Categories
Journal Articles

A guerra civil nos EUA e as lutas pela independência da Polônia

A luta contra a escravidão nos EUA
Na primavera de 1861, a política mundial foi sacudida pela eclosão da Guerra Civil Americana. Ela começou rapidamente após a eleição de Abraham Lincoln como presidente dos Estados Unidos, quando sete estados escravocratas declararam sua secessão dos EUA: Carolina do Sul, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Geórgia, Luisiana e Texas. Somaram-se a eles Virgínia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Carolina do Norte e, posteriormente, Missouri e Kentucky (embora estes dois últimos não tenham proclamado oficialmente sua separação). O conflito sangrento que se sucedeu tomou aproximadamente 750.000 vidas entre os Confederados (que eram a favor da manutenção e expansão da escravidão) e a União (os estados leais à Lincoln, ainda que em alguns casos considerando a escravidão legal).

Marx imediatamente se pôs a estudar a situação e, no começo de julho, escreveu à Engels: “O conflito entre Sul e Norte […] finalmente chegou ao ponto culminante (se desconsideramos as novas exigências desavergonhadas da ‘cavalaria’ ) devido ao peso que o extraordinário desenvolvimento dos estados do noroeste colocou na balança.” Na visão de Marx, nenhum dos componentes do movimento separatista tinha qualquer legitimidade; esses movimentos deveriam ser considerados como “usurpações”, já que “em nenhum momento eles deixaram o povo votar em massa”. De todo modo, o que estava em questão não foi apenas a “secessão do Norte, mas também consolidar e intensificar a oligarquia dos 300.000 senhores de escravos no Sul.” (MARX, [1861c] 1985, p.300-1) Alguns dias depois, ele observou que “o assunto [foi] erroneamente representado no noticiário britânico”, já que em todo o lugar, exceto na Carolina do Sul, “havia a mais firme oposição à secessão.” (MARX, [1861d] 1985, p.305) Além do mais, em lugares nos quais a consulta eleitoral era permitida – “apenas poucos” dos estados no Golfo do México possuíam um “voto popular adequado” – ela ocorria em condições censuráveis. Na Virgínia, por exemplo, “uma enorme massa de tropas confederadas foi repentinamente posicionada no território” e “sob sua proteção legal (deveras bonapartista, isso), ela votou pela secessão” – ainda assim, “apesar do terrorismo sistemático”, houveram “50.000 votos” pela União. O Texas, que, “depois da Carolina do Sul, [possuía] o maior terrorismo e partido escravocrata”, ainda registrou “11.000 votos a favor da União”. No Alabama, não havia “voto popular nem pela secessão nem pela nova constituição”, e só foi possível a maioria de 39/61 dos delegados da convenção a favor da secessão em razão do fato de que sob a Constituição “cada escravocrata também votava por 3/5 dos seus escravos.” (MARX, [1861d] 1985, p.306-7). No caso da Luisiana, na “eleição de delegados para a convenção” foram proferidos mais votos pela União ao invés da secessão, mas um número suficiente de delegados desertou para reverter o jogo (MARX, [1861d] 1985, p.307).

Tais considerações nas cartas de Marx à Engels foram complementadas por argumentos ainda mais importantes em suas obras jornalísticas. Em adição às esporádicas contribuições com o New-York Tribune, em outubro de 1861, ele começou a escrever também para o diário liberal vienense Die Presse que, com seus 30.000 assinantes, foi o mais amplamente lido jornal na Áustria e um dos mais populares onde quer que se falasse a língua alemã. O tema central desses artigos – que também incluíam relatórios sobre a segunda invasão da França ao México – eram os efeitos econômicos da guerra norte-americana contra a Grã-Bretanha. Em particular, Marx se concentrou no desenvolvimento do comércio e da situação financeira, bem como em avaliar as tendências na opinião pública. Portanto, em Um encontro de trabalhadores londrinos (1862), ele expressou satisfação em relação às demonstrações organizadas pelos trabalhadores ingleses que, apesar de “não representados no Parlamento”, tinham conseguido exercer sua “influência política” (MARX, [1862b] 1984, p.153) e impediram uma intervenção militar da Grã-Bretanha contra a União.

Similarmente, Marx escreveu um artigo inspirado para o New-York Tribune, após o Caso Trent, quando a Marinha dos EUA prendeu de maneira ilegal dois diplomatas confederados a bordo de um navio britânico. Os Estados Unidos, escreveu Marx, não deveriam se esquecer “de que pelo menos as classes trabalhadoras da Inglaterra nunca os abandonaram”. Para elas, “a paz oscilava na balança” porque “apesar dos estímulos venenosos diariamente administrados por uma imprensa corrupta e irresponsável, não era possível realizar uma única reunião de guerra no Reino Unido durante todo o período”. (MARX, [1862a] 1984, p.137) A “atitude das classes trabalhadoras britânicas” seria ainda mais valorizada quando colocada lado a lado com “o bullying, a conduta hipócrita, covarde e estúpida da oficial e abastada figura do John Bull”; coragem e consistência de um lado, incoerência e autocontradição de outro. Em uma carta que escreveu à Lassalle em maio de 1861, ele comentou: “o todo da imprensa oficial na Inglaterra era, claro, a favor dos escravocratas. Eles são os mesmos sujeitos que fatigaram o mundo com sua filantropia comercial antiescravista. Mas algodão é algodão!” (MARX, [1861a] 1985, p.291)

Os interesses de Marx quanto à Guerra Civil vão além do possível impacto para a Grã-Bretanha; ele queria, acima de tudo, iluminar a natureza do conflito. O artigo que escreveu para o New-York Tribune alguns meses depois que a guerra eclodiu é um bom exemplo disso: “O povo da Europa sabe que uma luta pela continuidade da União é uma luta contra a continuidade da escravocracia – que nesta disputa a forma mais elevada de autogoverno popular já realizada até agora está dando embate à mais vil e vergonhosa forma de escravidão humana já registrada nos anais da história” . (MARX, [1861f] 1984, p.30)

Em alguns dos artigos para a Die Presse, Marx analisou em maior profundidade os argumentos dos dois lados opositores. Ele começou demonstrando a hipocrisia dos partidários ingleses liberais e conservadores. Em A guerra civil norte-americana (25 de outubro de 1861), ele ridicularizou a “descoberta brilhante” do The Times, então um proeminente jornal britânico, de que foi “uma mera guerra tarifária, uma guerra entre um sistema protecionista e um sistema de livre comércio” e sua conclusão de que os britânicos não tinham escolha senão declarar suporte ao “livre comércio” representado pela confederação do sul. Alguns semanais, incluindo o The Economist e o The Saturday Review, deram um passo além e insistiram que “a questão da escravidão […] não tinha absolutamente nada a ver com essa guerra”. (MARX, [1861e] 1984, p.32-33)

Ao se opor à essas interpretações, Marx chamou atenção para as razões políticas por trás do conflito. Sobre os proprietários de escravos do Sul, assinalou que seu objetivo central era manter controle do senado e, portanto, “influência política sobre os Estados Unidos”. Para isso, era necessário conquistar novas regiões (como havia acontecido em 1845 com a anexação do Texas) ou transformar partes existentes dos EUA em “estados escravistas”. (MARX, [1861e] 1984, p.33) Os defensores da escravidão na América do Norte eram “uma pequena oligarquia que sempre [foi] confrontada com muitos milhões dos assim chamados brancos pobres, cujos números haviam crescido constantemente por meio da concentração da propriedade de terra e cuja condição só se compara àquela dos plebeus romanos no período de extremo declínio da Roma”. (MARX, [1861e] 1984, p.40-41) Portanto, a “aquisição e perspectiva de aquisição de novos territórios” foi a única maneira possível de coincidir os interesses dos pobres com aqueles dos proprietários de escravos, para dar uma direção inofensiva à sua sede incansável de ação e para domá-los com a perspectiva de um dia se tornarem eles próprios donos de escravos”. Por outro lado, Lincoln perseguia o objetivo do “confinamento rigoroso da escravidão dentro de seu antigo terreno”, o que “inevitavelmente levaria, de acordo com a lei econômica, à sua extinção gradual” e, portanto, à aniquilação da “hegemonia” dos “estados escravistas”. (MARX, [1861e] 1984, p.41)

Marx usou seu artigo para argumentar o oposto: “o movimento como um todo estava e é baseado, como se vê, na questão da escravidão. Não no sentido de se os escravos nos estados escravistas devem ser completamente emancipados ou não, mas sim se os 20 milhões de homens livres do Norte deveriam continuar a se submeter a uma oligarquia de 300.000 escravocratas”. O que estava em jogo – e Marx baseava nisso o seu insight sobre o mecanismo expansivo da forma econômica – era “se os vastos territórios da república deveriam ser incubadoras para os estados livres ou para a escravidão; [e] se a política nacional da União deveria usar enquanto um dispositivo seu a disseminação armada da escravidão no México, América Central e do Sul” . (MARX, [1861e] 1984, p.41)

Essas análises realçam o abismo que separa Marx de Giuseppe Garibaldi, que havia rejeitado a oferta de um posto de comando no exército do Norte com a justificativa de que se tratava apenas de uma disputa por poder que não dizia respeito à emancipação dos escravos. Sobre a posição de Garibaldi e sua tentativa fracassada de restaurar a paz entre os dois lados, Marx comenta com Engels que: “Garibaldi, o jumento, fez a ele próprio de trouxa com sua carta aos ianques promovendo harmonia.” (MARX, [1861b] 1985, p.293). Enquanto Garibaldi falhou em entender os verdadeiros objetivos e possibilidades no processo em curso, Marx – como um não-maximalista alerta para os possíveis desenvolvimentos históricos – imediatamente percebeu que o resultado da Guerra Civil Norte-Americana seria decisivo em escala mundial para pôr em movimento o relógio da história no caminho da escravidão ou da emancipação.

Em novembro de 1864, confrontado com o rápido e dramático desenrolar dos eventos, Marx pediu a seu tio Lion Philips para refletir sobre “como, na época da eleição de Lincoln [em 1860], era apenas uma questão de não fazer mais concessões aos donos de escravos, quando agora o objetivo declarado, e que em parte já havia sido realizado, era a abolição da escravidão”. E adicionou: “deve-se admitir que nunca tamanha revolução ocorreu com tamanha rapidez. Ela terá uma influência extremamente benéfica para todo o mundo.” (MARX, [1864b] 1987, p.48).

Abraham Lincoln e Andrew Johnson
A reeleição de Lincoln em novembro de 1864 ofereceu à Marx a ocasião para expressar, em nome da Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores, uma mensagem de felicitações contendo uma clara importância política: “se a resistência ao poder escravo era a palavra de ordem de sua primeira eleição, o triunfante grito de guerra de sua reeleição é morte à escravidão.” (MARX, [1864c] 1985, p.19)

Alguns representantes da classe dominante sulista haviam declarado que “a escravidão [era] uma instituição beneficente”, e até pregavam que era “a única solução para o grande problema da relação do trabalho com o capital” . (MARX, [1864c] 1985, p.19) Decorre daí a disposição de Marx em colocar as coisas nos seus devidos lugares:

A classe trabalhadora da Europa entendeu de uma vez, antes mesmo que o partidarismo fanático das classes superiores para com o senhorio da Confederação tivesse dado seu sombrio aviso, de que a rebelião dos donos de escravos iria soar como sinal de guerra para uma cruzada sagrada da propriedade contra o trabalho, e que para os homens do trabalho, com suas esperanças de futuro, mesmo as conquistas do passado estariam em risco naquele tremendo conflito do outro lado do Atlântico. (MARX, [1864c] 1985, p.20)

Marx então tocou em um assunto não menos importante:

Enquanto os trabalhadores, o verdadeiro poder político do Norte, permitiram que a escravidão sujasse sua própria república; enquanto diante do Negro, subjugado e vendido sem seu consentimento, eles se gabavam do mais alto privilégio do trabalhador de pele branca de vender a si mesmo e escolher seu próprio senhor; eles foram incapazes de obter a verdadeira liberdade do trabalho ou de apoiar seus irmãos europeus em sua luta por emancipação. (MARX, [1864c] 1985, p.20)

Um argumento muito similar é feito em O capital, livro I, onde Marx sublinha enfaticamente que “nos Estados Unidos da América do Norte, todo movimento operário independente ficou paralisado durante o tempo em que a escravidão desfigurou uma parte da república. O trabalho de pele branca não pode se emancipar onde o trabalho de pele negra é marcado a ferro”. Contudo, “da morte da escravidão brotou imediatamente uma vida nova e rejuvenescida. O primeiro fruto da guerra civil foi o movimento” por uma jornada diária de trabalho de oito horas. (MARX, [1867] 1976, p.414)

Marx estava bem consciente das posições políticas moderadas de Lincoln , e ele não encobriu os preconceitos raciais de alguns de seus aliados. Mas ele sempre enfatizou de maneira clara, sem nenhum sectarismo, as diferenças entre o sistema escravocrata no Sul e o sistema baseado em trabalho assalariado no Norte. Ele compreendia que, nos Estados Unidos, estavam sendo formadas as condições para demolir uma das mais infames instituições do mundo. O fim da escravidão e da opressão racial permitiria ao movimento global dos trabalhadores que operassem em uma conjuntura mais favorável à construção de uma sociedade sem classes e de um modo de produção comunista .

Com isso em mente, Marx escreveu a Mensagem da Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores para o presidente Johnson, que havia sucedido Lincoln após seu assassinato em 14 de abril de 1865. Marx queria lembrar a Andrew Johnson que, com sua eleição presidencial, ele havia recebido “a tarefa de arrancar pela raiz a lei que havia sido cortada pela espada”: isto é, “presidir sobre o árduo trabalho de reconstrução política e regeneração social…; para iniciar uma nova era de emancipação do trabalho.” (MARX, [1865a] 1985, p.100)

Alguns anos depois, em nome da Internacional, Marx enviou uma Mensagem para a União Nacional dos Trabalhadores dos Estados Unidos (1869). Ele estava bem ciente – escreveu – que “o sofrimento das classes trabalhadoras partiu como um florete o luxo modernizado dos aristocratas financeiros … e vermes semelhantes criados pelas guerras.” (MARX [1869] apud MUSTO, 2014, p. 259) Contudo, não se deve esquecer que “a Guerra Civil Americana compensou por libertar o escravo e ímpeto moral decorrente”. “De você,” ele conclui, “depende a gloriosa tarefa de provar para o mundo que agora, finalmente, as classes trabalhadoras estão percorrendo a cena da história não mais como criados servis, mas como atores independentes, conscientes de sua própria responsabilidade.” (MARX [1869] apud MUSTO, 2014, p.260)

A questão da revolução polonesa e o papel reacionário da Rússia
Quanto às refinadas contribuições analíticas que Marx escreveu para o Die Presse, apenas uma parte delas chegou a ser publicada. Em fevereiro de 1862 ele escreveu à Engels que, “em vista do atual estado de podridão das questões na Alemanha”, o jornal vienense ainda não havia se mostrado a “vaca leiteira que ele poderia ter sido” para escorar suas finanças miseráveis. Os “companheiros” tinham impresso, talvez, “um a cada quatro”, de forma que ele não apenas havia falhado em ganhar o suficiente para atenuar as circunstâncias de sua família, mas também sofreu de “perda de tempo” e o incômodo de “ter que escrever sobre um tópico específico, quer o gracioso conselho editorial seja condescendente em concordar com o imprimatur do artigo ou não.” (MARX, [1862c] 1985, p.340) Marx repetiu a questão em abril, em um comentário sarcástico que ele enviou à Engels: “em sua Nova ciência, Vico diz que a Alemanha é o único país da Europa onde ainda se fala uma ‘lingua heróica’. Se ele tivesse tido o prazer de entrar em contato com o Presse de Viena ou o National-Zeitung de Berlin, o velho Napolitano teria abandonado essa ideia pré-concebida.” (MARX, [1862d] 1985, p.353-54) Pelo fim de 1862, Marx decidiu romper suas colaborações com o jornal austríaco. Dentro de pouco mais de um ano, ele havia conseguido publicar um total de 52 artigos, alguns deles escritos com a ajuda de Engels.

Apesar de os eventos que abalaram os Estados Unidos terem sido a principal preocupação de Marx na política internacional, ele também perseguiu com seu habitual interesse todos os principais desenvolvimentos na Rússia e no leste europeu. Em uma carta de junho de 1860 para Lassalle, Marx faz alguns argumentos a respeito de um de seus maiores enfoques políticos: sua oposição à Rússia e seus aliados Henry Palmerston e Luís Bonaparte. Ele tentou convencer Lassalle de que não havia nada de ilegítimo na convergência entre as posições de seu “partido” e aquelas de David Urquhart, um político com visões românticas partidário do Tory. A respeito de Urquhart – quem teve a audácia de republicar, para fins anti-russos e antiliberais, os artigos de Marx contra Palmerston que haviam aparecido no órgão dos cartistas ingleses no início dos anos 1850 – ele escreveu: “ele é … subjetivamente reacionário … isso de forma alguma inviabiliza o movimento da política externa, da qual ele é o líder, de ser objetivamente revolucionário. Para mim [… a posição pessoal de Urquhart] é uma questão totalmente indiferente, da mesma forma que, digamos, em uma guerra contra a Rússia também seria indiferente para você se, ao atirar nos russos, os motivos do seu vizinho na linha de tiro fossem preto, vermelho e dourado, [i. e., nacionalistas] ou revolucionários.” (MARX, [1860] 1985, p.152-53) Marx continuou: “E não é preciso dizer que, em política externa, ganha-se pouco usando slogans como ‘reacionário’ e ‘revolucionário’.” (MARX [1860] in MUSTO, 2018, p.132)

Sempre vigilante para sinais de uma revolta que pudesse limitar o papel reacionário da Rússia na política europeia, Marx escreveu para Engels no começo de 1863 (logo após a revolta polonesa de janeiro e da imediata oferta de Bismarck para ajudar a suprimi-la) que “a era da revolução est[ava] agora mais uma vez aberta na Europa.” (MARX, [1863a] 1985, p.453) E quatro dias depois, ele refletiu: “Os assuntos poloneses e a intervenção da Prússia de fato representam uma combinação que nos impele à falar.” (MARX, [1863b] 1985, p.455)

Dada a importância desses eventos, Marx não pensou que seria suficiente para eles falar apenas através de artigos publicados. Ele sugeriu, portanto, a imediata emissão de um manifesto em nome da Associação Educacional dos Trabalhadores Alemães em Londres, que se mantinha próxima de suas posições políticas. Isso o daria cobertura caso ele procedesse com a ideia de requerer a cidadania alemã e “retornar à Alemanha”. Engels deveria escrever a “parte militar” desse pequeno texto, focando nos “interesses políticos e militares da Alemanha na restauração da Polônia”, enquanto Marx assumiria a “parte diplomática.” (MARX, [1863b] 1985, p.455). Quando, em 18 de fevereiro de 1863, a câmara dos deputados condenou a política do governo e emitiu uma resolução no sentido de neutralidade, Marx disparou com entusiasmo: “devemos ter uma revolução em breve.” (MARX, [1863d] 1985, p.461). Tal como ele a via, a questão polonesa oferecia “mais uma circunstância para provar que é impossível prosseguir com os interesses alemães enquanto continuar a existir um estado próprio dos Hohenzollerns.” (MARX, [1863e] 1985, p.462). A oferta de Bismarck para apoiar o tzar Alexandre II, ou sua autorização para que “a Prússia tratasse seu território [o da Polônia] como Russo” (MARX, 1981, p.89) , deu a Marx mais motivação política para completar seu plano.

Foi nesse período, portanto, que Marx embarcou em outro de seus minuciosos projetos de pesquisa. Em uma carta que enviou à Engels no final de maio, ele reportou que nos meses anteriores – além de economia política – ele esteve estudando aspectos da questão polonesa; isso o permitiu “preencher as lacunas em [seu] conhecimento (diplomático, histórico) da questão russa-prussiana-polonesa.” (MARX, [1863f] 1985, p.474) Portanto, entre fevereiro e maio, ele havia escrito um manuscrito intitulado Polônia, Prússia e Rússia (1863), no qual documentou bem a sujeição histórica de Berlim à Moscou. Para os Hohenzollerns, “o progresso da Rússia represent[ou] a lei de desenvolvimento da Prússia”; “Não [havia] Prússia sem Rússia”. Para Marx, ao contrário, “a restauração da Polônia significa[va] a aniquilação da Rússia de hoje, o cancelamento de sua aposta de hegemonia global.” (MARX, 1981, p.7) Pela mesma razão, “a aniquilação da Polônia, sua definitiva entrega à Rússia, [significaria] o declínio certo da Alemanha, o colapso da única barragem que segura o dilúvio universal eslavo.” (MARX, 1981, p.7) O texto planejado nunca chegou a ver a luz do dia. Nessa ocasião, a responsabilidade claramente recai sobre Engels (que escreveria a parte mais substancial, sobre os aspectos militares), enquanto a “parte diplomática” de Marx, a qual ele estaria “pronto para fazer a qualquer momento”, era para ser “apenas um apêndice.” (MARX, [1863c] 1985, p.458) Em outubro, todavia, Marx conseguiu publicar uma Proclamação da Sociedade Educacional dos Trabalhadores Alemães em Londres sobre a Polônia (1963), o que o ajudou a levantar fundos para os combatentes pela liberdade polonesa. Ela começou com uma proclamação retumbante: “A questão polonesa é a questão alemã. Sem uma Polônia independente não pode haver uma Alemanha unida, nenhuma emancipação da Alemanha da dominação russa que se iniciou com a primeira repartição da Polônia”. (MARX, [1863g] 1984, p.296) Para Marx, enquanto “a burguesia alemã assistia, calada, passiva e indiferente, ao massacre da heroica nação que sozinha ainda proteg[ia] a Alemanha do dilúvio moscovita”, a “classe trabalhadora inglesa”, “que [tinha] conquistado honra histórica imortal para si própria ao frustrar as repetidas tentativas das classes dominantes de intervir em nome dos escravocratas norte-americanos”, continuaria a lutar ao lado dos insurgentes poloneses. (MARX, [1863g] 1984, p.297)

Esse conflito, que durou mais de um ano, foi o mais longo já travado contra a ocupação russa. Ele chegou ao fim apenas em abril de 1864, quando os russos, tendo executado os representantes do governo revolucionário, finalmente esmagaram a revolta. Em maio, as tropas russas também completaram a anexação do norte do Cáucaso, colocando fim a uma guerra que havia começado em 1817. Mais uma vez, Marx mostrava perspicácia, e ao contrário “do resto da Europa” – “que assistia com idiota indiferença” – ele considerava “a supressão da insurreição polonesa e a anexação do Cáucaso” como “os dois eventos mais importantes já acontecidos na Europa desde 1815.” (MARX, [1864a] 1985, p.538)

O apoio à luta polonesa durante e depois da Internacional
Marx continuou a se ocupar com a questão polonesa, que surgiu várias vezes no debate dentro da Internacional. De fato, o encontro preparatório mais importante da fundação da Internacional aconteceu em julho de 1863 e foi organizado porque um número de organizações de trabalhadores franceses e ingleses havia se encontrado em Londres especificamente para expressar solidariedade ao povo polonês contra a ocupação tzarista.

Posteriormente, três meses após o nascimento da Internacional, em uma reunião da Comissão Permanente do Conselho Geral acontecida em dezembro de 1864, o jornalista Peter Fox argumentou em sua fala sobre a Polônia que “os franceses [haviam sido] tradicionalmente mais solidários [com os polacos] do que os ingleses”. Marx então não contestou isso, mas, quando ele escreveu para Engels, já havia “desdobrado um quadro historicamente irrefutável de traições francesas constantes da Polônia, de Luís XV até Bonaparte III”. Foi nesse contexto que ele rascunhou um novo manuscrito, que mais tarde ficou conhecido como Polônia e França (1864). Escrito em inglês, ele cobria o intervalo de tempo desde a Paz de Westphalia, em 1648, até 1812.

Um ano depois, em setembro de 1865, logo após a conferência da Internacional acontecida em Londres, Marx propôs um projeto de agenda para a política externa do movimento trabalhador na Europa. Enquanto uma de suas prioridades, ele indicou “a necessidade de eliminar a influência moscovita da Europa aplicando o direito de autodeterminação das nações, e o reestabelecimento da Polônia sobre uma base democrática e social (MARX, [1865b] 1987, p.400). Levou décadas para que isso acontecesse.

