Category: Socialism

This collection of text excerpts provides a detailed look at the life and intellectual development of Karl Marx. It covers his early years, family background, education, and initial foray into journalism, highlighting his engagement with Young Hegelianism and his evolving political views. The text also examines key periods in his life, such as his time in Paris where he developed his critique of alienation and explored political economy, and his later years in London where he worked on Capital, participated in the First International, and struggled with poverty and illness. Throughout, the material emphasizes the historical and social context that shaped Marx’s ideas, including the influence of German philosophy, French socialism, and the political events of the time, while also acknowledging his personal life and relationships.

Karl Marx: A Biographical Overview

Okay, let’s discuss Karl Marx’s biography based on the provided excerpts from David McLellan’s book titled “Karl Marx: A Biography”.

David McLellan, a Professor of Political Theory at the University of Kent, is the author of this biography. He has written extensively on Marx, with previous works including “The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx,” “Marx Before Marxism,” and “Marx’s Grundrisse,” among others. This biography aims to be a full-scale account of Marx’s life, the first in English covering all aspects since Mehring’s work published in 1918. A key justification for this new attempt is the availability of the unexpurgated Marx-Engels correspondence and crucial Marxian writings published only in the 1930s, which significantly alter the understanding of his intellectual contributions.

McLellan acknowledges the difficulty of writing about Marx neutrally due to the grinding of political axes. He states that it is impossible to offer a completely “neutral” account, as the selection of vast information implies a certain standpoint. He endeavors to write “sine ira et studio” (without anger or bias) to present a “reasonably balanced picture”. His approach involves relying considerably on quotation and writing from a “sympathetically critical standpoint” that avoids the extremes of hagiography (treating someone as a saint) and denigration (criticism).

The biography traces Marx’s life and thought:

