ένα αδιαφοροποίητο κοινό. Η υπόρρητη έκφραση της ιδεολογίας κωδικοποιείται σε συγκεκριμένες γραμματικές και λεξικές επιλογές των συντακτών, όπως:

Παράλληλα, στο παραδειγματικό επίπεδο του λόγου, και ιδιαίτερα στο πλαίσιο της επιχειρηματολογίας, ανάλογο ρόλο παίζουν ορισμένες αξιολογικές παραδοχές γύρω από συναισθηματικά φορτισμένες έννοιες όπως ο λαός, το έθνος, η οικογένεια, η παράδοση, η ιστορία, η δημοκρατία και η γλώσσα. Οι παραδοχές αυτές, αν και επίμαχες, συχνά εξυπακούονται, ώστε να προκύπτουν συμπεράσματα που το κοινό μπορεί να δεχτεί αδιαμαρτύρητα ή, τουλάχιστον, να κατανοήσει χωρίς να απαιτείται η λεπτομερής στήριξή τους με επιχειρήματα.

Το ακροατήριο του μαρξιστικού λόγου υπό μελέτη έχει μια φυσιογνωμία ασυνήθιστη σε άλλες περιστάσεις επικοινωνίας. Είναι γενικά πολυπληθές, όπως δηλώνει και ο φαινομενικά αθροιστικός, στην πραγματικότητα όμως βαθιά περιφρονητικός χαρακτηρισμός «μαζικό», ετερόκλητο, μεταβαλλόμενο σε αριθμό και σύνθεση, και ουσιαστικά άγνωστο ως προς την κοινωνική και δημογραφική του ταυτότητα στους συντάκτες των κειμένων. Στα μάτια των τελευταίων πρόκειται για πολλαπλά δυνητικά ακροατήρια, γεγονός που καθορίζει την οργάνωση του περιεχομένου και την υφολογική ποικιλία του λόγου. Ωστόσο, η ανάγνωση μίας εφημερίδας ή ενός περιοδικού είναι κανονικά μοναχική, δηλαδή υπεύθυνη πράξη, κάτι που σημαίνει ότι η προσδοκία των πολλαπλών ακροατηρίων είναι λειψή, αν δεν συνυπολογιστεί και η σκοπιά του αποδέκτη· η επιλογή ενός μέσου, η πρόσληψη και η ερμηνεία της ύλης του, είναι σε τελική ανάλυση προσωπική υπόθεση.

Ο μαρξιστικός λόγος βρίσκεται υποχρεωμένος να ακροβατεί ανάμεσα στο γραμμικό χρόνο των ιστορικών γεγονότων και το μυθικό χρόνο της περιοδολογίας του, παρακολουθεί την επικαιρότητα και συνδέεται με τις συνήθειες και τις προτιμήσεις που αναπτύσσει το κοινό για την ποιότητα, την ποσότητα και τη μορφή των πληροφοριών που δέχεται, ενώ παράλληλα διαμορφώνει νέες προσδοκίες και στερεοποιείται. Ο κατατεμαχισμός του χρόνου άλλοτε επιτρέπει το καταστάλαγμα των γεγονότων και άλλοτε επιτάσσει τον άμεσο, εν θερμώ σχολιασμό. Ο ασθμαίνων, ελλειπτικός και υποδηλωτικός, συνθηματολογικός και έντονα συναισθηματικός λόγος, σύμμετρος με τον ταχύτατα εκφερόμενο λόγο της καθημερινής συνομιλίας, εναλλάσσεται τότε με τον άνετο, πληθωρικό, επεξεργασμένο με προσοχή, λεπτομερειακό και αποδεικτικό λόγο της δοκιμιογραφίας.

Στο συνταγματικό επίπεδο, η περιοδικότητα του λόγου οδηγεί σε ορισμένα χαρακτηριστικά φαινόμενα, όπως:

Στο επίπεδο του λεξιλογίου, η περιοδικότητα του λόγου οδηγεί σε άλλα χαρακτηριστικά φαινόμενα, όπως:

Πόση σχέση όμως έχουν τα παραπάνω ποιοτικά χαρακτηριστικά του μαρξιστικού λόγου με το λόγο του Marx;

Η ποσοτική ανάλυση επιβεβαιώνει ότι ο Marx και οι συνεχιστές του προσδιορίζουν τη συλλογικότητά τους με τους ίδιους όρους συμμετοχής (communism, socialism, international, party, union), δραστηριοτήτων (struggle, work, labour), στόχων (revolution, war, strike, govern, organise, move, fight, force, lead), αξιών (country, democracy, policy, develop, people) και σχέσεων (capital, bourgeois, proletariat, mass). Αυτό που διαφοροποιείται ωστόσο, είναι η ιδεολογική λειτουργία της αλλοτρίωσης στη μαρξιστική συλλογικότητα.

