Month: June 2023
Alexander Miller, Capital & Class
This erudite yet highly readable study covers the period from January 1881 to Marx’s death on 14 March 1883. As Musto notes, previous biographers have ‘devoted . . . few pages to his activity after the winding up of the International Working Men’s Association, in 1872’ (p. 5). This tendency to neglect his final years includes authors of classic biographies sympathetic to Marx, such as Franz Mehring (1918), Boris Nicolaevsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen (1936), and David McLellan (1973), and also more recent and less sympathetic biographies by the likes of Gareth Stedman-Jones (2016). Musto’s aim is thus to fill a gap in the literature, making use of the new materials that have become available since the resumed publication in 1998 of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtaugabe (MEGA2). Musto notes that the demise of Marxism-Leninism makes it possible ‘to read a Marx very unlike the dogmatic, economistic, and Eurocentric theorist who was paraded around for so long’ (p. 4), and he argues that a study of Marx’s last writings can contribute to the emergence of such readings. Far from dimming, Marx’s relentlessly probing and questioning intellect burns all the more brightly as his health – ruined by decades of poverty and overwork – starts to give out. It is a great virtue of Musto’s book that the story of Marx’s theoretical work in his last years is intertwined with a vivid and intimate account of his struggle against bodily frailty and impending death. There are four modestly proportioned but substantive chapters. Chapter 1, ‘New Research Horizons’, provides an atmospheric portait of Marx in his study in Maitland Park Road in North London, toiling ‘at a modest desk no larger than three feet by two’ with his ‘painstakingly rigorous and intransigiently critical [method]’ (p. 11). Musto isn’t exaggerating when he writes that ‘The whole world was contained in his room as he sat there at his desk’ (p. 48): having taught himself Russian, a considerable section of his library consists of texts in the Cyrillic alphabet, such as Maksim Kovalevsky’s 1879 Communal Landownership: The Causes, Course and Consequences of its Decline, a study of which allows Marx to reflect on landownership in countries under foreign rule and how possession rights were regulated in Latin America by the Spanish, in India by the British, and in Algeria by the French. Anthroplogy, ancient societies, organic chemistry, physics, physiology, geology, and differential calculus are only some of the subjects studied, as well as Australia, the United States, and the British colonial occupation of Ireland, all in addition to his ongoing work in political economy and socialist politics. Chapter 2, ‘Controversy Over the Development of Capitalism in Russia’, displays just how far Marx was from being a dogmatist who attempted to shoehorn historical events into a pre-ordained a priori schema. In 1881, Marx received a letter from Vera Zasulich, a Russian activist (who had flown to Geneva, having attempted to assassinate the chief of police in St. Petersburg), asking whether Marx believed it possible that the rural commune (obshchina) was capable of developing in a socialist direction without first perishing and being usurped by capitalism. Based on the schema feudalism-capitalism-socialism, many ‘Marxists’ of the day would answer ‘No’. Musto outlines how Marx himself wrestled with the question for almost 3 weeks, producing 4 drafts of an answer to Zasulich, emphasizing that claims of the historical inevitability of the passage from feudalism to capitalism were ‘expressly restricted . . . to the countries of Western Europe’ (p. 65). In the period of transition from feudalism to capitalism in England, capitalist relations of production were not in existence anywhere else in Europe. This is not the situation of the Russian obshchina in the late 19th century. Marx thus reaches the answer he gave in the 1882 Preface to the Second Russian Edition of the Communist Manifesto: ‘If the Russian Revolution becomes a signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other, the present common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for communist development’ (quoted on p. 71). More important than the answer reached was the fact that Marx at this late stage worked it out afresh based on the empirical research and historical analysis at his disposal: he was a social scientist with a remarkably open theoretical cast of mind, not a quasi-religious prophet dispensing ‘teachings’. Chapter 3, `The Travails of “Old Nick”’, details how the theories developed in Capital Volume I began to spread throughout Europe in the 1870s and early 1880s, together with the various obstacles (personal and otherwise) that prevented him completing Volumes II and III. Despite the death of his wife, Jenny, in December 1881 – he was so frail from pleurisy and bronchitis himself that his doctor ordered him not to attend the funeral – Marx resumed his historical studies, constructing `an annotated year-by-year timeline of world events from the first century BC on’ (p.99), and hoping to correct what he now took to be the `completely inadequate . . . schema of linear progression’ through the various modes of production outlined in his (now famous) “Preface” to the 1859 A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. His timeline reached 1648 before ill-health again intervened. Unwilling to burden his youngest daughter Eleanor with the task of accompanying him, on his doctor’s advice he set out alone in February 1882 for Algiers, crossing France by train to Marseilles to take a steamship that reached the North African port after a 34 hour crossing through stormy weather. The final chapter, ‘The Moor’s Last Journey’, is the highlight of the book. Other biographies devote at most a few sentences to Marx’s only trip outside Europe, whereas Musto reconstructs from Marx’s correspondence the 72days he spent unsuccessfully seeking relief from ill-health in Algiers. The death of Marx’s eldest daughter Jenny in January 1883 (at the age of 39) is the cruellest blow, followed shortly afterwards by Marx’s own demise. Despite the heartbreaking tale, Musto ends the chapter on an inspirational note of which Marx himself would surely have approved, speaking of the message ‘that radiates incessantly from the whole of his work: organize the struggle to end the bourgeois mode of production and to achieve the emancipation of the workers of the world from the domination of capital’ (p. 125). Making very good use of Marx’s extensive late notebooks, Musto’s important volume constitutes an excellent addition to the literature: it will provide insight and inspiration to all students of Marx and his work.