• Early Life and Background: Karl Marx came from a comfortable middle-class home, which may seem paradoxical given his later association with working-class movements. He grew up in Trier, a city with a long historical tradition but also marked by the under-development characteristic of Germany at the time. His family was thoroughly Jewish in origin but became Protestant out of necessity, living in a Catholic region, which contributed to a sense of incomplete social integration and alienation. His father, Heinrich Marx, was the son of the rabbi of Trier, and his mother came from an even more distinguished rabbinical lineage. The name Marx itself is a shortened form of Mordechai or Markus. This background predisposed Marx to take a critical view of society. Trier was also an early center for French Utopian socialist ideas, such as those of Saint Simon and Fourier.
• Student Years and Philosophical Development: Marx’s early writings show a belief in a purpose in life, indicated by an inner voice. A sentence in this early work about social relations forming before one can determine them has been seen as a germ of his later theory of historical materialism. He clarified his ideas by writing, including a dialogue where he engaged with natural science, history, and the works of Schelling. This process led to his conversion to Hegelianism, mirroring the evolution of classical German philosophy itself, from Kant and Fichte through Schelling to Hegel. In Berlin, he became close friends with Bruno Bauer, a theology lecturer. Bauer described Marx as a “true arsenal of thoughts, a veritable factory of ideas”. His father sent him a “very tart reply” to a long “confession” letter from November 1837. Marx’s lifestyle in Berlin was in keeping with the “studied bohemianism” of the Doctors’ Club, leading to estrangement from his family.
• Transition to Journalism: After his doctoral thesis was accepted, Marx had a restless year before adopting journalism as a career in mid-1842. He moved frequently between Trier, Bonn, and Cologne. He planned further academic work, intending to revise and extend his thesis. In the Cologne Circle, Marx had a strong reputation. Moses Hess described him as possibly “the greatest – perhaps the only genuine – philosopher now alive,” combining deep philosophical seriousness with biting wit, likening him to a fusion of Rousseau, Voltaire, Holbach, Lessing, Heine, and Hegel. Marx’s first published article, on the freedom of the Press, was praised by friends. He became eager to earn a living through journalism after a violent quarrel with his mother led to the cessation of financial support. At 24, he was described as a “powerful man” with distinctive physical features, domineering and self-confident, deeply earnest and learned, and a “restless dialectician”. He was already studying economics, preparing for his conversion to communism.
• Paris and the 1844 Manuscripts: Moving to Paris in the autumn of 1843, Marx lived and worked among prominent socialists. He undertook intensive studies of classical economics, communism, and Hegel. His voluminous notes from this period are known as the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” or “1844 Manuscripts” and are considered by some to be his most important single work. These manuscripts contained reflections on alienated labour, private property, communism, and a critique of Hegel’s dialectic. By the spring of 1844, he had read and excerpted major economists from the late seventeenth century to his time, and he was influenced by Engels’ essay ‘Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy’. He saw political economy as treating man like an object, not “in his free time, as a human being”. His studies led him to analyze the significance of reducing the majority of humanity to abstract labour. He planned to extend this critique to other economic categories, focusing on the dehumanizing effects of money and private property. His conception of unalienated labour was the positive counterpart to his critique of alienation. Marx saw man as his own creator and viewed world history, for socialist man, as the creation of man by human labour. His view of the proletariat drew both on the French Revolution and contemporary French socialist ideas. He believed Germany, while incapable of political revolution, had a classic vocation for social revolution, finding expression in socialism and the proletariat. He initially intended to critique Hegel’s politics and write a history of the Convention, but these appear not to have survived.
• Brussels and the Materialist Conception of History: Marx moved to Brussels in April 1845. By this time, Engels noted that Marx had developed the main aspects of his materialist theory of history. Engels called Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach from this period “the first document in which the brilliant kernel of the new world view is revealed”. While initially praising Feuerbach, Marx diverged from his static views due to his increasing focus on economics. Marx and Engels elaborated their ideas in The German Ideology, which clarified their differences with Feuerbach and addressed the ideas of Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner. Marx’s book The Poverty of Philosophy, a polemic against Proudhon, contained the first published systematic statement of the materialist conception of history and was recommended as an introduction to Capital. He attended the Communist League congress in London where he was commissioned to write the Communist Manifesto. In Brussels, he also lectured on wages, defining capital as a social relation of production rather than simply raw materials or instruments. A contemporary described him as a “powerful man” of about 28, with a fine face and bushy black hair, conveying great energy and passionate devotion, a “born leader” with brief, convincing, and logical speech. He was seen as representing the “manhood of socialist thought” compared to the communism of Weitling’s time. He had qualities of a good teacher, using a blackboard and formulas.
• Later Life and Work: After seeking sanctuary, Marx lived in London, laboring on Capital at the British Museum Reading Room. He was actively involved in the St Martin’s Hall meeting in 1864, which led to the formation of the First International. He attended as a “silent figure on the platform,” knowing that the “real ‘powers’” were present. He later gave a lecture for the International, publicly presenting his theory of surplus value for the first time. While some wanted this published, Marx hesitated, not wishing to detract from the impact of his major work. He attended the Hague Congress of the International in 1872, where he was tense but successfully defended the General Council’s authority. In 1877, he travelled to Carlsbad for his health and befriended Maxim Kovalevsky, a liberal Russian aristocrat who admired him. Marx supported the formation of the Federation du Parti des Travailleurs Socialistes in France and wrote the preamble to their electoral programme, which he felt embodied demands from the workers’ movement. However, he protested against the inclusion of a demand for a statutory minimum wage. He also developed a questionnaire for French workers, emphasizing that workers are the experts on their own suffering and the ones who can apply remedies.
• Personal Descriptions: The epilogue of the book includes varied descriptions of Marx from contemporaries. A Russian aristocrat saw him as embodying a “democratic dictator” with energy, will, unshakable conviction, a remarkable appearance, clumsy yet confident movements, dignified, disdainful ways, and a sharp, imperative voice. An American senator found his bearing “provoking and intolerable”. Mikhail Bakunin admired his knowledge and devotion but noted an admixture of personal vanity, calling him vain, treacherous, and morose. In contrast, his daughter Jenny described him as the “cheeriest, gayest soul,” full of humour, with an infectious laugh, and a kind, gentle, sympathetic companion.
• Legacy: Despite only receiving a small, inaccurate obituary in The Times at the time of his death, Engels predicted that Marx’s name and work would live on. This prediction has proven correct, as Marx has attained worldwide fame and influence.

The book also includes appendices such as a chronological table, genealogical tree, a diagram of Marx’s ‘Economics’, and a select critical bibliography listing numerous works about Marx in English, German, and French. The third edition includes an updated bibliography and a postscript on how the view of Marx has been shaped by 20th-century events.

Overall, the biography aims to provide a balanced, well-documented account of Marx’s life and the development of his ideas, drawing on primary sources and avoiding extreme viewpoints.

The Formation of Karl Marx: Early Life and Thought

Based on the sources provided and our conversation history, we can discuss Karl Marx’s early life and studies.