Θεωρούμε ότι η διαφοροποίηση πηγάζει από το γεγονός ότι ο Marx, σε αντίθεση με τους περισσότερους μαρξιστές που χρησιμοποιούν την εννοιολογία της αλλοτρίωσης εργαλειακά, βιώνει την αλλοτρίωση σε προσωπικό, συναισθηματικό επίπεδο.

Οι επιστολές του προς τον Engels κατά την περίοδο 1850-1863 αποκαλύπτουν τις δύο σημαντικότερες αιτίες εκδήλωσης της διάστασης αυτής: η οικογενειακή ζωή των Marx και η ειρηνική εναλλακτική του χαρτιστικού κινήματος (chartist movement).

Η περίοδος 1850-1863 καλύπτει το πρώτο διάστημα της εξορίας των Marx στο Λονδίνο και ξεκινά αμέσως μετά την προσωπική του μαρτυρία των αποτυχιών των journées de Juin στο Παρίσι του 1848 και τη δικαστική περιπέτεια για το έργο του στη Neue Rheinische Zeitung στην Κολωνία του 1849. Ολοκληρώνεται λίγο πριν οι Marx κληρονομήσουν τις καταθέσεις και την ακίνητη περιουσία του Wilhelm Wolff το 1864, οπότε και άλλαξε οριστικά η καθημερινότητα της οικογένειας σε μια πιο άνετη αστική ζωή.

Έχοντας σκόπιμα απαρνηθεί τις εγκόσμιες ανέσεις που του προσέφερε η ανατροφή του ιδίου και της γυναίκας του, προκειμένου να μη γεύεται τις «μικροπρεπείς, περιορισμένες, εγωιστικές χαρές»που θα τον επιβάρυναν στο πανανθρώπινο έργο του, ο Marx έρχεται καθημερινά αντιμέτωπος με το κόστος αυτών των θυσιών.

Μόνιμος χρεώστης μικρών και μεγάλων προμηθευτών της οικογένειας, ο Marx αναγκάζεται συστηματικά να επιστρατεύσει το βιομηχανικό κεφάλαιο του αστού φίλου του προκειμένου να επιπλεύσει οικονομικά. Στα διάφορα ψυχοσωματικά συμπτώματα που ταλαιπωρούν το Marx και τη Jenny, έρχονται να προστεθούν μακρές περίοδοι ασθενείας εξαιτίας των κακουχιών, των ανθυγιεινών συνθηκών διαβίωσης και του υποσιτισμού. Η οικογένεια χάνει συνολικά τέσσερα από τα παιδιά της σε αυτή την περίοδο, τον Guido (1850), την Franziska (1852), τον Edgar (1855) και ένα αβάπτιστο μωρό (1857) από διάφορες παθολογικές αιτίες.

Ο Marx εκμυστηρεύεται στον Engels τα έντονα προσωπικά συναισθήματα που τον διχάζουν ανάμεσα στην επιλογή που έκανε στα 17 του χρόνια και την αδυσώπητη πραγματικότητα της οικογενειακής ζωής του στο Λονδίνο 15 χρόνια αργότερα, σε συνδυασμό με την απαξίωση του συγγραφικού του έργου από εκδότες και αναγνώστες, που δεν αγοράζουν τα βιβλία του «ούτε για μια δεκάρα»:

‘(1851)
Full of moral indignation, she addresses me in the most insolent terms, declaring positivement that she will protest any bill I draw on her. So when 21 April comes round I shall have to expect the very worst from a thoroughly incensed old Simon Bamberger. At the same time my wife was brought to bed on 28 March. Though the confinement was an easy one, she is now very ill in bed, the causes being domestic rather than physical. And thereby I have verbalement not a farthing in the house.


(1854)
Engels, once again I must come knocking at your door, much though I detest doing so, but compelled by pressure from without. I cannot draw my bills for a few weeks yet, since in consequence of some unpleasantness he has had with Bischoffsheim in this connection, Freiligrath is no longer drawing bills of less than £25. On the whole, too, this is preferable, for while the constant drawing of small sums may cover the dette flottante, the fixed debt increases. On top of that, I shall have to deduct £8 for Freund from the next bill since, under the present circumstances, my wife will need rather more care. The extraordinary means to which the family is wont to resort at times of crisis are again exhausted and, just as in the case of the Spanish Budget everything is in pawn.


(1855)’ ‘Dear Engels, from day to day I have put off sending you a bulletin because the ups and downs of the illness were such that I changed my opinion almost hourly. Latterly, however, the illness has assumed the character, hereditary in my family, of an abdominal consumption, and even the doctor seems to have given up hope. For the past week emotional stress has made my wife iller than ever before. As for myself, though my heart is bleeding and my head afire, I must, of course, maintain my composure.