Marx continuou a apoiar a causa polonesa também após a dissolução da Internacional. No outono de 1875, ele foi convidado a falar em uma reunião sobre a liberação da Polônia, mas precisou recusar em razão de seu estado de saúde precário. Na carta que enviou ao publicitário e ativista político Pyotr Lavrov, onde explica sua ausência, ele deixou claro que, se tivesse feito sua fala, poderia apenas ter reafirmado a opinião que manteve por mais de trinta anos – a de que “a emancipação da Polônia é um dos pré-requisitos da emancipação da classe trabalhadora na Europa.” (MARX, [1875] 1991, p.111).

O caso da Polônia demonstra que Marx, quando confrontado com os grandes eventos históricos em muitos lugares distantes, foi capaz de apreender o que estava acontecendo no mundo e contribuir para sua transformação. Essa perspectiva internacionalista precisa urgentemente ser revivida nos movimentos atuais de esquerda.

Tradução: Álvaro Martins

Notas
1. Professor de teoria sociológica na Universidade de York, Toronto, Canadá, e autor de inúmeros livros, capítulos de livro e artigos acadêmicos publicados em diversas línguas ao redor do mundo. No Brasil, a editora Boitempo lançou seus livros Trabalhadores, uni-vos! Antologia política da I Internacional (2014) e O velho Marx: uma biografia de seus últimos anos [1881-1883] (2018). Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0911-5907. E-mail: marcello.musto@gmail.com.
2. Doutorando em economia da Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF). Membro do Núcleo Interdisciplinar de estudos e pesquisas sobre Marx e o Marxismo (NIEP-Marx) e do Grupo de estudos e pesquisas sobre ontologia crítica (Gepoc) – http://dgp.cnpq.br/dgp/espelhogrupo/227143. Currículo Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/7135157368229858. Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9630-7108. E-mail: alvaromsiqueira@gmail.com.
3. Esse era o nome usado por Marx para se referir aos senhores de engenho sulistas.
4. O censo de 1860, com o qual Marx ainda não estava familiarizado no momento em que escrevia, registrou pouco mais de 394.000 senhores de escravos, ou 8 por cento das famílias norte-americanas. O número de escravos, contudo, totalizou 3.950.000. Ver Departamento do Censo dos Estados Unidos: “A população dos Estados Unidos em 1860, compilada dos resultados originais do Oitavo Censo sob a Secretaria de Interior”. Washington: Escritório governamental de imprensa, 1866.
5. Sobre o pensamento de Marx a respeito da escravidão, ver BACKHAUS (1974).
6. Sobre o caráter “inerentemente expansionista da escravidão sulista”, ver BLACKBURN (2011, p.21).
7. [M.M.] Tradução modificada.
8. Marx estava aqui citando uma fala do senhor de escravos A. Stephens in Savannah, em 21 de março de 1861, que foi publicada no New-York Daily Tribune em 27 de março de 1861.
9. [N.T.: trecho traduzido da edição brasileira: O capital, livro 1. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2013, p. 372.]
10. Sobre as diferenças entre os dois, ver também o recente trabalho: KULIKOFF (2018).
11. “Derrotar o poder escravista e libertar os escravos não destruiria o capitalismo, mas criaria condições bem mais favoráveis para organizar e elevar o trabalho, seja ele branco ou negro. Marx retratou os abastados senhores de escravos como semelhantes aos aristocratas europeus, e sua remoção enquanto uma tarefa em prol da revolução democrática que ele havia defendido no Manifesto Comunista enquanto o objetivo imediato dos revolucionários alemães.” (BLACKBURN, 2011, p.13, tradução livre)
12. Ver MARX, [1853] 1979, p.341-406.
13. Dentre os numerosos estudos dedicados às concepções políticas de Marx sobre a Rússia, ver RJASANOW (1909) e RABEHL (1977). Ver também BONGIOVANNI (1989), especialmente p.171-189.
14. Ver também MARX [1863] 1985, p.458, e ENGELS [1863] 1985, p.459.
15. Para uma coletânea tematicamente organizada dos manuscritos de Marx sobre a Polônia, ver MARX (1961). E para uma edição cronológica baseada na data de elaboração, ver MARX (1971).
16. Ver introdução de Bongiovanni (1981, p.xxv, tradução livre): “Para Marx, um observador apaixonado do grande jogo, a solução para os problemas estava em alguma medida atrelada à perigosa persistência das características arcaicas que resistiam ao progresso social […] era de certa forma preliminar à luta final, isto é, à resolução de contradições peculiares ao mundo dominado pelo modo capitalista de produção.”

Referências
BACKHAUS, Wilhelm. Marx, Engels und die Sklaverei. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1974.
BLACKBURN, Robin. An unfinished revolution: Marx and Lincoln. London: Verso, 2011.
BONGIOVANNI, Bruno (1989). Le repliche della storia. Turim: Bollati Boringhieri, 1989.
ENGELS, Friedrich. Carta de Engels para Marx, 21 de fevereiro de 1863. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
KULIKOFF, Allan. Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx in dialogue. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
MARX, Karl. Lord Palmerston, 1853. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.12: Marx and Engels 1853-1854. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1979. p.341-406.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Lassalle, 1 ou 2 de junho de 1860. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Lassalle, 29 de maio de 1861. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 10 de junho de 1861. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 1 de julho de 1861. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 5 de julho de 1861. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. The North American Civil War, Die Presse, Viena, 25 de outubro de 1861. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.19: Marx and Engels 1861-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1984. [Ed. bras.: A guerra civil americana (25/10/1861). In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Escritos sobre a guerra civil americana. Organização, notas e tradução de Felipe Vale da Silva e Muniz G. Ferreira. Londrina: Aetia; São Paulo: Peleja, 2020. p.47-57.]
MARX, Karl. The London Times on the Orleans Princes in America, New-York Daily Tribune, Nova Iorque, 7 de novembro de 1861. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.19: Marx and Engels 1861-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1984. [Ed. bras.: O Times de Londres e os princípes de Orléans na América. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Escritos sobre a guerra civil americana. Organização, notas e tradução de Felipe Vale da Silva e Muniz G. Ferreira. Londrina: Aetia; São Paulo: Peleja, 2020. p.262-265.]
MARX, Karl. English public opinion, New-York Daily Tribune, Nova Iorque, 1 de fevereiro de 1862. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.19: Marx and Engels 1861-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1984. [Ed. bras.: A opinião pública inglesa. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Escritos sobre a guerra civil americana. Organização, notas e tradução de Felipe Vale da Silva e Muniz G. Ferreira. Londrina: Aetia; São Paulo: Peleja, 2020. p.216-220.]
MARX, Karl. A London workers’ meeting, Die Presse, Viena, 2 de fevereiro de 1862. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.19: Marx and Engels 1861-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1984. [Ed. bras.: Uma reunião operária em Londres. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Escritos sobre a guerra civil americana. Organização, notas e tradução de Felipe Vale da Silva e Muniz G. Ferreira. Londrina: Aetia; São Paulo: Peleja, 2020. p.225-228.]
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 25 de fevereiro de 1862. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 28 de abril de 1862. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 13 de fevereiro de 1863. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 17 de fevereiro de 1863. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 20 fevereiro de 1863. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 21 de fevereiro de 1863. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 24 de março de 1863. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 29 de maio de 1863. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Proclamation on Poland by the German Workers’ Educational Society in London (novembro de 1863). In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.19: Marx and Engels 1861-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1984.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Engels, 7 de junho de 1864. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.41: Marx and Engels: 1860-64. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Lion Philips, 29 de novembro de 1864. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.42: Marx and Engels: 1864-68. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1987.
MARX, Karl. To Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States of America, The Daily News, 23 de dezembro de 1864. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.20: Marx and Engels 1864-68. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985. [Ed. bras.: A Abraham Lincoln, presidente dos Estados Unidos da América. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Escritos sobre a guerra civil americana. Organização, notas e tradução de Felipe Vale da Silva e Muniz G. Ferreira. Londrina: Aetia; São Paulo: Peleja, 2020. p.289-291.]
MARX, Karl. Address from the Working Men’s International Association to president Johnson, The Bee-Hive Newspaper, 20 de maio de 1865. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.20: Marx and Engels 1864-68. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985. [Ed. bras.: Mensagem da Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores ao presidente Johnson. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Escritos sobre a guerra civil americana. Organização, notas e tradução de Felipe Vale da Silva e Muniz G. Ferreira. Londrina: Aetia; São Paulo: Peleja, 2020. p.292-293.]
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para Hermann Jung, 20 de novembro de 1865. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.42: Marx and Engels: 1864-68. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1987.
MARX, Karl. Carta de Marx para P.L. Lavrov, 3 de dezembro de 1875. In: MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels collected works (MECW), v.45: Marx and Engels: 1874-1879. New York: Lawrence & Wishart, 1991.
MARX, Karl. Manuskripte über die polnische Frage (1863-1864). S’-Gravenhage: Mouton & co, 1961.
MARX, Karl. Przyczynki do historii kwestii polskiej. Rękopisy z lat 1863-1864. Beitrage zur Geschichte der polnischen Frage. Manuskipte aus den Jahren 1863-1864. Warsaw: Książka i Wiedza, 1971.
MARX, Karl. Address to the National Labour Union of the United States. In: MUSTO, Marcelo (ed.). Workers unite! The International 150 years later. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. [Ed. bras.: Mensagem à União Nacional do Trabalho dos Estados Unidos. In: MUSTO, Marcelo (org.). Trabalhadores, uni-vos! Antologia política da I Internacional. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2014. p.285-286]
MARX, Karl. Capital, volume I. New York: Penguin books, 1976.
MARX, Karl. Manoscritti sulla questione polacca (1863-1864). Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1981.
MUSTO, Marcello (ed.). Workers unite! The International 150 years later. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. [Ed. bras.: Trabalhadores, uni-vos! Antologia política da I Internacional. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2014.]
MUSTO, Marcello. Another Marx: early manuscripts to the International. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2018.
RABEHL, Bernd (1977). Die Kontroverse innerhalb des russischen Marxismus über die asiatischen und westlich-kapitalistischen Ursprünge der Gesellschaft, des Kapitalismus und des zaristischen Staates in Russland. In: WOLTER, Ulf. Karl Marx. Die Geschichte der Geheimdiplomatie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Über den asiatischen Ursprung der russischen Despotie. Berlin: Olle & Wolter, 1977. p.112-178.
RJASANOW, Dawid. Karl Marx über den Ursprung der Vorherrschaft Russland in Europa. Die Neue Zeit, n.5, p. 1-64, 1909.

Categories
Journal Articles

جوانب جديدة لماركس

1-إحياء ماركس:
لأكثر من عقد من الزمان وحتى الآن ، تصف الصحف والمجلات المنتشرة و المرموقة كارل ماركس بالمنظّر الثاقب ممن تلاقي أفكاره التأييد المستمر.
ويؤكد العديد من الكتّاب ذوي الآراء التقدمية أن أفكاره لا غنى عنها لأي شخص يؤمن بضرورة بناء بديل آخر للرأسمالية .و في كل مكان تقريبا، أصبح هو موضوع المقررات الجامعية والمؤتمرات العالمية. و عادت كتاباته ، سواء ما تم إعادة نشره أو ما صدر في طبعاتٍ جديدة, بالظهور على رفوف المكتبات . و اكتسبت دراسة أعماله ، بعد تجاهل دام لعشرين عاما، الكثير من الزخم المتزايد. غير أنّ العامين 2017 و 2018 جلبا المزيد من الاهتمام لـ ” احياء ماركس” وذلك بفضل المبادرات العديدة حول العالم والمتعلقة بالذكرى السنوية لمرور150 عاما على نشر كتاب رأس المال والذكرى المئوية الثانية لميلاد ماركس.

أفكار ماركس غيرت العالم . على الرغم من تحقق نظريات ماركس التي تحولت إلى أيديولوجيات مهيمنة ومذاهب دولة لجزء كبير من البشرية في القرن العشرين، إلا أنه لا يوجد إصدار لكامل أعماله ومخطوطاته. يكمن السبب الرئيسي لهذا في الطابع غير المكتمل لأعمال ماركس: كتاباته غير المكتملة أكثر بكثير من أعماله المنشورة ، ناهيك عن مجموعة المذكرات الضخمة المتعلقة بأبحاثه المتواصلة .ترك ماركس مخطوطات تتجاوز أعدادها ما أرسله للمطابع. طريقته الصارمة و نقده القاسي لنفسه زاد من صعوبة التزامه بمشاريعه ، كما أن الفقر المدقع الذي عاش فيه أحيانا و صحته الواهنة ضاعفت من مشقّاته اليومية . لكن شغفه المعرفي لم يتغير مع مرور الوقت ودفعه دائماً لدراسة جديدة. ومع ذلك فإن جهوده المتواصلة سيكون لها آثار نظرية مدهشة على المستقبل.

ولعل القيمة الخاصة لإعادة تقييم إنجازات ماركس تكمن في استئناف نشر كتاب ماركس-انغلز ( ميغا2) في عام 1998 وهي الإصدار التاريخي النقدي للأعمال الكاملة لماركس وفردريك انغلز. وقد ظهر فعلا 28 مجلد (40 مجلد تم نشرهم بين العام 1975 و1989) والبقية في طور الإعداد. ميغا2 مقسم الى 4 أجزاء: 1-جميع الأعمال، المقالات والمسودات التي كتبها ماركس وانغلز( باستثناء رأس المال) 2-رأس المال وكافة مواده التحضيرية 3- المراسلات وتتكون من 4 آلاف رسالة لماركس وانغلز و 10 آلاف كُتبَت لهم من قبل آخرين وهو عدد كبير ينشر لأول مرة في ميغا2 4-المقتطفات و الشروحات و الملاحظات الهامشية. القسم الرابع هو شاهد على أعمال ماركس الموسوعية الحقيقية : فمنذ أن كان في الجامعة لازمته عادة جمع مقتطفات من الكتب التي يقرأها و يتخللها مرئياته التي سجلها. يقرب ورث ماركس الأدبي من مائتي دفتر ملاحظات. وهي أساسية لفهم نشأة نظريته و لتلك العناصر التي لم يتمكن من تطويرها كما أراد. المقتطفات الباقية تغطي المدة الزمنية من 1838 الى 1882 و كتبت بثماني لغات ( الألمانية واليونانية القديمة واللاتينية والفرنسية والانجليزية والايطالية والاسبانية والروسية) وتشير إلى أكثر المجالات تنوعا. تم أخذها من أعمال الفلسفة وتاريخ الفن والدين والسياسة والقانون والأدب والتاريخ والاقتصاد السياسي والعلاقات الدولية والتكنولوجيا والرياضيات والفسيولوجيا والجيولوجيا وعلم المعادن وعلم الزراعة والأنثروبولوجيا والكيمياء والفيزياء- ولم تضم فقط الكتب ومقالات الصحف والمجلات بل محاضر برلمانية و إحصائيات وتقارير حكومية. هذا المستودع الهائل من المعرفة الذي نُشِرَ أغلبه في السنوات الأخيرة أو بقي في انتظار الطباعة ، كان موقع البناء لنظرية ماركس النقدية ، وميغا2 أتاح الوصول له لأول مرة.

هذه المواد القيّمة -الكثير منها متاح فقط باللغة الألمانية لذا بقيت محصورة في أوساط محدودة من الباحثين – تُظْهِر لنا كاتباً مختلفاً جدًا عن الذي قدمه لنا عدد هائل من النقاد وممن يزعمون أنفسهم من تلاميذه .هذه المقتنيات النصية الجديدة في ميغا2 تمكننا من قول، أنه من بين جميع كلاسيكيات الفكر السياسي والاقتصادي والفلسفي ،ماركس هو المؤلف الذي تغيرت صورته أكثر في بداية العقود الأولى للقرن الواحد والعشرين. ولعل الإطار السياسي الجديد الذي تبع انهيار الاتحاد السوفيتي ساهم في تكوين هذا المنظور الجديد. فانتهاء الماركسية اللينينية حررت أعمال ماركس من قيود أيديولوجية بعيدة عن مفهومه الخاص للمجتمع.

دحضت الأبحاث الحديثة الكثير من الأطروحات التي قلّصت مفهوم ماركس للمجتمع الشيوعي إلى تطور متفوق للقوى الإنتاجية. على سبيل المثال ،أظهرت الاهمية التي يعطيها للمسألة البيئية: في مناسبات عديدة، أدان حقيقة أن توسع نمط الإنتاج الرأسمالي ليس فقط سرقة متزايدة لجهد العمال، لكنه أيضا يزيد من نهب الموارد الطبيعية. و ذهب ماركس لأبعد من ذلك في كثير من المسائل في أعماله ، والتي عادة ما يتم التقليل من شأنها أو حتى تجاهلها من قبل الباحثين، إلا أنها نالت أهمية كبرى للأجندة السياسية في وقتنا الحالي. ومن بينها الحرية الفردية في الاقتصاد و السياسة ،و التحرر الجندري، و نقد القومية، و الامكانيات التحررية للتكنولوجيا ،وأشكال الملكية الجماعية غير المحكومة من الدولة. لذا بعد ثلاثين عاما من سقوط جدار برلين ،أصبح من الممكن قراءة ماركس بشكل مختلف عن المنظّر الدوغمائي والاقتصادي، والمتمركز حول أوروبا والذي تم تقديمه بهذا الشكل لسنوات طويلة.

2-الاكتشافات الجديدة حول نشأة المفهوم المادي للتاريخ:
في فبراير 1845 بعد 15 شهراً صعباً في باريس، والتي كانت فعّالة في تكوين فكره السياسي، أُجْبِر ماركس على الإنتقال إلى بروكسل حيث سُمِح له بالإقامة بشرط “ألا ينشر شيئا عن السياسة الحالية” ( ماركس1975:ص 677). أثناء الثلاث سنوات التي قضاها في العاصمة البلجيكية، واصل دراساته عن الاقتصاد السياسي بشكل مثمر ،وتوصل لفكرة الكتابة مع انغلز و جوزيف ويدمير وموزس هيس ” نقد الفلسفة الألمانية الحديثة كما شرحها ممثليها” لودفيغ فيورباخ ،و برونو باور وماركس شتيرنر و “الاشتراكية الألمانية كما شُرِحَت من قبل أنبيائها المتنوعين” (ماركس 1976: 72). الكتاب الناتج الذي تم نشره بعد وفاتهم بعنوان “الأيديولوجية الألمانية” كان له هدفان: محاربة الاشكال الجديدة من ” النيوهيغلية” في ألمانيا، ثم كما كتب ماركس للناشر كارل فيلهيلم يوليوس ليسكه بتاريخ الأول من أغسطس 1846 ” لإعداد العامة لوجهة النظر المتبناة في ” الاقتصاد” التي تتعارض تماماً مع الدراسات الألمانية السابقة والحالية” ( ماركس وانغلز1982:50 ماستو 2018:57). هذه المخطوطة، التي عمل عليها حتى يونيو 1864 لم تكتمل، لكنها ساعدت على التوضيح بشكل أفضل من قبل -وإن لم تكن بشكل نهائي- ما قدمه انغلز للجمهور الأوسع بعد 40 عاما ، كـ ” مفهوم المادية التاريخية”( انغلز 1990أ:519)الطبعة الاولى من الأيديولوجية الالمانية نُشِرت عام 1932 و الطبعات اللاحقة التي تضمنت تعديلات طفيفة أُرْسِلَت للطباعة بشكل كتاب كامل. خلق محررو هذه المخطوطة الناقصة انطباع خاطئ بأنّ الايديولوجية الالمانية تضمنت فصل افتتاحي أساسي عن فيورباخ حيث وضع ماركس وانغلز بشكل كامل قوانين مفهوم “المادية التاريخية” (مصطلح لم يستخدمه ماركس)وكما أشار التوسير هنا حيث تصوروا هذا المفهوم هو “انفصال معرفي واضح” عن كتاباتهم السابقة( التوسير 1996:33) وسرعان ما أصبحت الايديولوجية الالمانية أهم النصوص الفلسفية للقرن العشرين. وفقا لهنري لوفيفر(1968:71) فقد وضع ” الأطروحة الأساسية للمادية التاريخية”. اعتقد ماكسيم روبل (1980:13) أنّ هذه ” المخطوطة تضم بيان واضح للمفهوم النقدي والمادي للتاريخ”. وكان ديفيد ماكليلان(1975:37) مؤيداً بنفس القدر أنها ” ضمّت أكثر وصف مفصل من ماركس لمفهومه المادي للتاريخ.”

يعود الفضل لمجلد 5/1 من ميغا2 , Deutsche Ideologie: Manuskripte und Drucke (1845–1847 (ماركس وانغلز2017:1893 صفحة) يمكن الان تقليص الكثير من الادعاءات وإعادة الأيديولوجية الألمانية الى نقصها الاصلي. هذه الطبعة- التي تحوي 17 مخطوطة بإجمالي 700 صفحة وأدوات نقدية من 1200 صفحة تقدم العديد من التنوعات و التصحيحات التأليفية و توضح منشأ كل قسم – وتؤسس بشكل نهائي السمة الجزئية للنص . إن مغالطة ” الشيوعية العلمية” في القرن العشرين وحوسلة الأيديولوجية الألمانية تستحضر للذهن جملة وجدت بالنص نفسه. ونظراً لنقدها القاطع للفلسفة الألمانية إبان حياة ماركس، بدت ايضاً كتحذير لاذع ضد النزعات التفسيرية المستقبلية : ” ليس فقط في إجاباتها بل حتى في أسئلتها كان هناك غموض” ( ماركس وانغلز 19776:28) وفي نفس الفترة الزمنية ، وسّع الشاب الثوري مولود ترير الدراسة التي بدأها في باريس. في عام 1845، أمضى شهري يوليو و اغسطس في مانشستر يتقصّى أعمال الاقتصاد الانجليزية الهائلة ويجمع 9 كتب من المقتطفات ( ما يسمى دفاتر مانشستر) وغالباً ما كانت من أدلة الاقتصاد السياسي وكتب عن التاريخ الاقتصادي. يضم مجلد ميغا2 4/4(Exzerpte und Notizen Juli bis August 1845 experbcfc ) ) ( ماركس وانغلز 19888) أول خمسة من هذه الدفاتر مع 3 كتب لملاحظات انغلز من نفس الوقت في مانشستر. المجلد 4/5 Exzerpte und Notizen Juli 1845 bis Dezember 1850 (ماركس وانغلز2015: 650 صفحة) أكمل سلسلة النصوص هذ، وأتاح للباحثين الأجزاء التي لم يسبق نشرها . فقد ضمت دفاتر 6،7،8،9 والتي تحوي مقتطفات ماركس من 16 عملاً في الاقتصاد السياسي. جاءت أغلب هذه المجموعة من كتاب جون فرانسيس براي ” أخطاء العمل ومعالجة العمل ” 1839 و أربع نصوص لروبرت اوين، و بالتحديد كتابه ” العالم الأخلاقي الجديد”1849 ، وجميعها أظهرت اهتمام ماركس الكبير في الاشتراكية الإنجليزية واحترامه العميق لأُوين ، كاتب اعتبره الكثير من الماركسين “طوباوي”. ويُخْتَم المجلد بعشرين صفحةٍ كتبها ماركس بين 1846 و 1850 بالإضافة لملاحظات انغلز الدراسية من نفس الفترة الزمنية.

هذه الدراسات للنظرية الاشتراكية و الاقتصاد السياسي لم تكن عائقًا أمام العمل السياسي المعتاد لماركس وانغلز. الثمانمائة صفحة وأكثر المنشورة حديثاً من مجلد 1/7 Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, Februar bis Oktober 1848 ( ماركس وانغلز 2016: 1294 صفحة) تجعلنا نقدّر حجم هذا العمل في عام 1848 وهي أكثر الأعوام استنزافاً للنشاط السياسي و الصحفي في حياة كتّاب بيان الحزب الشيوعي. بعد حركة ثورية استثنائية المستوى والزخم دفعت بالنظام الاجتماعي والسياسي في أوروبا لأزمة، قامت الحكومات بكل الترتيبات المضادة الممكنة لإنهاء التمرد. وعانى ماركس نفسه من التبعات حيث تم نفيه من بلجيكا في شهر مارس. وفي الوقت ذاته، تم الإعلان عن الجمهورية في فرنسا، و دعا فيرديناند فلوكون، وزير في الحكومة المؤقتة ماركس للعودة إلى باريس” عزيزي النبيل ماركس، الطغيان نفاك، لكن فرنسا الحرة ستفتح أبوابها لك” وبطبيعة الحال، ترك ماركس دراساته السياسية الاقتصادية جانباً وعمل كصحفي ناشط لدعم الثورة مساعداً في رسم مسار سياسي مقترح . وبعد فترة قصيرة في باريس ، انتقل في ابريل الى راينلاند وبعد شهرين بدأ بتحرير جريدة ” Neue Rheinische Zeitung” التي تم تأسيسها أثناء ذلك في كولونيا. وشنّت الصحيفة حملة قوية في أعمدتها، و وقفت وراء قضية المتمردين ودفعت البروليتاريا لتعزيز “الثورة الاجتماعية والجمهورية” ( ماركس 1977:178)

نُشِرَت أغلب المقالات في Neue Rheinische Zeitung بشكلٍ مجهول. إحدى ميزات الميغا2 مجلد 1/7 أنها نسبت 36 نص لكتّابها سواء ماركس أو انغلز ، في حين أن المجموعات السابقة لم تُثبت لنا هوية الكُتّاب. 125 من أصل 275 نشرت لأول مرة في إصدار من أعمال ماركس وانغلز . كما يضم الملحق 16 وثيقة شيّقة تحتوي بعض القصص لنقاشاتهم في اجتماعات رابطة الشيوعيين و تجمعات الجمعية الديمقراطية لكولونيا ونقابة فييّنا. سيجد المهتمون في نشاط ماركس السياسي والصحفي أثناء ” عام الثورة “1848” الكثير من المواد النفيسة لإثراء معرفتهم.