Early Life and Background:

• Karl Marx came from a comfortable middle-class home. This may seem paradoxical given his later association with working-class movements.
• He grew up in Trier, a German city. Trier had a long historical tradition but was also marked by the under-development characteristic of Germany at the time. It was also an early center for French Utopian socialist ideas, with doctrines of Saint Simon condemned by the Archbishop and teachings of Fourier actively propagated by Ludwig Gall. Gall constantly emphasized the growing disparity and opposition between the rich and the poor.
• Marx’s family was thoroughly Jewish in origin, but they became Protestant out of necessity while living in a Catholic region. This situation contributed to a sense of incomplete social integration and alienation.
• His father, Heinrich Marx, was born in 1782 and was the third son of Meier Halevi Marx, the rabbi of Trier. Heinrich’s father-in-law and wife’s ancestors were also rabbis. The name Marx itself is a shortened form of Mordechai or Markus.
• Heinrich Marx was remarkably unaffected by the strict Jewish orthodoxy tradition. He had broken early with his family and often mentioned the difficulties he faced at the outset of his career. At the time of Marx’s birth, Heinrich was a counsellor-at-law to the High Court of Appeal in Trier and also practiced in the Trier County Court, being awarded the title of Justizrat. He was President of the city lawyers’ association and held a respected position in civic society, although he mostly confined himself to the company of his colleagues. Heinrich Marx held liberal and progressive views.
• Marx’s mother came from an even more distinguished rabbinical lineage. Her father and grandfather were rabbis in Trier, and her great-grandfather, Joshue Heschel Lwow, was chosen rabbi of Trier in 1723 and was known as a fearless fighter for truth.
• This family background, being necessarily excluded from complete social participation, predisposed Marx to take a critical look at society.

Schooling and Early Writings:

• Up to the age of twelve, Marx was likely educated at home.
• From 1830 to 1835, he attended the High School in Trier, formerly a Jesuit school and then named Frederick William High School. Here he received a solid humanist education. The school had a liberal spirit influenced by Kantian philosophy. The headmaster, Hugo Wyttenbach, was Karl’s history teacher and a friend of the Marx family. Wyttenbach praised Marx for being rich in ideas and well-organized in an early essay, though he criticized his exaggerated desire for rare and imaginative expressions.
• In his early writings, Marx showed a belief in a purpose in life indicated by an inner voice. A sentence in one of his early essays stating that “Our social relations have already begun to form, to some extent, before we are in a position to determine them” has been seen as a potential “first germ” of his later theory of historical materialism. However, it’s also noted that this idea is at least as old as the Enlightenment and Encyclopedists, and it’s unlikely the full germ of historical materialism was present in a seventeen-year-old. The subsequent passages in the essay suggest Marx meant considering one’s circumstances when choosing a career.
• Another important influence on the young Marx, in addition to his home and school, was his friendship with Baron von Westphalen, who had a significant impact on his enthusiasm for romanticism.

Student Days:

• In October 1835, at the age of seventeen, Marx began university. He first attended the University of Bonn, registering in the Law Faculty. The atmosphere in Bonn was thoroughly romantic, and he attended popular lectures on philosophy and literature. He initially registered for many courses with zeal, but reduced them due to illness and gave less time to formal studies in his second term.
• In October 1836, Marx moved to Berlin, a much larger and different city with a university focused on work and intellectual interests rather than typical student activities.
• In Berlin, his romantic period did not last long. He read widely in jurisprudence and felt compelled to “struggle with philosophy”. He attended lectures by Eduard Gans, a progressive liberal Hegelian who discussed the importance of social questions and the struggle between proletarians and the middle classes. He also attended lectures by Karl von Savigny, representing the Historical School of Law, which Marx saw as having reactionary overtones.
• Marx began to clarify his ideas by writing, including a dialogue where he engaged with natural science, history, and the works of Schelling. This process led to his conversion to Hegelianism, mirroring the evolution of classical German philosophy.
• In the years immediately following Hegel’s death, his school split into conservative and radical wings. The radicals, including the Young Hegelians, used a progressive reason to critique dogmas in religious representations, which they saw as outdated myths. This religious criticism inevitably became secularized into political opposition due to the close connection between church and state in Germany. Marx worked out his views on philosophy and society as a member of this movement, centered in the Berlin Doctors’ Club.
• In the Doctors’ Club, idealism, thirst for knowledge, and a liberal spirit reigned, with much attention devoted to Hegelian philosophy. Marx’s intimate friends included Adolph Rutenberg (a journalist) and Karl Köppen (a history teacher). The leading figure in the club was Bruno Bauer, a theology lecturer who became Marx’s closest friend for four years. Bauer described Marx as a “true arsenal of thoughts, a veritable factory of ideas” [16, footnote].
• Marx’s lifestyle in Berlin was in keeping with the “studied bohemianism” of the Doctors’ Club, which contributed to estrangement from his family. His father sent him a “very tart reply” to a long “confession” letter in November 1837 [18, footnote linking to source 4].
• His family ties were further loosened by the death of his father in May 1838. Despite disagreements, Marx had a strong affection for his father. This death also reduced the family’s income and led to difficulties with the von Westphalen family.
• Marx’s interests turned definitely from law to philosophy. He largely opted out of the formal aspects of the university, attending only two courses during his last three years in Berlin.
• With declining family support, choosing a career became pressing. The academic world seemed promising. Bruno Bauer encouraged him to pursue theory, stating, “Theory is now the strongest practice”.
• In early 1839, Marx decided to work on a doctoral dissertation to secure a university post, preferably at Bonn. He spent considerable time reading and making excerpts, primarily on Epicurean philosophy, but also Hegel, Aristotle, and others.
• His choice of subject for the dissertation was influenced by the Young Hegelians’ interest in post-Aristotelian Greek philosophy, seeing parallels between that period after Aristotle’s “total philosophy” and their own situation after Hegel. They also believed these philosophies contained elements of modern thought.

