Karl Marx : A Profile |
Top |
Karl Marx was born and
educated in Prussia, where he fell under the influence of
Ludwig Feuerbach and other radical Hegelians. Although he shared
Hegel's
belief in dialectical structure and historical inevitability, Marx held
that the foundations of reality lay in the
material base of economics rather than in the abstract thought of
idealistic philosophy. He earned a doctorate at Jena in 1841, writing on
the materialism and atheism of Greek atomists, then moved to Köln, where
he founded and edited a radical newspaper, Rheinische Zeitung.
Although he also attempted to earn a living as a journalist in Paris and
Brussels, Marx's participation in unpopular political movements made it
difficult to support his growing family. He finally settled in London in
1849, where he lived in poverty while studying and developing his
economic and political theories. Above all else, Marx believed that
philosophy ought to be employed in practice to change the world.
The core of Marx's economic analysis found early
expression in the Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte aus dem
Jahre 1844 (Economic
and Political Manuscripts of 1844) (1844). There, Marx
argued that
the conditions of modern industrial societies invariably result in
the estrangement (or
alienation) of workers from their own labor. In his review of a
Bruno Baier book,
On the Jewish
Question (1844), Marx decried the lingering influence
of religion over politics and proposed a revolutionary re-structuring of
European society. Much later, Marx undertook a systematic explanation of
his economic theories in Das Capital (Capital)
(1867-95) and Theorien Über den Mehrwert (Theory of
Surplus Value) (1862).
Marx and his colleague
Friedrich Engels issued the Manifest der kommunistischen
Partei (Communist
Manifesto) (1848) in the explicit hope of
precipitating social revolution. This work describes
the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie,
distinguishes communism from other socialist movements, proposes a list
of specific social reforms, and urges all workers to unite in revolution
against existing regimes. (You may wish to compare this prophetic
document with the later exposition of similar principles in
Lenin's
State and
Revolution (1919).)
|
History is economics in action |
Top |
History is economics in action.
—Karl
Marx
"And now as to myself,
no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in
modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me
bourgeois historians had described the historical development of
this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy
of classes. What I did that was new was to prove:
(1) that the existence
of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases
in the development of production [See:
Historical Materialism]
(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
(3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to
the abolition of all classes and to a
classless society.
Karl
Marx
Letter to Weydemeyer
March 5, 1852
Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 , in the city of
Trier in
Rheinish Prussia. His family was Jewish, but converted to
Protestanism in 1824. The family was
petty-bourgeois; his father was a lawyer. After graduating from
a Gymnasium (High School) in Trier, Marx entered the university,
first at Bonn and later in Berlin, where he read law, majoring in
history and philosophy. He concluded his university course in 1841,
submitting a doctoral thesis on the philosophy of Epicurus. At the
time Marx was a Hegelian
idealist in his views. In Berlin, he belonged to the circle of "Left
Hegelians" (with
Bruno Bauer and others) who sought to draw atheistic and
revolutionary conclusions from Hegel’s philosophy.
Ludwig Feuerbach began to criticize theology, particularly after
1836, and he began his turn to
materialism, which in 1841 gained ascendancy in his philosophy (The
Essence of Christianity).
After graduating from university, Marx moved to
Bonn, hoping to become a professor. However, the
reactionary policy of the government made Marx abandon the idea
of an academic career, after Ludwig Feuerbach had been deprived of
his chair in 1832 (and who was not allowed to return to the
university in 1836); and in 1841 the government had forbade the
young Professor Bruno Bauer to lecture at Bonn.
At the begining on 1842, some
radical bourgeois in the Rhineland (Cologne), who were in touch
with the Left Hegelians, founded a paper in opposition to the
Prussian government, called the
Rheinische Zeitung. Marx and Bruno Bauer were invited to be the
chief contributors, and in October 1842 Marx became editor-in-chief
and moved from Bonn to Cologne.
The newspaper’s revolutionary-democratic trend
became more and more pronounced under Marx’s editorship, and the
government first imposed double and triple censorship on the paper,
and then on January 1 1843 suppressed it. Marx was forced to resign
the editorship before that date, but his resignation did not save
the paper, which suspended publication in March 1843. Of the major
articles Marx contributed to Rheinische Zeitung, Engels notes, an
article on the condition of peasant winegrowers in the Moselle
Valley. Marx’s journalistic activities convinced him that he was
insufficiently acquainted with political economy, and he zealously
set out to study it. (See:
Marx’s articles for the Rheinische Zeitung)
In 1843, Marx married, at Kreuznach, a childhood
friend he had become engaged to while still a student. His wife came
from a bourgeois family of the Prussian nobility, her elder brother
being Prussia’s Minister of the Interior during an extremely
reactionary period — 1850-58.
In the autumn of 1843, Marx went to Paris in order
to publish a radical journal abroad, together with
Arnold Ruge (1802-1880). Only one issue of this journal,
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, appeared. Publication was
discontinued owing to the difficulty of secretly distributing it in
Germany, and to disagreement with Ruge. Marx’s articles in this
journal showed that he was already a revolutionary who advocated
"merciless criticism of everything existing", and in particular the
"criticism by weapon", and appealed to the masses and to the
proletariat.
Also in 1843, Feuerbach wrote his famous
Principles of the Philosophy of the Future. "One must have
experienced for oneself the liberating effect" of these books,
Engels subsequently wrote. "We [i.e., the Left Hegelians] all became
at once Feuerbachians."
In September 1844,
Frederick Engels came to Paris for a few days, and from that
time on became Marx’s closest friend. Shortly after meeting, Marx
and Engels worked together to produce the first mature work of
Marxism —
The German Ideology. In this work, largely produced in response
to Feuerbach’s materialism, Marx and Engels set down the foundations
of
Marxism with the
materialistic conception of history, and broke from Left
Hegelian idealism with a critique against Bruno Bauer and Max
Stirner. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways;" Marx wrote in an
outline for the begining of the book, " the point is to
change it."
In the mid to late-1840s both Marx and Engels took a
most active part in the then seething life of the revolutionary
groups in Paris (of particular importance at the time was
Proudhon's doctrine), which Marx broke into pieces in his
Poverty of Philosophy, (1847).
At the insistent request of the Prussian government,
Marx was banished from Paris in 1845, considered by both governments
a dangerous revolutionary. Marx then moved to Brussels. In the
spring of 1847 Marx and Engels joined a secret propaganda society
called the
Communist League. Marx and Engels took a prominent part in the
League’s Second Congress (London, November 1847), at whose request
they drew up the
Communist Manifesto, which appeared in February 1848. With
outstanding clarity, this work outlines a new world-conception based
on
materialism. This document analysises the realm of social life;
the theory of the class struggle; the tasks of the
Communists; and the revolutionary role of the proletariat — the
creators of a new,
communist society.