3- رأس المال: النقد غير المكتمل:
هُزِمَت الحركة الثورية التي ظهرت في أوروبا عام 1848 في وقتٍ قصير، وفي عام 1849 ، وبعد صدور أمري ترحيل من بروسيا وفرنسا لم يكن لدى ماركس أي خيار إلا أن يشق طريقه عبر البحر. بقي في انجلترا في منفى وبلا جنسية لبقية حياته، غير أن رد الفعل الأوروبي لم يستطع وضعه في مكان أفضل لكتابة نقده للاقتصاد السياسي. في ذلك الوقت كانت لندن هي المركز الاقتصادي والمالي الرائد في العالم، ” آلهة الأكوان البرجوازية” ( ماركس 1978:134) وبالتالي كانت أفضل مكان لدراسة أحدث التطورات الاقتصادية للمجتمع الرأسمالي. كما أصبح مراسلا لصحيفة نيويورك تريبيون الصحيفة الأكثر انتشارًا في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية.

انتظر ماركس سنوات عديدة اندلاع أزمة جديدة، وعندما تحقق ذلك عام 1857 كرّس أغلب وقته لتحليل سماتها الرئيسية. مجلد 1/16 Artikel Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858 (ماركس وانغلز 2018 :1181 صفحة) يتضمن 84 مقالة نشرها بين خريف 1857 ونهاية عام 1858 في جريدة نيويورك تريبيون وكذلك تلك التي تعبّر عن ردود أفعاله الأولى للأزمة المالية لعام 1857. ” نشرت جريدة الامريكان افتتاحيات يومية غير موقّعة”، لكن البحث لهذا المجلد الجديد من ميغا2 مكن من نسب مقالتين إضافيتين لماركس ، وكذلك إلحاق 4 مقالات تم تعديلها من قبل المحررين و3 أخرى لا يزال كتّابها غير معروفين.

وبدافع الحاجة الشديدة لتحسين ظروفه الاقتصادية إنضّم ماركس كذلك للجنة تحرير الموسوعة الامريكية الجديدة ووافق على كتابة عدد من المقدمات لهذا المشروع (ميغا 2 المجلد 1/6 شمل 39 من هذه المقالات) و بالرغم من الأجر المنخفض جدًا بواقع 2 دولار للصفحة غير أنه يحسّن من وضعه المالّي الكارثّي .كما أنه أسند أغلب العمل لانغلز حتى يتفرغ أكثر لكتاباته الاقتصادية.
كان عمل ماركس في هذة الفتره استثنائي و واسع النطاق . الى جانب التزاماته الصحفية ، من اغسطس 1857 الى مايو 1858 كتب 8 دفاتر المعروفة باسم ” Grundrisse “. كما ألزم نفسه بمهمَة شاقة، دراسة تحليلية للأزمة الاقتصادية الأولى في العالم . مجلد 4/14 Exzerpte, Zeitungsausschnitte und Notizen zur Weltwirtschaftskrise (Krisenhefte), November 1857 bis Februar 1858 ( ماركس 2017:680صفحة) كل هذا يضيف بدقة لمعرفتنا بواحدة من أثرى فترات الإنتاج النظري لماركس. في رسالةٍ لانغلز في18 ديسمبر1857 يَصِف ماركس التدفق الشديد للنشاط:

” أنا أعمل بشكل مكثف حتى الساعة 4 في الصباح يومياً. فقد انخرطت في مهمة ثنائية : 1- تطوير مسودة (Grundrisse) للإقتصاد السياسي ( من أجل الصالح العام لابد من التعمق في الأمر للوصول لجذوره، كما أنه من صالحي شخصياً التخلص من هذا الكابوس)2- الأزمة الحالية . باستثناء مقالات [نيويورك] تريبيون، فكل ما أقوم به الاحتفاظ بسجلات لها والتي تستغرق وقتاً طويلاً. أظنّ أنه بحلول الربيع، قد نتمكن من إصدار كتيب معا حول القضية كتذكير للجماهير الألمانية أننا مازلنا موجودين كما عهدتنا دائمًا، و كما كنا دائمًا( ماركس وانغلز 1983:224)”

وبالتالي كانت خطة ماركس العمل في نفس الوقت على مشروعين: العمل النظري حول نقد نمط الإنتاج الرأسمالي ، وكتاب أكثر دقةً حول تقلبات الازمة الجارية. لهذا السبب، فما سُمّيِت بدفاتر ملاحظات حول الأزمة على عكس سابقتها من المجلدات المشابهة ، لم يقم ماركس بتجميع مقتطفات من أعمال اقتصاديين آخرين فيها بل قام بجمع كمية كبيرة من التقارير الاخبارية عن انهيارات البنوك الرئيسية، وعن تغيرات أسعار سوق الأسهم، والتغيرات في نماذج التجارة ومعدلات البطالة، و الناتج الصناعي. الاهتمام الذي منحه لناتج الصناعة ميّز تحليله عن الآخرين ممن نسبوا الأزمات فقط إلى الخطأ في منح الائتمان وتزايد ظاهرة المضاربة. وزع ماركس ملاحظاته على 3 دفاتر منفصلة . في الأول وهو الأقصر بعنوان ” 1857 فرنسا” جمع البيانات عن تجارة فرنسا والإجراءات الرئيسية التي اتخذها بنك فرنسا . أما الثاني ، كتاب عن أزمة 1857″ كان ضعفّي حجم الأول، وتناول بشكل رئيسي بريطانيا وسوق المال. و في الدفتر الثالث تناول مواضيع مشابهة بشكل أعمق قليلا ” كتاب عن الأزمة التجارية”، حيث شرح ماركس بيانات و مقالات جديدة حول العلاقات الصناعية، و انتاج المواد الخام وسوق العمل.

كان عمل ماركس حازماً كعادته : فقد نسخ من أكثر من دزينة مجلات و صحف، بالترتيب التاريخي، الأجزاء الأكثر تشويقاً لعدد هائل من المقالات وأي معلومات أخرى استطاع إستخدامها لتلخيص الأحداث. مصدره الأساسي كان ذا ” اكونومست” – وهي مجلة إسبوعية استقى منها نصف ملاحظاته تقريباً – بالرغم من أنه كثيرًا ما أخذ من “مورنينق ستار”، “مانشستر غارديان: و “ذا تايمز”. كل المقتطفات تم كتابتها باللغة الانجليزية. في تلك الدفاتر ، لم يكتف ماركس بكتابة التقارير الرئيسية المختصة بالولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وبريطانيا. فقد تتبع أهم الأحداث في الدول الأوروبية الأخرى – خاصة فرنسا وألمانيا والنمسا وإيطاليا وأسبانيا- وأبدى اهتمامًا قويًا في أنحاء أخرى من العالم خاصة الهند والصين والشرق الأقصى ومصر وحتى البرازيل واستراليا.

وبعد مرور عدة أسابيع، تخلى ماركس عن فكرة نشر كتاب عن الأزمة وركز كل طاقاته على العمل النظري و نقد الاقتصاد السياسي الذي من وجهة نظره لا يحتمل أي مزيد التأخير. وعلى الرغم من ذلك، تبقى دفاتر الملاحظات على الازمة مفيدة في دحض الفكرة الخاطئة عن اهتمامات ماركس الأساسية في تلك الفترة في رسالته لانغلز في 16 من يناير عام 1858 كتب ” بالنسبة للمنهج” المستخدم في عمله ” منطق هيغل كان مفيدًا جدًا له” واضاف انه أراد تسليط الضوء على “جانبه العقلاني”( ماركس وانغلز 1983:249). على هذا الأساس استنتج بعض المفسرون لعمل ماركس أنه عندما كتب Grundrisse أمضى وقتًا طويلًا يدرس الفلسفة الهيغلية. لكن نَشْر مجلد 4/14 يوضح أن اهتمامه الأساسي في ذاك الوقت كان التحليل التجريبي للأحداث المرتبطة بالأزمة الاقتصادية الكبرى التي تنبأ بها قبل وقت طويل.

. جهود ماركس الدؤوبة لإنهاء ” نقد الاقتصاد السياسي ” هي الموضوع الرئيسي لمجلد 3/12 Briefwechsel, Januar 1862 bis September 1864 ( ماركس وانغلز 2013:1529 صفحة) الذي يحوي مراسلاته من بداية 1862 حتى تأسيس رابطة العمال الأممية .ومن 425 رسالة متبقية ، منها 112 كان بين انغلز وماركس و35 منها كتبت له، و 278 تلقّاها من آخرين .(227 من هذه المجموعة يتم نشرها لأول مرة ) الاضافة الاخيرة – الفرق المهم بين كل الطبعات السابقة- تحتوي على كنز حقيقي دفين للقراء المهتمين، حيث تقدم ثروة من المعلومات الجديدة حول الأحداث والنظريات التي تعلمها ماركس وانغلز من النساء والرجال الذين شاركوهم الالتزام السياسي.

ومثل كل مجلدات ميغا2 من المراسلات ، ينتهي هذا أيضًا بسجل الرسائل المرسلة أو المكتوبة لماركس وانغلز والتي لم تترك إلا آثار تشهد بوجودها. وصل عددها 125 تقريبًا ، أي ربع العدد الذي بقي، ويشمل 57 رسالة مكتوبة بشكل كامل من قبل ماركس . وفي هذه الحالات، حتى أشد الباحثين لا يستطيع إلا التكهّن بافتراضات تخمينية مختلفة.

من بين أهم النقاط الرئيسية في النقاشات في مراسلات ماركس من بداية 1860 كانت الحرب الاهلية الامريكية، والثورة البولندية ضد الاحتلال الروسي، وولادة الحزب الديمقراطي الاشتراكي الألماني المستوحى من مبادئ فرديناند لاسال. ومع ذلك، كان الموضوع متكرر الطرح هو صراعه من أجل أن يتقدم في كتابه رأس المال.

أثناء تلك الفترة بدأ ماركس في مرحلة بحث جديدة : “نظريات فائض القيمة”. وفي أكثر من 10 دفاتر ، قام بتحليل اطروحة اقتصاديين مهمين ممن سبقوه، وكانت فكرته الرئيسية أن ” اشترك جميع الاقتصاديين في نفس الخطأ في دراسة فائض القيمة ليس فقط في شكلها المحض بل في الأشكال الخاصة بالربح والريع”( ماركس 1988:348) أثناء ذلك، ساءت ظروف ماركس الاقتصادية . في 18 يونيو 1862 كتب لانغلز ” في كل يوم زوجتي تخبرني أنّها تتمنى أن تكون هي والاطفال في قبورهم آمنين ، وأنا حقا لا ألومها، لأن المذلة والعذاب والخوف الذي يمر فيه المرء في مثل هذا الموقف لا يوصف فعلا”. كان الموقف صعبا لدرجة أن جيني قررت أن تبيع بعض الكتب من مكتبة زوجها الشخصية- رغم أنها لم تجد من يرغب في شرائها. لكن استطاع ماركس أن يعمل بكد وكتب ملاحظة يعبر فيها عن الارتياح إلى انغلز: ” من الغريب أن أقول إن عقلي يعمل بشكل أفضل في وسط الفقر المحاصر أفضل من مما كان في السنوات السابقة” ( ماركس وانغلز 1985:380) في العاشر من سبتمبر في نفس السنة، كتب ماركس لانغلز أنه قد يحصل على وظيفة ” في مكتب السكّة الحديد” في السنة الجديدة( نفس المصدر 417) في 28 ديسمبر كرر على صديقه لودفيغ كوغلمان أن الامور أصبحت سيئة جدًا حتى أنه قرر أن يكون ” رجل عملي” لكن لم يحدث شيء على أي حال . كتب ماركس بسخريته المعتادة ” لحسن الحظ- أو علي القول لسوء الحظ؟- لم احظى بالعمل بسبب خطي السيء”( نفس المصدر436)

وإلى جانب الضغوطات المالية عانى ماركس كثيرا بسبب المشاكل الصحية . غير أنه من صيف 1863 الى ديسمبر 1865 شرع في المزيد من التحرير للعديد من أجزاء التي قرر تقسيمها في رأس المال. في النهاية، استطاع أن يضع المسودة الأولى للمجلد الأول ،والمخطوطة الوحيدة للمجلد الثالث، التي وضع فيها وصفه الوحيد لعملية الإنتاج الرأسمالي الكاملة : نسخة أولية للمجلد الثاني يحوي العرض العام لعملية تداول رأس المال.

المجلد 2/11 لميغا2 Manuskripte zum zweiten Buch des “Kapitals,”1868 حتى 1881( ماركس وانغلز 2008: 1850 صفحه)يحوي المخطوطات النهائية المخصّصة للمجلد الثاني من رأس المال التي صاغها ماركس بين العامين 1868 و 1881. تسع من هذه مخطوطات لم تنشر من قبل . في أكتوبر 1867 عاد ماركس للكتابة في رأس المال المجلد الثاني لكن المشاكل الصحية المتعددة أجبرته على توقف مفاجئ آخر. بعد عدة أشهر استطاع استئناف العمل، حيث مرت تقريبا ثلاث سنوات على آخر نسخة كتبها. أنهى ماركس الفصلين الأولين خلال ربيع 1868 بالإضافة إلى مجموعة من المخطوطات التحضيرية – حول العلاقة بين فائض القيمة ونسبة الربح وقانون نسبة الربح و وتغيرات رأس المال- الأمر الذي شغله حتى نهاية السنة. انتهت النسخة الجديدة من الفصل الثالث أثناء السنتين التاليتين. ينتهي مجلد 2/11 بعدد من النصوص القصيرة التي كتبها ماركس المسن بين فبراير 1877 وربيع 1881. تعرض مسودات رأس المال للمجلد الثاني التي لم تكن في حالة نهائية ، عدد من المشاكل النظرية. مع ذلك النسخة النهائية من المجلد الثاني نشرها انغلز عام 1885 وهي الآن في المجلد 2/13 في ميغا2 بعنوان Karl Marx: Das Kapital: Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Zweiter Band. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Engels, Hamburg 1885 ( ماركس 2008: 800 صفحة)

اخيراً، المجلد 2/4.3 II/4.3, Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1868, Teil 3( ماركس 2012: 1056 صفحة) يكمل القسم الثاني من ميغا2 . هذا المجلد الذي يلي 2/4.1 و 2/4.2 في السلسلة السابقة ،يحتوي على 15 مخطوطة لم تنشر بعد من خريف 1867 الى نهاية 1868. سبعة منها هي مسودات لأجزاء من رأس المال المجلد الثالث، لها سمة تجزيئية و لم يتمكن ماركس من تحديثها بطريقة تعكس تطوّر بحثه. وثلاث أخرى مرتبطة بالمجلد الثاني بينما تبحث الخمسة المتبقية أمورا تخص الترابط بين المجلد الثاني والثالث وتتضمن تعليقات على مقتطفات من أعمال آدام سميث و توماس مالتوس . هذه الأخيرة هي مثيرة بالنسبة للاقتصاديين المهتمين في نظرية ماركس لمعدل الربح وأفكاره حول نظرية السعر. أوضحت الدراسات اللغوية المرتبطة بتجهيزات هذا المجلد أن المخطوطة الأصلية لرأس المال المجلد الأول ( اعتبر الفصل السادس : نتائج عملية الإنتاج الفورية ” الجزء المتبقي الوحيد) ترجع في الحقيقة لفترة 1863-64 ، وقام ماركس بقصها ولصقها في النسخة التي أعدها للنشر.

مع نشر ميغا2 المجلد 2/4.3 تم توفير كل النصوص الملحقة لرأس المال من المقدمة الشهيرة المكتوبة في يوليو 1857 أثناء واحدة من أعظم فترات الانهيار في تاريخ الرأسمالية ، إلى آخر جزء كتب في ربيع 188. نحن نتحدث عن 15 مجلد بالإضافة الى المجلدات الملحقة الضخمة التي تشكل أدوات نقد هائلة للنص الرئيسي. و تضمنت كل المخطوطات من أواخر 1850 الى بداية 1860 النسخة الأولى من رأس المال المنشورة في عام 1867( أجزاء منها تم تعديلها في الطبعات اللاحقة) و الترجمة الفرنسية التي راجعها ماركس و ظهرت بين العام 1872 و 1875 وجميع التغيرات التي قام بها انغلز لمخطوطات المجلدين الثاني والثالث. وإلى جانب ذلك ، مجموعة الصناديق الكلاسيكية للمجلدات الثلاثة لرأس المال يظهر حتما بشكل مفصل. ليس من المبالغة القول أنه الآن فقط نستطيع أن نفهم تماما مزايا وحدود ونقص الكتاب العظيم لماركس .

العمل التحريري الذي قام به انغلز بعد وفاة صديقه لاستكمال الاجزاء الناقصة من رأس المال لنشره معقد جدًا. يصل عدد المخطوطات المتنوعة والمسودات وأجزاء من المجلدات الثاني والثالث التي كتبت بين 1864 و 1881 تقريبا الى 2350 صفحة من ميغا2. نشر انغلز المجلد الثاني بنجاح في عام 1885 والمجلد الثالث 1894. لكن لابد أن نضع في الاعتبار أن هذين المجلدين نشآ من تجميع نصوص غير مكتملة وغالبا ما تحتوي مواد متباينة. فقد كتبت على مدى فترات زمنية مختلفة و بالتالي تحتوي على نسخ مختلفة وأحيانا متناقضة مع أفكار ماركس.

4- الأممية، أبحاث ماركس بعد رأس المال وأعمال انغلز النهائية :
مباشرة بعد نشر رأس المال استأنف ماركس نشاطه النضالي و أبدى التزاما مستمرا لعمل رابطة العمال الأممية. هذه المرحلة في سيرته السياسية موثقة في مجلد 1/21 Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, September 1867 bis März 1871( ماركس وانغلز 2009: 2432 صفحة ) الذي يحوي على أكثر من 150 نص و وثيقة للفترة من 1867 الى 1871 بالإضافة الى 169 محضر اجتماع للمجلس العام في لندن ( حذفت من جميع النسخ السابقة لأعمال ماركس وانغلز) حيث قدم فيها ماركس مداخلة. وهكذا يوفر مواد بحثية للسنوات الحاسمة في حياة الأممية.

منذ الأيام الاولى في 1864 كانت أفكار بيير جوزيف برودون مهيمنة في فرنسا ،والجزء الناطق بالفرنسية في سويسرا وبلجيكا وكان ( المتبادلون) إسم اشتهر به أتباعه – الجناح الأكثر اعتدالا في الأممية. كانوا معادين بقوة لتدخل الدولة في أي مجال، فقد عارضوا اشتراكية الأرض ،ووسائل الإنتاج وكذلك أي استخدام للاحتجاجات كسلاح . نشرت النصوص في هذا المجلد لتوضّح الدور الرئيسي الذي لعبه ماركس في النضال الطويل لتقليل تأثير برودون في الأممية. وهي تشمل وثائق تتعلق بالاستعداد لمؤتمر بروكسل ( 1868) وبازل 1869 حيث قامت الاممية بأول تصريح لها حول الاشتراكية وسائل الإنتاج من قبل سلطات الدولة ، وتأييد إلغاء الملكية الفردية للأرض. ويعتبر هذا بمثابة نصر مهم لماركس والظهور الأول للمبادئ الاشتراكية في البرنامج السياسي لمنظمة عمال كبرى.

وإلى جانب البرنامج السياسي لرابطة العمال الأممية ، كانت أواخر 1860 و بدايات 1870 غنية بالصراعات الاجتماعية. قرر العديد من العمال الذين شاركوا في الاعتصامات التواصل مع الرابطة التي انتشرت سمعتها بشكل كبير، طالبين الدعم لنضالهم . و شهدت هذه الفترة أيضا ولادة أقسام من WMA للعمال الايرلنديين في انجلترا. كان ماركس قلق من الانقسام الذي أحدثته الوطنية العنيفة داخل صفوف البروليتاريا وفي وثيقة أصبحت تعرف بإسم ( الاتصال السري) أكد أن ” البرجوازية الإنجليزية لم تستغل البؤس الايرلندي فقط لتقليص الطبقة العاملة في انجلترا من خلال الهجرة القسرية للايرلنديين الفقراء” بل أثبتت أنها قادرة على تقسيم العمال الى معسكرين معادين ( ماركس 1985:120) من وجهة نظره الأمة التي تَسْتَعبِد أخرى تزيّف عبوديتها” (المرجع نفسه) والصراع الطبقي لم يكن ليتجنب مثل هذا القضية الهامة. وكان الموضوع الرئيسي الآخر في المجلد، الذي تناول باهتمام كبير كتابات انغلز لمجلة “ذا بال مال جازيت” معارضة الحرب الفرنسية البروسية 1870-1871. استمر عمل ماركس في رابطة العمال الأممية من 1864 الى 1872، والمجلد الجديد 3/18 Exzerpte und Notizen, Februar 1864 bis Oktober 1868, November 1869, März, April, Juni 1870, Dezember 1872 ( ماركس وانغلز 2019 : 1294 صفحة) يقدم جزء مجهول حتى الآن للدراسات التي قام بها خلال تلك السنوات. كانت أبحاث ماركس قريبة من وقت طباعة المجلد الأول لرأس المال أو بعد 1867 عندما كان يعد المجلد الثاني والثالث للطباعة. يحتوي مجلد ميغا2 هذا على خمسة كتب من مقتطفات وأربع دفاتر تحتوي على ملخصات لأكثر من مائة عمل منشور وتقرير لمناقشاتٍ برلمانية ومقالات صحفية. الجزء الأكبر والأهم نظريا لهذه المواد يشمل بحث ماركس حول الزراعة واهتمامه الأساسي هنا هو ريع الأرض والعلوم الطبيعية والظروف الزراعية في العديد من الدول الأوروبية والولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وروسيا واليابان والهند ونظام إمتلاك الأرض في المجتمعات ما قبل الرأسمالية.

قرأ ماركس باهتمام الكيمياء بتطبيقها على الزراعة والفسيولوجيا(1843). وهو عمل من قبل العالم الألماني يوستوس فون ليبيغ واعتبره أساسي لأنه يسمح له بتعديل ايمانه السابق ان الاكتشافات العلمية للزراعة الحديثة تحل مشكلة تجديد التربة. ومن بعدها، ابدى اهتماما كبيرا بما نسميه اليوم ” البيئة” خصوصا تآكل التربة وإزالة الغابات. ومن ضمن الكتب الأخرى التي ابهرت ماركس في هذه الفترة، لابد من ذكر كتاب مقدمة التاريخ التأسيسي للمارك الألماني والمزرعة والقرية والبلدة والسلطة العامة (1854) لمؤلفه المنظر السياسي والمؤرخ القانوني جورج لودويغ فون مورير. في رسالة لانغلز في 25 مارس 1868 قال أنه وجد كتب مورير مهمة جدًا لأنها تقدم بشكل مختلف تماما ” ليس فقط العصر البدائي لكن ايضا التطور اللاحق كاملا للمدن الامبريالية الحرة لملاك العقار ممن لديهم الحصانة, والسلطة العامة والصراع بين الفلاحة و القنانة “( ماركس وانغلز 1987: 557). أيّد ماركس مورير في أن الملكية الخاصة في الأرض تنتمي لفترة تاريخية محددة ولا يمكن اعتبارها سمة طبيعية للحضارة الانسانية.