Transition to Journalism:

• After his doctoral thesis was accepted, Marx had a restless year before adopting journalism as a career in mid-1842. He moved frequently between Trier, Bonn, and Cologne. He initially planned further academic work.
• Marx had a strong reputation in the Cologne Circle. Moses Hess described him as potentially “the greatest – perhaps the only genuine – philosopher now alive,” combining deep philosophical seriousness with biting wit.
• He began transferring his efforts from Ruge’s journal to the Rheinische Zeitung. One of his first contributions, published in August 1842, was a criticism of the Historical School of Law, indirectly attacking the Prussian state’s institutions. This article, the first Marx ever published, was enthusiastically received by his friends.
• Marx became more eager to earn a living through journalism after a violent quarrel with his mother at the end of June 1842 led to the cessation of financial support. This quarrel was so violent that he left the family home.
• His article on the debates regarding the law on thefts of wood illustrated his growing interest in socio-economic realities. Marx later wrote that his work as Editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, particularly discussions on material interests like the theft of wood and the situation of Mosel wine-growers, was the first occasion that led him from pure politics to economic relationships and socialism. Engels also noted this as the trigger for Marx’s turn towards economics.
• At 24, Marx was described as a “powerful man” of about 28, medium height, broad-shouldered, powerful in build, and vigorous in his movements. He had a high forehead, bushy black hair, a piercing gaze, and a mouth with a sarcastic curl. He conveyed great energy and passionate devotion. He was seen as a “born leader” with brief, convincing, and logical speech. A contemporary noted that he was already studying economics, preparing for his conversion to communism.

The Development of Marx’s Political and Economic Ideas

Based on the sources and our conversation history, we can discuss Karl Marx’s political and economic ideas, tracing their development and key concepts.

Marx’s intellectual journey saw a significant evolution, moving from a focus on philosophy and politics to a deep engagement with economic analysis. This transition was influenced by his early life, his studies, and his practical experiences in journalism.

Early Political Ideas and the Turn to Economics:

• Marx initially engaged with liberal democratic ideas, drawing conclusions from Hegel’s political philosophy and believing in an ethical state that reflects the views of its members. He criticized the reactionary nature of the Historical School of Law and saw the clash of parties as necessary for progress.
• A pivotal moment in the development of his ideas was his work as Editor of the Rheinische Zeitung. Discussions around material interests, such as the law on thefts of wood and the situation of Mosel wine-growers, were the first occasion that led him from pure politics to economic relationships and socialism.
• Following his journalistic experience, Marx embarked on a critical review of Hegel’s philosophy of law, particularly The Philosophy of Right. This investigation led him to the crucial conclusion that legal relations and forms of state are not to be understood in themselves, but have their roots in the material conditions of life (“civil society”), and that the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.
• Using a method influenced by Feuerbach, Marx critiqued Hegel for reversing the correct relationship of subjects and predicates and for his speculative approach which was at variance with empirical reality. He argued that Hegel transferred the attributes of humanity to a particular individual or class (the bureaucracy).
• He saw the separation of the political state from civil society as a separation of the citizen from their actual empirical reality. While Hegel saw the state as the synthesis, Marx viewed it as a separate entity.
• In envisaging future political development, Marx focused on the extension of the franchise (active and passive suffrage). He believed that only with universal suffrage does civil society rise to political existence, but that the realization of this abstraction also means its transcendence, leading to the dissolution of both the state and civil society.
• His early political aim was a “reform of consciousness,” not through dogmas, but through the analysis of mystical consciousness (religious or political) to reveal its exclusively human dimensions. This was a task for society to achieve self-understanding of its struggles and desires.