Marx’s View of the Global South
Sempat disebut usang dan sudah tak relevan seiring dengan bubarnya Uni Soviet, pemikiran Karl Marx nyatanya kian mendapat pembuktiannya dengan semakin kencangnya laju krisis demi krisis kapitalisme global pada abad ke-21.
La idea de comunisme
Les seves de Marx anotacions sobre el comunisme no s’han de considerar el model marxista al qual cal adherir-se dogmàticament, ni menys encara les solucions que, segons Marx, haurien d’haver-se aplicat, indistintament, en indrets i èpoques diferents. Aquests passatges, però, constitueixen un (conspicu i inestimable) tresor teòric, encara avui útil, per repensar l’alternativa al capitalisme.
En los últimos años de su vida, Karl Marx extendió su investigación a nuevas disciplinas, conflictos políticos, cuestiones teóricas y áreas geográficas. Marx estudió los recientes descubrimientos antropológicos, analizó las formas comunales de propiedad en las sociedades precapitalistas, apoyó la lucha del movimiento de los naródniki en Rusia, expresó críticas a la opresión colonial en India, Irlanda, Argelia y Egipto, y viajó más allá de Europa por primera y única vez.
Of particular value for a re-evaluation of Marx’s achievement was the resumed publication in 1998 of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe
Zoom: 790 330 1054, Password: 1122
Alienation was one of the most important and widely debated themes of the 20th century, and Marx’s theorization played a key role in the discussions. Yet, contrary to what one might imagine, the concept itself did not develop in a linear manner, and the publication of previously unknown texts containing Marx’s reflections on alienation defined significant moments in the transformation and dissemination of the theory.
The meaning of the term changed several times over the centuries. In theological discourse it referred to the distance between man and God; in social contract theories, to loss of the individual’s original liberty; and in English political economy, to the transfer of property ownership. The first systematic philosophical account of alienation was in the work of G.W.F. Hegel, who in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) adopted the terms Entäusserung (literally self-externalization or renunciation) and Entfremdung (estrangement) to denote Spirit’s becoming other than itself in the realm of objectivity. The whole question still featured prominently in the writings of the Hegelian Left, and Ludwig Feuerbach’s theory of religious alienation – that is, of man’s projection of his own essence onto an imaginary deity (in The Essence of Christianity [1841]) – contributed significantly to the development of the concept. Alienation subsequently disappeared from philosophical reflection, and none of the major thinkers of the second half of the 19th century paid it any great attention. Even Marx rarely used the term in the works published during his lifetime, and it was entirely absent from the Marxism of the Second International (1889-1914).
During this period, however, several thinkers developed concepts that were later associated with alienation. In his Division of Labour (1893) and Suicide (1897), Émile Durkheim introduced the term ‘anomie’ to indicate a set of phenomena whereby the norms guaranteeing social cohesion enter into crisis following a major extension of the division of labour. Social trends concomitant with huge changes in the production process also lay at the basis of the thinking of German sociologists: Georg Simmel, in The Philosophy of Money (1900), paid great attention to the dominance of social institutions over individuals and to the growing impersonality of human relations; while Max Weber, in Economy and Society (1922), dwelled on the phenomena of ‘bureaucratization’ in society and ‘rational calculation’ in human relations, considering them to be the essence of capitalism. But these authors thought they were describing unstoppable tendencies, and their reflections were often guided by a wish to improve the existing social and political order – certainly not to replace it with a different one.