أخي را درس ماركس بعمق ثلاثة أعمال ألمانية لكارل فراس المناخ وعالم الخضار عبر العصور، تاريخ الأثنين 1847 تاريخ الزراعة 1852 وطبيعة الزراعة 1857 وجد أن الأول مثير للاهتمام خاصة الجزء الذي يعرض فيه فراس : إن المناخ والطبيعة يتغيران عبر التاريخ” واصفا المؤلف أنه “داروني قبل داروين” الذي أقر أنه حتى “الفصائل تطورت عبر التاريخ” . وصعق ماركس من اهتمامات فراس البيئية ومخاوفه المتعلقة بأن “الحراثة في شكلها الطبيعي وليس بالتحكم فيها بوعي ( كبرجوازي لا يصل لهذه النقطة ) – تُخَلِّف الصحاري. استطاع ماركس الاكتشاف من كل هذا ” نزعة اشتراكية لا واعية” ( ماركس وانغلز 1987:558-59)

بعد نشر ما يسمى دفاتر حول الزراعة، يمكن الجدال بأدلة أوضح عن قبل أن البيئة قد تكون لعبت دور أكبر في تفكير ماركس لو كانت لديه الطاقة لإنهاء آخر مجلدين من رأس المال . بالطبع كان نقد ماركس البيئي ضد الرأسمالية في اتجاهه وبعيدا عن الآمال التي وضعها في التقدم العلمي ، يتعلق في دراسة انماط الانتاج بشكل عام.

اتضح نطاق دراسات ماركس في العلوم الطبيعية بشكل تام منذ نشر ميغا2 3/26 Exzerpte und Notizen zur Geologie, Mineralogie und Agrikulturchemie, März bis September 1878( ماركس 2011: 1104 صفحة ) في ربيع وصيف 1878 أصبحت الجيولوجيا وعلم المعادن والكيمياء الزراعية أكثر محورية في بحوث ماركس من الاقتصاد السياسي. جمع مقتطفات من عدد من الكتب ومنها التاريخ الطبيعي للمواد الخام للتجارة 1872 للمؤلف جون ييتس وكتاب الطبيعة 1848 للكيميائي فريدريك شودلر وعناصر الكيمياء الزراعية والجيولوجيا 1856 للكيميائي وعالم المعادن جيمس جونستون. وبين يونيو وبداية سبتمبر كان قد انخرط في قراءة دليل الطالب للجيولوجيا لجوزيف جوكس مؤلف دليل الجيولوجيا1857 ( انظر ماركس 2011:139-679) الذي سجل منه اكبر عدد من المقتطفات. التركيز الرئيسي لها حول مسائل المنهجية العلمية ومراحل تطور الجيولوجيا كعلم, وفائدتها للإنتاج الصناعي والزراعي.

مثل هذه الأفكار أيقظت في ماركس الحاجة لتطوير أفكاره حول الربح التي انشغل بها بقوة في منتصف 1860 عندما كتب مسودة جزء ( تحويل فائض الفائدة إلى ريع الأرض” لرأس المال المجلد الثالث). استهدفت بعض الملخصات لنصوص العلوم الطبيعية تسليط الضوء على المواد التي كان يدرسها. لكن المقتطفات الاخرى المخصصة أكثر للجانب النظري التي أراد استخدامها لإكمال المجلد الثالث . وذكر انغلز لاحقا ان ماركس” درس ..ما قبل التاريخ ،الزراعة ملكية الأراضي الروسية والأمريكية والجيولوجيا، والقسم عن ريع الأرض في المجلد الثالث في رأس المال” ( انغلز 1990:341) هذه المجلدات من ميغا2 هي الأكثر أهمية لأنها تعمل على دحض الأسطورة، المكررة في عدد من السيرة الذاتية والدراسات عن ماركس، أنه بعد رأس المال أشبع فضوله الفكري وتخلى بشكل كامل عن الدراسة والبحث الجديد.

ثلاثة كتب من ميغا2 في تم نشرها في العقد الماضي تختص بالعمل الأخير لانغلز. المجلد 1/30 Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe Mai 1883 bis September 1886 ( انغلز 2011:1154 صفحة) يضم 43 نصا كتبها في السنوات الثلاث التي تلت وفاة ماركس. من بين 29 من هذه المقالات ،17 مقالة صحفية ظهرت في أهم الجرائد لصحافة الطبقة العاملة الأوروبية. على الرغم من أنه في هذه الفترة كان منكبا على تحرير مخطوطات ماركس غير المكتملة لرأس المال، غير ان انغلز لم يتجاهل المشاركة في سلسلة من المسائل السياسية والنظرية الملحة. كما قام بعمل جدلي يستهدف عودة المثالية في الأوساط الاكاديمية الالمانية .و لودفيغ فيورباخ ونهاية الفلسفة الألمانية الكلاسيكية .ويوجد 14 نصا تم نشرهم كملحق في هذا المجلد الميغا2 وهي بعض منها ترجمات انغلز الخاصة وسلسلة من المقالات الموقعة من قبل كتاب آخرين استفادوا من تعاونه .

.كما نشرت ميغا2 مجموعة جديدة من مراسلات انغلز . المجلد 3/30 iefwechsel Oktober 1889 bis November 1890( انغلز 2013: 1515 صفحة) يحتوي 406 من الرسائل المتبقية من أصل 500 أو أكثر مما كتبها بين أكتوبر 1889 ونوفمبر 1890. كما أن نشر رسائل من مراسلين آخرين لأول مرة يجعل من الممكن أن نقدر بشكل أكبر مساهمة انغلز لتطوير أحزاب العمال في ألمانيا وفرنسا وبريطانيا حول مجموعة من المسائل النظرية والتنظيمية. وبعض العناصر محل التساؤل تعنى بالنشأة والمناقشات الجارية في الاممية الثانية، التي انعقد مؤتمرها التأسيسي في 14 يوليو عام 1889 .

اخيرا مجلد 1/32 Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe März 1891 bis August 1895( انغلز 2010: 1590 صفحة) يجمع كتابات من آخر أربع سنوات ونصف في حياة انغلز .هناك عدد من المقالات الصحفية لأهم الصحف الاشتراكية الرئيسية آنذاك مثل Die Neue Zeit, و Le Socialiste, و Critica Sociale لكن ايضا مقدمات وكلمات ختامية لعدد من الطبعات لأعمال ماركس وانغلز ، و نسخ لخطابات ، و مقابلات وتحيات للمؤتمرات الحزبية ،وبعض المحادثات ، ووثائق كتبها انغلز بالتعاون مع آخرين وعدد من الترجمات.

هذه المجلدات الثلاث ستكون مفيدة جدًا لدراسة أعمق لمساهمات انغلز النظرية والسياسية الاخيرة. المنشورات والمؤتمرات الدولية العديدة المحدد إقامتها في الذكرى المئوية الثانية لميلاده لن تفشل في سبر هذه السنوات الاثنتي عشر التي تبعت وفاة ماركس و التي كرس خلالها كل طاقته لنشر الماركسية.

5- ماركس آخر:
أيُّ ماركس يخرج لنا من الطبعة التاريخية النقدية الجديدة لأعماله؟ في بعض النواحي يختلف عن المفكر الذي قدمه العديد من الاتباع والمعارضين على مدى السنين.-ناهيك عن التماثيل الحجرية الموجودة في الميادين العامة تحت الانظمة غير الحرة في شرق اوروبا و التي تُظهره يشير إلى المستقبل مع يقين واضح . ومن جهة أخرى، سيكون من المضلل أن نستشهد-كما يفعل الذي يرحبون بحماس بـ ” ماركس المجهول” في كل مرة يظهر نص جديد لأول مرة- أن الأبحاث الأخيرة قد قلبت كل شيء كنا نعرفه عن ماركس .ما تقدمه ميغا2 بالأحرى هو أساس نصي لإعادة التفكير في ماركس مختلف : ليس مختلفاً لأن الصراع الطبقي أُستبعد من أفكاره ( كما يتمنى بعض الأكاديميين في اختلاف للاقتباس القديم ” ماركس الاقتصادي” ضد ” ماركس السياسي ” الذي يسعى عبثا لتقديمه ككلاسيكي عديم الفائدة) لكن راديكالياً مختلف عن الكاتب الذي تم تحويله دوغمائياً الى المصدر والأصل لـ” اشتراكية قائمة فعليا” من المفترض أنه يركز على الصراع الطبقي فقط.

تشير التطورات الجديدة الحاصلة في الدراسات الماركسية أنّ تفسير عمل ماركس قد يصبح مرة أخرى كما في مرات عديدة في الماضي أكثر دقة. لمدة طويلة سلط الكثير من الماركسيين الضوء على كتابات ماركس الشاب- بشكل رئيسي على المخطوطات الاقتصادية والفلسفية لعام 1844 الأيديولوجية الألمانية- بينما بقي بيان الحزب الشيوعي أكثر أعماله قراءةً واقتباسًا. في تلك الكتابات المبكرة يجد المرء الكثير من الأفكار أُستبدلت في أعماله الأخيرة . ولوقت طويل الصعوبة في دراسة بحث ماركس في آخر عقدين من حياته أعاقت معرفتنا في المكاسب التي أحرزها. لكن في رأس المال ومسوداته الأولية كما في أبحاثه آخر سنواته نجد أهم تأملاته حول نقد المجتمع البرجوازي. وتلك تمثل الخلاصات الاخيرة إن لم تكن النهائية التي توصل لها ماركس. إذا تمّت دراستها بدقة في ظل التغيرات في العالم منذ وفاته ستثبت أنها لازالت نافعة لمهمة التنظير بعد فشل القرن العشرين ، في إيجاد نموذج اقتصادي اجتماعي بديل للرأسمالية .

نسخة ميغا2 تدحض مقولة أن ماركس هو مفكر كتب عنه وقيل كل ما يمكن قوله أو كتابته .لا يزال يوجد الكثير لنتعلمه من ماركس اليوم و بالإمكان القيام بذلك من خلال دراسة ليس فقط ما كتب في أعماله المنشورة بل من خلال الأسئلة والشكوك الواردة في مخطوطاته الناقصة.

المصادر:
Althusser, Louis. 1996. For Marx. New York: Verso.
Bray, John Francis. 1893. Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy. Leeds, UK: D. Green.
Carver, Terrell, and David Blank. 2014. Marx and Engels’s “German Ideology” Manuscripts: Presentation and Analysis of the “Feuerbach Chapter.” New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Engels, Friedrich. 1990a. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. Pp. 353–98 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 26. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Engels, Friedrich. 1990b. “Marx, Heinrich Karl.” Pp. 332–43 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 27. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Engels, Friedrich. 2010. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/32, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, März 1891 bis August 1895, edited by Peer Kösling. Berlin: Akademie.
Engels, Friedrich. 2011. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/30, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, Mai 1883 bis September 1886, edited by Renate Merkel-Melis. Berlin: Akademie.
Engels, Friedrich. 2013. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. III/30, Briefwechsel Oktober 1889 bis November 1890, edited by Gerd Callesen and Svetlana Gavril’čenko. Berlin: Akademie.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1968. Dialectical Materialism. London: Cape Editions.
Marx, Karl. 1975a. “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.” Pp. 3–129 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1975b. “Marx’s Undertaking Not to Publish Anything in Belgium on Current Politics.” P. 677 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 4. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1976. “Declaration against Karl Grün.” Pp. 72–74 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 6. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1977. “The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution.” Pp. 154–78 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 8. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1978. The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850. Pp. 45–146 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 10. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1985. “Confidential Communication.” Pp. 112–24 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 21. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1988. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 30, Economic Manuscript of 1861–63. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 2008. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. II/13, Das Kapital: Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Zweiter Band. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Engels, Hamburg 1885. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl. 2011. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/26, Exzerpte und Notizen zur Geologie, Mineralogie und Agrikulturchemie, März bis September 1878, edited by Anneliese Griese, Peter Krüger, and Richard Sperl. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl. 2012. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. II/4.3, Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1868, Teil 3, edited by Carl-Erich Vollgraf. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl. 2015. Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865. Boston: Brill.
Marx, Karl. 2017. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/14, Exzerpte, Zeitungsausschnitte und Notizen zur Weltwirtschaftskrise (Krisenhefte), November 1857 bis Februar 1858, edited by Kenji Mori, Rolf Hecker, Izumi Omura, and Atsushi Tamaoka. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl. 2019. “Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1867–68 (Excerpt).” Historical Materialism 27(4):162–92.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1976. The German Ideology. Pp. 19–539 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 5. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1982. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 38, Letters 1844–51. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1983. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 40, Letters 1856–59. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1985. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 41, Letters 1860–64. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1987. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 42, Letters 1864–68. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1988. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/4, Exzerpte und Notizen Juli bis August 1845, edited by Nelly Rumjanzewa, Ljudmila Vasina, Sora Kasmina, Marija Marinitschewa, and Alexander Russkich. Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1999a. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/32, Die Bibliotheken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels: Annotiertes Verzeichnis des ermittelten Bestandes, edited by Hans-Peter Harstick, Richard Sperl, and Hanno Strauß. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1999b. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/31, Naturwissenschaftliche Exzerpte und Notizen, Mitte 1877 bis Anfang 1883, edited by Annalise Griese, Friederun Fessen, Peter Jäckel, and Gerd Pawelzig. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2008. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. II/11, Manuskripte zum zweiten Buch des “Kapitals,” 1868 bis 1881, edited by Teinosuke Otani, Ljudmila Vasina, and Carl-Erich Vollgraf. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2009. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/21, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, September 1867 bis März 1871, edited by Jürgen Herres. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2013. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. III/12, Briefwechsel, Januar 1862 bis September 1864, edited by Galina Golovina, Tat’jana Gioeva, and Rolf Dlubek. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2015. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/5, Exzerpte und Notizen Juli 1845 bis Dezember 1850, edited by Georgij Bagaturija, Timm Graßmann, Aleksandr Syrov, and Ljudmila Vasina. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2016. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/7, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, Februar bis Oktober 1848, edited by Jürgen Herren and François Melis. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2017. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/5, Deutsche Ideologie, Manuskripte und Drucke (1845–1847), edited by Ulrich Pagel, Gerald Hubmann, and Christine Weckwerth. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2018. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/16, Artikel Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858, edited by Claudia Rechel and Hanno Strauß. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2019. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/18, Exzerpte und Notizen, Februar 1864 bis Oktober 1868, November 1869, März, April, Juni 1870, Dezember 1872, edited by Teinosuke Otani, Kohei Saito, and Timm Graßmann. Berlin: De Gruyter.
McLellan, David. 1975. Karl Marx. London: Fontana.
Musto, Marcello. 2007. “The Rediscovery of Karl Marx.” International Review of Social History 52(3):477–98.
Musto, Marcello, ed. 2014. Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later. New York: Bloomsbury.
Musto, Marcello. 2018. Another Marx: Early Manuscripts to the International. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Musto, Marcello, ed. 2020a. The Marx Revival: Key Concepts and New Interpretations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Musto, Marcello. 2020b. The Last Years of Karl Marx: An Intellectual Biography. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Owen, Robert. 1849. The Book of the New Moral World. London: Home Colonization Society.
Rubel, Maximilien. 1980. Marx: Life and Works. London: Macmillan.
Saito, Kohei. 2017. Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Smith, David, ed. Forthcoming 2021. Marx’s World: Global Society and Capital Accumulation in Marx’s Late Manuscripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Categories
Journal Articles

전쟁과 좌파

1. 전쟁의 경제적 원인
정치학은 전쟁을 추동하는 이데올로기적·경제적·심지어 심리적 동기를 연구하 는 반면, 사회주의 이론은 자본주의의 발전과 전쟁의 확산 사이의 연계를 강조함 으로써 가장 강력한 이론적 기여 가운데 하나를 이룩했다.

국제노동자협회(1864~1872, 제1인터내셔널)의 논쟁에서 주요한 지도자 가운데 한 명인 세사르 드 페페(César de Paepe)는 전쟁 문제에 관한 노동자 운동의 고전적 입 장, 즉 자본주의적 생산 아래서 전쟁은 불가피하다는 입장을 정식화했다. 현대사회 에서 전쟁은 군주나 다른 개인의 야심이 아니라 지배적인 사회경제적 모델에 의해 야기된다(De Paepe, 2014a: 229~231). 사회주의운동 역시 주민의 어느 부문이 전쟁 의 참혹한 결과에 의해 가장 큰 타격을 받는지 보여줬다. 1868년 열린 인터내셔널 대회에서 참석 대의원들은 노동자들이 승자가 되든 패자가 되든 그들의 지배계급 과 그들을 대표하는 정부들의 결정에 대해 경제적으로 또는 자신의 피로 대가를 치를 것이기 때문에 노동자들이 “모든 전쟁의 최종적 폐지”를 추구할 것을 호소하 는 동의안을 채택했다(Freymond, 1962: 402; Marx, 2014: 92).1 노동자 운동에게 문 명적 교훈은 어떤 전쟁이라도 모두 ‘내전’(Freymond, 1962: 403; Musto, 2014: 49), 즉 노동자들의 생존에 필요한 수단을 박탈하는 것은 노동자들 사이의 격렬한 충돌 로 간주해야 한다는 신념으로부터 나왔다. 노동자들은 징집에 저항하고 파업투쟁 을 벌여 어떤 전쟁에 대해서도 단호하게 투쟁할 필요가 있었다. 그래서 국제주의 는 미래 사회의 핵심적 사항이 되었고, 미래 사회는 세계시장에서 부르주아 국가 들 사이의 경쟁과 자본주의의 종식과 함께 전쟁의 주요한 근본적 원인을 제거하게 된다.

사회주의의 선구자 가운데 클로드 앙리 드 생시몽(Claude Henri de Saint-Simon) 은 전쟁과 사회적 갈등에 대해 단호한 입장을 취했고, 양자를 산업생산의 근본적 진보에 장애물이 된다고 간주했다. 칼 마르크스는 그의 저술에서 전쟁에 관한 견 해를 발전시키지 않았고, 그의 견해는 단편적이고 때로는 모순적이기도 했다. 마르 크스는 또한 전쟁에 대해 취해야 할 올바른 태도의 지침을 제시하지 않았다. 마르 크스가 대립하는 진영 사이에서 선택을 해야 하는 경우, 그의 유일한 상수는 반혁 명의 전초기지이자 노동계급 해방의 주요한 장벽 가운데 하나로 여겼던 차르체제 러시아(Tsarist Russia)에 대한 반대였다. 『자본』(1867)에서 마르크스는 폭력이 경제 적 힘이며, “새로운 사회를 잉태한 모든 낡은 사회의 산파”(Marx, 1996: 739)라고 주장했다. 그러나 마르크스는 전쟁을 사회의 혁명적 변혁을 위한 결정적 지름길이 라고 생각하지 않았고, 마르크스의 정치적 활동에서 주요한 목표는 노동자들이 국 제연대에 헌신하도록 하는 것이었다. 프리드리히 엥겔스도 주장하듯이, 외부의 적 이라는 선전주의적 발명이 어떤 전쟁의 발발을 가져올 위협이 존재하는 개별 나라 들에서 노동자들은 계급투쟁의 위축에 맞서 결연하게 투쟁해야 한다. 노동자 운동 의 지도자들에게 보내는 여러 편지에서 엥겔스는 애국주의라는 덫과 배외주의의 물결로부터 발생하는 프롤레타리아 혁명지연의 이데올로기적 힘을 강조했다. 더 나아가, 『반뒤링론』(1878)에서 엥겔스는 훨씬 더 치명적인 무기의 효과에 대한 분 석에 이어 사회주의의 임무는 “군사주의와 모든 상비군을 분쇄하는 것”이라고 선 언했다(Engels, 1987: 158).

전쟁은 엥겔스에게 아주 중요한 문제여서 그는 마지막 저술 가운데 하나를 전쟁 에 집중했다. 「유럽의 무장해제는 가능한가」(1893)에서 엥겔스는 지난 25년 동안 모든 주요 열강이 군사적으로, 전쟁 준비의 면에서 제압하려고 경쟁국보다 노력했 다고 지적했다. 유례없는 수준의 무기 생산이 이루어졌고, 구대륙은 “세계가 결코 본 적 없는 그런 파괴의 전쟁”(Engels, 1990: 372)에 더 접근하게 되었다. 『공산당 선 언』(1848)의 공저자인 엥겔스에 따르면, “상비군 시스템은 유럽 전역에서 극단적 으로 발전해서 상비군은 군사적 부담 때문에 민족들에게 경제적 파산을 가져오거 나 또는 전면적인 박멸전에 빠지게 할 수밖에 없다”. 이런 분석에서 엥겔스는 상비 군이 외부에 대한 군사적 목적만큼 주로 국내의 정치적 목적을 위해 유지된다고 강조하는 것을 잊지 않았다. 상비군은 프롤레타리아트와 노동자 투쟁을 탄압할 세 력을 강화함으로써 “외부의 적보다는 내부의 적에 맞서 보호를 제공할” 의도로 구 성되어 있다. 민중들이 국가에 세금을 내고, 병력을 제공함으로써 다른 누구보다 더 많은 대가를 지불하기 때문에, 노동자 운동은 “국제협약에 의한 [군사] 서비스 조건의 점진적 감소”와 유일하게 효과적인 “평화의 보장책”으로서 무장해제를 위 해 투쟁해야 한다(Engels ,1990: 371, 괄호는 저자).

2. 시험과 몰락
머지않아 평화 시의 이론적 논쟁은 시대의 가장 중요한 정치적 이슈로 전환되었 다. 이 시기 노동자 운동은 그들의 대표들이 처음에 어떤 전쟁에도 반대하는 현실 과 직면해야 했다. 1879년의 프랑스-프로이센 전쟁(파리 코뮌 직전에 일어난)에서 독 일 사회민주당 의원인 빌헬름 리프크네히트(Wilhelm Liebknecht)와 아우구스트 베 벨(August Bebel)은 비스마르크의 독일이 추진하는 병합주의적 목적을 규탄했고, 전쟁공채에 반대투표를 했다. “전쟁을 계속하려는 추가적 자금을 위한 법안을 거 부하는”(Pelz, 2016: 50) 결정으로 인해 그들은 2년 징역형을 받았지만, 그들의 행동 은 노동계급에게 위기에 대한 대안적 방식을 보여주는 데 기여했다.

유럽의 주요 열강들이 제국주의적 팽창을 지속하면서, 전쟁에 관한 논쟁은 제2 인터내셔널(1889~1916)에서 훨씬 더 커다란 비중을 차지하게 되었다. 창립 대회에 서 채택한 결의안은 평화를 “노동자 해방의 필수불가결한 전제조건”(Dominick, 1982: 343)으로 정립했다. 부르주아지가 주장하는 평화정책은 비웃음을 샀고, “무 장한 평화”의 정책으로 규정되었다. 1895년 프랑스 사회당(SFIO)의 지도자인 장 조레스(Jean Jaures̀ )는 유명한 의회 연설에서 좌파의 우려를 요약했다. “여러분의 폭력적이고 혼란스러운 사회는 심지어 평화를 원할 때에도, 심지어 명백한 휴지 상태에 있을 때에도, 잠자는 구름이 폭풍우를 품고 있는 것처럼 전쟁을 자체 내부 에 품고 있다”(Jaures̀ , 1982: 32).

독일제국이 국제적 영역에서 권력을 확대하려는 공격적 정책인 ‘세계정책 (Weltpolitik)’을 전개함에 따라 지정학적 상황을 변화시키면서 반제국주의 원칙은 노동자 운동에서 더 깊은 뿌리를 내렸고 무장갈등에 관한 토론에 영향을 주었다. 전쟁은 더 이상 혁명적 기회를 열고 체제의 붕괴를 가속화하는 것(1872년 혁명전쟁 이후 좌파의 사상)으로 간주되지 않았다.2 기아, 궁핍, 실업의 형태로 프롤레타리아 트에게 미치는 심각한 영향 때문에 전쟁은 이제 위험으로 간주되었다. 따라서 전 쟁은 진보세력에게 심각한 위협이 되었고, 『사회혁명』(1902)에서 칼 카우츠키(Karl Kautsky)가 썼던 것처럼, 진보세력은 전쟁이 발발할 경우 “비핵심적인 임무로 과도 하게 부담”(Kautsky, 1903: 77)하게 되며, 이는 최종적 승리를 더 가까이 가져오기 보다는 더 멀어지게 할 것이다.