Developing Economic and Political-Economic Ideas:

• By the Paris Manuscripts of 1844, Marx had been reading classical economists and had begun to integrate economic analysis into his philosophical critique.
• A central concept in these manuscripts is alienated labour. Marx noted that political economy deals with man as if he were merely an object, not as a human being. He questioned the significance of reducing the majority of mankind to abstract labour.
• He observed that political economy begins with the fact of private property but does not explain it; it relies on abstract formulas and is driven by greed and competition.
• He began to outline a long-term project for a critique of economics and politics, intending to start with political economy and show the interrelationship between various spheres like law, morals, and politics. Capital and its predecessors represented the first stage of this project.
• The Grundrisse (1857-58) are drafts for his planned multi-volume work on “Economics”. Here, having assimilated both Ricardo and Hegel, Marx worked out his synthesis. The Grundrisse intertwined economic discussions (money, capital, surplus-value) with digressions on society, labour, automation, alienation, and the revolutionary nature of capitalism.
• In the Grundrisse, Marx viewed production, distribution, exchange, and consumption not as identical but as different aspects of one unit. He outlined a detailed plan for his “Economics” covering capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, foreign trade, and the world market.
• His Critique of Political Economy (1859) reiterated the plan from the Grundrisse and confirmed that the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.
• In the Communist Manifesto (written with Engels), the aims were explicitly stated as the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the domination of the proletariat, the abolition of bourgeois society and classes, and the establishment of a new society without classes and private property.
• They argued that the proletariat would use its political supremacy to centralize the instruments of production in the State, understood as the proletariat organized as the ruling class. The goal was an association where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
• Marx’s views on the transition included the idea of a “class dictatorship of the proletariat” as a necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions. However, he also noted that measures taken by the proletariat in power might initially be petty-bourgeois if conditions were not fully ripe.
• He saw political action as indissolubly united with the economic movement in the struggle of the working class.
• His economic analysis extended to contemporary issues, such as his view that free trade was destructive and hastened the social revolution, while protection was conservative. He saw trade unions as essential in the battle against capital.
• Later in his life, in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, he critiqued notions of “fair distribution” and “equal rights” as vague and dismissed the idea of workers receiving the “undiminished proceeds of their labour” as impractical, ignoring necessary social deductions.

In summary, Marx’s political ideas developed from a critique of the existing state and its relation to civil society, heavily influenced by Hegelian philosophy, into a revolutionary call for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a classless society through the political action of the proletariat. His economic ideas, developed through extensive study and critique of classical economists, provided the analytical framework for understanding the “anatomy of civil society” and the dynamics of capitalism, particularly through concepts like alienated labour, private property, value, and the relationship between capital and labour. These political and economic threads were deeply intertwined, forming the basis of his critique of existing society and his vision for a future communist one.

Marxist Socialism and Communism: Evolution and Critique

Drawing on the sources and our conversation history, we can discuss the concepts of Socialism and Communism as they appear in the context of Karl Marx’s political and economic ideas.

Marx’s engagement with socialism and communism evolved significantly throughout his intellectual journey. Initially, the terms “socialism” and “communism” were generally used interchangeably in Germany, and various forms of socialist thought, particularly French Utopian socialism, began to influence German intellectuals during the 1830s. Individuals like Ludwig Gall and Moses Hess in Trier, and figures like Heine and Gans in Berlin, contributed to the spread of these ideas. Moses Hess’s book, The Sacred History of Mankind, is noted as the first book by a native German communist and contained early ideas about the polarization of classes and the imminence of a proletarian revolution. Wilhelm Weitling, active in German expatriate workers’ associations, published a messianic work defending the right to education and happiness through social equality and justice. Lorenz von Stein’s inquiry, The Socialism and Communism of Present-Day France, commissioned by the Prussian Government, also played a significant role in attracting attention to socialism and communism in Germany in 1842, despite the author’s lack of sympathy.

The climate in Cologne, where Marx worked on the Rheinische Zeitung, was particularly receptive to socialist ideas, partly due to socially conscious Rhineland liberals who believed the state had significant duties towards society. Discussions about social questions were regular among the paper’s editorial group, founded by Moses Hess. While the Rheinische Zeitung acknowledged poverty as a social issue, it did not initially view the proletariat as a distinct social class but rather as victims of poor economic organization. The paper stated it would submit communistic ideas to thorough criticism, recognizing that works by figures like Proudhon required deep study. Marx’s experience with material interests, such as the law on thefts of wood and the situation of Mosel wine-growers, was the first occasion that led him “from pure politics to economic relationships and socialism” [Source from conversation history].

Marx’s critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law led him to the crucial conclusion that “legal relations and forms of state are not to be understood in themselves, but have their roots in the material conditions of life” (“civil society”), and that the “anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy” [Source from conversation history]. This foundational idea linked his political and economic thought, suggesting that an understanding of society and the potential for its transformation must be based on economic analysis.

By the time of the Paris Manuscripts of 1844, Marx had been studying classical economists and began integrating economic analysis into his philosophical critique [Source from conversation history]. He noted that political economy treated man as an object and questioned the reduction of most people to abstract labour [Source from conversation history]. He observed that political economy began with private property but failed to explain its origins, relying on abstract formulas driven by greed and competition [Source from conversation history]. In these manuscripts, Marx outlined a long-term project starting with political economy to show the interrelationship between spheres like law, morals, and politics, a project that Capital and its predecessors represented the first stage of.