On the outbreak of the Revolution of February 1848,
Marx was banished from Belgium. He returned to Paris, whence, after
the March Revolution, he went to Cologne, Germany, where
Neue Rheinische Zeitung was published from June 1 1848 to May 19
1849, with Marx as editor-in-chief. The victorious
counter-revolution first instigated court proceedings against Marx
(he was acquitted on February 9, 1849), and then banished him from
Germany (May 16, 1849). First Marx went to Paris, where he was again
banished after the demonstration of June 13, 1849, and then went to
London, where he lived until his death.
Marx’s life as a political exile was an extremely
difficult one, as the correspondence between Marx and Engels clearly
reveals. Poverty weighed heavily on Marx and his family; had it not
been for Engels’ constant and selfless financial aid, Marx would not
only have been unable to complete
Capital but would have inevitably have been crushed by hunger
and malnutrition.
The revival of the democratic movements in the late
fifties and in the sixties thrusted Marx back into political work.
In 1864 (September 28) the
International Working Men’s Association — the First
International — was founded in London. Marx was the heart and soul
of this organization, and author of its
first address and of a host of resolutions, declaration and
manifestos. In uniting the labor movement of various forms of
non-proletarian socialism (Mazzini, Proudhon,
Bakunin, liberal trade-unionism in Britain,
Lassallean deviations to the right, etc.), and in combating the
theories of all these sects and schools, Marx here hammered out
uniform tactics for the proletarian struggle of the working in the
various countries. (See Marx’s writings for the
First International)
Following the downfall of the
Paris Commune (1871) — of which Marx gave a clear-cut
materialistic analysis of these events in
The Civil War In France, 1871 — and the Bakunin cleavage in the
International (See:
Marx’s conflict with Bakunin), the organization could no longer
exist in Europe. After the
Hague Congress of the International (1872), the General Council
of the International had played its historical part, and now made
way for a period of a far greater development of the labor movement
in all countries in the world, a period in which the movement grew
in scope, and mass socialist working-class parties in individual
national states were formed.
Marx’s health became undermined by his strenuous
work in the International and his still more strenuous writings and
organising. He continued work on the refashioning of political
economy and on the completion of Capital, for which he collected a
mass of new material and studied a number of languages (Russian, for
instance; Marx was fully fluent in German, French, and English).
However, ill-health prevented him from completing the last two
volumes of Capital (which Engels subsequently put together from
Marx’s notes).
Marx’s wife died on December 2, 1881, and on March
14, 1883, Marx passed away peacefully in his armchair. He lies
buried next to his wife at Highgate Cemetery in London.
by
V.I. Lenin (Edited)
Source :
Granat Encyclopedia: Karl Marx
Chpt 1: Karl Marx
|
Works of Frederick Engels 1877 |
Top |
Karl Marx
Written: mid-June 1877;
First published: in Volks-Kalender,
Brunswick, 1878;
Source: On Marx;
Publisher: Foreign Languages Press, Peking
(1975).
Karl Marx, the man who was
first to give socialism, and thereby the whole labour movement of our
day, a scientific foundation, was born at Trier in 1818. He studied in
Bonn and Berlin, at first taking up law, but he soon devoted himsslf
exclusively to the study of history and philosophy, and in 1842 was on
the point of establishing himself as an assistant professor in
philosophy when the political movement which had arisen since the death
of Frederick William III directed his life into a different channel.
With his collaboration, the leaders of the Rhenish liberal bourgeoisie,
the Camphausens, Hansemanns, etc., had founded the Rheinische
Zeitung in Cologne, and in the autumn of 1842, Marx, whose
criticism of the proceedings of the Rhenish Landtag (or
Provincial Diet) had excited very great attention, was put at the head
of the paper. The Rheinische Zeitung naturally appeared under
censorship, but the censorship could not cope with it.
[The first censor of the
Rheinische Zeitung
was Police Councillor Dolleschall, the same man who once struck out an
advertisement in the Kölnische
Zeittung of the translation of Dante's
Divine Comedy by
Philalethes
(later King John of Saxony) with the remark: “One must not make a comedy
of divine affairs.” [Note by Engels]
The Rheinische Zeitung almost always got the articles which
mattered through; the censor was first supplied with insignificant
fodder for him to strike out, until he either gave way of himself or was
compelled to give way by the threat that then the paper would not appear
the next day. Ten newspapers with the same courage as the Rheinische
Zeitung and whose publishers would have allowed a few hundred
thalers extra to be expended on type setting — and the censorship would
have been made impossible in Germany as early as 1843. But the German
newspaper-owners were petty-minded, timid philistines and the
Rheinische Zeitung carried on the struggle alone. It wore out one
censor after another; finally it came under a double censorship; after
the first censorship the Regierungspräsident had once more, and
finally, to censor it. That also was of no avail. In the beginning of
1843, the government declared that it was impossible to keep this
newspaper in check and suppressed it without more ado.
Marx, who in the meanwhile had married the
sister of von Westphalen, later a reactionary minister, removed to
Paris, and there, in conjunction with A. Ruge, published the
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, in which he opened the series of
his socialist writings with a Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy
of Right ; and then, together with F. Engels, The Holy Family.
Against Bruno Bauer and Co., a satirical criticism of one of the
latest forms blunderingly assumed by the German philosophical idealism
of that time.
The study of political economy and of the
history of the Great French Revolution still allowed Marx time enough
for occasional attacks on the Prussian Government; the latter revenged
itself in the spring of 1845 by securing from the Guizot ministry — Herr
Alexander von Humboldt is said to have acted as intermediary — his
expulsion from France. Marx shifted his domicile to Brussels and
published there in French in 1847 The Poverty of Philosophy, a
criticism of Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty, and, in 1848,
Discourse on Free Trade. At the same time he made use of the
opportunity to found a German workers’ society in Brussels and so
commenced practical agitation. The latter became still more important
for him when he and his political friends in 1847 joined the secret
Communist League, which had already been in existence for a number of
years. Its whole structure was now radically changed; this association,
which previously was more or less conspiratorial, was transformed into a
simple organization for communist propaganda, which was only secret
because necessity compelled it to be so, the first organization
of the German Social-Democratic Party. The League existed wherever
German workers’ societies were to be found; in almost all of these
societies in England, Belgium, France and Switzerland, and in very many
of the societies in Germany, the leading members belonged to the League
and the share of the League in the incipient German labour movement was
very considerable. Moreover, our League was the first which emphasized
the international character of the whole labour movement and realized it
in practice, which had Englishmen, Belgians, Hungarians, Poles, etc., as
members and which organized international labour meetings, especially in
London.