The news of this new loss has revived in my wife such vivid memories of the death of our only little son that her state of mind does not permit of her writing to you just now. She is weeping and lamenting like a child. Consolation I will not venture to offer you since I myself am and shall remain inconsolable for the loss of a friend who was more dear to me personally than any other. Grief such as this cannot be alleviated, but only shared.


(1857)
While I was upstairs busy writing my last letter to you, my wife down below was besieged by hungry wolves all of whom used the pretext of the ‘heavy times’ to dun her for money which she had not got. Luckily £15 arrived from Germany a few days afterwards, thus enabling us to shift off the evil day for a week or a fortnight.



(1858)
The general unpleasantness has made a nervous wreck of my wife, because I have to waste most of my time running round in fruitless attempts to raise money, and partly because my abstract thinking - due rather, perhaps, to my being physically run down - is no longer a match for domestic miseries.


(1859)
But I have got to pursue my object through thick and thin and not allow bourgeois society to turn me into a money-making machine. Mr Cluss was over here last May. I happened to be staying with Engels in Manchester at the time. Cluss called on my wife and accepted an invitation for the following day; and who failed to put in an appearance? Why, Cluss! He disappeared from London and never showed his face again. Instead he sent my wife a scrawl to which embarrassment had given an uncouth tournure. He didn’t turn up in Manchester either.


(1861)
My wife is now convalescing. Her illness resulted in my falling seriously ill myself; and, at present, I am suffering from inflammation of the liver. And a very nice New Year’s gift too! Hitherto, the complaint has merely been chronic. Now it is becoming acute. This is the explanation for my silence.

This created a vast amount of trouble, as did raising enough money for me to get away at all. Have paid quite small sums on account to the most pressing creditors; in the case of others such as the grocer, I invoked the American crisis and obtained a respite, but only on condition that my wife paid weekly during my absence. In addition, she has to pay £2 in rates next week.


(1862)
The fellow has wasted my time and, what is more, the dolt opined that, since I was not engaged upon any business just now, but merely upon a theoretical work, I might just as well kill time with him! In order to keep up certain dehors vis-à-vis the fellow, my wife had to put in pawn everything that wasn’t actually nailed or bolted down! Had I not been in this appalling position and vexed by the way this parvenu flaunted his money bags, he’d have amused me tremendously.

The idea of pouring out my misère to you again sickens me, but que faire? Every day my wife says she wishes she and the children were safely in their graves, and I really cannot blame her, for the humiliations, torments and alarums that one has to go through in such a situation are indeed indescribable.

I won’t say anything about what, in London, is the truly parlous situation of being without a centime for 7 weeks - since for us it is a chronically recurring state of affairs. But from your own experience, you will at any rate know that, all the time, there are current expenses that have to be paid in cash. This has been done by putting back in pawn the stuff that had been redeemed at the end of April. But that source was exhausted weeks ago, so much so that, a week ago, my wife attempted to sell some books of mine in vain. I feel all the more sorry for the unfortunate children in that all this is happening during the Exhibition Season, when their friends are having fun, whereas they themselves live in dread lest someone should come and see them and realise what a mess they are in. For the rest, I myself, by the by, am working away hard and, strange to say, my grey matter is functioning better in the midst of the surrounding misère than it has done for years.


(1863)
The landlord had put a broker in my house, the butcher had protested a bill, coal and provisions were in short supply, and little Jenny was confined to bed. Generally, under such circumstances, my only recourse is cynicism. What particularly enraged me was the fact that my wife believed I had failed to give you an adequate account of the real state of affairs.

The waste of precious time and the keeping up of false appearances is as harmful to myself as it is to the children. Since then we have been through three weeks such as have at last induced my wife to fall in with a suggestion I had made long ago and which, for all the unpleasantness it involves, not only represents the only way out, but is also preferable to the life we have led for the past three years, the last one in particular.

Over and over again, I told my wife that the mess we were in was as nothing to me compared with the fact that these bourgeois pinpricks and her peculiar exasperation had, at such a moment, rendered me capable of assailing you with my private needs instead of trying to comfort you. Domestic peace was consequently much disrupted, and the poor woman had to suffer for something of which she was in fact innocent, for women are wont to ask for the impossible.
She did not, of course, have any inkling of what I had written, but a little reflection should have told her that something of the kind must be the result. Women are funny creatures, even those endowed with much intelligence.’

Ο ιδιωτικός, προσωπικός λόγος του Marx που συναντούμε σε αυτές τις επιστολές, συνοδεύεται κατά το ίδιο χρονικό διάστημα από τη διαφοροποίηση του δημόσιου λόγου του, ο οποίος αποκτά ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά κυνισμού και σκεπτικισμού στα όρια αυτού που αργότερα ονομάστηκε ρεβιζιονισμός. Ο Marx αναθεωρεί πρώιμες απόψεις του στη βάση των αποτυχιών του εργατικού κινήματος του 1848-49 και επικεντρώνεται στην έννοια της ιστορικής αναγκαιότητας σε μία προσπάθεια να ερμηνεύσει την ανθεκτικότητα του συστήματος απέναντι στην επαναστατική δράση.