A central concept Marx developed was alienated labour, which he saw as a result of capitalism [Source from conversation history, 67]. He noted how political economy contributed to this by treating humans as mere objects [Source from conversation history].

In the Paris Manuscripts, Marx also critiqued various forms of communism. He described “crude” communism as the universalization of private property, seeking to destroy anything that could not be commonly owned and viewing immediate physical ownership as the sole aim. This form saw the only community as one of alienated labour, with equality reduced to wages paid by the community acting as a universal capitalist. He identified a second, inadequate form as either “still political in nature, whether democratic or despotic” or as achieving “the abolition of the state, but still incomplete and under the influence of private property”. While this form understood communism as the abolition of self-alienation, it was still “imprisoned and contaminated by private property” and had grasped the concept but not the essence. He cited examples like Cabet’s utopian, non-violent “democratic” communism and the followers of Babeuf who advocated a “transitory dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Marx’s own conception of communism, in contrast, was rooted in history, viewing “the whole movement of history” as the consciously comprehended process of its becoming. He saw communism as “the positive expression of the overcoming of private property”. He noted that earlier forms appealed to isolated historical communities, implying the rest of history didn’t support communism.

Marx and Engels, in The German Ideology, clarified their differences with contemporary German socialists, particularly those influenced by Feuerbach and Stirner, whom they termed “true’ socialism“. They saw this as grafting the Feuerbachian idea of a ‘true’ human essence onto French socialism. ‘True’ socialists, they argued, rejected the struggle for ‘bourgeois’ rights, relying on moralizing and sentiment over historical analysis. They replaced revolutionary enthusiasm with universal love and depended on the petty bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels countered that “consciousness does not determine life, but life determines conscious-ness”. They stated that “Communism . . . is not for us a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.”.

In the Communist Manifesto, written with Engels, the aims were explicitly stated as the “overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the domination of the proletariat, the abolition of the old bourgeois society based on class antagonisms, and the establishment of a new society without classes and without private property”. The Manifesto argued that society’s history since the Middle Ages is a history of class struggles, ending with the prophecy of the proletariat’s victory over the bourgeoisie. Communists, they stated, represent the interests of the proletariat as a whole, distinguished by being international and understanding the proletarian movement’s significance. Communist ideas, they argued, are not invented but express actual relations from existing class struggle and can be summed up as the abolition of private property. They envisioned a future communist society as “an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.

The Manifesto also critiqued “bourgeois socialism”, represented by Proudhon, which desired the advantages of modern conditions without the resulting struggles and dangers, essentially wanting “a bourgeoisie without a proletariat”. These reforms did not affect the relationship between capital and labour. “Utopian, doctrinaire socialism” was also critiqued for replacing common production with individual brainwork and dismissing revolutionary struggle in fantasy.

Marx saw political action as “indissolubly united” with the economic movement in the working-class struggle. He believed the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie’s political power and “first of all a revolutionary power”. The Manifesto stated the proletariat would use its “political supremacy to centralize the instruments of production in the State,” defined as the proletariat organized as the ruling class [Source from conversation history]. This was seen as a necessary step towards the abolition of class distinctions [Source from conversation history]. Marx later referred to this political transition period between capitalist and communist society as one where “the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Regarding the organization of labour in a communist society, Marx and Engels suggested that the subordination of the artist to specific art forms would disappear; there would be no painters as an exclusive profession, but “at most, people who engage in painting among other activities”.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx criticized the focus on “fair distribution” and “equal rights” as vague, and rejected the idea of workers receiving the “undiminished proceeds of their labour,” arguing it ignored necessary social deductions [Source from conversation history]. He described this focus on distribution separate from production as “vulgar socialism”.

Marx’s view on the state in a communist society was not specifically answered, but he posed the question of its transformation and remaining social functions. He rejected the idea of a “free state” as the aim of workers worthy of the name “socialist”.

While Marx saw capitalism as a destructive force creating class struggle, he also recognized its positive function in developing productive forces and creating a world market, representing “the turning point to untold riches in the future”.

Towards the end of his life, Marx was critical of some who claimed to be his followers, reportedly exclaiming, “As for me, I am no Marxist!”. He gave little detailed indication of what a future communist society would look like, focusing more on critiquing capitalism. His legacy, often reshaped by figures like Lenin, became associated with “Marxism-Leninism” and the Soviet Union, though the sources suggest Marx himself might not have been surprised or dismayed by its demise.