1907년 제2인터내셔널 슈투트가르트 대회에서 채택된 결의안 「군사주의와 국 제분쟁에 관하여」는 노동자 운동의 공통적 유산이 된 모든 핵심을 되풀이해서 요 약했다. 그 핵심은 군비 지출을 증가시키는 예산에 반대하는 투표, 상비군에 대한 반감, 민중의 민병대 시스템에 대한 선호, 국제분쟁을 평화적으로 해결하는 중재법 원을 창출할 계획에 대한 지지 등이다. 여기에는 구스타브 에르베(Gustave Hervé) 가 제시한 바대로 어떤 종류의 전쟁에 대해서도 반대하는 총파업 호소는 배제되었 다. 왜냐하면 참석자의 다수가 그 방침을 너무 급진적이고 마니교적(이분법적 — 옮 긴이)인 것으로 생각했기 때문이다. 결의안은 로자 룩셈부르크, 블라디미르 레닌, 율리 마르토프가 작성한 수정안으로 마무리되었다. “전쟁이 발발할 경우 […] 전쟁 의 신속한 종식을 위해 개입하고, 전쟁이 야기한 경제적·정치적 위기를 활용할 모 든 능력을 발휘해 대중들을 고무하고, 그럼으로써 자본주의적 계급지배의 몰락을 가속화하는 것은 [사회주의자들의] 의무이다”(Vv. Aa, 1972: 80). 그러나 이 결의안이 독일 사회민주당(SPD)의 정치노선을 전혀 변화시키지 못했기 때문에 사민당 의원 들은 전쟁에 찬성하는 투표를 했다. 수정된 텍스트는 제2인터내셔널에서 만장일치 의 지지를 확보한 전쟁에 관한 마지막 문서였다.

세계시장에서 자본주의 국가들 사이의 더욱 격렬한 경쟁은 수많은 국제분쟁의 발발과 함께 전반적인 상황을 훨씬 더 경악스럽게 만들었다. 조레스의 『새로운 군 대』(1911)의 출판은 이 시기의 또 다른 중심적 주제, 즉 공격적 전쟁과 방어적 전쟁 사이의 구분과, 하나의 독립이 위협받는 경우를 포함해 방어적 전쟁에 대해 취할 태도에 관한 토론을 자극했다. 조레스에게 군대의 유일한 임무는 어떤 공격적 침 략 또는 중재를 통한 분쟁의 해결을 받아들이지 않는 어떤 침략국으로부터 민족을 방어하는 것이었다. 그에 따르면 이 범주에 들어가는 모든 군사적 행동은 정당한 것으로 간주되어야 한다. 이 입장에 대해 룩셈부르크는 “현대전과 같은 역사적 현 상은 ‘정의’라는 잣대로 또는 방어와 공격이라는 문서상의 도식을 통해 측정할 수 없다”라고 지적했다(Luxemburg, 1911). 그녀의 견해로는 어떤 전쟁이 진정으로 공 격적인지 아니면 방어적인지 또는 전쟁을 시작한 국가가 고의로 공격하기로 결정 했는지 아니면 전쟁에 반대하는 나라가 채택한 전략 때문에 그렇게 할 수밖에 없었 는지를 판단할 때의 어려움을 염두에 둘 필요가 있었다. 따라서 룩셈부르크는 그런 구별을 폐기해야 한다고 생각했고, ‘무장한 국가’가 궁극적으로 사회에서 점증하는 군사화를 부채질하는 경향이 있다는 근거로 조레스의 개념을 더욱 비판했다.

시간이 지나면서 제2인터내셔널은 평화를 위한 투쟁의 정책을 더욱더 방기했 다. 재무장과 전쟁 준비에 대한 반대는 활기를 잃었고, SPD의 더욱 온건하고 합법 주의적 영향은 독일에서 정치적 자유를 더 많이 부여받는 대가로 군사공채, 그리 고 그다음엔 심지어 식민지 팽창에 대한 지지와 거래했다. 구스타브 노스케(Gustav Noske), 헨리 하인드먼(Henry Hyndman), 아르투로 라브리올라(Arturo Labriola) 등 과 같은 중요한 지도자와 저명한 이론가들은 이런 입장에 처음으로 도달한 자들이 었다. 이후에 독일 사민당원, 프랑스 사회당원, 영국 노동당 지도자들, 다른 유럽의 개량주의자들은 결국 제1차 세계대전(1914~1918)을 지지하게 된다. 이런 경로는 재앙적 결과를 가져왔다. ‘진보의 혜택’을 자본가들이 독점해서는 안 된다는 생각 으로 노동자 운동은 지배계급의 팽창주의적 목표를 공유하게 되었고 민족주의 이 데올로기의 수렁에 빠졌다. 제2인터내셔널은 전쟁에 직면해 완전히 무력했고, 평 화의 유지라는 주요한 목적 가운데 하나에서 실패했다.

치머발트 협의회(1915)에 참석한 레닌과 다른 대의원들은 최종 선언을 작성한 레브 트로츠키를 포함해 “수십 년 동안 전비 지출은 민족들의 최상의 에너지를 흡 수할 것이고, 사회적 개선을 침해하고 어떤 진보도 방해할 것”이라고 예측했다. 그 들의 눈에는 전쟁이 “노동 대중의 이해뿐만 아니라 […] 심지어 인류의 공동 생존 의 첫 번째 조건과도 화해할 수 없게 된 적나라한 형태의 현대 자본주의”임을 폭로 했다(Vv. Aa, 1915). 이런 경고에 노동자 운동의 소수만이 귀를 기울였고, 킨탈 협의 회(1916)의 모든 유럽 노동자들에게 보내는 호소도 그러했다. “여러분의 정부와 그 들의 신문은 여러분에게 군사주의를 종식시키기 위해 전쟁을 계속해야 한다고 말 한다. 그들은 여러분을 기만하고 있다! 전쟁은 결코 전쟁을 종식시킨 적이 없다. 정말로 전쟁은 복수의 감정과 소망을 낳는다. 이런 식으로 여러분에게 희생을 강 요해 여러분을 연옥의 순회 속에 가둔다”(Vv. Aa, 1977: 371). 국제 중재법원을 호소 했던 슈투트가르트 대화와 최종적으로 결별한 킨탈의 최종 문서는 “부르주아적 평 화주의의 환상”은 전쟁의 소용돌이를 방해하는 것이 아니라 기존의 사회경제적 시 스템을 유지하는 데 도움을 줄 것이라고 선언했다. 미래의 군사적 분쟁을 막는 유 일한 방식은 인민대중들이 정치권력을 장악해 자본주의적 소유를 타도하는 것이 었다.

로자 룩셈부르크와 블라디미르 레닌은 전쟁에 가장 강력하게 반대한 두 사람이 었다. 룩셈부르크는 좌파의 이론적 이해를 확대했고, 군사주의가 어떻게 국가의 핵 심 중추인지 보여줬다.3) 다른 공산주의 지도자들보다 강력한 확신과 뛰어난 효율 성을 보여준 룩셈부르크는 “전쟁에 대한 전쟁을!”이라는 슬로건이 “노동계급 정치 의 초석”이 되어야 한다고 주장했다. 그녀가 『국제 사회민주주의의 임무에 관한 테제』(1915)에 썼던 것처럼 제2인터내셔널은 “모든 나라의 프롤레타리아트의 공 동 전술과 투쟁을 획득하는” 데 실패했기 때문에 자멸했다. 따라서 그 이후로 프롤 레타리아트의 “주요한 목적”은 “전쟁 시처럼 평화 시에 제국주의와 투쟁하고 전쟁 을 막는 것”이어야 한다(Luxemburg, 1915b).

제1차 세계대전 동안 『사회주의와 전쟁』(1915)과 다른 많은 저술에서, 레닌의 커다란 장점은 두 가지 근본적인 문제를 확인했다는 것이다. 첫 번째는 부르주아 지가 이번에 어느 교전국이 가장 많은 외국 민족을 억압하고 자본주의의 불평등을 증가시킬지 결정할 유일한 목표로 실제로 수행되는 ‘약탈’ 전쟁에 ‘민족해방의 진 보적 의미’(Lenin, 1971: 299~300)를 부여하려고 노력하려고 할 때면 언제나 저지르 는 ‘역사적 위조’와 관련된 것이다. 두 번째는 사회개량주의자들, 또는 ‘사회배외주 의자들’(Lenin, 1971: 306)에 의한 모순의 은폐였다. 이들은 제2인터내셔널이 채택 한 결의안에서 ‘범죄적’ 활동이라고 규정했음에도 궁극적으로 전쟁의 정당화를 승 인했다. ‘조국을 수호한다’는 주장의 이면에는 특정 열강들이 ‘식민지를 강탈하고 외국 민족들을 억압하기’ 위해 스스로에게 부여한 권리가 존재한다. 전쟁은 ‘민족 의 존속’을 수호하기 위해서가 아니라 다양한 ‘제국주의적 부르주아지’의 ‘특권과 지배, 약탈과 폭력을 방어하기 위해’ 치러진다(Lenin, 1971: 307). 애국주의에 굴복 한 사회주의자들은 계급투쟁을 ‘다른 나라들을 약탈하여 자국 부르주아지가 획득 한 이유의 한 조각’에 대한 권리 주장으로 대체했다. 따라서 레닌은 ‘방어적 전쟁’을 지지했다. 즉 조레스식으로 유럽 나라들의 민족방어가 아니라 ‘노예를 소유한 열강 들’에게 ‘약탈당하고 권리를 박탈당한 피억압 예속 민족들의 정당한 전쟁’을 지지 했다(Lenin, 1971: 314). 레닌의 팸플릿의 가장 유명한 테제, 즉 혁명가들은 ‘제국주 의 전쟁을 내전으로 전화’(Lenin, 1971: 315)4 시키려고 노력해야 한다는 테제는 ‘지 속적인 민주적 평화’를 원한다면 ‘자신들의 정부와 부르주아지에 대한 내전’(Lenin, 1971: 316)5 을 수행해야 한다는 것을 의미했다. 레닌은 역사가 이후에 무엇이 부정 확한지 보여줄 것이라고 확신했다. 그는 전쟁의 시기에 수행하는 어떤 계급투쟁도 ‘불가피하게’ 대중들 사이에서 혁명적 정신을 창조할 것이라고 확신했다.

3. 구획선
제1차 세계대전은 제2인터내셔널뿐만 아니라 무정부주의 운동에서도 분열을 낳았다. 전쟁 발발 직후에 발표된 논문에서 크로포트킨(Kropotkin)은 “인간 진보에 관한 사상을 소중히 여기는 모든 사람의 임무는 독일의 서유럽 침공을 분쇄하는 것”이라고 썼다(Kropotkin, 1914: 76~77). 많은 사람이 자기가 평생 투쟁한 원칙을 저버린 것으로 보는 이 진술은 노동대중들에게 주목받지 못한 “전쟁에 반대하는 총파업”이라는 슬로건을 넘어서고 독일의 승리가 가져올 유럽 정치의 전반적인 퇴 행을 회피하려는 시도였다. 크로포트킨에 따르면, 만약 반군국주의자들이 무력하 면 침략자들의 정복 계획을 간접적으로 지원하게 되며, 그에 따른 장래는 사회혁 명을 위해 투쟁하는 사람들이 극복하기 더욱 어려워질 것이다.

크로포트킨에 대한 답변으로 이탈리아 무정부의자 에리코 말라테스타(Errico Malatesta)는 비록 그가 평화주의자는 아니고 해방전쟁에서 무기를 잡는 것이 정당 하다고 생각함에도 세계 전쟁은 부르주아 선전이 주장하는 것처럼 민주주의의 “공 동의 적에 맞서 보편 선을 위한” 투쟁이 아니며, 노동대중들이 지배계급에 종속되 는 또 다른 사례일 뿐이라고 주장했다. 말라테스타는 “독일의 승리가 확실히 군사 주의의 승리임을 확인하겠지만, 동맹국의 승리는 유럽과 아시아에서 러시아와 영 국의 지배를 의미할 것”임을 인식했다(Malatesta, 1993: 230).

「16인 선언」(1916년)에서 크로포트킨은 “우리 모두의 해방이란 희망의 파괴를 의미하는 침략자에 저항할” 필요를 주장했다(Kropotkin et al., 1916). 독일에 맞선 삼각동맹(triple entente)의 승리는 더 작은 악이며, 기존의 자유를 덜 침해할 것이다. 다른 편에서 말라테스타와 그의 동료 서명자들은 무정부주의 인터내셔널의 반전 선언(1915)에서 이렇게 선언했다. “공격전과 방어전 사이의 구별은 불가능하다”. 더 나아가 그들은 “어떤 교전국들도 정당한 자기방어를 주장할 자격이 없는 것과 마찬가지로 문명을 주장할 어떤 권리도 없다”라고 덧붙였다(Malatesta et al., 1998: 388). 그들은 제1차 세계대전은 노동계급의 희생으로 치러지는 다양한 제국주의 열강의 자본가들 사이의 전쟁에서 추가적 에피소드였다고 주장했다. 말라테스타, 에마 골드먼(Emma Goldman), 페르딘(Ferdin), 뉴엔하위스(Nieuwenhuis)와 대다수의 무정부주의 운동가들은 부르주아 정부를 지지하는 것은 용서할 수 없는 오류라고 확신했다. 그 대신에 그들은 어떤 조건이나 반대도 없이 “군대에는 단 한 명도 단 한 푼도 거부한다(no man and no penny for the army)”라는 슬로건을 내걸고, 전쟁 추진을 직접적으로 지지하는 어떤 슬로건도 거부했다.

전쟁에 대한 태도는 여성운동에서도 논쟁을 불러일으켰다. 오랫동안 남성이 독 점한 직업에서 징집 남성을 대신할 여성의 필요성은 훨씬 낮은 임금과 과잉 착취 라는 조건 속에서도 새로 태어난 여성 투표권 운동의 상당한 부분에서 배외주의 이데올로기의 확산을 자극했다. 일부 지도자들은 여성의 입대를 허용하는 법률을 제정하기 위해 청원하기도 했다. 내부의 적을 소환해 근본적인 사회개혁을 역전시 키려고 전쟁을 이용한 일구이언 정부들의 폭로는 이 시대 주요한 여성 공산주의자 들의 가장 중요한 성과 가운데 하나였다. 클라라 체트킨(Clara Zetkin), 알렉산드라 콜론타이(Alexandra Kollontai), 실비아 팽크허스트(Sylvia Pankhurst), 그리고 당연히 로자 룩셈부르크는 군국주의에 반대하는 투쟁이 가부장제에 반대하는 투쟁에 핵 심적임을 후세대에게 보여주는 경로에 명료하고 용감하게 나섰다. 후에 전쟁 거부 는 국제여성의 날의 명확한 의제가 되었고, 새로운 분쟁이 발발하는 경우 전쟁예 산 반대는 국제 여성운동의 많은 강령에서 뚜렷한 특징이 되었다.

4. 목적은 수단을 정당화하지 않으며, 잘못된 수단은 목적에 피해를 가한다
혁명가와 개량주의자 사이의 깊은 분열은 소비에트 연방의 탄생6 과 1920년대 와 1930년대 이데올로기적 교조주의의 성장 이후 전략적 차이를 확대했고, 공산주 의 인터내셔널(1919~1943)과 유럽의 사회당 및 사민당 사이의 어떤 동맹도 배제했 다.7 전쟁을 지지했던 정당들은 노동·사회주의 인터내셔널(LSI: 1923~1940)을 결 성했지만, 공산주의자들의 눈으로 볼 때 모든 신뢰를 상실했다. ‘제국주의 전쟁을 내전으로 전환하라’는 레닌주의적 사상은 여전히 모스크바에서 우위를 보였고, 소 련의 지도적 정치인과 이론가들은 ‘새로운 1914년’이 불가피하다고 생각했다. 그 런데 양측의 토론은 처음부터 전쟁을 어떻게 막을 것인가보다는 새로운 전쟁이 일 어날 경우 무엇을 할 것인가에 대한 것이었다. 슬로건과 원칙선언은 일어날 것으 로 예상되는 사태나 그 이후의 정치 행동과 본질적으로 다른 것이었다. 공산주의 진영의 비판적 목소리는 “평화를 위한 투쟁”이라는 슬로건을 주창한 니콜라이 부 하린(Nikolai Bukharin)을 비롯하여 러시아의 지도자들 사이에서 현대사회의 핵심 적 이슈 가운데 하나라고 확신한 사람들에게서 나왔다. 그리고 모든 열강의 전쟁 위협에 동등하게 책임이 있지는 않다고 주장하고, 전쟁에 반대하는 광범한 인민전 선을 건설하기 위해 개량주의 정당들과의 화해를 지지했던 게오르기 디미트로프 (Georgi Dimitrov)도 있다. 이들의 견해는 모두 소비에트 정통의 장황한 논리와 대 조된다. 소비에트는 이론적 분석을 업데이트하기는커녕 전쟁의 위험은 동등하게, 아무런 차이도 없이 모든 제국주의의 열강이 야기한다는 주장을 되풀이했다.

이 문제에 관한 마오쩌둥의 견해는 전혀 달랐다. 일본 침략에 맞선 해방운동의 지도자로서 마오는 『지구전에 관하여』(1938)에서 공산주의자들이 적극적으로 참 여해야 하는 “정당한 전쟁(Mao Tse-Tung, 1966: 15)은 엄청난 권력을 부여받으며, 그 권력은 많은 것을 변혁할 수 있고 또는 변혁을 위한 길을 닦는다”라고 썼다 (Mao Tse-Tung, 1966: 26~27). 따라서 마오가 제시한 전략은 “정당한 전쟁으로 부 당한 전쟁에 대항하는 것”이자(Mao Tse-Tung, 1966: 53), 더 나아가 “정치적 목적 을 성취할 때까지 전쟁을 계속하는 것”이었다. “혁명전쟁의 전능함”에 관한 주장 은 『전쟁과 전략 문제』(1938)에서 반복되는데, 마오는 “오직 총으로만 전 세계를 변혁할 수 있으며(Mao Tse-Tung, 1965: 219), 군대에 의한 권력장악, 전쟁에 의한 문제 해결은 혁명의 중심적 임무이자 최고 형태”라고 주장했다(Mao Tse-Tung, 1965: 225).

유럽에서 국내외적으로 강화되는 나치-파시스트 전선의 폭력과 제2차 세계대 전(1939~1945)의 발발로 1914~1918년 전쟁보다 훨씬 더 극악한 시나리오가 펼쳐 졌다. 1941년 히틀러의 군대가 소련을 공격한 이후 나치즘의 패배로 끝난 대애국 전쟁은 러시아 민족단결의 중심적 요소가 되어 베를린 장벽의 붕괴에서도 살아남 아 오늘날까지 지속되고 있다.

전후 세계가 두 진영으로 분할되자 조셉 스탈린(Joseph Stalin, Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin)은 국제 공산주의 운동의 주요한 임무는 소련을 수호하는 것이라고 가르쳤 다. 동유럽 8개 나라(유고슬라비아의 퇴장 이후 7개)의 의 완충지대를 창출하는 것이 이 정책은 중심축이었다. 같은 시기 트루먼 독트린은 새로운 유형의 전쟁인 냉전 의 도래를 상징한다. 그리스에서 반공주의 세력의 지지, 마셜플랜(1948), NATO 설립(1949) 등을 통해 미국은 서유럽 진보세력의 전진을 피하는 데 기여했다. 소련 은 바르샤바 조약(1955)으로 대응했다. 이러한 구도는 거대한 무기경쟁으로 이어 졌고, 히로시마와 나가사키에서의 경험에도 불구하고 핵무기 실험의 확산을 자극 했다.

1961년부터 니키라 흐루쇼프(Nikita Khrushchev)의 지도로 소련은 ‘평화공존’으 로 알려진 새로운 정치적 경로를 밟기 시작했다. 이 전환은 불개입과 민족권의 존 중, 자본주의 나라들과의 경제협력에 대한 강조와 함께 제3차 세계대전의 위험을 회피하고(1962년 쿠바 미사일 위기가 가능성을 보여준) 전쟁이 불가피한 것이 아니라는 주장을 뒷받침할 것으로 예상되었다. 그러나 이런 건설적 협력 시도는 오직 미국 에만 적용되었고 ‘현실적으로 존재하는 사회주의’ 나라들에는 적용되지 않았다. 1956년 소련은 이미 헝가리의 반란을 분쇄했고, 서유럽의 공산당들은 사회주의 블 록을 보호한다는 명목 아래 자행된 군사개입을 비난하지 않고 정당화했다. 예를 들어 이탈리아 공산당의 서기인 팔미로 톨리아티(Palmiro Togliatti)는 “우리는 비록 실수를 하더라도 우리 편에 선다”라고 선언했다(Vittoria, 2015: 219). 이 입장을 공 유했던 사람들 대부분은 소비에트 작전의 파괴적 영향을 이해한 이후에 이를 뼈저 리게 후회했다.

비슷한 사건들이 평화공존의 정점인 1968년 체코슬로바키아에서 일어났다. 프 라하의 봄 동안 민주화와 경제적 탈집중화 요구에 직면한 소련공산당의 정치국은 만장일치로 50만 명의 군대와 수천 대의 탱크를 보내기로 결정했다. 1968년 폴란 드 통합노동자당 대회에서 레오니드 브레즈네프(Leonid Brezhnev)는 바르샤바 조약 나라들의 ‘제한주권’을 언급함으로서 이 행동을 설명했다. “사회주의에 적대적인 세력이 어떤 사회주의 나라의 발전을 자본주의로 전환시키려고 한다면, 그것은 관 련된 나라만의 문제가 아니라 모든 사회주의 나라들의 공동의 문제이자 관심이 된 다”(1968년 11월 13일 브레즈네프가 폴란드 통합노동자당 5차대회에 참석해 한 연설 — 옮긴 이). 이 반민주적 논리에 따라 무엇이 ‘사회주의’인지 아닌지의 규정은 자연스럽게 소련 지도자들의 자의적 결정에 따르게 되었다. 그러나 이번에는 좌파에서 비판은 더욱 적극적으로 개진되어 심지어 다수를 대표하기도 했다. 소련의 행동에 대한 반대는 신좌파 운동만이 아니라 중국공산당을 포함한 다수의 공산당들이 표현했 음에도, 러시아는 후퇴하지 않고 ‘정상화’라고 부르는 과정을 관철시켰다. 소련은 계속 경제자원의 상당 부분을 군비 지출에 책정했고, 이는 사회의 권위주의적 문 화를 강화하는 데 기여했다. 이런 식으로 소련은 평화운동의 선의를 영원히 상실 했다. 반면 평화운동은 베트남 전쟁에 대한 강력한 투쟁을 통해 훨씬 더 크게 성장 했다.

그 이후 가장 중요한 전쟁 가운데 하나는 소련의 아프가니스탄 침공으로 시작되 었다. 1917년 붉은 군대는 또다시 소련 외교정책의 주요한 도구가 되었고, 소련은 스스로 ‘안보 지역’이라고 규정한 곳에 개입할 권리를 계속해서 주장했다. 불운한 결정은 10년 이상 늘어지는 소모적 모험으로 전환되었고, 엄청난 사망자와 수백만 명의 난민을 만들어냈다. 이때 국제 공산주의 운동은 헝가리와 체코슬로바키아에 대한 소련 침공에 비해 훨씬 더 억제된 태도를 보였다. 그러나 이 새 전쟁은 ‘실제 로 존재하는 사회주의’와 평화와 군국주의 반대에 기초한 정치적 대안 사이에 갈 라진 국제 여론을 훨씬 더 분명하게 드러냈다.

전체적으로 볼 때, 이런 군사적 개입은 전반적 군비축소에 반해 작동했을 뿐만 아니라 전 세계적으로 사회주의를 불신하게 만들고 약화시키는 데 기여했다 소련 은 점차 미국과 다르지 않은 방식으로 행동하는 제국주의 열강으로 여겨졌다. 미 국은 냉전의 개시 이후 다소 은밀하게 쿠데타를 지원했고, 전 세계 20개국 이상에 서 민주적으로 선출된 정부를 전복하도록 지원했다. 중소분쟁을 배경으로 1977~1979년 캄보디아와 베트남, 중국과 베트남 사이의 ‘사회주의 전쟁’은 전쟁 을 전적으로 자본주의의 경제적 불균형으로 돌렸던 ‘마르크스-레닌주의’ 이데올 로기(마르크스와 엥겔스가 제기한 원래의 기초로부터 이미 아주 멀어진)의 모든 권위를 날 려버렸다.

5. 좌파가 된다는 것은 전쟁에 반대하는 것
냉전의 종식은 다른 나라의 내정에 대한 간섭을 줄이지도 않았고, 모든 민중이 정치체제를 선택할 자유를 증대시키지도 않았다. 지난 25년 동안 심지어 UN의 위 임도 없이 터무니없이 ‘인도주의적’라고 규정한 수많은 전쟁들과 그밖에 불법 제 재, 정치·경제·언론의 통제 등 새로운 형태의 분쟁은 초강대국을 사이에 둔 세계의 양극 분할로 인해 ‘새로운 세계질서’라는 신자유주의적 주문(mantra)이 약속한 자 유와 진보의 시대로 이어지지 않았다. 이런 맥락에서 과거에 좌파의 가치를 내세 웠던 많은 정치세력들이 수많은 전쟁에 참여했다. 베를린 장벽 붕괴 이후 NATO 가 수행한 주요한 전쟁만 언급하더라도 코소보에서 이라크와, 아프가니스탄에서 이 세력은 매번 무장개입을 지지했고, 더욱더 우파와 구별할 수 없도록 행동했다.