‘Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre. Precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
(Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, 1852)’

Ο λόγος του περιέχει πλέον στοιχεία αμφιβολίας απέναντι σε ένοπλα κινήματα που, στην προσπάθειά τους να εκμεταλλευτούν ιδεολογικά το ένδοξο ιστορικό επαναστατικό παρελθόν του 1789, αναβίωσαν και την αντεπαναστατική του κατάληξη, με την ανάδειξη στην εξουσία του Napoleon III ως κακέκτυπο του Napoleon I. Υπήρχε λοιπόν ειρηνική εναλλακτική στην επαναστατική δράση;

Η καθημερινή επαφή του Marx με το χαρτιστικό κίνημα, στο οποίο ο Engels ήταν θετικά προσκείμενος από το 1845, μετά την εγκατάστασή του στο Λονδίνο, τον οδήγησε στο συμπέρασμα ότι υπήρχε κοινοβουλευτική εναλλακτική στην ένοπλη δικτατορία του προλεταριάτου, τουλάχιστον για τις πλέον προηγμένες - με όρους καπιταλισμού - χώρες της Ευρώπης.

Οι χαρτιστές θεωρούσαν ότι ο οικονομικός ταξικός αγώνας ενάντια στο κεφάλαιο δεν αρκούσε για να τους προστατέψει από τις νέες μορφές καταπίεσης και αυξανόμενης εκμετάλλευσης. Το καπιταλιστικό σύστημα είχε αποδείξει ότι οι νίκες επιτυγχάνονται με πολιτική δράση και κατάληψη της κοινοβουλευτικής εξουσίας. Η απάντηση έμοιαζε απλή: με την ψήφιση των αντιπροσώπων της, η νέα κοινοβουλευτική δύναμη θα μπορούσε να αξιοποιηθεί προς όφελος της εργατικής τάξης.

Το αίτημα για ένα Λαϊκό Χάρτη (Λαϊκό Σύνταγμα) έξι σημείων που θα δημιουργούσε τις δημοκρατικές συνθήκες εκλογής των εργατικών εκπροσώπων στο κοινοβούλιο, έδωσε στο κίνημα το όνομά του:

  1. Γενικό εκλογικό δικαίωμα για όλους τους άντρες από το 21ο έτος της ηλικίας τους (στο πρώτο σχέδιο του Χάρτη, είχε προβλεφθεί και το εκλογικό δικαίωμα των γυναικών, το οποίο αναιρέθηκε κατά τη διάρκεια της συζήτησης που ακολούθησε).
  2. Μυστική ψηφοφορία (εφαρμόστηκε το 1872).
  3. Πληρωμή επιδομάτων στους βουλευτές, ώστε να δίνεται η δυνατότητα συμμετοχής απόρων εργατών στις εργασίες του κοινοβουλίου (εφαρμόστηκε το 1911).
  4. Κατάργηση του κριτηρίου έγγειας ιδιοκτησίας για τους βουλευτές, το οποίο όριζε ως εκλέξιμους μόνο τους υποψήφιους που κατείχαν γαίες αξίας 300 λιρών (το 1918 καταργήθηκε κάθε κριτήριο ιδιοκτησίας στο αγγλικό εκλογικό δίκαιο).
  5. Καταμερισμός σε όμοιες εκλογικές περιφέρειες, καθώς υπήρχαν εκλογικές περιφέρειες με ελάχιστους ή καθόλου κατοίκους - οι επονομαζόμενες σάπιες περιφέρειες (rotten borroughs) - οι οποίες ωστόσο μπορούσαν να εκλέξουν τον ίδιο αριθμό βουλευτών με τις πλέον πυκνοκατοικημένες εργατικές συνοικίες του Λονδίνου (το αίτημα αυτό έγινε πράξη σταδιακά από το 1885 μέχρι το 1915).
  6. Ετήσιες βουλευτικές εκλογές (αυτό το μη ρεαλιστικό αίτημα δεν μπόρεσε ποτέ να πραγματοποιηθεί).

«Αυτά τα έξι σημεία, που περιορίζονται όλα στη σύνθεση της Κάτω Βουλής μπορεί να μοιάζουν αθώα, αλλά ωστόσο αρκούν για να συντρίψουν το αγγλικό Σύνταγμα με τη Βασίλισσα και την Άνω Βουλή μαζί.» (Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845)

Για το αναλυτικό πνεύμα του Marx, οι μελλοντικές δημοκρατικές επιτυχίες του κινήματος ήταν θέμα χρόνου και η σύμπραξή του μία ιστορική επιταγή. Ταυτόχρονα όμως με τον ενθουσιασμό της ειρηνικής εναλλακτικής, εκφράζεται η αίσθηση της προδοσίας προς τις αρχές του ένοπλου αγώνα που οδήγησαν στα γεγονότα του 1848-49.