The transformation of the League took place
at two congresses held in 1847, the second of which resolved on the
elaboration and publication of the fundamental principles of the Party
in a manifesto to be drawn up by Marx and Engels. Thus arose the
Manifesto of the Communist Party, which first appeared in 1848,
shortly before the February Revolution, and has since been translated
into almost all European languages.
The Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, in
which Marx participated and which mercilessly exposed the blessings of
the police regime of the Fatherland, caused the Prussian Government to
try to effect Marx's expulsion once more, but in vain. When, however,
the February Revolution resulted in popular movements in Brussels, too,
and a radical change appeared to be imminent in Belgium, the Belgian
Government arrested Marx without ceremony and deported him. In the
meanwhile, the French Provisional Government had sent him an invitation
through Flocon to return to Paris, and he accepted this call.
After the March Revolution, Marx went to
Cologne and founded there the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, which
was in existence from June 1, 1848 to May 19, 1849 — the only paper
which represented the standpoint of the proletariat within the
democratic movement of the time, as shown in its unreserved championship
of the Paris June insurgents of 1848, which cost the paper the defection
of almost all its shareholders. In vain the Kreuz-Zeitung
pointed to the “Chimborazo impudence” with which the Neue Rheinische
Zeitung attacked everything sacred, from the king and vice-regent
of the realm down to the gendarme, and that, too, in a Prussian fortress
with a garrison of 8,000 at the time. In vain was the rage of the
Rhenish liberal philistines, who had suddenly become reactionary. In
vain was the paper suspended by martial law in
Cologne for a lengthy period in the
autumn of 1848. In vain the Reich Ministry of Justice in Frankfort
denounced article after article to the Cologne Public Prosecutor in
order that judicial proceedings should be taken. Under the very eyes of
the police the paper calmly went on being edited and printed, and its
distribution and reputation increased with the vehemence of its attacks
on the government and the bourgeoisie. When the Prussian coup d'etat
took place in November 1848, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung called
upon the people, at the head of each issue, to refuse to pay taxes and
to meet violence with violence. In the spring of 1849, both on this
account and because of another article, it was made to face a jury, but
on both occasions was acquitted. Finally, when the May risings of 1849
in Dresden and the Rhine Province had been suppressed, and the Prussian
campaign against the Baden-Palatinate rising had been inaugurated by the
concentration and mobilization of considerable masses of troops, the
government believed itself strong enough to suppress the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung by force. The last number — printed in red ink —
appeared on May 19.
An attempt to continue issuing the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung in the form of a review (in Hamburg, 1850) had
to be given up after a while in view of the ever-increasing violence of
the reaction. Immediately after the coup d'etat in France in
December 1851, Marx published The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte (New York, 1852; second edition, Hamburg, 1869, shortly
before the war). In 1853 he wrote Revelations About the Cologne
Communist Trial (first printed in Basle, later in Boston, and again
recently in Leipzig).
After the conviction of the members of the
Communist League in Cologne, Marx withdrew from political agitation and
for ten years devoted himself, on the one hand, to the study of the rich
treasures offered by the library of the British Museum in the sphere of
political economy, and, on the other hand, to writing for the New
York Tribune, which up to the outbreak of the American Civil War
published not only contributions signed by him but also numerous leading
articles from his pen on conditions in Europe and Asia. His attacks on
Lord Palmerston, based on an exhaustive study of British official
documents, were reprinted in London in pamphlet form.
As the first fruit of his many years of
study of economics, there appeared in 1859 A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy, Part I (Berlin, Duncker). This work
contains the first coherent exposition of the Marxian theory of value,
including the doctrine of money. During the Italian War Marx, in the
German newspaper Das Volk, appearing in London, attacked
Bonapartism, which at that time posed as liberal and playing the part of
liberator of the oppressed nationalities, and also the Prussian policy
of the day, which under the cover of neutrality was seeking to fish in
troubled waters. In this connection it was necessary to attack also Herr
Karl Vogt, who at that time, on the commission of Prince Napoleon (Plon
Plon) and in the pay of Louis Napoleon, was carrying on agitation for
the neutrality, and indeed the sympathy, of Germany. When Vogt heaped
upon him the most abominable and deliberately false calumnies, Marx
answered with Herr Vogt (London, 1860), in which Vogt and the
other gentlemen of the imperialist sham-democratic gang were exposed,
and Vogt himself on the basis of both external and internal evidence was
proved guilty of taking bribes from the December empire. The
confirmation came just ten years later: in the list of the Bonaparte
hirelings, found in the Tuileries in 1870 and published by the September
government, there was the following entry under the letter V: “Vogt — in
August 1859 there were remitted to him — Frs. 40,000."
Finally, in 1861 there appeared in Hamburg
Capital, a Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, Volume
I, Marx's chief work, which expounds the foundations of his economlc
socialist conceptions and the main features of his criticism of existing
society, the capitalist mode of production and its consequences. The
second edition of this epoch-making work appeared in 1872; the author is
engaged in the elaboration of the second volume.
Meanwhile the labour movement in various
countries of Europe had so far regained strength that Marx could
entertain the idea of realizing a long-cherished wish: the foundation of
a Workers’ Association embracing the most advanced countries of Europe
and America, which would demonstrate bodily, so to speak, the
international character of the socialist movement both to the workers
themselves and to the bourgeois and the governments — for the
encouragement and strengthening of the proletariat, for striking fear
into the hearts of its enemies. A mass meeting in favour of Poland,
which had just then again been crushed by Russia, held on September 28,
1864 in St. Martin's Hall in London, provided the occasion for bringing
forward the matter, which was enthusiastically taken up. The
International Working Men's Association was founded; a Provisional
General Council, with its seat in London, was elected at the meeting,
and Marx was the soul of this as of all subsequent General Councils up
to the Hague Congress. He drafted almost every one of the documents
issued by the General Council of the International, from the
Inaugural Address, 1864, to the Address on the Civil War in
France, 1871. To describe Marx's activity in the International is
to write the history of this Association, which in any case still lives
in the memory of the European workers.