2022년 현재 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁은 한 나라의 주권이 공격받을 때 좌파가 어떻게 대응할 것인가의 딜레마에 다시 한번 직면하게 했다. 러시아의 우크라이나 침공을 비난하지 않는 것은 베네수엘라 정부의 정치적 오류이며, 미국이 미래에 자행할 공격 행위에 대한 베네수엘라의 비난이 덜 신뢰성을 갖도록 보이게 한다. 마르크스가 1860년 페르디난트 라살(Ferdinand Lassale)에게 썼듯이, “대외정책에 서 ‘반동적’이나 ‘혁명적’이라는 구호를 사용해 얻을 것은 거의 없다”는 것은 사실 이다. 즉 “주관적으로 반동적인 것이 대외정책에서 객관적으로 혁명적”(Marx, 1860: MECW, Vol.41, pp.154)이다(인 것으로 판명될 수도 있다). 그러나 좌파세력은 20 세기로부터 ‘적의 적과의’(Musto, 2018: 132) 동맹이 비생산적 협정으로 귀결되고, 특히 우리 시대처럼 진보적 전선이 정치적으로 취약하고, 이론적으로 혼란스럽고, 대중투쟁의 지지를 결여하고 있을 때에 더욱 그렇다는 교훈을 배웠어야 했다.

『사회주의 혁명과 민족자결권』에 실린 레닌의 말을 상기해 보자. “한 제국주의 열강에 대항한 민족해방 투쟁이 특정한 상황 아래에서 동일하게 제국주의적인 이 해를 가진 다른 ‘거대’ 열강에게 이용당할 수도 있다는 사실은 사회민주주의가 민 족자결권의 승인을 비난하도록 하는 데 어떤 비중을 가져서는 안 된다”(Lenin, 1964b: 148). 지정학적 이해와 그 안에서 역시 대부분 작동하는 책략을 넘어 좌파세 력은 역사적으로 민족자결의 원칙을 지지했으며, 인민의 명확한 의지에 기초해 그 들의 국경을 수립할 원칙을 바탕으로 개별 국가의 권리를 수호했다. 좌파는 전쟁 과 ‘병합’이 지배민족과 피억압 민족의 노동자들 사이에서 극적인 갈등으로 이어 지고, 후자가 전자를 자신의 적으로 간주해 자국의 부르주아지와 단결할 조건을 창출한다는 점을 인식했기 때문에 전쟁과 병합에 반대해 투쟁했다. 『자결에 관한 토론 결과』(1916년)에서 레닌은 이렇게 썼다. “만약 사회주의 혁명이 페트로그라 드, 베를린, 바르샤바에서 승리한다면, 폴란드의 사회주의 정부는 러시아와 독일의 사회주의 정부처럼 폴란드 국가의 국경 내에서 우크라이나인의 ‘강제적 억류’를 비난할 것이다”(Lenin, 1964a: 329~330). 그렇다면 왜 블라디미르 푸틴이 이끄는 민 족주의 정부에 대해 어떤 다른 것을 양보해야 한다고 암시하는가?

다른 한편, 좌파에서 너무나 많은 이들이 직접 또는 간접적으로 공동 교전자가 되는 유혹에 굴복해 새로운 신성한 연합(union sacrée: 제1차 대전이 발발하자 정부의 전쟁 선택을 승인하기로 결정한 프랑스 좌파세력의 선서를 환영하기 위해 1914년 만들어진 표현)을 부추기고 있다. 오늘날 그런 입장은 더욱 대서양주의와 태평양주의 사이의 구별을 모호하게 한다. 역사는 진보세력이 전쟁에 반대하지 않을 때 존재 이유의 본질적 부분을 상실하여 결국 반대 진영의 이데올로기를 삼키게 된다는 사실을 보 여준다. 이런 일은 좌파 정당이 정부 참여를 정치 행동을 측정하는 근본적 방식으 로 삼을 때마다 일어난다. 예를 들어 이탈리아 공산주의자들은 코소보와 아프가니 스탄에 대한 NATO의 개입을 지지했고, 오늘날 스페인 좌파(Unidas Podemos)의 다 수는 스페인 의회 전체의 합창에 목소리를 더해 우크라이나 군대에 무기를 보내는 데 찬성했다. 그런 저급한 행위는 상황이 발생하자마자 치러지는 선거를 포함해 과거에 수차례 처벌받은 바 있다.

6. 보나파르트는 민주주의가 아니다 
1850년대 마르크스는 크림전쟁에 관한 훌륭한 일련의 논문을 작성했고, 거기에 는 오늘날과 비교해도 흥미롭고 유익한 내용을 많이 포함하고 있다. 마르크스는 『19 세기 외교사의 폭로』(1857)에서 러시아를 통일시키고 전제정의 기초를 마련했다고 여겨지는 15세기 모스크바 군주정에 관해 말하면서 이렇게 진술했다. “단지 일련 의 이름과 날짜를 다른 것으로 대체할 필요가 있으며, 그러면 […] 이반 3세의 정책 과 오늘날 러시아의 정책이 단지 비슷한 것이 아니라 동일하다는 것이 분명해진 다”(Marx, 1986: 86). 그러나 ≪뉴욕 데일리 트리뷴(New York Daily Tribune)≫에 기 고한 논설에서 마르크스는 반러시아 연합을 찬양한 자유주의적 민주주의자들에 반대하면서 이렇게 썼다. “러시아에 대한 전쟁을 자유와 폭정 사이의 전쟁으로 묘 사하는 것은 잘못이다. 그러한 경우가 사실이라면 자유가 임시로 보나파르트로 대 표될 것이라는 사실과는 별도로, 전쟁의 전체적인 공인된 목표는 […] 비엔나 조약 의 유지이지만, 바로 조약은 민족의 자유와 독립을 무효화한다”(Marx, 1980: 228). 보나파르트를 미국으로, 비엔나 조약을 NATO로 바꾸면, 이런 관찰은 오늘의 상 황을 위해 쓰인 것처럼 보인다.

NATO의 확대만이 아니라 러시아와 우크라이나 민족주의에 모두 반대하는 사 람들의 생각은 정치적 우유부단함 또는 이론적 모호성의 증거를 보여주지 않는다. 최근 몇 주 동안 수많은 전문가들이 분쟁의 뿌리에 관한 설명을 제공했고(그것은 결 코 러시아 침공의 야만성을 감소시키지 않는다), 비동맹정책을 제안하는 사람들의 입장 은 가능한 한 조속하게 전쟁을 중지하고 피해자 수의 최소화를 보장하는 가장 효 과적 방식이다. 그것은 추상적 이상주의에 빠진 ‘아름다운 영혼’처럼 행동하는 문 제가 아니며, 헤겔은 그런 사람이 지상의 모순의 실제적 현실에 다가갈 수 없다고 생각했다. 반대로 문제는 전쟁은 무제한적 확대의 유일하고 진정한 해독제에 현실 을 부여하는 것이다. 군비 지출 확대와 추가 징집을 호소하는 목소리 또는 외교 사 안 및 안보정책 고위 대표로서 우크라이나인들에게 ‘전쟁에 필요한 무기’를 제공 하는 것이 유럽의 의무라고 생각하는 사람들은 끝이 없다(Borrell, 2022). 그러나 이 런 입장과 대조적으로, 두 가지 확고한 원칙, 즉 분쟁의 비확대와 독립 우크라이나 의 중립성에 기초해 끊임없는 외교 활동을 추진하는 것이 필요하다.

러시아의 움직임에 따라 NATO에 대한 지지가 늘어났지만, 여론이 세계에서 가장 공격적인 전쟁 기계인 NATO를 전 세계 안보 문제에 대한 해결책으로 보지 않도록 활동을 강화할 필요가 있다. NATO는 위험하고 비효율적인 조직이며, 확 장과 전일적 지배를 추진하면서 전 세계를 전쟁으로 이끌 긴장을 부추기는 조직임 을 보여줘야 한다.

『사회주의와 전쟁』에서 레닌은 마르크스주의자는 “각각의 전쟁을 분리해서 연 구하는 것(마르크스의 변증법적 유물론의 입장에서)이 역사적으로 필요하다고 생각한 다”는 점에서 평화주의자나 무정부주의자들과 다르다고 주장했다. 계속해서 레닌 은 이렇게 주장했다. “역사에서 수많은 전쟁이 있었고, 모든 전쟁에 불가피하게 수 반하는 모든 공포, 잔혹, 고난과 고통에도 불구하고 전쟁은 진보적이었다, 즉 인류 의 발전에 혜택을 줬다”(Lenin, 1971: 299). 이 말이 과거에는 진실이었다 해도, 대 량살상무기가 지속적으로 확산되고 있는 현대사회에서 그런 말을 단순히 되풀이 하는 것은 근시안적일 것이다. 혁명과 혼동해서는 안 되지만, 전쟁은 사회주의 이 론가들이 희망하는 민주화 효과를 낸 적이 드물었다. 사실 전쟁은 대부분 인간 생 명의 희생과 그에 수반하는 생산력의 파괴 때문에 혁명을 수행하는 최악의 방법으 로 판명되었다. 사실 전쟁은 폭력 이데올로기를 유포하고 자주 민족주의 감정과 결합되어 노동자 운동을 갈기갈기 분열시켰다. 전쟁이 자주관리와 직접 민주주의 의 실천을 유리하게 했던 적은 드물었고, 그 대신 권위주의적 기관들의 권력을 강 화했다. 이것은 온건한 좌파도 결코 망각해서는 안 된다.

『전쟁에 관한 성찰』(1933)의 가장 풍부한 문구 가운데 하나에서 시몬 베이유는 ‘혁명이 전쟁을 회피할 수 있는지’ 의문을 제기한다. 그의 견해로는 그것은 우리가 ‘모든 희망을 포기’하길 원하지 않는 경우에 가질 수 있는 ‘박약한 가능성’일 뿐이 다(Weil, 2021[1933], op. cit., p.101). 혁명전쟁은 대부분 ‘혁명의 무덤’으로 바뀐다. 왜냐하면 “무장한 시민에게는 통제 기구 없이, 경찰의 압력 없이, 특별법원 없이, 탈영에 대한 처벌 없이 전쟁을 수행할 수단이 주어지지 않기” 때문이다. 어떤 다른 사회적 현상보다 더 전쟁은 군사, 관료, 경찰 기구를 팽창시킨다. “전쟁은 국가기 구 앞에서 개인의 총체적 소실로 이어진다”. 따라서 “만약 전쟁이 즉각적으로, 그 리고 영구히 종식되지 않으면 […] 그 결과는 마르크스의 말대로 국가의 분쇄 대신 에 국가기구를 완성하는 그런 혁명들 가운데 하나가 될 것이다”. 또는 더욱 더 명 확하게 “전쟁은 우리가 억압하길 원하는 체제를 다른 형태로 확대하는 것을 의미 할 수 있다”. 그렇다면 전쟁이 일어날 경우 “우리는 우리 자신을 톱니바퀴로 전락 시키는 전쟁 기계의 작동을 방해하는 것과 맹목적으로 인간 생명을 말살하는 기계 를 돕는 것 사이에서 선택을 해야 한다.”8

좌파에게 클라우제비츠의 유명한 문구를 인용하자면, 전쟁은 “다른 수단에 의 한 정치의 계속”이 될 수 없다. 현실에서 전쟁은 정치의 실패를 확인할 뿐이다. 좌 파가 헤게모니를 회복하고 자신이 오늘날의 과제를 위해 자신의 역사를 이용할 수 있다는 것을 보여주고자 한다면, 좌파는 부정할 여지없이 자신의 깃발에 ‘반군사 주의’와 ‘전쟁 반대’를 새겨야 할 필요가 있다.

참고문헌
Borrell, Josep. 2022. “It is a matter of life and death. So the EU will provide weapons for Ukraine’s armed forces.” The Guardian, 2022.2.27. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/27/eu-will-provide-weapons-for-ukraine-jose p-borrell.
De Paepe, César. 2014a. “Strike Against War.” in Marcello Musto(ed.). Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later. New York: Bloomsbury, p.229.
_____. 2014b. “On the True causes of War.” in Marcello Musto(ed.). Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later. New York: Bloomsbury, pp.230~231. Dominick, Raymond H. 1982. Wilhelm Liebknecht and the founding of the German Social Democratic party. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Engels, Friedrich. 1987. Anti-Dühring, in MECW, vol.25, pp.5~311
_____. 1990. “Can Europe Disarm?” in MECW, vol.27, pp.367~393.
Freymond, Jacques(ed.). 1962. La première Internationale. Geneva: Droz, vol.I. Jaurès, Jean. 1982. L’Armeé nouvelle. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
Kautsky, Karl. 1903. The Social Revolution. Chicago: Charles Kerr & Co.
Kropotkin, Peter et al. 1916. The Manifesto of the Sixteen. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1916/sixteen.htm.
Kropotkin, Peter. 1914. “A Letter on the Present War.” Freedom, October, pp.76~77. Lenin, Vladimir I. 1964a. Results of the Discussion on Self-Determination. in Lenin. Collected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol.22, pp.320~360.
_____. 1964b. The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination. in Lenin. Collected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol.22, pp.143~156.
_____. 1971. Socialism and War. in Lenin. Collected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol.21, pp.295~338.
Luxemburg, Rosa. 1911. “L’Armeé nouvelle de Jean Jaures̀ .” https://www.marxists.org/francais/luxembur/works/1911/06/armee.htm.
_____. 1915a. “The Junius Pamphlet: The Crisis of German Social Democracy.” chapter 7, https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/
_____. 1915b. “Theses on the Tasks of International Social-Democracy.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/xx/theses.htm.
Malatesta, Errico et al. 1998. “Anti-War Manifesto.” published as “Malatesta, the Anarchist International and War.” in Daniel Gueŕ in (ed.). No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism. Oakland: Ak Press, pp.387~389.
Malatesta, Errico. 1993. “Anarchists have forgotten their principles, 1914.” in Vernon Richards(ed.). Malatesta: Life & Ideas. London: Freedom Press, pp.227~231.
Mao, Tse-Tung. 1965. “Problems of War and Strategy.” Selected Works of Mao-Tse- Tung, Peking: Foreign Languages Press, vol.2, pp.219~235.
_____. 1966. On Protracted War. Peking: Foreign Languages Press.
Marx, Karl. 1860. “Karl Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle.” 1860.6.2. in MECW, vol.41, p.154. Cf. Marcello Musto.
_____. 1980. “Reorganization of the British War Administration.” in MECW, vol,13, pp.227~233.
_____. 1986. Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century. in MECW, vol.15, pp.25~96.
_____. 1996. Capital, Vol.I, in MECW, vol.35.
_____. 2014. “Resolutions of the Brussels Congress(1868).” in Marcello Musto (ed.). Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later. New York: Bloomsbury, pp.89~93.
Musto, Marcello. 2014. “Introduction.” in Marcello Musto(ed.). Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later. New York: Bloomsbury, pp.1~68.
_____. 2018. Another Marx: Early Manuscripts to the International. London: Bloomsbury.
Pelz, William E.(ed.). 2016. Wilhelm Liebknecht and German Social Democracy: A Documentary History. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Robespierre, Maximilien. 1956. Textes choisis. Paris: Éditions Sociales, vol.I, p.129. Trotsky, Leon. 1958. The Third International After Lenin. The Militant.
_____. 1971. The Struggle against Fascism in Germany. New York: Pathfinder Press, p.422.
Vittoria, Albertina. 2015. Togliatti e gli intellettuali. La politica culturale dei comunisti italiani (1944-1964). Roma: Carocci.
Vv. Aa(Various Authors). 1915. “The Zimmerwald Manifesto.” in Leo Trotsky. The War and the International. https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1914/ war/part3.htm# zimman.
_____. 1972. “International Socialist Congress at Stuttgart.” in Vladimir I. Lenin. Collected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol.13, pp.75~81.
_____. 1977. “The Second International Socialist Conference at Kienthal.” in Vladimir I. Lenin. Collected Work. Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol.41, pp.369~380.
Weil, Simone. 2021[1933]. “Reflections on War.” Journal of Continental Philosophy, Originally, La Critique Sociale (10 November,1933), pp153-158.

Categories
Journal Articles

La sinistra di fronte alla guerra

Le cause economiche della guerra
Se la scienza della politica ha fornito motivazioni ideologiche, politiche, economiche e persino psicologiche per spiegare le cause dei conflitti bellici, il pensiero socialista ha offerto il suo apporto più interessante alla comprensione di questo fenomeno evidenziando il forte nesso esistente tra lo sviluppo del capitalismo e la propagazione della guerra.

Nei dibattiti della Prima Internazionale (1864-1872), César de Paepe, uno dei suoi principali dirigenti, formulò quella che sarebbe divenuta la posizione classica del movimento operaio su questo tema, ovvero l’inevitabilità delle guerre nel regime di produzione capitalistico. Nella società moderna, esse non sono provocate dalle ambizioni dei monarchi o di singoli individui, bensì sono determinate dal modello economico-sociale dominante . Il movimento socialista indicò anche quale era la parte di popolazione sulla quale si abbattevano, ineluttabilmente, le conseguenze più nefaste delle guerre. Nel congresso del 1868, i delegati della Prima Internazionale votarono una mozione che impegnava i lavoratori a perseguire «l’abolizione definitiva di ogni guerra» , dal momento che sarebbero stati soprattutto loro a pagare economicamente, quando non con il loro sangue – e senza alcuna distinzione tra vincitori e sconfitti –, le decisioni delle classi dominanti e dei governi che li rappresentavano. La lezione di civiltà del movimento operaio nacque dal convincimento che ogni guerra andava considerata «come una guerra civile» , quale scontro feroce tra lavoratori che, al fine, non faceva altro che privarli dei mezzi necessari alla sopravvivenza. Contro la guerra occorreva agire alacremente, con la renitenza alla leva e attraverso lo sciopero. L’internazionalismo divenne, così, uno dei cardini ai quali ancorare la società dell’avvenire che, una volta superato il capitalismo e rimossa la concorrenza degli stati borghesi sul mercato mondiale, avrebbe eliminato anche le ragioni primarie alla base di ogni guerra.

Tra i precursori del socialismo, Claude Henri de Saint Simon si era decisamente schierato non solo in opposizione alla guerra, ma anche al conflitto sociale, ritenuti entrambi colpevoli di ostacolare il fondamentale progresso della produzione industriale. Karl Marx non riassunse in alcuno scritto le sue concezioni – frammentarie e talvolta contraddittorie – sulla guerra, né formulò linee guida per indicare l’atteggiamento più corretto da adottare in proposito. Quando dovette scegliere tra campi opposti, la sua unica costante fu l’opposizione alla Russia zarista, ritenuta l’avamposto della controrivoluzione e uno dei principali ostacoli all’emancipazione della classe lavoratrice . Nel Capitale (1867) affermò che la violenza era una potenza economica, «la levatrice di ogni vecchia società che è gravida di una nuova» .

Tuttavia, non concepì la guerra come una necessaria scorciatoia per la trasformazione rivoluzionaria e impiegò una parte consistente della sua militanza politica per vincolare la classe operaia al principio della solidarietà internazionale. Come sostenne anche Friedrich Engels, questa agiva in modo determinante, nelle singole nazioni, contro il rischio di pacificazione del conflitto di classe che l’invenzione del nemico esterno, prodotto dalla propaganda bellica, generava ogni volta che scoppiava una guerra. In diverse lettere scambiate con dirigenti del movimento operaio, Engels pose l’accento sulla forza ideologica esercitata dall’inganno del patriottismo e sul ritardo che un’ondata sciovinistica avrebbe causato sull’inizio della rivoluzione proletaria. Inoltre, nell’Anti-Dühring (1878), dopo aver analizzato gli effetti della diffusione di armi sempre più letali, affermò che il socialismo aveva il compito di «fare saltare in aria il militarismo e, con esso, tutti gli eserciti permanenti» .

Il tema della guerra fu così importante per Engels che egli decise di dedicarvi uno dei suoi ultimi scritti. In L’Europa può disarmare? (1893), segnalò che, nel vecchio continente, durante i precedenti venticinque anni, ogni Stato aveva cercato di superare l’altro in potenza militare e in preparazione bellica. Ciò aveva generato una produzione di armamenti senza precedenti che rendeva possibile l’approssimarsi di «una guerra di distruzione che il mondo non aveva mai conosciuto» . Secondo il co-autore del Manifesto del partito comunista (1848), «in tutta Europa, il sistema degli eserciti permanenti era stato spinto a un punto talmente estremo da essere condannato a rovinare economicamente i popoli, per via delle spese belliche, o a degenerare in una guerra di annientamento generale». Nella sua analisi, Engels non trascurò di sottolineare che gli eserciti venivano mantenuti non solo per motivi militari, ma anche per fini politici. Essi dovevano «proteggere non tanto dal nemico esterno, quanto da quello interno». Si trattava di accrescere le forze che dovevano reprimere il proletariato e le lotte operaie. Poiché erano i ceti popolari a pagare più di tutti i costi della guerra, attraverso la massa di soldati che fornivano allo Stato e le imposte, il movimento operaio doveva battersi per una «riduzione omogenea e progressiva del servizio militare» e per il disarmo, considerato l’unica, effettiva, «garanzia della pace» .

Il fallimento alla prova dei fatti
Ben presto, da argomento teorico analizzato in tempi di pace, la lotta contro il militarismo divenne un problema politico preminente. Il movimento operaio dovette confrontarsi con alcune questioni concrete di fronte alle quali l’iniziale posizione assunta dai suoi rappresentanti fu la netta contrarietà a qualsiasi modalità di sostegno alla guerra. Nel conflitto franco-prussiano del 1870 (quello che precedette la nascita della Comune di Parigi), i deputati socialdemocratici Wilhelm Liebknecht e August Bebel condannarono i fini annessionistici perseguiti dalla Germania di Bismark e votarono contro i crediti di guerra. La loro decisione di «respingere la proposta di legge per il finanziamento di fondi aggiuntivi per continuare la guerra» costò la loro condanna a due anni di prigione per alto tradimento, ma contribuì a mostrare alla classe lavoratrice una strada alternativa a quella di concorrere, comunque, a incrementare la spirale del conflitto.

Con l’espansione imperialista da parte delle principali potenze europee, la controversia sulla guerra assunse un peso sempre più rilevante nel dibattito della Seconda Internazionale (1889-1916). Nel congresso della sua fondazione, venne approvata una mozione che sanciva la pace quale «prima condizione indispensabile di ogni emancipazione operaia» . La presunta politica di pace della borghesia venne irrisa e definita con il termine di «pace armata». Jean Jaurès, leader del Partito Socialista Francese (SFIO), in un discorso al parlamento del 1895, condensò in una frase, divenuta poi celebre, i timori delle forze di sinistra di fronte alla situazione del tempo: «sempre la vostra società, violenta e caotica, persino quando vuole la pace, persino quando è in stato di quiete apparente, reca in sé la guerra, come la nube reca in sé l’uragano» .

La Weltpolitik – la strategia aggressiva adottata dall’Impero tedesco per estendere il potere della Germania sul piano internazionale – modificò lo scenario geopolitico e il rafforzamento dei principi antimilitaristi nel movimento operaio influenzò, sempre più, le discussioni sulla guerra. Da questo momento in poi, quest’ultima non venne considerata soltanto come un’occasione propizia per lo sviluppo di scenari rivoluzionari che avrebbero accelerato il crollo del sistema (una tesi presente a sinistra sin dai tempi della Guerra Rivoluzionaria del 1792 ). La guerra, invece, venne concepita dal movimento operaio come pericolo per le sciagurate conseguenze – quali carestia, miseria e disoccupazione – che arrecava al proletariato. Essa costituiva, dunque, una grave minaccia per le forze progressiste e, come scrisse Karl Kautsky in La rivoluzione sociale (1902), in caso di guerra, queste ultime sarebbero state «pesantemente gravate di ulteriori compiti» che avrebbero allontanato, non avvicinato, il traguardo della vittoria finale.