‘(Karl Marx, άρθρο στην εφημερίδα The New York Tribune, 1852)

The Chartist Movement

While the Tories, the Whigs, the Peelites—in fact, all the parties we have hitherto commented upon—belong more or less to the past, the Free Traders (the men of the Manchester School, the Parliamentary and financial reformers) are the official representatives of modern English society, the representatives of that England which rules the market of the world. They represent the party of the self-conscious bourgeoisie, of industrial capital striving to make available its social power as a political power as well, and to eradicate the last arrogant remnants of feudal society. This party is led on by the most active and most energetic portion of the English bourgeoisie—the manufacturers.


What they demand is the complete and undisguised ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, the open, official subjection of society at large under the laws of modern bourgeois production, and under the rule of those men who are the directors of that production. By Free Trade they mean the unfettered movement of capital, freed from all political, national and religious shackles. The soil is to be a marketable commodity, and the exploitation of the soil is to be carried on according to the common commercial laws. There are to be manufactures of food as well as manufactures of twist and cottons, but no longer any lords of the land.

There are, in short, not to be tolerated any political or social restrictions, regulations or monopolies, unless they proceed from "the eternal laws of political economy," that is, from the conditions under which capital produces and distributes. The struggle of this party against the old English institutions, products of a superannuated, an evanescent stage of social development, is resumed in the watchword: Produce as cheap as you can, and do away with all the faux frais of production (with all superfluous, unnecessary expenses in production). And this watchword is addressed not only to the private individual, but to the nation at large principally.

Royalty, with its "barbarous splendours," its court, its Civil List and its flunkeys—what else does it belong to but to the faux frais of production? The nation can produce and exchange without royalty; away with the crown. The sinecures of the nobility, the House of Lords? faux frais of production. The large standing army? faux frais of production. The Colonies? faux frais of production. The State church, with its riches, the spoils of plunder or of mendicity? faux frais of production. Let parsons compete freely with each other, and everyone pay them according to his own wants. The whole circumstantial routine of English law, with its Court of Chancery? faux frais of production. National wars? faux frais of production. England can exploit foreign nations more cheaply while at peace with them.

You see, to these champions of the British bourgeoisie, to the men of the Manchester School, every institution of old England appears in the light of a piece of machinery as costly as it is useless, and which fulfils no other purpose but to prevent the nation from producing the greatest possible quantity at the least possible expense and to exchange its products in freedom. Necessarily their last word is the bourgeois republic, in which free competition rules supreme in all spheres of life; in which there remains altogether that minimum only of government which is indispensable for the administration, internally and externally, of the common class-interest and business of the bourgeoisie, and where this minimum of government is as soberly, as economically, organised as possible. Such a party in other countries would be called democratic.
But it is necessarily revolutionary, and the complete annihilation of Old England as an aristocratic country is the end which it follows up with more or less consciousness. Its nearest object, however, is the attainment of a Parliamentary reform which should transfer to its hands the legislative power necessary for such a revolution.

But the British bourgeois are not excitable Frenchmen. When they intend to carry a Parliamentary reform they will not make a Revolution of February. On the contrary. Having obtained, in 1846, a grand victory over the landed aristocracy by the repeal of the Corn Laws, they were satisfied with following up the material advantages of this victory, while they neglected to draw the necessary political and economical conclusions from it, and thus enabled the Whigs to reinstate themselves into their hereditary monopoly of government.

During all the time from 1846 to 1852, they exposed themselves to ridicule by their battle-cry—broad principles and practical (read small) measures. And why all this? Because in every violent movement they are obliged to appeal to the working class. And if the aristocracy is their vanishing opponent, the working class is their arising enemy. They prefer to compromise with their vanishing opponent rather than to strengthen the arising enemy, to whom the future belongs, by concessions of more than apparent importance. Therefore, they strive to avoid every forcible collision with the aristocracy; but historical necessity and the Tories press them onwards. They cannot avoid fulfilling their mission, battering to pieces Old England, the England of the past, and the very moment when they will have conquered exclusive political dominion, when political dominion and economical supremacy will be united in the same hands, when, therefore, the struggle against capital will no longer be distinct from the struggle against the existing government—from that very moment will date the social revolution of England.

We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class. The six points of the Charter which they contend for contain nothing but the demand of universal suffrage and of the conditions without which universal suffrage would be illusory for the working class: such as the ballot, payment of members, annual general elections. But universal suffrage is the equivalent for political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat form the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.
Its inevitable result here, is the political supremacy of the working class.

I shall report, on another occasion, on the revival and reorganisation of the Chartist Party. For the present I have only to treat of the recent election.