Ultimately, Marx’s ideas on socialism and communism provided a powerful critique of existing society and a vision for a future classless society based on the abolition of private property and the free development of individuals. His analysis intertwined political and economic thought, emphasizing the role of material conditions, class struggle, and the necessity of political action to achieve this transformation [Source from conversation history, 34, 45, 82]. While the theories have faced criticism and have been “severely tarnished in practice”, his core values and insights into society and history continue to influence thinking.

Marx, Judaism, and the Jewish Question

Based on the sources and our conversation history, we can discuss the Jewish background of Karl Marx and its relevance to his life and thought.

It is notable that Karl Marx, who is claimed by many working-class movements, came from a comfortable middle-class home, yet his background provided a sense of alienation. Marx’s family had a strong Jewish ancestry. His name, Marx, is a shortened form of Mordechai, later changed to Markus. His father, Heinrich Marx, born in 1782, was the third son of Meier Halevi Marx, who had become rabbi of Trier and was succeeded by his eldest son Samuel (Karl’s uncle). Meier Halevi Marx had many rabbis among his ancestors, originally from Bohemia, and his wife, Chage, was the daughter of Moses Lwow, rabbi in Trier, whose father and grandfather were also rabbis in the same city. Joshue Heschel Lwow, Moses’s father, was chosen rabbi of Trier in 1723, was known as a fighter for truth, and was consulted on important decisions in the Jewish world. Aron Lwow, Joshue Heschel’s father, was also a rabbi in Trier before moving to Westhofen in Alsace. Aron Lwow’s father, Moses Lwow, came from Lemberg in Poland and was descended from Meir Katzenellenbogen, head of the Talmudic High School in Padua in the sixteenth century, and Abraham Ha-Levi Minz, a rabbi in Padua whose father had left Germany due to persecutions in the mid-fifteenth century. Almost all the rabbis of Trier from the sixteenth century onwards were ancestors of Marx. Research on Marx’s genealogy confirms this ancestry.

Less is known about Marx’s mother, Henrietta, but she also appears to have been deeply rooted in the rabbinic tradition. She was Dutch, the daughter of Isaac Pressburg, rabbi of Nijmegen. According to Eleanor Marx, her grandmother’s family had sons who had been rabbis for centuries. Eleanor wrote that her grandmother’s family name was Pressburg and she belonged by descent to an old Hungarian Jewish family driven by persecution to Holland.

Despite this centuries-old tradition of strict Jewish orthodoxy, Marx’s father, Heinrich Marx, was remarkably unaffected by it. He had broken with his family early in life. Heinrich Marx was counsellor-at-law to the High Court of Appeal in Trier and also practiced in the Trier County Court, earning the title of Justizrat. He was President of the city lawyers’ association and held a respected position in civic society.

Heinrich Marx’s conversion to Christianity was a decision made solely to continue his profession. Napoleonic laws had granted some equality to Jews in the Rhineland but imposed controls over commercial practices. After the Rhineland transferred to Prussia, Heinrich Marx petitioned the new Governor-General to annul laws applying exclusively to Jews, identifying himself with the Jewish community. However, this was unsuccessful. Jews faced unfavorable conditions: Napoleonic laws remained in force, and Prussian laws, while granting equal rights to Christians, made holding state positions dependent on royal dispensation. The President of the Provincial Supreme Court, von Sethe, recognized Heinrich Marx’s knowledge, diligence, articulateness, and honesty and recommended he be retained in his post. However, the Prussian Minister of Justice opposed exceptions, forcing Heinrich Marx to change his religion to avoid losing his livelihood. He chose Protestantism and was baptized before August 1817, changing his name from Heschel to Heinrich at this time.

Marx’s mother, Henrietta, appears to have been more attached to Jewish beliefs than his father. When the children were baptized in 1824 (Karl being old enough to start school), her religion was recorded as Jewish with a note that she consented to her children’s baptism but wished to defer her own due to her parents. She was baptized in 1825 after her father died. Her letters suggest she was a simple, uneducated woman primarily focused on her family and home, and she might have kept certain Jewish customs alive in the household.

It is difficult to precisely estimate the influence of this family tradition on Marx. He later wrote, “The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a mountain on the mind of the living”. Jewishness at that time was not easy to discard. Friends of Marx like Heine and Hess, both converts, retained their Jewish self-awareness. Even Marx’s youngest daughter, Eleanor, who was only half-Jewish, proudly proclaimed, “I am a Jewess” at workers’ meetings. The position of Jews in the Rhineland, sometimes scapegoats for poverty, likely increased their collective self-awareness. The policy of the ‘Christian state’ involved anti-semitism, as religious Jews practiced an alien faith and many claimed to be a separate people.