La mozione «Sul militarismo e sui conflitti internazionali», votata al congresso della Seconda Internazionale di Stoccarda, nel 1907, riassunse tutti i punti divenuti, fino ad allora, patrimonio comune del movimento operaio. Tra essi figuravano: la scelta di voto contrario a leggi di bilancio che proponevano l’aumento delle spese militari, l’avversione agli eserciti permanenti e la volontà di sostituirli con un sistema di milizie popolari e, infine, l’adesione al progetto di istituire organismi internazionali di arbitrato per la ricomposizione pacifica dei conflitti tra le nazioni. Venne escluso, invece, il ricorso allo sciopero generale da proclamarsi contro ogni sorta di guerra, sostenuto da Gustave Hervé, poiché ritenuto, dalla maggioranza dei presenti, una posizione troppo radicale e troppo manichea. La mozione terminava con un emendamento redatto da Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin e Julij Martov, nel quale si affermava che «nel caso in cui la guerra scoppiasse, i socialisti (avevano) il dovere d’intervenire per farla cessare prontamente e di utilizzare con tutte le loro forze la crisi economica e politica creata dalla guerra per agitare gli strati popolari più profondi e accelerare la caduta della dominazione capitalista» . Tale emendamento non obbligava il Partito Socialdemocratico Tedesco ad alcun mutamento della sua linea politica e, pertanto, anche i suoi rappresentanti lo approvarono. Questo testo fu l’ultimo documento inerente la guerra della Seconda Internazionale a riscuotere l’unanimità dei consensi.

L’intensificarsi della concorrenza tra gli Stati capitalisti sul mercato mondiale e lo scoppio di diversi conflitti locali resero lo scenario generale ancora più allarmante. La pubblicazione del libro di Jaurès La nuova armata (1911) favorì la discussione di un altro tema al centro del dibattito di quel periodo: la distinzione tra guerra offensiva e guerra difensiva, nonché sulla condotta da assumere rispetto a quest’ultima, anche nel caso in cui un paese vedesse minacciata la propria indipendenza. Per Jaurès il compito esclusivo dell’esercito era quello di difendere l’autonomia di una nazione da ogni aggressione offensiva – ovvero tutte quelle che non accettavano la risoluzione di un conflitto mediante arbitrato. Tutte le azioni militari che ricadevano in questo ambito erano da considerarsi legittime. La perspicace critica della Luxemburg verso questa posizione evidenziò come i «fenomeni storici quali le guerre moderne non (potevano) essere misurati con il metro della ‘giustizia’, o mediante uno schema cartaceo di difesa e aggressione» . Occorreva considerare, inoltre, la difficoltà di poter stabilire se una guerra fosse davvero offensiva o difensiva, ovvero se lo Stato che l’aveva iniziata avesse deliberatamente deciso di attaccare o era stato costretto a farlo a seguito degli stratagemmi adottati dalla nazione che gli si opponeva. Dunque, per la Luxemburg, tale distinzione andava scartata, così come andava criticata l’idea di «nazione armata» di Jaures, poiché tendeva, infine, ad accrescere la militarizzazione già esistente nella società.

Con il passare degli anni, la Seconda Internazionale si impegnò sempre meno a promuovere una concreta politica d’azione in favore della pace. L’opposizione al riarmo e ai preparativi bellici allora in atto fu molto blanda e un’ala del Partito Socialdemocratico Tedesco (SPD), divenuto sempre più legalista e moderato, barattò il suo voto favorevole ai crediti militari – e poi finanche l’appoggio all’espansione coloniale –, in cambio della concessione di maggiori libertà politiche in patria. Dirigenti di rilievo e riconosciuti teorici, quali Gustav Noske, Henry Hyndman e Arturo Labriola, furono tra i primi ad approdare a queste posizioni. Successivamente, la maggior parte dei socialdemocratici tedeschi, dei socialisti francesi, dei laburisti inglesi e delle altre forze riformiste europee finì con l’appoggiare la Prima Guerra Mondiale (1914-1918). Le conseguenze di questa scelta furono disastrose. Sostenendo la tesi che i «vantaggi del progresso» non dovessero essere monopolizzati dai capitalisti, il movimento operaio giunse a condividere gli obiettivi espansionistici delle classi dominanti e venne travolto dall’ideologia nazionalista. La Seconda Internazionale si rivelò del tutto impotente di fronte alla guerra, fallendo uno dei suoi intenti principali: preservare la pace.

Lenin e gli altri delegati al Congresso di Zimmerwald (1915), tra i quali Lev Trotsky che ne redasse il manifesto finale, prefigurarono che «per decine d’anni le spese della guerra avrebbero assorbito le migliori energie dei popoli, compromettendo la conquista di miglioramenti sociali e impedendo qualsiasi progresso». La guerra rivelava il «vero carattere del capitalismo moderno, che è incompatibile non solo con gli interessi delle classi operaie, ma anche con le condizioni elementari di esistenza della comunità umana» . Fu un monito che venne accolto solo da una minoranza del movimento operaio, al pari di quello indirizzato a tutti i lavoratori europei dal Congresso di Kienthal (1916): «i vostri governi e i loro giornali vi dicono che bisogna continuare la guerra per uccidere il militarismo. Essi vi ingannano! Mai la guerra ha ucciso la guerra. Anzi, essa suscita sentimenti e velleità di rivincita. In questo modo, i vostri padroni, votandovi al sacrificio, vi chiudono in un cerchio infernale» . Rompendo, infine, con l’approccio adottato al Congresso di Stoccarda, in favore degli organismi internazionali di arbitrato, nel documento finale di Kienthal si affermava che «le illusioni del pacifismo borghese» non sarebbero state in grado di interrompere la spirale della guerra e che, anzi, avrebbero concorso a preservare il sistema socioeconomico vigente. L’unico antidoto per impedire che insorgessero futuri conflitti bellici venne ravvisato nella conquista del potere politico e della proprietà capitalistica da parte delle masse popolari.

I due esponenti di punta del movimento operaio che si opposero con maggiore vigore alla guerra furono la Luxemburg e Lenin. La prima ammodernò il bagaglio teorico della sinistra sulla guerra e mostrò come il militarismo rappresentasse un nerbo vitale dello Stato . Sostenne, con convinzione ed efficacia paragonabile a quella di pochi altri dirigenti comunisti, che la parola d’ordine «guerra alla guerra!» doveva diventare «il punto cruciale della politica proletaria». Come scrisse nelle Tesi sui compiti della socialdemocrazia internazionale (1915), la Seconda Internazionale era implosa per non essere riuscita a «realizzare una tattica e un’azione comune del proletariato in tutti i paesi» . Pertanto, da quel momento in avanti, la classe lavoratrice doveva avere come «scopo principale», anche in tempo di pace, quello di «lottare contro l’imperialismo e di impedire le guerre» .

In Il socialismo e la guerra (1915) e in numerosi altri scritti composti durante la Prima Guerra Mondiale, Lenin ebbe il merito di enucleare due questioni fondamentali. La prima ineriva la «falsificazione storica» operata dalla borghesia, ogni qual volta aveva provato ad attribuire un significato «progressivo e di liberazione nazionale» a quelle che, in realtà, erano guerre «di rapina» , condotte con il solo obiettivo di decidere a quale delle parti belligeranti sarebbe toccato opprimere maggiormente popolazioni straniere e, al fine, accrescere le sperequazioni prodotte dal capitalismo. La seconda riguardò lo smascheramento delle contraddizioni dei socialisti riformisti – da Lenin definiti «socialsciovinisti» –, i quali finirono con il sostenere le ragioni della guerra, dopo averla descritta, nelle mozioni approvate dalla Seconda Internazionale, un’azione «delittuosa». Dietro la loro pretesa di «difendere la patria», si nascondeva il «diritto» che si arrogavano determinate grandi potenze di «depredare le colonie e di opprimere i popoli stranieri». Le guerre non venivano combattute per tutelare «l’esistenza delle nazioni», ma per la «difesa dei privilegi, del predominio, dei saccheggi, delle violenze» delle varie «borghesie imperialiste» . I socialisti che capitolarono davanti al patriottismo avevano barattato la lotta di classe con il «diritto alle briciole dei profitti ottenuti dalla loro borghesia nazionale, mediante il depredamento di altre nazioni» . Conseguentemente, Lenin si disse favorevole alle «guerre difensive», includendo in questa categoria non la difesa nazionale dei paesi europei indicata da Jaurès, ma le «guerre giuste» degli «Stati oppressi, assoggettati e privi di diritti» dalle «grandi potenze schiaviste che li opprimono e li depredano» . La tesi più celebre di questo scritto, ovvero la necessità per i rivoluzionari di «trasformare la guerra imperialista in guerra civile» indicò a quanti volevano una pace veramente «democratica e duratura» la necessità di condurre «la guerra civile contro i governi e la borghesia» . Lenin era convinto di ciò che la storia ha mostrato essere inesatto, ovvero che ogni lotta di classe condotta conseguentemente in tempo di guerra crea «inevitabilmente» stati d’animo rivoluzionari nelle masse.

Il discrimine nell’opposizione alla guerra
La Prima Guerra Mondiale procurò divisioni non solo in seno alla Seconda Internazionale, ma anche nel movimento anarchico. Poco dopo lo scoppio del conflitto, Kropotkin dichiarò, in un articolo che suscitò scalpore, «che il compito di ogni persona avente a cuore l’idea di progresso umano era quello di stroncare l’invasione dei tedeschi nell’Europa occidentale» . Questa affermazione, giudicata da molti come l’abbandono dei principi per i quali egli si era battuto per una vita intera, esprimeva il tentativo di andare oltre lo slogan dello «sciopero generale contro la guerra» – rimasto inascoltato dalle masse lavoratrici – e di evitare, nel caso di una vittoria tedesca del conflitto, l’arretramento generale dello scenario politico continentale. A suo giudizio, se gli antimilitaristi fossero rimasti inerti avrebbero indirettamente aiutato gli invasori nei loro piani di conquista e ciò, nel lungo termine, avrebbe rappresentato un ostacolo ancora più arduo da superare per quanti lottavano per la rivoluzione sociale.

Nella sua replica a Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta asserì che, pur non essendo un pacifista e nonostante ritenesse legittimo utilizzare le armi nell’evenienza di guerre di liberazione, il conflitto mondiale in corso non era – così come raccontava la propaganda borghese – una lotta della democrazia «per il benessere generale contro il nemico comune», ma un ennesimo esempio di sopraffazione della classe lavoratrice da parte dei poteri dominanti. Egli era consapevole che «la vittoria della Germania avrebbe certamente determinato il trionfo del militarismo, ma anche che il trionfo degli alleati avrebbe significato il dominio russo britannico in Europa e in Asia» .

Nel Manifesto dei Sedici (1916), Kropotkin postulò la necessità di «resistere a un aggressore che rappresenta l’annientamento di tutte le nostre speranze di emancipazione» . La vittoria della Triplice Intesa contro la Germania costituiva il male minore per non compromettere il livello di libertà esistente. Al contrario, coloro che firmarono con Malatesta il Manifesto internazionale anarchico sulla guerra (1915) espressero la convinzione che la responsabilità del conflitto non poteva ricadere su un singolo governo e che non andava «fatta nessuna distinzione tra guerra offensiva e difensiva». Aggiunsero, inoltre, che «nessuno dei belligeranti aveva il diritto di parlare a nome della civilizzazione o di considerarsi in uno stato di legittima difesa» . La Prima Guerra Mondiale era un ulteriore episodio del conflitto tra capitalisti di diversi stati imperialisti compiuta a spese della classe operaia. Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Ferdinand Nieuwenhuis e la stragrande maggioranza del movimento anarchico erano tutti convinti che sarebbe stato un errore imperdonabile appoggiare i governi borghesi e optarono, senza se e senza ma, in continuità con lo slogan «nessun uomo e neanche un centesimo per l’esercito», per un deciso rifiuto di partecipare – anche indirettamente – a qualsiasi ipotesi bellica.

Come comportarsi dinanzi alla guerra accese anche il dibattito del movimento femminista. A partire dal primo conflitto mondiale, la sostituzione degli uomini inviati al fronte – con un salario di gran lunga inferiore e, pertanto, in condizioni di sovrasfruttamento –, in impieghi precedentemente da loro monopolizzati, favorì il diffondersi di un’ideologia sciovinista anche in una fetta consistente del neonato movimento suffragista. Alcune sue dirigenti giunsero a promuovere petizioni per permettere alle donne di arruolarsi nell’esercito. Smascherare l’inganno dei governi del tempo – che, agitando lo spauracchio dell’aggressore alle porte, si servirono della guerra per derubricare fondamentali riforme di carattere sociale – rappresentò una delle conquiste più significative delle femministe comuniste del tempo. Clara Zetkin, Aleksandra Kollontaj, Silvia Pankhurst e, naturalmente, la Luxemburg, furono tra le prime ad avviare, con lucidità e coraggio, il cammino che indicò, a molte generazioni successive, come la battaglia contro il militarismo fosse un elemento essenziale della lotta contro il patriarcato. Dopo di loro, l’ostracismo alla guerra divenne un elemento distintivo della Giornata internazionale delle donne e, all’insorgere di ogni nuovo conflitto bellico, l’opposizione all’aumento delle spese di guerra figurò tra i punti salienti di numerose piattaforme del movimento femminista globale mondiale.

Il fine non giustifica i mezzi e i mezzi sbagliati danneggiano il fine
La profonda frattura politica consumatasi tra rivoluzionari e riformisti, le grandi distanze strategiche che separarono questi due campi dopo la nascita dell’Unione Sovietica e il dogmatico clima ideologico degli anni Venti e Trenta inficiarono la possibilità di un’alleanza contro il militarismo tra l’Internazionale Comunista (1919-1943) e i partiti socialisti e socialdemocratici europei . Dopo aver sostenuto la guerra, questi ultimi, riunitisi nell’Internazionale Operaia Socialista (1923-1940), si erano definitivamente screditati agli occhi dei primi. A Mosca, invece, resisteva la tesi leninista della “trasformazione della guerra imperialista in guerra civile», per suscitare una nuova fase rivoluzionaria. Dirigenti politici e teorici di primo piano ritenevano pressoché inevitabile un «nuovo 1914». Così, da entrambi i versanti, più che agire per impedire lo scoppio di una nuova guerra, si discuteva sul cosa fare quando essa sarebbe iniziata. Gli slogan e le dichiarazioni di principio divergevano sostanzialmente da quanto ci si attendeva potesse accadere e da quanto si trasformava in azione politica. Tra le voci critiche nel campo comunista vi furono quelle di Nikolaj Bucharin, assertore della parola d’ordine «lotta per la pace» e uno dei dirigenti russi più convinti che quest’ultima fosse «una delle più importanti questioni del mondo contemporaneo», e di Georgi Dimitrov, sostenitore della tesi che non tutte le grandi potenze fossero egualmente corresponsabili del possibile insorgere di un conflitto e favorevole al riavvicinamento con i partiti riformisti per costruire un amplio fronte popolare contro la guerra. Entrambe queste interpretazioni contrastarono la litania dell’ortodossia sovietica che, lungi dall’aggiornare l’analisi teorica, ripeteva che il pericolo della guerra si annidava, senza alcuna distinzione e con uguale corresponsabilità, in tutte le potenze imperialistiche.

Di tutt’altro avviso fu Mao Zedong. Alla testa del movimento di liberazione contro l’invasione giapponese, sostenne in Sulla guerra di lunga durata (1938) che le «guerre giuste» , quelle alle quali i comunisti dovevano prendere parte attivamente, sprigionavano una «grandissima forza, potevano trasformare moltissime cose o aprire la strada alla loro trasformazione» . La strategia indicata da Mao fu, dunque, quella di «lottare contro la guerra mediante la guerra, contrapporre una guerra giusta a una guerra ingiusta» e, inoltre, «prolungare la guerra fino a quando essa non avesse conseguito il suo scopo politico». Tesi che richiamano alla «onnipotenza della guerra rivoluzionaria» si trovano anche in La guerra e i problemi della strategia (1938), testo nel quale Mao sostenne che «non è possibile trasformare il mondo se non con un fucile» e che «il compito centrale e la forma suprema della rivoluzione stanno nella conquista del potere mediante la lotta armata, nella soluzione del problema mediante la guerra» .

In Europa, il crescendo di violenze perpetrate dal fronte nazi-fascista – nei confini nazionali così come in politica estera – e lo scoppio della Seconda Guerra Mondiale (1939-1945) generarono uno scenario ancora più nefasto di quello della guerra del 1914-1918. L’Unione Sovietica venne attaccata dalle truppe di Hitler nel 1941 e fu impegnata in quella Grande Guerra Patriottica che risultò decisiva al fine della sconfitta del nazismo e divenne, poi, un elemento così centrale dell’unità nazionale russa da essere sopravvissuta alla caduta del Muro di Berlino e da perdurare fino ai nostri giorni.

Con la successiva suddivisione del mondo in due blocchi, Iosif Stalin ritenne che il compito principale del movimento comunista internazionale continuasse a essere la salvaguardia dell’Unione Sovietica. La costituzione di una zona cuscinetto di otto paesi (sette dopo la fuoriuscita della Jugoslavia dalla sua orbita), in Europa dell’Est, rappresentò un elemento centrale di questa politica. Nel medesimo periodo, la Dottrina Truman segnò l’avvento di un nuovo tipo di guerra: la Guerra Fredda. Con il supporto alle forze anticomuniste in Grecia, attraverso il Piano Marshall (1948) e mediante la creazione della NATO (1949), gli Stati Uniti d’America scongiurarono la possibile avanzata delle forze progressiste nell’Europa occidentale. L’Unione Sovietica rispose con il Patto di Varsavia (1955). Questo scenario generò una spropositata corsa agli armamenti che riguardò, nonostante il ricordo, ancora vivissimo nell’opinione pubblica, dei bombardamenti di Hiroshima e Nagasaki, anche il proliferare delle testate nucleari.

A partire dal 1961, sotto la presidenza di Nikita Chruščëv, l’Unione Sovietica inaugurò un nuovo ciclo politico che prese il nome di Coesistenza pacifica. Questa svolta, contraddistinta dall’impegno di non ingerenza e di rispetto della sovranità dei singoli stati, nonché di cooperazione economica con alcuni paesi capitalisti, sarebbe dovuta servire a scongiurare il pericolo di un terzo conflitto mondiale (che anche la Crisi dei missili di Cuba, del 1962, aveva dimostrato possibile) e avrebbe dovuto suffragare la tesi della non inevitabilità della guerra. Tuttavia, questo tentativo di collaborazione costruttiva fu intrapreso esclusivamente nei rapporti con gli Stati Uniti d’America e non con i paesi del «socialismo reale». Nel 1956, infatti, l’Unione Sovietica aveva già represso nel sangue la rivolta ungherese. I partiti comunisti dell’Europa occidentale non condannarono, anzi giustificarono, l’intervento delle truppe sovietiche in nome della protezione del blocco socialista e Palmiro Togliatti, segretario del Partito Comunista Italiano, dichiarò: «si sta con la propria parte anche quando sbaglia» . La maggioranza di quanti condivisero questa posizione se ne pentì amaramente quando, anni dopo, compresero gli effetti devastanti prodotti dall’intervento sovietico.

Eventi analoghi accaddero in piena epoca di Coesistenza Pacifica, in Cecoslovacchia, nel 1968. Alle richieste di democratizzazione e di decentramento economico, fiorite con la «Primavera di Praga», il politburo del Comitato Centrale del Partito Comunista dell’Unione Sovietica rispose, con deliberazione unanime, inviando mezzo milione di soldati e migliaia di carri armati. Al congresso del Partito Operaio Unificato Polacco, del 1968, Leonid Brežnev spiegò di voler dare concreta attuazione a un principio che definì di «sovranità limitata». Egli affermò che «quando le forze che sono ostili al socialismo cercano di portare lo sviluppo di alcuni paesi socialisti verso il capitalismo, questo non diventa solo un problema del paese coinvolto, ma un problema comune e una preoccupazione per tutti i paesi socialisti». Secondo questa logica antidemocratica, la scelta di stabilire cosa fosse o non fosse «socialismo» era, naturalmente, puro arbitrio dei dirigenti sovietici. Questa volta, le critiche a sinistra non mancarono e furono, anzi, prevalenti. La riprovazione nei confronti dell’Unione Sovietica non fu espressa soltanto dai neonati movimenti della nuova sinistra, ma dalla maggioranza dei partiti comunisti e anche dalla Cina. Ciò nonostante, i russi non fecero marcia indietro e portarono a compimento quello che definirono essere un processo di «normalizzazione». L’Unione Sovietica continuò a destinare una parte significativa delle sue risorse economiche alle spese militari e ciò contribuì all’affermazione di una cultura autoritaria e di guerra nella società. Così facendo, si alienò, definitivamente, le simpatie del movimento per la pace, divenuto ancora più vasto in occasione delle straordinarie mobilitazioni contro la guerra in Vietnam.

Uno dei principali avvenimenti bellici verificatisi nel decennio successivo fu l’invasione sovietica dell’Afghanistan. Nel 1979, l’Armata Rossa tornò ad essere lo strumento principale della politica estera di Mosca, che continuava ad arrogarsi il diritto di intervenire in quella che riteneva essere la propria «zona di sicurezza». L’infausta decisione di occupare l’Afghanistan si trasformò in un estenuante stillicidio che si protrasse per oltre dieci anni, causando un numero ingente di morti e profughi. In questa occasione, le reticenze del movimento comunista internazionale furono molto minori rispetto a quelle palesatesi dinanzi agli attacchi sovietici in Ungheria e in Cecoslovacchia. Tuttavia, questa nuova guerra rese ancora più evidente, all’opinione pubblica mondiale, la frattura esistente tra il «socialismo reale» e una politica alternativa, fondata sull’opposizione al militarismo e sulla pace.
L’insieme di questi interventi militari non solo sfavorì il processo di riduzione generale degli armamenti, ma concorse a screditare e a indebolire globalmente il socialismo. L’Unione Sovietica venne percepita, sempre più, come una potenza imperiale che agiva in forme non dissimili da quelle degli Stati Uniti d’America che, parallelamente, dall’inizio della guerra fredda, si erano distinti per aver promosso, più o meno segretamente, colpi di stato e la sostituzione di governi democraticamente eletti in oltre 20 paesi del mondo. Infine, le «guerre socialiste» tra Cambogia e Vietnam e tra Cina e Vietnam, scoppiate nel biennio 1977-1979 e aventi come sfondo la crisi sino-sovietica, contribuirono a fare cadere l’ultima arma ancora nelle mani dell’ideologia «marxista-leninista» (che, in realtà, dell’impianto iniziale di Marx ed Engels aveva conservato ben poco), secondo la quale la guerra era determinata esclusivamente dagli squilibri economici generati dal capitalismo.

Se è sinistra, è contro la guerra
La fine della Guerra Fredda non ha diminuito le ingerenze nella sovranità territoriale dei singoli paesi, né ha accresciuto il livello di libertà, di ogni popolo, quanto a poter scegliere il regime politico dal quale intende essere governato. Le tante guerre intraprese – anche senza il mandato dell’ONU e definite, per assurdo, «umanitarie» – dagli Stati Uniti d’America negli ultimi venticinque anni, alle quali si sono aggiunte nuove forme di conflitti, di sanzioni illegali, e di condizionamenti politici, economici e mediatici, testimoniano che al bipolarismo tra le due superpotenze mondiali, caratteristico del «secolo breve», non è seguita l’era di libertà e progresso tanto propagandata dal mantra neoliberale del «Nuovo Ordine Mondiale» post-1991. In questo contesto, numerose forze politiche che un tempo si richiamavano ai valori della sinistra sono state compartecipi di diversi conflitti bellici e, dal Kosovo, all’Afghanistan, all’Iraq – per citare soltanto le principali guerre dichiarate dalla NATO, dopo la caduta del Muro di Berlino –, hanno, di volta in volta, dato il loro sostegno all’intervento armato, rendendosi sempre meno distinguibili dalla destra.

La Guerra Russo-Ucraina ha posto la sinistra nuovamente di fronte al dilemma del come comportarsi quando un paese vede minacciata la propria legittima sovranità. La mancata condanna dell’attacco della Russia all’Ucraina da parte del governo del Venezuela è un errore politico. Non disapprovare oggi l’invasione russa compromette la credibilità di denuncia verso altre aggressioni che potrebbero essere condotte, in futuro, dagli Stati Uniti d’America. È vero, come scrisse Marx a Ferdinand Lassalle, in una lettera del 1860, che «in politica estera parole come ‘reazionario’ e ‘rivoluzionario’ non servono a nulla» e che quanto «è reazionario dal punto di vista soggettivo» può rivelarsi «oggettivamente rivoluzionario in politica estera» . Tuttavia, le forze di sinistra avrebbero dovuto apprendere dal Novecento che le alleanze con il «nemico del mio nemico» conducono, spesso, ad accordi controproducenti. Ciò è ancor più vero quando, come nel nostro tempo storico, il fronte progressista è politicamente debole, teoricamente confuso e, inoltre, non è incalzato dalla forza delle mobilitazioni di massa.