To be a voter for the British Parliament, a man must occupy, in the Boroughs, a house rated at £10 to the poor's rate, and, in the counties he must be a freeholder to the annual amount of 40 shillings or a leaseholder to the amount of £50. From this statement alone it follows that the Chartists could take, officially, but little part in the electoral battle just concluded. In order to explain the actual part they took in it, I must recall to mind a peculiarity of the British electoral system: Nomination day and Declaration day! Show of hands and Poll!

When the candidates have made their appearance on the day of election, and have publicly harangued the people, they are elected, in the first instance, by the show of hands, and every hand has the right to be raised, the hand of the non-elector as well as that of the elector. For whomsoever the majority of the hands are raised, that person is declared by the returning officer to be (provisionally) elected by show of hands. But now the medal shows its reverse.

The election by show of hands was a mere ceremony, an act of formal politeness toward the "sovereign people," and the politeness ceases as soon as privilege is menaced. For if the show of hands does not return the candidates of the privileged electors, these candidates demand a poll; only the privileged electors can take part in the poll, and whosoever has there the majority of votes is declared duly elected. The first election, by show of hands, is a show satisfaction allowed, for a moment, to public opinion, in order to convince it, the next moment, the more strikingly of its impotency.

It might appear that this election by show of hands, this dangerous formality, had been invented in order to ridicule universal suffrage, and to enjoy some little aristocratic fun at the expense of the "rabble" (expression of Major Beresford, Secretary of War). But this would be a delusion, and the old usage, common originally to all Teutonic nations, could drag itself traditionally down to the nineteenth century, because it gave to the British class Parliament, cheaply and without danger, an appearance of popularity.

The ruling classes drew from this usage the satisfaction that the mass of the people took part, with more or less passion, in their sectional interests as its national interests. And it was only since the bourgeoisie took an independent station at the side of the two official parties, the Whigs and the Tories, that the working masses stood up, on the nomination days in their own name. But in no former year has the contrast of show of hands and poll, of Nomination day and Declaration day, been so serious, so well-defined by opposed principles, so threatening, so general, upon the whole surface of the country as in this last election of 1852.

And what a contrast! It was sufficient to be named by show of hands in order to be beaten at the poll. It was sufficient to have had the majority at a poll, in order to be saluted, by the people, with rotten apples and brick-bats.

The duly elected members of Parliament, before all, had a great deal to do, in order to keep their own parliamentary bodily-selves in safety. On one side the majority of the people, on the other the twelfth-part of the whole population, and the fifth-part of the sum total of the male adult inhabitants of the country. On one side enthusiasm, on the other side bribery. On one side parties disowning their own distinctive signs, Liberals pleading the conservatism, Conservatives proclaiming the liberalism of their views; on the other, the people, proclaiming their presence and pleading their own cause. On one side a warn-out engine which, turning incessantly in its vicious circle, is never able to move a single step forward, and the impotent process of friction by which all the official parties gradually grind each other into dust; on the other, the advancing mass of the nation, threatening to blow up the vicious circle and to destroy the official engine.

I shall not follow up, over all the surface of the country, this contrast between nomination and poll, of the threatening electoral demonstration of the working class, and the timid electioneering manœvures of the ruling classes. I take one borough from the mass, where the contrast is concentrated in a focus: the Halifax Election. Here the opposing candidates were: Edwards (Tory), Sir Charles Wood (late Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer, brother-in-law to Earl Grey), Frank Crossley (Manchester man), and finally Ernest Jones, the most talented, consistent and energetic representative of Chartism.


Halifax being a manufacturing town, the Tory had little chance. The Manchester man, Crossley, was leagued with the Whigs. The serious struggle, then, lay only between Wood and Jones; between the Whig and the Chartist.

Sir Charles Wood made a speech about half-an-hour, perfectly inaudible at the commencement, and during its latter half, to the disapprobation of the immense multitude. His speech, as reported by the reporter, who sat close to him, was merely a recapitulation of the Free Trade measures passed, and an attack on Lord Derby's government, and a laudation of "the unexampled prosperity of the country and the people"! ("Hear, hear.") He did not propound one single new measure of reform, and but faintly, in very few words, hinted at Lord John Russell's bill for the franchise.

I give a more extensive abstract of Ernest Jones's speech, as you will not find it in any of the great London ruling-class papers. Ernest Jones, who was received with immense enthusiasm, then spoke as follows:—

"Electors and non-electors, you have met upon a great and solemn festival. To-day the Constitution recognises universal suffrage in theory that it may, perhaps, deny it in practice on the morrow. To-day the representatives of two systems stand before you, and you have to decide beneath which you shall be ruled for seven years. Seven years—a little life! I summon you to pause upon the threshold of those seven years; to-day they shall pass slowly and calmly in review before you; to-day decide, you 20,000 men! that perhaps five hundred may undo your will to-morrow. ("Hear, hear.")