The fall of the Paris Commune put the
International in an impossible position. It was thrust into the
forefront of European history at a moment when it had everywhere been
deprived of all possibility of successful practical action. The events
which raised it to the position of the seventh Great Power
simultaneously forbade it to mobilize its fighting forces and employ
them in action, on pain of inevitable defeat and the setting back of the
labour movement for decades. In addition, from various sides elements
were pushing themselves forward that sought to exploit the suddenly
enhanced fame of the Association for the purpose of gratifying personal
vanity or personal ambition, without understanding the real position of
the International or without regard for it. A heroic decision had to be
taken, and it was again Marx who took it and who carried it through at
the Hague Congress. In a solemn resolution, the International disclaimed
all responsibility for the doings of the Bakuninists, who formed the
centre of those unreasonable and unsavoury elements. Then, in view of
the impossibility of meeting, in the face of the general reaction, the
increased demands which were being imposed upon it, and of maintaining
its complete efficacy other than by a series of sacrifices which would
have drained the labour movement of its life-blood — in view of this
situation, the International withdrew from the stage for the time being
by transferring the General Council to America. The results have proved
how correct was this decision — which was at the time, and has been
since, so often censured. On the one hand, it put a stop then and since
to all attempts to make useless putsches in the name of the
International, while, on the other hand, the continuing close
intercourse between the socialist workers’ parties of the various
countries proved that the consciousness of the identity of interests and
of the solidarity of the proletariat of all countries evoked by the
International is able to assert itself even without the bond of a formal
international association, which for the moment had become a fetter.
After the Hague Congress, Marx at last
found peace and leisure again for resuming his theoretical work, and it
is to be hoped he will be able before long to have the second volume of
Capital ready for the press.
Of the many important discoveries through
which Marx has inscribed his name in the annals of science, we can here
dwell on only two.
The first is the revolution brought about
by him in the whole conception of world history. The whole previous view
of history was based on the conception that the ultimate causes of all
historical changes are to be looked for in the changing ideas of human
beings, and that of all historical changes political changes are the
most important and dominate the whole of history. But the question was
not asked as to whence the ideas come into men's minds and what the
driving causes of the political changes are. Only upon the newer school
of French, and partly also of English, historians had the conviction
forced itself that, since the Middle Ages at least, the driving force in
European history was the struggle of the developing bourgeoisie with the
feudal aristocracy for social and political domination. Now Marx has
proved that the whole of previous history is a history of class
struggles, that in all the manifold and complicated political struggles
the only thing at issue has been the social and political rule of social
classes, the maintenance of domination by older classes and the conquest
of domination by newly arising classes. To what, however, do these
classes owe their origin and their continued existence? They owe it to
the particular material, physically sensible conditions in which society
at a given period produces and exchanges its means of subsistence. The
feudal rule of the Middle Ages rested on the self-sufficient economy of
small peasant communities, which themselves produced almost all their
requirements, in which there was almost no exchange and to which the
arms-bearing nobility lent protection from without and national or at
least political cohesion. When the towns arose and with them a separate
handicraft industry and commercial intercourse, at first internal and
later international, the urban bourgeoisie developed, and already during
the Middle Ages achieved, in struggle with the nobility, its inclusion
in the feudal order as likewise a privileged estate. But with the
discovery of the extra-European world, from the middle of the fifteenth
century onwards, this bourgeoisie acquired a far more extensive sphere
of trade and therewith a new spur for its industry; in the most
important branches handicrafts were supplanted by manufacture, now on a
factory scale, and this again was supplanted by large-scale industry,
which had become possible owing to the discoveries of the previous
century, especially that of the steam-engine. Large-scale industry, in
its turn, reacted on trade by driving out the old manual labour in
backward countries, and creating the present-day new means of
communication: steam-engines, railways, electric telegraphy, in the more
developed ones. Thus the bourgeoisie came more and more to combine
social wealth and social power in its hands, while it still for a long
period remained excluded from political power, which was in the hands of
the nobility and the monarchy supported by the nobility. But at a
certain stage — in France since the Great Revolution — it also conquered
political power, and now in turn became the ruling class over the
proletariat and small peasants. From this point of view all historical
phenomena are explicable in the simplest possible way — with sufficient
knowledge of the particular economic condition of society, which it is
true is totally lacking in our professional historians, and in the same
way the conceptions and ideas of each historical period are most simply
to be explained from the economic conditions of life and from the social
and political relations of the period, which are in turn determined by
these economic conditions. History was for the first time placed on its
real basis; the palpable but previously totally overlooked fact that men
must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, and therefore
must work, before they can fight for domination, pursue
politics, religion, philosophy and so on — this palpable fact at last
came into its historical rights.
This new conception of history, however,
was of supreme significance for the socialist outlook. It showed that
all previous history had moved in class antagonisms and class struggles,
that there have always existed ruling and ruled, exploiting and
exploited classes, and that the great majority of mankind has always
been condemned to arduous labour and little enjoyment. Why is this?
Simply because in all earlier stages of development of mankind
production was so little developed that the historical development could
proceed only in this antagonistic form, that historical progress as a
whole was assigned to the activity of a small privileged minority, while
the great mass remained condemned to producing by their labour their own
meagre means of subsistence and also the increasingly rich means of the
privileged. But the same investigation of history, which in this way
provides a natural and reasonable explanation of the previous class
rule, otherwise only explicable by the wickedness of man, also leads to
the realization that, in consequence of the tremendously increased
productive forces of the present time, even the last pretext has
vanished for a division of mankind into ruIers and ruled, exploiters and
exploited, at least in the most advanced countries; that the ruling big
bourgeoisie has fulfilled its historic mission, that it is no longer
capable of the leadership of society and has even become a hindrance to
the development of production, as the trade crises, and especially the
last great collapse, and the depressed condition of industry in all
countries have proved; that historical leadership has passed to the
proletariat, a class which, owing to its whole position in society, can
only free itself by abolishing altogether all class rule, all servitude
and all exploitation; and that the social productive forces, which have
outgrown the control of the bourgeoisie, are only waiting for the
associated proletariat to take possession of them in order to bring
about a state of things in which every member of society will be enabled
to participate not only in production but also in the distribution and
administration of social wealth, and which so increases the social
productive forces and their yield by planned operation of the whole of
production that the satisfaction of all reasonable needs will be assured
to everyone in an ever-increasing measure.