Zoom: 676 6710 2159 – Password: 230610
More info: https://t.co/WKQFvnETc5
Alain Bergounioux, L’OURS
Les deux mots du sous-titre, « biographie » et « intellectuelle», ont une égale importance. Car le livre détaille la vie quotidienne de l’exilé de Londres, marquée, de plus en plus, par la maladie et les malheurs personnels (les morts de sa femme et de sa fille aînée), mais aussi par des curiosités savantes et un effort intellectuel sans cesse renouvelés, malgré les défaillances du corps.
Penseur et homme d’action
Ce qui ressort des évocations de la vie de Karl Marx, à Londres, c’est, avant tout, la volonté de poursuivre son travail pour préciser et consolider ses apports théoriques. La description de son cabinet de travail est, pour cela, suggestive : pièce où s’entassent les livres, les revues, les journaux, qu’il se fait livrer du monde entier, où il a l’habitude de marcher, de long en large, pour forger sa pensée avant d’écrire ou, même, pour parler à ses visiteurs. Le penseur reste un homme d’action qui continue d’être souvent sollicité pour les conseils qu’il peut donner aux partis socialistes naissants, particulièrement le parti français de Jules Guesde et le parti allemand.
La présence fréquente de Friedrich Engels et son aide constante n’étonnent pas. La chaleur du foyer familial, l’attachement qu’il manifeste à sa femme, son souci pour ses trois filles, le plaisir qu’il a d’être avec ses petits-enfants, contribuent, aussi, à dessiner un portrait plus riche. Mais les problèmes de santé rythment ces trois années, et toutes les tentatives pour combattre ses maux — la recherche, notamment, d’un air plus pur que celui de Londres – se sont soldées par des échecs jusqu’à son décès le 14 mars 1883.
Éviter les simplifications
L’intérêt de Marcello Musto porte, surtout, sur ce qu’a voulu faire Karl Marx dans ses derniers travaux. À partir des années 1870, sa pensée a commencé à avoir un rayonnement au-delà des cercles militants. Esprit critique qui n’écarte pas les doutes, il se montre soucieux d’éviter les simplifications et les malentendus sur son œuvre. Il aurait voulu poursuivre Le Capital et achever le Litre II. Mais il n’a pu que corriger des passages du Litre l et livrer des brouillons, qu’il aurait, sans doute, repris, par la suite. Mais il s’est tourné vers d’autres recherches, la physique notamment, et, surtout, l’anthropologie, avec les travaux récents de Lewis Morgan sur les sociétés archaïques qui l’ont amené à réfléchir sur les évolutions de la propriété dans l’histoire, et tout particulièrement sur les formes de la propriété collective. Le capitalisme les a détruites au fiir et à mesure de son développement, mais des éléments demeurent encore dans l’Europe de XIX* siècle, particulièrement en Russie. Compte tenu de ce que fut l’histoire de ce pays dans les décennies suivantes, on voit l’intérêt de ces réflexions.
Cela dit, s’il ne remet pas en cause, pour l’essentiel, son schéma central qui fait du capitalisme la condition nécessaire du développement économique et social, et la matrice, par ses contradictions mêmes, de l’avènement du communisme, la société russe — il a appris la langue pour lire directement les études et les documents – lui paraissait montrer que la communauté rurale, si elle bénéficiait d’avancées technologiques, pouvait être une structure de production et de distribution. Dans ses échanges avec des intellectuels et populistes russes, notamment Vera Zassoulitch, il admet que la Russie ne serait peut-être pas amenée à reproduire toutes les phases du capitalisme, et il paraissait ouvert à certaines positions du populisme russe, complexifiant ainsi son schéma de l’évolution des modes de production.On ne peut savoir, évidemment, ce qu’il aurait pensé du communisme soviétique… Son horizon enfin s’élargit aussi aux effets du colonialisme, en Inde, sous domination britannique, et en Algérie, sous domination française — pays où il effectua son seul voyage hors d’Europe pour un traitement médical, dans une autre atmosphère, qui se révéla vain.
L’auteur ne fait que mentionner son « activité de conseil » auprès des partis européens. Et c’est un peu dommage. On aurait aimé en savoir plus, si du moins les documents le permettent. Car, on a en mémoire, que c’est à propos du programme du Parti ouvrier français, de Jules Guesde, et de son gendre, Paul Lafargue, qu’il aurait dit, ironiquement : « Ce qu’il y a de certain, c’est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste!« Quoi qu’il en soit, ce livre complète, utilement, nos connaissances sur la vie et la pensée de Karl Marx, en apportant des touches de complexité suggestives