"I say the representatives of two systems stand before you. Whig, Tory and moneymongers are on my left, it is true; but they are all as one. The moneymonger says, buy cheap and sell dear. The Tory says, buy dear, sell dearer. Both are the same for labour. But the former system is in the ascendant, and pauperism rankles at its root. That system is based on foreign competition. Now, I assert, that under the buy cheap and sell dear principle, brought to bear on foreign competition, the ruin of the working and small trading classes must go on. Why? Labour is the creator of all wealth. A man must work before a grain is grown, or a yard is woven. But there is no self-employment for the working man in this country. Labour is a hired commodity—labour is a thing in the market that is bought and sold; consequently, as labour creates all wealth, labour is the first thing bought—'Buy cheap, buy cheap! Labour is bought in the cheapest market. But now comes the next: 'Sell dear, sell dear!' Sell what? Labour's produce. To whom?—to the foreigner—aye! and to the labourer himself—for labour, not being self-employed, the labourer is NOT the partaker of the first-fruits of his toil.

"'Buy cheap, sell dear.' How do you like it? 'Buy cheap, sell dear.' Buy the working man's labour cheaply and sell back to that very working man the produce of his own labour dear! The principle of inherent loss is in the bargain.
The employer buys the labour cheap—he sells, and on the sale he must make a profit; he sells to the working man himself—and thus every bargain between employer and the employed is a deliberate cheat on the part of the employer. Thus labour has to sink through eternal loss, that capital may rise through lasting fraud.

"But the system stops not here. This is brought to bear on foreign competition—which means, we must ruin the trade of other countries, as we have ruined the labour of our own. How does it work? The high-taxed country has to undersell the low-taxed. Competition abroad is constantly increasing—consequently cheapness must increase constantly also. Therefore, wages in England must keep constantly falling. And how do they effect the fall? By surplus labour. And how do they obtain the surplus labour? By monopoly of the land which drives more hands than are wanted into the factory. By monopoly of machinery which drives those hands into the street—by woman labour which drives the man from the shuttle—by child labour which drives the women from the loom. Then planting their foot upon that living base of surplus they press its aching heart beneath their heel and cry—'Starvation. Who will work? A half-loaf is better than no bread at all'—and the writhing mass grasps greedily at their terms. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.")

"Such is the system for the working man. But, electors! how does it operate on you? How does it affect home trade, the shopkeeper, poor's rate and taxation? For every increase of competition abroad, there must be an increase of cheapness at home. Every increase of cheapness in labour is based on increase of labour surplus, and this surplus is obtained by an increase of machinery. I repeat, how does this operate on you? The Manchester Liberal on my left establishes a new patent and throws three hundred men as a surplus in the streets. Shopkeepers! Three hundred customers less. Ratepayers! Three hundred paupers more! (Loud cheers.)

"But, mark me. The evil stops not there. These three hundred men operate first to bring down the wages of those who remain at work in their own trade. The employer says: 'Now I reduce your wages.' The men demur. Then he adds: 'Do you see these three hundred men who have just walked out you may change places if you like, they are sighing to come in on any terms, for they are starving.' The men feel it, and are crushed. Oh! you Manchester Liberal! Pharisee of politics! Those men are listening—have I got you now?

"But the evil stops not yet. Those men, driven from their own trade, seek employment in others when they swell the surplus and bring wages down. The low-paid trades of to-day were the high paid once—and the high-paid of to-day will be the low-paid soon.
Thus the purchasing power of the working classes is diminished every day, and with it dies home trade. Mark it, shopkeepers, your customers grow poorer and your profits less, while your paupers grow more numerous and your poor's rates and your taxes rise. Your receipts are smaller, your expenditure is more large. You get less and pay more. How do you like the system? On you the rich manufacturer and landlord throws the weight of poor's rate and taxation. Men of the middle class! You are the tax-paying machine of the rich. They create the poverty that creates their riches, and they make you pay for the poverty they have created. The landlord escapes it by privilege, the manufacturer by repaying himself out of the wages of his men, and that reacts on you. How do you like the system?

"Well, that is the system upheld by the gentlemen on my left. What then do I propose? I have shown the wrong. That is something. But I do more. I stand here to show the right, and prove it so." (Loud cheers.)