The second important discovery of Marx is
the final elucidation of the relation between capital and labour, in
other words, the demonstration how, within present society and under the
existing capitalist mode of production, the exploitation of the worker
by the capitalist takes place. Ever since political economy put forward
the proposition that labour is the source of all wealth and of all
value, the question has become inevitable: How is this, then, to be
reconciled with the fact that the wage-worker does not receive the whole
sum of value created by his labour but has to surrender a part of it to
the capitalist? Both the bourgeois economists and the socialists exerted
themselves to give a scientifically valid answer to this question, but
in vain, until at last Marx came forward with the solution. This
solution is as follows: The present day capitalist mode of production
presupposes the existence of two social classes — on the one hand, that
of the capitalists, who are in possession of the means of production and
subsistence, and, on the other hand, that of the proletarians, who,
being excluded from this possession, have only a single commodity for
sale, their labour power, and who therefore have to sell this labour
power of theirs in order to obtain possession of means of subsistence.
The value of a commodity is, however, determined by the socially
necessary quantity of labour embodied in its production, and, therefore,
also in its reproduction; the value of the labour power of an average
human being during a day, month or year is determined, therefore, by the
quantity of labour embodied in the quantity of means of subsistence
necessary for the maintenance of this labour power during a day, month
or year. Let us assume that the means of subsistence of a worker for one
day require six hours of labour for their production, or, what is the
same thing, that the labour contained in them represents a quantity of
labour of six hours; then the value of labour power for one day will be
expressed in a sum of money which also embodies six hours of labour. Let
us assume further that the capitalist who employs our worker pays him
this sum in return, pays him, therefore, the full value of his labour
power. If now the worker works six hours of the day for the capitalist,
he has completely replaced the latter's outlay — six hours’ labour for
six hours’ labour. But then there would be nothing in it for the
capitalist, and the latter therefore looks at the matter quite
differently. He says: I have bought the labour power of this worker not
for six hours but for a whole day, and accordingly he makes the worker
work 8, 10, 12, 14 or more hours, according to circumstances, so that
the product of the seventh, eighth and following hours is a product of
unpaid labour and wanders, to begin with, into the pocket of the
capitalist. Thus the worker in the service of the capitalist not only
reproduces the value of his labour power, for which he receives pay, but
over and above that he also produces a surplus value which,
appropriated in the first place by the capitalist, is in its further
course divided according to definite economic laws among the whole
capitalist class and forms the basic stock from which arise ground rent,
profit, accumulation of capital, in short, all the wealth consumed or
accumulated by the non-labouring classes. This, however, proved that the
acquisition of riches by the present-day capitalists consists just as
much in the appropriation of the unpaid labour of others as that of the
slave-owner or the feudal lord exploiting serf labour, and that all
these forms of exploitation are only to be distinguished by the
difference in manner and method by which the unpaid labour is
appropriated. This, however, also removed the last justification for all
the hypocritical phrases of the possessing classes to the effect that in
the present social order right and justice, equality of rights and
duties and a general harmony of interests prevail, and exposed
present-day bourgeois society, no less than its predecessors, as a
grandiose institution for the exploitation of the huge majority of the
people by a small, ever-diminishing minority.
Modern, scientific socialism is based on these two important facts. In
the second volume of Capital these and other hardly less
important scientific discoveries concerning the capitalist system of
society will be further developed, and thereby those aspects of
political economy not touched upon in the first volume will also undergo
revolutionization. May it be vouchsafed to Marx to be able soon to have
it ready for the press
|
Influences on Marx's philosophy |
Top |
In general, Marx's thought
has been influenced by two often contradictory elements:
determinism and
activism. On the one hand, Marx believed that he could study
history and
society scientifically, and derive
laws that explain and predict the course of history and the
outcome of
social conflicts. Some
followers of Marx conclude that a
communist
revolution is inevitable. On the other hand, Marx famously
asserted that "philosophers have only interpreted the world, in
various ways; the point is to change it," and dedicated himself
to trying to change the world. Consequently, some followers of
Marx conclude that dedicated revolutionaries must organize
social change.
Marx's theory, which he called "historical
materialism" and which Engels called "scientific
socialism" or "dialectical
materialism", is based on
Hegel's claim that history occurs through a
dialectic, or clash, of opposing forces.
Hegel was a philosophical
idealist who believed that we live in a world of
appearances, and true
reality is an ideal. Marx accepted this notion of the
dialectic, but rejected Hegel's idealism. In this he was
influenced by
Ludwig Feuerbach. In
The Essence of Christianity,
Feuerbach argued that
God is really a creation of man, and that the qualities
people attribute to God are really qualities of
humanity. Accordingly, Marx argued that it is the material
world that is real, and that our ideas of it are consequences,
not causes, of the world. Thus, like
Hegel and other philosophers, Marx distinguished between
appearances and reality. But he did not believe that the
material world hides from us the "real" world of the ideal; on
the contrary, he thought that historically and socially specific
ideologies prevented people from seeing the material
conditions of their lives clearly.
The other important contribution to Marx's
revision of
Hegelianism was Engels's book, The Condition of the
Working Class in England in 1844, which led Marx to
conceive of the historical dialectic in terms of class conflict,
and to see the modern working class as the most progressive
force for revolution.
Marx's philosophy
The notion of labor
is fundamental in Marx's thought. Basically, Marx argued that it
is
human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process
of transformation "labor" and the capacity to transform nature
labor power. For Marx, this is a natural
capacity for a physical activity, but it is intimately tied to
the human mind and human imagination:
A
spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and
a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her
cells. But what distinguishes the worst
architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect
raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in
reality.
Beyond his claim about the
human capacity to transform nature, Marx makes no other claims
about "human nature."
Although "labor power" for Marx is human
nature, he did not believe that all people worked the same way,
or that how one works is entirely personal and individual.
Instead, he argued that work is a social activity, and that the
conditions and forms under and through which people work are
socially determined and change over time.
Marx's analysis of history is based on his
distinction between the means of production,
literally those things, like land and natural resources, and
technology, that are necessary for the production of material
goods, and the social relations of production,
in other words, the social relationships people enter into as
they acquire and use the means of production. Together these
comprise the mode of production; Marx observed
that within any given society the mode of production changes,
and that European societies had progressed from a
feudal mode of production to a
capitalist mode of production. In general, Marx believed
that the means of production change more rapidly than the
relations of production (for example, we develop a new
technology, such as the
Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that
technology). For Marx this mismatch between base and
superstructure is a major source of social disruption and
conflict.