Marx’s Jewishness was often brought up by his prominent opponents, including Ruge, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Dühring. Whether Marx himself possessed anti-semitic tendencies is controversial. While a superficial reading of his pamphlet On the Jewish Question might suggest this, and his letters contain derogatory remarks about Jews, this does not necessarily justify a charge of sustained anti-semitism. Some scholars believe his rabbinic ancestry holds the key to his ideas, but reducing his ideas to secularized Judaism is seen as too simplistic, as echoes of the prophetic tradition are part of the Western intellectual heritage. Studies on this problem have led to diverse speculations but sparse convincing conclusions. Some argue that his humanism came from his Jewish upbringing, while others try to demonstrate anti-semitism and Jewish self-hate.

In his essay ‘On the Jewish Question’, written in Paris, Marx addressed the contemporary debate in Prussia regarding Jewish emancipation. This essay was a critique of Bruno Bauer, who argued that both Jews and Christians needed to renounce their religions to achieve human rights. Bauer believed that civil rights were incompatible with an absolute system and that religious prejudice would disappear with equal rights in a liberal, secular state. Marx welcomed Bauer’s critique of the Christian state but criticized him for not questioning the state itself and failing to examine the relationship between political emancipation (granting political rights) and human emancipation (emancipation in all faculties). Marx argued that society’s ills could not be cured simply by emancipating the political sphere from religious influence.

Marx showed that religion was compatible with civil rights, citing examples from North America. He contested Bauer’s refusal to acknowledge the Jewish claim to human rights, arguing that the rights of the citizen were political and did not presuppose the abolition of religion, reflecting man’s social essence in an abstract form. In contrast, the rights of man, as seen in French and American constitutions, expressed the division of bourgeois society and had nothing inherently social about them; they did not deny religious practice but recognized it.

Marx argued that actual individual man must reintegrate the abstract citizen and become a species-being in his empirical life, work, and relationships. He must recognize his forces as social forces, organize them, and no longer separate them in the form of political forces. Human emancipation would only be complete when this is achieved.

Critiquing a second essay by Bauer, Marx developed the theme of religion as the spiritual facade of a sordid and egoistic world. For Marx, the question of Jewish emancipation became about overcoming the specific social element necessary to abolish Judaism. He defined the secular basis of Judaism as practical need and self-interest, its worldly cult as barter, and its worldly god as money. He concluded that an organization of society abolishing haggling and its possibility would make the Jew impossible, and his religious consciousness would dissolve. If the Jew recognizes this practical essence as void and works for its abolition, he works for human emancipation.

Marx contended that the Jew had already emancipated himself in a Jewish way because the Christian world had become impregnated with the practical Jewish spirit. Their lack of nominal political rights was insignificant to Jews, who wielded great financial power in practice. He stated that the contradiction between the Jew’s lack of political rights and his practical political power reflected the general contradiction between politics and the power of money; while politics is ideally superior, in fact, it is money’s bondsman. Money is the jealous god of Israel, debasing all other gods and turning them into commodities. Money is the universal, self-constituted value of all things, robbing the world of its own values. Money is the alienated essence of man’s work and being, dominating him, and he adores it.

Judaism, according to Marx, could not develop further as a religion but had established itself in practice at the heart of civil society and the Christian world. He argued that only under the domination of Christianity, which made all relationships exterior to man, could civil society completely separate itself from the state, tear asunder all species-bonds, replace them with egoism and selfish need, and dissolve man into a world of atomized individuals hostile to one another. Thus, Christianity, which arose from Judaism, had dissolved and reverted to Judaism.

Marx’s conclusion in this article outlined the idea of alienated labour: as long as man is imprisoned within religion, he objectifies his essence as an alien, imaginary being. Similarly, under the domination of egoistic need, he can only be practical and create practical objects by putting his products and activity under the domination of an alien entity and lending them its significance: money.

This article has largely contributed to the view that Marx was anti-semitic. While a quick reading of the second section can leave a negative impression, and Marx made other anti-Jewish remarks, none were as sustained as here. However, Marx’s willingness to help the Jews of Cologne petition the government suggests his article was aimed more at the vulgar capitalism popularly associated with Jews than at Jewry itself. The German word for Jewry, Judentum, has a secondary meaning of commerce, and Marx may have played on this double meaning. Significantly, some key points in the second section, including the attack on Judaism as the embodiment of money fetishism, were taken almost verbatim from an article by Moses Hess, who was not anti-semitic. Hess’s article, ‘On the Essence of Money’, was intended for the same journal.

The first part of ‘On the Jewish Question’ was a reworking of old themes, an introduction to a proposed critique of Hegel’s philosophy, with several arguments already developed in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. It formed a manifesto anticipating the Communist Manifesto. The article shifted the emphasis to the proletariat as the future emancipator, oriented towards Germany and the possibility of revolution, starting with religion and moving to politics.

The sources also note other instances of Marx making derogatory remarks, such as those concerning Ferdinand Lassalle, where Marx speculated about his ancestry based on perceived features.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!