Ernest Jones then went on to expose his own views on political and economical reform, and continued as follows:—

"Electors and non-electors! I have now brought before you some of the social and political measures, the immediate adoption of which I advocate now, as I did in 1847. But, because I tried to extend YOUR liberties, MINE were curtailed. ('Hear, hear:') Because I tried to rear the temple of freedom for you all, I was thrown into the cell of a felon's jail; and there, on my left, sits one of my chief jailers. (Loud and continued groans, directed towards the left.) Because I tried to give voice to truth, I was condemned to silence. For two years and one week he cast me into a prison in solitary confinement on the silent system, without pen, ink or paper, but oakum picking as a substitute. Ah! (turning to Sir Charles Wood), it was your turn for two years and one week; it is mine this day. I summon the angel of retribution from the heart of every Englishman here present. (An immense burst of applause.) Hark! You feel the fanning of his wings in the breath of this vast multitude. (Renewed cheering, long continued.) You may say this is not a public question. But it is. ("Hear, hear.") It is a public question, for the man who cannot feel for the wife of the prisoner, will not feel for the wife of the working man. He who will not feel for the children of the captive, will not feel for the children of the labour slave. ("Hear, hear," and cheers.) His past life proves it, his promise of to-day does not contradict it. Who voted for Irish coercion, the gagging bill and tampering with the Irish Press? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Who voted fifteen times against Hume's motion for the franchise; Locke King's on the counties; Ewart's for short Parliaments; and Berkeley's for the ballot? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Who voted against the release of Frost, Williams and Jones? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out!
Who voted against reducing the Duke of Cambridge's salary of £12,000, against all reductions in the army and navy; against the repeal of the window tax, and forty-eight times against every other reduction of taxation, his own salary included? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Who voted against the repeal of the paper duty, the advertisement duty, and the taxes on knowledge? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Who voted for the batches of new bishops, vicar rare, the Maynooth grant, against its reduction and against absolving dissenters from paying Church rates? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Who voted against all inquiry into the adulteration of food? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Who voted against lowering the duty on sugar, and repealing the tax on malt? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Who voted against shortening the nightwork of bakers, against inquiry into the condition of frame-work knitters, against medical inspectors of workhouses, against preventing little children from working before six in the morning, against parish relief for pregnant women of the poor and against the Ten Hours Bill? The Whig—there he sits; turn him out! Turn him out in the name of humanity and of God! Men of Halifax! Men of England! The two systems are before you. Now judge and choose!"

It is impossible to describe the enthusiasm kindled by this speech, and especially at the close; the voice of the vast multitude, held in breathless suspense during each paragraph, came at each pause like the thunder of a returning wave, in execration of the representative of Whiggery and class-rule. Altogether it was a scene that will long be unforgotten. On the show of hands being taken, very few and those chiefly of the hired or intimidated, were held up for Sir C. Wood; but almost everyone present raised both hands for Ernest Jones, amidst cheering and enthusiasm it would be impossible to describe.

The Mayor declared Mr. Ernest Jones and Mr. Henry Edwards to be elected by show of hands. Sir. C. Wood and Mr. Crossley then demanded a poll.

What Jones had predicted took place; he was nominated by 20,000 votes; but the Whig (Sir Charles Wood) and the Manchester man (Crossley) were elected by 500 votes.





(Karl Marx, Γράμμα στον Engels, 1856)

The day before yesterday a little banquet took place to celebrate the anniversary of The People’s Paper. On this occasion, the times seeming to require it, I accepted the invitation, the more so since I alone of the whole emigration was invited, and the first toast also fell to me. I was asked to propose one to the souveraineté du prolétariat dans tous les pays. So I made a short speech in English, which, however, I shall not allow to appear in print. The end I sought has been achieved. Mr Talandier, who had to pay 2/6d for his ticket, is now convinced, like the rest of the French and other émigré crews, that we are the Chartists’ only intimate allies and that, though we may hold aloof from public demonstrations and leave it to the Frenchmen to flirt openly with Chartism, it is always in our power to resume the position already allotted to us by history.

As for us, the worst of it is that, looming in the future, I see something that looks like ‘high treason’. Whether we are forced into the same kind of position as the Mainz Clubbists in the old revolution will largely depend on the tournure things take in Berlin. Ça sera dur. We, who are so enlightened about our good frères from across the Rhine! The whole thing in Germany will depend on whether it is possible to back the Proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasants war. In which case the affair should go swimmingly.’

Ωστόσο, η πρόσκαιρη αποτυχία των χαρτιστών στις επιδιώξεις τους έως το 1864, που οφειλόταν σε μεγάλο βαθμό στις εσωτερικές διαμάχες του κινήματος που άγγιξε τη διάλυση, καθώς και η βελτίωση των συνθηκών διαβίωσης των Marx κατά την ίδια περίοδο, άλλαξαν δραματικά τον τρόπο εκδήλωσης της εσωτερικής του διαμάχης. Δεν θα αναθεωρούσε παρά μονάχα στα τελευταία χρόνια της ζωής του, έπειτα από τις πρώτες επιτυχίες του κινήματος.

Για το 1864 και την επόμενη δεκαετία όμως, ο Marx στρατεύεται εκ νέου, ιδρύοντας και υποστηρίζοντας τη Διεθνή Εργατική Ένωση ως βάση πολιτικής δράσης και δική του οδό διαφυγής από την «απραξία των προαστίων». Ο δημόσιος λόγος του ριζοσπαστικοποιείται. Ο Marx γίνεται μαρξιστής.