Marx understood the "social relations of
production" to comprise not only relations among
individuals, but between or among groups of people, or
classes. As a
scientist and
materialist, Marx did not understand classes as purely
subjective (in other words, groups of people who consciously
identified with one another). He sought to define classes in
terms of objective criteria, such as their access to
resources.
Marx was especially concerned with how people
relate to that most fundamental resource of all, their own
labor-power. Marx wrote extensively about this in terms of the
problem of
alienation. As with the dialectic, Marx began with
a
Hegelian notion of alienation but developed a more
materialist conception. For Marx, the possibility that one
may give up ownership of one's own labor -- one's capacity to
transform the world -- is tantamount to being alienated from
one's own nature; it is a spiritual loss. Marx described this
loss in terms of
commodity
fetishism, in which people come to believe that it
is the very things that they produce that are powerful, and the
sources of power and creativity, rather than people themselves.
He argued that when this happens, people begin to mediate all
their relationships among themselves and with others through
commodities.
Commodity fetishism is an example of what
Marx and Engels called false consciousness,
which is closely related to their understanding of
ideology. By ideology they meant ideas that reflect the
interests of a particular class at a particular time in history,
but which are presented as universal and eternal. Marx and
Engels point was not only that such beliefs are wrong; they
serve an important political function. Put another way, the
control that one class exercises over the means of production
includes not only the production of food or manufactured goods,
it includes the production of ideas as well (this provides one
possible explanation for why members of a subordinate class may
hold ideas contrary to their own interests). Thus, while such
ideas may be false, they also reveal in coded form some truth
about political relations. For example, although the belief that
the things people produce are actually more productive than the
people who produced them is literally absurd, it does reflect
the fact (according to Marx and Engels) that people under
capitalism are alienated from their own labor-power. Another
example of this sort of analysis is Marx's understanding of
religion, summed up in a passage from the Contribution to
the Critique of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right:"
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression
of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion
is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of
the people.
Whereas his Gymnasium
senior thesis argued that the primary social function of
religion was to promote solidarity, here Marx sees the social
function as a way of expressing and coping with social
inequality.
Marx's critique of capitalism
Marx argued that this
alienation of labor power (and resulting commodity fetishism) is
precisely the defining feature of
capitalism. Prior to
capitalism, markets existed in Europe where producers and
merchants bought and sold commodities. According to Marx, a
capitalist mode of production developed in Europe when labor
itself became a commodity -- when peasants became free to sell
their own labor-power, and needed to sell their own labor
because they no longer possessed their own land or tools
necessary to produce. People sell their labor-power when they
accept compensation in return for whatever work they do in a
given period of time (in other words, they are not selling the
product of their labor, but their capacity to work). In return
for selling their labor power they receive money which allows
them to survive. Those who must sell their labor power to live
are "proletarians."
The person who buys the labor power, generally someone who does
own the land and technology to produce, is a "capitalist" or "bourgeois."
(NOTE: Marx considered this an
objective description of capitalism, distinct from any one
of a variety of ideological claims of or about capitalism).
Marx distinguished
capitalists from merchants.
Merchants buy
goods in one place and sell them in another; more precisely,
they buy things in one market and sell them in another. Since
the laws of
supply and demand operate within given
markets, there is often a difference between the price of a
commodity in one market and another. Merchants hope to capture
the difference between these two markets. According to Marx,
capitalists, on the other hand, take advantage of the difference
between the labor market and the market for whatever commodity
is produced by the capitalist. Marx observed that in practically
every successful industry the price for labor was lower than the
price of the manufactured good. Marx called this difference "surplus
value" and argued that this surplus value was in fact the
source of a capitalist's
profit.
The capitalist mode of production is capable
of tremendous growth because the capitalist can, and has an
incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies. Marx
considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in
history, because it constantly revolutionized the means of
production. But Marx believed that capitalism was prone to
periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would
invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in
labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from
labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of
profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of
profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a
recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy
would collapse. Marx understood that during such a crisis the
price of labor would also fall, and eventually make possible the
investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of
the economy.
Marx believed that this
cycle of growth, collapse, and growth would be punctuated by
increasingly severe crises. Moreover, he believed that the
long-term consequence of this process was necessarily the
empowerment of the capitalist class and the impoverishment of
the proletariat. Finally, he believed that were the proletariat
to seize the means of production, they would encourage social
relations that would benefit everyone equally, and a system of
production less vulnerable to periodic crises.
A small number of scholars have presented an
alternative reading of Marx, based on his essays
On the Jewish Question.
Economist
Tyler Cowen, historian
Marvin Perry, and
political scientist
Joshua Muravchik have suggested that Marx’s intense hatred
for the “Jewish Class” as part of Marx’s belief that if he could
convince his contemporaries and the public to hate Jewish
capitalists, the public would eventually come to hate non-Jewish
capitalists as well.
Most scholars reject this claim for two
reasons: first, it is based on two short essays written in the
1840s, and ignores the bulk of Marx's analysis of capitalism
written in the following years. Second, it distorts the argument
of
On the Jewish Question,
in which Marx deconstructs
liberal notions of
emancipation. During
the Enlightenment, philosophers and political theorists
argued that religious authority had been oppressing human
beings, and that
religion must be separated from the functions of the state
for people to be truly free. Following the
French Revolution, many people were calling for the
emancipation of the Jews.
Many argued that
Christianity is a more enlightened and advanced religion
than Judaism. For example, Marx's former mentor,
Bruno Bauer, argued that Christians need to be emancipated
only once (from Christianity), and Jews need to be emancipated
twice -- first from Judaism (presumably, by converting to
Christianity), then from religion altogether.
Marx rejects Bauer's argument as a form of
Christian
ethnocentricm, if not
anti-Semitic. Marx procedes to turn Bauer's language, and
the rhetoric of anti-Semites, upside down to make a more
progressive argument. First, he points out that Bruno Bauer's
argument is too parochial because it considers Christianity to
be more evolved than Judaism, and because it narrowly defines
the problem that requires emancipation to be religion. Marx
instead argues that the issue is not religion, but capitalism.
Pointing out that anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews are
fundamentally
anti-capitalist, Marx provides a theory of anti-Semitism by
suggesting that anti-Semites scapegoat Jews for capitalism
because too many non-Jews benefit from, or are invested in
capitalism, to attack capitalism directly.
Marx also uses this
rhetoric
ironically to develop his critique of
bourgeois notions of emancipation. Marx points out that the
bourgeois notion of
freedom[ is predicated on choice (in politics, through
elections; in the economy, through the
market), but that this form of freedom is anti-social and
alientating. Although Bauer and other liberals believe that
emancipation means freedom to choose, Marx argues that this is
at best a very narrow notion of fredom. Thus, when Baur believes
would be the emancipation of the Jews is for Marx actually
alienation, not emancipation. After explaining that he is not
refering to real Jews or to the Jewish religion, Marx
appropriates this anti-Semitic rhetoric against itself (in a way
that parellels his Hegelian argument that capitslism contains
the seeds of its own destruction) by using "Judaism" ironically
as a metaphor for capitalism. In this sense, Marx states, all
Europeans are "Jewish." This is a pun on two levels. First, if
the Jews must be emancipated, Marx is saying that all Europeans
must be emancipated. Second, if by "Judaism" one really means
"capitalism," then far from Jews needing to be emancipated from
Christianity (as Bauer called for), Christians need to be
emancipated from Judaism (meaning, bourgeois society). See works
by historian
Hal Draper and
David McLellan.
Marx's influence
The body of work of Marx
and Engels covers a wide range of topics and presents a complex
analysis of history and society in terms of class relations.
Followers of Marx and Engels have drawn on this work to propose
a political and economic philosophy dubbed
Marxism. Nevertheless, there have been numerous debates
among Marxists over how to interpret Marx's writings and how to
apply his concepts to current events and conditions (and it is
important to distinguish between "Marxism" and "what Marx
believed;" for example, shortly before he died in 1880, Marx
wrote a letter to the French workers' leader Jules Guesde, and
to Marx's son-in-law Paul Lafargue, accusing them of
"revolutionary phrase-mongering" and of denying the value of
reformist struggles; "if that is Marxism" -- paraphrasing what
Marx wrote -- "then I am not a Marxist"). Essentially, people
use the word "Marxist"
to describe those who rely on Marx's conceptual language (e.g.
mode of production, class, commodity fetishism) to understand
capitalist and other societies, or to describe those who believe
that a worker's revolution is the only means to a communist
society.
Six years after Marx's death, Engels and
others founded the "Second
International" as a base for continued political activism.
This organization collapsed in 1914, in part because some
members turned to
Edward Bernstein's "evolutionary"
socialism, and in part because of divisions precipitated by
World War I.
World War I also led to the
Russian Revolution and the consequent ascendence of
Vladimir Lenin's leadership of the
communist movement, embodied in the "Third
International". Lenin claimed to be both the philosophical
and political heir to Marx, and developed a political program,
called
Leninism or
Bolshevism, which called for revolution organized and led by
a centrally organized
Communist Party.
After Lenin's death, the Secretary-General of
the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union,
Joseph Stalin, seized control of the Party and
state apparatus. He argued that before a world-wide
communist revolution would be possible, the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union had to dedicate itself to building communism in
their own country.
At this time,
Leon Trotsky left the
Soviet Union and in 1934 founded the competing "Fourth
International." Some followers of Trotsky argued that Stalin
had created a
bureaucratic state rather
than a
socialist state.
In China
Mao Zedong also claimed to be an heir to Marx, but argued
that peasants and not just workers could play a leading role in
a
communist revolution. This was a profound departure from
Marx's own view of revolution, which focused exclusively on the
urban proletariat, and which he believed would take place in
advanced industrial societies such as France, Germany and
England.
In the 1920s and '30s, a group of dissident
Marxists founded the Institute for Social Research in Germany,
among them
Max Horkheimer,
Theodor Adorno,
Erich Fromm, and
Herbert Marcuse. As a group, these authors are often called
the
Frankfurt School. Their work is known as
Critical Theory, a type of Marxist philosophy and cultural
criticism heavily influenced by Hegel, Freud, Nietzsche, and Max
Weber.
The Frankfurt School broke with earlier
Marxists, including
Lenin and
Bolshevism in several key ways. First, writing at the time
of the ascendance of
Stalinism and
Fascism, they had grave doubts as to the traditional Marxist
concept of proletarian
class consciousness.
Second, unlike earlier Marxists, especially
Lenin, they rejected economic determinism. While highly
influential, their work is often criticized for reducing Marxism
to a purely academic enterprise.
Other influential non-Bolshevik
Marxists at that time include
George Lukacs,
Walter Benjamin,
Antonio Gramsci, and
Rosa Luxemburg.
Henryk Grossman, who
elaborated the mathematical basis of Marx's 'law of capitalist
breakdown', was another contemporary. These figures, including
but not limited to the Frankfurt School, are often known by the
term
Western Marxism.
In 1949
Paul Sweezy and Leo Huberman founded
Monthly Review, a journal and press, to provide a
outlet for
Marxist thought in the United States independent of the
Communist Party.
Contemporary criticisms
Marxian theory has been
criticized from numerous points of view. Many proponents of
capitalism have argued that
capitalism in fact is ultimately a more effective means of
generating and redistributing wealth than
socialism or
communism, and that the gulf between rich and poor that
concerned Marx and Engels was a temporary phenomenon. Some
suggest that greed and the need to acquire material wealth is an
inherent component of human behavior, and is not caused by the
adoption of
capitalism or any other specific economic system (although
economic
anthropologists have questioned this assertion), and that
different economic systems reflect different social responses to
this fact.
Economists generally reject his use of the "labor
theory of value," although such
critics generally overlook Marx's distinction between
value and
price.
Marx has also been criticized from the left.
Evolutionary
Socialists reject his claim that
socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict
and violent revolution. Others argue that class is not the most
fundamental inequality in history, and call attention to
patriarchy or
race. Some today question the theoretical and historical
validity of "class" as an analytic construct or as a political
actor. In this line, some question Marx's reliance on 19th
century notions that linked
science with the idea of "progress" (see
social evolution). Many observe that
capitalism has changed much since Marx's time, and that
class differences and relationships are much more complex --
citing as one example the fact that much corporate stock in the
United States is owned by workers through pension funds. (see
post-structuralism and
postmodernism for discussions of two movements generally
aligned with the left that are critical of Marx and
Marxism.)
Openly Marxist political parties and
movements have significantly declined since the fall of the
Soviet Union. Although such a conclusion is hotly debated by
Marxists, many have concluded the Soviet Union's numerous
internal failings and subsequent collapse is a direct result of
the practical failings of Marx's policies. Outside Europe and
the United States,
communism has generally been superseded by anti-colonialist
and
nationalist struggles (although they sometimes appeal to
Marx for theoretical support).
Contemporary supporters of Marx argue most
generally that Marx was correct that human behavior reflects
determinate historical and social conditions (and is therefore
changing and cannot be understood in terms of some universal
"human nature"). More specifically, they argue his analysis of
commodities is still useful and that alienation is still a
problem. Some argue that
capitalism does not exist as an independent system in any
one country, and that one must analyze it as a global system.
They further argue that when examined as a global system,
capitalism is still organizing and exacerbating the gulf
between rich and poor that first caught Marx's attention when he
read Engels' book on Britain.
Miscellaneous
In
1953 the
German Democratic Republic renamed the city of
Chemnitz to Karl-Marx-Stadt. However, in a
plebiscite in
1990 the citizens of Karl-Marx-Stadt favoured the old name,
so that the city was renamed again.
Supply-side economics advocate
Jude Wanniski (who was influential in developing the US
President Reagans economic policy) claims Karl Marx as a supply
sider. He sees Supply Side economics as a return to production
focused economics in keeping with many of the traditions of
Marx.
|
Karl Marx, speech in London to the
Fraternal Democrats (29th November, 1847) |
Top |
The unification and
brotherhood of nations is a phrase which is nowadays on the lips of all
parties, particularly of the bourgeois free traders. A kind of
brotherhood does indeed exist between the bourgeois classes of all
nations. It is the brotherhood of the oppressors against the oppressed,
of the exploiters against the exploited. Just as the bourgeois class of
one country is united in brotherhood against the proletarians of that
country, despite the competition and struggle of its members among
themselves, so the bourgeoisie of all countries is united in brotherhood
against the proletarians of all countries, despite their struggling and
competing with each other on the world market. In order for peoples to
become really united their interests must be common. For their interests
to be common the existing property relations must be abolished, since
the exploitation of one nation by another is caused by the existing
property relations.
And it is only in the interests of the working class to abolish existing
property relations; only they have the means to achieve it. The victory
of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie represents at the same time the
victory over national and industrial conflicts, which at present create
hostility between the different peoples. Therefore, the victory of the
proletariat over the bourgeoisie also signifies the emancipation of all
downtrodden nations.
The old Poland is certainly
lost, and we should be the last to wish for its restoration. But not
only is the old Poland lost. The old Germany, the old France, the old
England, the old social order in general is lost. The loss of the old
social order, however, is not a loss for those who have nothing to lose
in the old society, and at the same time this is the case for the large
majority of people in all countries. They have, in fact, everything to
gain from the destruction of the old society, for it is a precondition
for the formation of a new society no longer based on class antagonisms.
Of all
countries it is England where the opposition between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie is most highly developed. Thus the victory of the
English proletariat over the English bourgeoisie is of decisive
importance for the victory of all oppressed peoples over their
oppressors. Poland, therefore, must be freed, not in Poland, but in
England. You Chartists should not express pious wishes for the
liberation of nations. Defeat your own enemies at home and then you may
be proudly conscious of having defeated the old social order in its
entirety.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUmarx.htm
|
Related Links |
Top |
Recommended Reading:
- Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels,
Gesamtausgabe, ed. by the Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus
(Dietz, 1972- )
- The Portable Karl Marx, ed. by
Eugene Kamenka (Viking, 1983) {Order
from
Amazon.com}
- The Communist Manifesto, ed. by
Frederic L. Bender (Norton, 1988) {Order
from
Amazon.com}
- Karl Marx, Early Writings, tr. by
Rodney Livingstone (Penguin, 1992) {Order
from
Amazon.com}
- Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of
Political Economy, tr. by Ben Fowkes (Penguin, 1992) {Order
from
Amazon.com}
Lenin Collected Works
Volume 1 |
1893 —1894 |
...quality |
Volume 2 |
1895—1897 |
...quality |
Volume 3 |
1896—1899 |
...quality |
Volume 4 |
1898—1901 |
...quality |
Volume 5 |
1901—1902 |
...quality |
Volume 6 |
1902—1903 |
...quality |
Volume 7 |
1903—1904 |
...quality |
Volume 8 |
January—July 1905 |
...quality |
Volume 9 |
June—November 1905 |
|
Volume 10 |
November 1905—June 1906 |
Volume 11 |
June 1906—January 1907 |
Volume 12 |
1907 |
Volume 13 ...1 of 30 |
1907—1908 |
(rjc) |
Volume 14 |
1908 |
...quality |
Volume 15 ...4 of 41 |
1908—1909 |
Volume 16 ...1 of 57 |
1909—1910 |
Volume 17 ...1 of 73 |
1910—1912 |
Volume 18 ...1 of 134 |
1912—July 1913 |
Volume 19 ...13 of 133 |
1913 |
Volume 20 ...3 of 93 |
December 1913—August 1914 |
Volume 21 |
August 1914—December 1915 |
...quality |
Volume 22 |
December 1915—July 1916 |
...quality |
Volume 23 |
August 1916—March 1917 |
...quality |
Volume 24 |
April —May 1917 |
...quality |
Volume 25 |
June —September 1917 |
...quality |
Volume 26 |
September 1917—February 1918 |
...quality |
Volume 27 |
February—July 1918 |
...quality |
Volume 28 |
July 1918—March 1919 |
...quality |
Volume 29 |
March—August 1919 |
...quality |
Volume 30 |
September 1919—April 1920 |
...quality |
Volume 31 |
April—December 1920 |
...quality |
Volume 32 |
December 1920—August 1921 |
...quality |
Volume 33 |
August 1921—March 1923 |
...quality |
Volume 34 ...0 of 200 |
Letters, 1895—1911 |
(ks) |
Volume 35 ...3 of 321 |
Letters, 1912—1922 |
Volume 36 ...4 of 336 |
Letters, etc., 1900—1923 |
(am) |
Volume 37 ...0 of 330 |
Letters to Relatives, 1893—1922 |
Volume 38 ...8 of 33 |
Philosophical Notebooks, 1895—1916 |
Volume 39 ...0 of 22 |
Notebooks on Imperialism |
Volume 40 ...0 of 45 |
Notebooks on the Agarian Question |
Volume 41 ...1 of 162 |
1896—1917 |
Volume 42 ...297 of 450+ |
1917—1923 |
(dw) |
Volume 43 ...0 of 587 |
Letters, etc., 1893—1917 |
Volume 44 ...0 of 742 |
Letters, etc., 1917—1920 |
Volume 45 ...2 of 814 |
Letters, etc., 1920—1923 |
|
© 2003-2024
antara-oursouls.org
*
Disclaimer - Copyright - Privacy
Edited, Presented and Published for the
life and faith, faith in life
|
|