Rammentando il Lenin di La rivoluzione socialista e il diritto delle nazioni all’autodecisione (1916), «il fatto che la lotta per la libertà nazionale contro una potenza imperialista può essere utilizzata, in certe condizioni, da un’altra grande potenza per i suoi scopi egualmente imperialisti, non può costringere la socialdemocrazia a rinunciare al riconoscimento del diritto di autodecisione delle nazioni» . Al di là degli interessi geopolitici e delle trame che, solitamente, a essi si accompagnano, le forze di sinistra hanno storicamente sostenuto il principio dell’autodeterminazione dei popoli e hanno ugualmente difeso il diritto di ogni singolo Stato a stabilire le proprie frontiere sulla base della volontà espressa dalla sua popolazione. La sinistra si è battuta contro guerre e «annessioni», perché consapevole che queste generano drammatici conflitti tra il proletariato della nazione dominante e quello della nazione oppressa e creano le condizioni affinché quest’ultimo si unisca alla propria borghesia nel considerare nemico il proletariato della nazione dominante. In Risultati della discussione sull’autodecisione (1916) Lenin scrisse: «se vincesse la rivoluzione socialista a San Pietroburgo, a Berlino e a Varsavia, il governo socialista polacco, come quello russo e tedesco, rinuncerebbe a mantenere con la violenza gli ucraini entro le frontiere dello Stato polacco» . Perché, dunque, ipotizzare che qualcosa di diverso debba essere concesso al governo nazionalista guidato da Putin?

D’altra parte, quanti a sinistra hanno ceduto alla tentazione di diventare – direttamente o indirettamente – co-belligeranti, dando vita a una nuova union sacrée (espressione coniata nel 1914, proprio per salutare l’abiura delle forze della sinistra francese che, allo scoppio della Prima Guerra Mondiale, decisero di avallare le scelte belliche del governo), contribuiscono a rendere sempre meno riconoscibile la distinzione tra atlantismo e pacifismo. La storia dimostra che, quando non si oppongono alla guerra, le forze progressiste smarriscono una parte essenziale della loro ragion d’essere e finiscono con l’essere inghiottite dall’ideologia del campo a loro avverso. Ciò succede ogni qual volta i partiti di sinistra fanno della loro presenza al governo la cifra fondamentale della loro azione politica – come nel caso dei comunisti italiani che appoggiarono gli interventi NATO in Kosovo e Afghanistan o, di quello odierno, della maggioranza di Unidas Podemos, che unisce la sua voce al coro unanime di tutto l’arco parlamentare spagnolo, in favore dell’invio di armi all’esercito ucraino. Già per il passato, in molti casi, questa subalternità è stata punita, anche elettoralmente, alla prima occasione possibile.

Bonaparte non è la democrazia
Quando Marx scrisse sulla Guerra di Crimea (1853-1856) per il New-York Daily Tribune compose una serie di brillanti articoli che contengono spunti di grande interesse utili per sviluppare parallelismi storici con l’oggi. Nel 1853, parlando del maggiore monarca moscovita del XV secolo – considerato colui che unificò la Russia e gettò le basi dell’autocrazia in quel paese – affermò: «basta sostituire una serie di date e nomi con degli altri e diventa chiaro che le politiche di Ivan III, e quelle della Russia di oggi, non sono semplicemente simili, ma identiche» . Purtroppo, questo esempio risuona ancora come attuale. L’anno seguente, invece, in opposizione ai democratici liberali che esaltavano la coalizione antirussa, Marx dichiarò: «è un errore definire la guerra contro la Russia come un conflitto tra libertà e dispotismo. A parte il fatto che, se ciò fosse vero, la libertà sarebbe attualmente rappresentata da un Bonaparte, l’obiettivo manifesto della guerra è il mantenimento dei trattati di Vienna, ossia di quegli stessi trattati che cancellano la libertà e l’indipendenza delle nazioni» . Se sostituissimo Bonaparte con gli Stati Uniti d’America e i trattati di Vienna con la NATO, queste osservazioni sembrano scritte per l’oggi.

La tesi di quanti si oppongono sia al nazionalismo russo e ucraino che all’espansione della NATO non contiene alcuna indecisione politica o ambiguità teorica. Al di là delle spiegazioni – fornite, in queste settimane, da numerosi esperti – sulle radici del conflitto (che non ridimensionano, in alcun modo, la barbarie dell’invasione russa), la posizione di quanti suggeriscono una politica di «non allineamento» è la più efficace per far cessare la guerra al più presto e assicurare che in questo conflitto vi sia il minor numero possibile di vittime. Non si tratta affatto di comportarsi come le «anime belle» imbevute di astratto idealismo che Georg Hegel riteneva incapaci di misurarsi con la realtà concreta delle contraddizioni terrene. Al contrario, significa dare forza all’unico vero antidoto all’espansione della guerra su scala generale. A differenza delle tante voci che invocano l’aumento delle spese militari e un nuovo arruolamento, o di chi, come il Commissario Europeo per le Relazioni Esterne, afferma che è compito dell’Europa fornire al governo ucraino «gli armamenti necessari per una guerra» , va perseguita un’incessante iniziativa diplomatica, basata su due punti fermi: la de-escalation e la neutralità dell’Ucraina indipendente.

Inoltre, nonostante essa appaia rafforzata a seguito delle mosse compiute dalla Russia, bisogna lavorare affinché l’opinione pubblica smetta di considerare la più grande e aggressiva macchina bellica del mondo – la NATO – come la soluzione ai problemi della sicurezza globale. Al contrario, va mostrato come questa sia un’organizzazione pericolosa e inefficace che, con la sua volontà di espansione e di dominio unipolare, contribuisce ad aumentare le tensioni belliche nel mondo.

In Il socialismo e la guerra, Lenin sostenne che i marxisti si distinguono dai pacifisti e dagli anarchici poiché riconoscono «la necessità dell’esame storico (dal punto di vista del materialismo dialettico di Marx sic!) di ogni singola guerra» . Continuando, affermò che «nella storia sono più volte avvenute guerre che, nonostante tutti gli orrori, le brutalità, le miserie ed i tormenti inevitabilmente connessi con ogni guerra, sono state progressive e utili all’evoluzione dell’umanità». Se ciò è stato vero per il passato, sarebbe miope ipotizzare che possa ripetersi nel contesto di diffusione delle armi di distruzione di massa della nostra società contemporanea. Raramente le guerre – da non confondere con le rivoluzioni – hanno avuto l’effetto democratizzante auspicato dai teorici del socialismo. Al contrario, esse si sono spesso rivelate come il modo peggiore per realizzare la rivoluzione, sia per il costo di vite umane che per la distruzione delle forze produttive che esse comportano. Le guerre diffondono, infatti, un’ideologia di violenza che si unisce, spesso, a quei sentimenti nazionalistici che hanno più volte lacerato il movimento operaio. Di rado, esse rafforzano pratiche di autogestione e democrazia diretta, mentre accrescono il potere di istituzioni autoritarie. È una lezione che non andrebbe mai dimenticata anche dalle sinistre moderate.

Il monito più fecondo delle Riflessioni sulla guerra (1933) di Simone Weil discende dalla capacità di saper comprendere «come può una rivoluzione evitare la guerra». Secondo l’autrice francese, «è su questa labile possibilità che occorre puntare, o abbandonare ogni speranza». La guerra rivoluzionaria si trasforma spesso nella «tomba della rivoluzione», poiché essa non permette ai «cittadini armati, di fare la guerra senza apparato dirigente, senza pressione poliziesca, senza giurisdizione speciale, senza pene per i disertori». La guerra incrementa, come nessun altro fenomeno sociale, l’apparato militare, poliziesco e burocratico. Cancella «l’individuo di fronte alla burocrazia statale con il sostegno di un fanatismo esasperato», avvantaggiando la macchina statale e non i lavoratori. Pertanto, la Weil ne desunse che «se la guerra non termina al più presto e per sempre (…) si avranno solo quelle rivoluzioni che, anziché distruggere l’apparato statale lo perfezionano» o, detto ancor più chiaramente, «si finirebbe per estendere sotto altra forma il regime che ci vuole sopprimere». E per questo che, in caso di guerra, «bisogna scegliere tra l’intralciare il funzionamento della macchina bellica, della quale siamo un ingranaggio, e l’aiutare quella macchina a stritolare alla cieca le vite umane» .

Per la sinistra, diversamente dal celebre detto di Carl von Clausewitz, la guerra non può essere «la continuazione della politica con altri mezzi». In realtà, essa altro non è se non la certificazione del suo fallimento. Se la sinistra vuole tornare a essere egemone e dimostrare di essere capace di declinare la sua storia per i compiti dell’oggi, deve scrivere sulle proprie bandiere, in maniera indelebile, le parole «antimilitarismo» e «no alla guerra!»

Categories
Journal Articles

The History and Legacy of the International Working Men’s Association

The Birth of Internationalism
On 28 September 1864, St. Martin’s Hall, in the heart of London, was packed to overflowing with some two thousand workers. They had come to attend a meeting called by English trade union leaders and a small group of companions from the Continent. This meeting gave birth to the prototype of all the main organizations of the workers’ movement: the International Working Men’s Association. Quickly, the International aroused passions all over Europe. It made class solidarity a shared ideal and inspired large numbers of women and men to struggle for the most radical of goals: changing the world. Thanks to its activity, workers were able to gain a clearer understanding of the mechanisms of the capitalist mode of production, to become more aware of their own strength, and to develop new, more advanced forms of struggle for their rights.

When it was founded, the central driving force of the International was British trade unionism, the leaders of which were mainly interested in economic questions. They fought to improve the workers’ conditions, but without calling capitalism into question. Hence, they conceived the International primarily as an instrument to prevent the import of manpower from abroad in the event of strikes. Then there were the mutualists, long dominant in France. In keeping with the theories of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865), they opposed any working-class involvement in politics, and the strike as a weapon of struggle. The third group in importance were the communists, opposing the existing system of production and espousing the necessity of political action to overthrow it. At its founding, the ranks of the International also included numbers of workers inspired by utopian theories, and exiles having vaguely democratic ideas and cross-class conception who considered the International as an instrument for the issuing of general appeals for the liberation of oppressed peoples.

Securing the cohabitation of all these currents in the International, around a programme so distant from the approaches with which each had started out, was Karl Marx’s (1818–1883) great political accomplishment. His political talents enabled him to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable (Collins & Abramsky, 1965, p. 34). It was Marx who gave a clear purpose to the International, and who achieved a non-exclusionary, yet firmly working class-based, political programme that won it mass support beyond sectarianism. The political soul of its General Council was always Marx: he drafted all its main resolutions and prepared almost all its congress reports.

Nevertheless, despite the impression created by the Soviet Union’s propaganda and by the majority of the ideologically driven scholars who wrote on the International, this organization was much more than a single individual, even one as brilliant as Marx. The International was a vast social and political movement for the emancipation of the working classes; not, as it has often been written, the ‘creation of Marx’. It was made possible first of all by the labour movement’s struggles in the 1860s. One of its basic rules – and the fundamental distinction from previous labor organizations – was ‘that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves’ (Engels & Marx, 2014, p. 265). The orthodox, dogmatic view of Marx’s role in the International, according to which he mechanically applied to the stage of history a political theory already forged in the confines of his study, is totally divorced from the historical reality. Marx was essential to the International, but also the International had a very positive impact on Marx (see Musto, 2018, pp. 171-239). Being directly involved in workers’ struggles, Marx was stimulated to develop and sometimes revise his ideas, to put old certainties up for discussion and ask himself new questions.

The Organizational Structure of the International
During its lifetime and in subsequent decades, the International was depicted as a vast, financially powerful organization. The size of its membership was always overestimated, whether because of imperfect knowledge or because some of its leaders exaggerated the real situation or because opponents were looking for a pretext to justify a brutal crackdown.

In reality, the membership figures were much lower. It has always been difficult to arrive at even approximate estimates, and that was true for its own leaders and those who studied it most closely. But the present state of research allows the hypothesis that, at its peak in 1871–1872, the tally reached more than 150,000: 50,000 in Britain, more than 30,000 in both France and Belgium, 6,000 in Switzerland, about 30,000 in Spain, 25,000 in Italy, more than 10,000 in Germany (but mostly members of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party), plus a few thousand each in a number of other European countries, 4,000 in the United States, and a few hundred in both Russia and Argentina.

In those times, when there was a dearth of effective working-class organizations apart from the English trade unions and the General Association of German Workers, such figures were certainly sizeable. It should also be borne in mind that, throughout its existence, the International was recognized as a legal organization only in Britain, Switzerland, Belgium, and the United States. In other countries where it had a solid presence (France, Spain, Italy), it was on the margins of legality for a number of years, and its members were subject to persecution. To join the International meant breaking the law in the 39 states of the German Confederation, and the few members in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were forced to operate in clandestine forms. On the other hand, the Association had a remarkable capacity to weld its components into a cohesive whole. Within a couple of years from its birth, it had succeeded in federating hundreds of workers’ societies. From the end of 1868, thanks to propaganda conducted by followers of Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), other societies were added in Spain, and after the Paris Commune sections sprang up also in Italy, Holland, Denmark, and Portugal. The development of the International was doubtless uneven: while it was growing in some countries, it was elsewhere remaining level or falling back under the blows of repression. Yet a strong sense of belonging prevailed among those who joined the International for even a short time. When the cycle of struggles in which they had taken part came to an end, and adversity and personal hardship forced them to take a distance, they retained the bonds of class solidarity and responded as best they could to the call for a rally, the words of a poster or the unfurling of the red flag of struggle, in the name of an organization that had sustained them in their hour of need (see Braunthal, 1966, p. 116).

Members of the International, however, comprised only a small part of the total workforce. In Paris they never numbered more than 10,000, and in other capital cities such as Rome, Vienna, or Berlin they were rare birds indeed. Another aspect is the character of the workers who joined the International: it was supposed to be the organization of wage-labourers, but very few actually became members. The main influx came from construction workers in England, textile workers in Belgium, and various types of artisans in France and Switzerland.

In Britain, with the sole exception of steelworkers, the International always had a sparse presence among the industrial proletariat (see Collins & Abramsky, 1965, p. 70; D’Hondt, 1968, p. 475) and nowhere did the latter ever form a majority. The other great limitation was the failure to draw in unskilled labour (see Collins & Abramsky, 1965, p. 289). The great majority of members of the International came from tailoring, clothing, shoemaking and cabinet-making – that is, from sectors of the working class that were then the best organized and the most class-conscious. Moreover, the International remained an organization of employed workers; the jobless never became part of it.

From an organizational point of view, despite the considerable autonomy granted to federations and local sections, the International always retained a locus of political leadership. Its General Council was the body that worked out a unifying synthesis of the various tendencies and issued guidelines for the organization as a whole. From October 1864 until August 1872, it met with great regularity, as many as 385 times. Its members debated a wide range of issues, such as: working conditions, the effects of new machinery, support for strikes, the role and importance of trade unions, the Irish question, various foreign policy matters, and, of course, how to build the society of the future. The General Council was also responsible for drafting the documents of the International: circulars, letters, and resolutions for current purposes; special manifestos, addresses, and appeals in particular circumstances (see Haupt, 1978, p. 78).

The Politics of the International
The lack of synchrony between the key organizational junctures and the main political events in the life of the International makes it difficult to reconstruct its history in chronological sequence. In terms of organization, the principal stages were: 1) the birth of the International (1864–1866), from its foundation to the First Congress; 2) the period of expansion (1866–1870); 3) the revolutionary surge and the repression following the Paris Commune (1871–1872); and 4) the split and crisis (1872–1877). In terms of its theoretical development, however, the principal stages were: 1) the initial debate among its various components and the laying of its own foundations (1864–1865); 2) the struggle for hegemony between collectivists and mutualists (1866–1869); and 3) the clash between centralists and autonomists (1870–1877).

In September 1866, the city of Geneva hosted the first congress of the International, with 60 delegates from Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland. By then the Association could point to a very favourable balance-sheet of the two years since its foundation, having rallied to its banner more than one hundred trade unions and political organizations. Those taking part in the congress essentially divided into two blocs. The first, consisting of the British delegates, the few Germans and a majority of the Swiss, followed the directives of the General Council drawn up by Marx (who was not present in Geneva). The second, comprising the French delegates and some of the French-speaking Swiss, was made up of mutualists. At that time, in fact, moderate positions were prevalent in the International, and the mutualists, led by the Parisian Henri Tolain (1828–97), envisaged a society in which the worker would be at once producer, capitalist, and consumer. They regarded the granting of free credit as a decisive measure for the transformation of society; considered women’s labour to be objectionable from both an ethical and a social point of view; and opposed any interference by the state in work relations (including legislation to reduce the working day to eight hours) on the grounds that it would threaten the private relationship between workers and employers and strengthen the system currently in force. Basing themselves on resolutions prepared by Marx, the General Council leaders succeeded in marginalizing the numerically strong contingent of mutualists at the congress, and obtained votes in favour of state intervention.

From late 1866 on, strikes intensified in many countries and formed the core of a new and important wave of mobilizations. The first major struggle to be won with the International’s support was the Parisian bronze workers’ strike of the winter of 1867. Also successful in their outcome were the ironworkers’ strike of Marchienne, in Belgium, the long dispute in the Provençal mineral basin, and Geneva building workers’ strike. The scenario was the same in each of these events: workers in other countries raised funds in support of the strikers and agreed not to accept work that would have turned them into industrial mercenaries; as a result, the bosses were forced to compromise on many of the strikers’ demands. These advances were greatly favoured by the diffusion of newspapers that either sympathized with the ideas of the International, or were veritable organs of the General Council. They contributed to the development of class consciousness and the rapid circulation of news concerning the activity of the International.

Thus, for all the difficulties bound up with the diversity of nationalities, languages and political cultures, the International managed to achieve unity and coordination across a wide range of organizations and spontaneous struggles. Its greatest merit was to demonstrate the absolute need for class solidarity and international cooperation, moving decisively beyond the partial character of the initial objectives and strategies.

From 1867 on, strengthened by success in achieving these goals, by increased membership and by a more efficient organization, the International made advances all over Continental Europe. It was its breakthrough year in France in particular, where the bronze workers’ strike had the same knock-on effect that the London tailors’ strike had produced in England.

But Britain was still the country where the International had its greatest presence. In the course of 1867, the affiliation of another dozen organizations took the membership to a good 50,000 – an impressive figure if we bear in mind that it was reached in just two years, and that the total unionized workforce was then roughly 800,000 (see Collins, 1968, p. 34).

This was the backdrop to the Lausanne congress of September 1867, where the International assembled with a new strength that had come from continuing broad-based expansion. There were 64 delegates from 6 countries (with one each from Belgium and Italy) attending this event and many of its most relevant debates were focused on Proudhonian themes (such as the cooperative movement and alternative uses of credit) dear to the strongly represented mutualists.

Right from the earliest days of the International, Proudhon’s ideas were hegemonic in France, French-speaking Switzerland, Wallonia, and the city of Brussels. His disciples, particularly Tolain and Ernest Édouard Fribourg *1834-1903), succeeded in making a mark with their positions on the founding meeting in 1864, the London Conference of 1865, and the Geneva and Lausanne Congresses. For four years the mutualists were the most moderate wing of the International. The British trade unions, which constituted the majority, did not share Marx’s anticapitalism, but nor did they have the same pull on the policies of the organization that the followers of Proudhon were able to exercise. Basing themselves on the theories of the French anarchist, the mutualists argued that the economic emancipation of the workers would be achieved through the founding of producer cooperatives and a central People’s Bank. Resolutely hostile to state intervention in any field, they opposed socialization of the land and the means of production as well as any use of the strike weapon. In 1868, for example, there were still many sections of the International that attached a negative, anti-economic value to this method of struggle. The Report of the Liège Section on Strikes was emblematic in this regard: ‘The strike is a struggle. It therefore increases the bubbling of hatred between the people and the bourgeoisie, separating ever further two classes that should merge and unite with each other’ (Maréchal, 1962, p. 268). The distance from the positions and theses of the General Council could scarcely have been greater.

The Brussels Congress, held in September 1868, with the participation of 99 delegates from France, Britain, Switzerland, Germany, Spain (one delegate), and Belgium (55 in total) , finally clipped the wings of the mutualists. The highpoint came when the assembly approved César De Paepe’s (1841–1890) proposal on the socialization of the means of production – a decisive step forward in defining the economic basis of socialism, no longer simply in the writings of particular intellectuals but in the programme of a great transnational organization. As regards the mines and transport, the congress declared:

1. That the quarries, collieries, and other mines, as well as the railways, ought in a normal state of society to belong to the community represented by the state, a state itself subject to the laws of justice.

2. That the quarries, collieries, and other mines, and Railways, be let by the state, not to companies of capitalists as at present, but to companies of working men bound by contract to guarantee to society the rational and scientific working of the railways, etc., at a price as nearly as possible approximate to the working expense. The same contract ought to reserve to the state the right to verify the accounts of the companies, so as to present the possibility of any reconstitution of monopolies. A second contract ought to guarantee the mutual right of each member of the companies in respect to his fellow workmen.

As to landed property, it was agreed that:

the economical development of modern society will create the social necessity of converting arable land into the common property of society, and of letting the soil on behalf of the state to agricultural companies under conditions analogous to those stated in regard to mines and railways.

And similar considerations were applied to the canals, roads and telegraphs: ‘Considering that the roads and other means of communication require a common social direction, the Congress thinks they ought to remain the common property of society’. Finally, some interesting points were made about the environment:

Considering that the abandonment of forests to private individuals causes the destruction of woods necessary for the conservation of springs, and, as a matter of course, of the good qualities of the soil, as well as the health and lives of the population, the Congress thinks that the forests ought to remain the property of society (see Marx, 2014c, p. 92).

In Brussels, then, the International made its first clear pronouncement on the socialization of the means of production by state authorities. This marked an important victory for the General Council and the first appearance of socialist principles in the political programme of a major workers’ organization.

In addition, the congress again discussed the question of war. A motion presented by Becker, which Marx later summarized in the published resolutions of the congress, stated:

The workers alone have an evident logical interest in finally abolishing all war, both economic and political, individual and national, because in the end they always have to pay with their blood and their labour for the settling of accounts between the belligerents, regardless of whether they are on the winning or losing side (Burgelin, Langfeldt, & Molnár, 1962a, p. 403).

The workers were called upon to treat every war ‘as a civil war’ (Burgelin, Langfeldt, & Molnár, 1962a, p. 403). De Paepe also suggested the use of the general strike (see De Paepe, 2014, pp. 230–1) – a proposal that Marx dismissed as ‘nonsense’ (Marx, 1988b, p. 101), but which actually tended to develop a class consciousness capable of going beyond merely economic struggles.

If the collectivist turn of the International began at the Brussels Congress, it was the Basel Congress held the next year that consolidated it and eradicated Proudhonism even in its French homeland. This time there were 78 delegates at the congress, drawn not only from France, Switzerland, Germany, Britain and Belgium, but also, a clear sign of expansion, from Spain, Italy, and Austria, plus a representative from the National Labor Union in the United States.

The resolutions of the Brussels Congress on landed property were reaffirmed, with 54 votes in favour, 4 against, and 13 abstentions. Eleven of the French delegates – including Eugène Varlin (1838–1871), later a prominent figure in the Paris Commune – even approved a new text which declared ‘that society has the right to abolish individual ownership of the land and to make it part of the community’ (Burgelin, Langfeldt, & Molnár, 1962b, p. 74); 10 abstained and 4 (including Tolain) voted against. After Basel, the International in France was no longer mutualist.

The Basel Congress was also of interest because Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876) took part in the proceedings as a delegate. Having failed to win the leadership of the League for Peace and Freedom, he had founded the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy in September 1868 in Geneva, and in December this had applied to join the International. The General Council initially turned down the request, on the grounds that the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy continued to be affiliated to another, parallel transnational structure, and that one of its objectives – ‘the equalization of classes’ (Bakunin, 1973, p. 174) – was radically different from a central pillar of the International, the abolition of classes. Shortly afterwards, however, the Alliance modified its programme and agreed to wind up its network of sections, many of which existed only in Bakunin’s imagination anyway (see Carr, 1961, p. 392). On 28 July 1869, the 104-member Geneva section was accordingly admitted to the International. Marx knew Bakunin well enough, but he had underestimated the consequences of this step. For the influence of the famous Russian revolutionary rapidly increased in a number of Swiss, Spanish, and French sections (as it did in Italian ones after the Paris Commune), and at the Basel Congress, thanks to his charisma and forceful style of argument, he already managed to affect the outcome of its deliberations. The vote on the right of inheritance, for example, was the first occasion on which the delegates rejected a proposal of the General Council (Marx, 2014b, pp. 163–165). Having finally defeated the mutualists and laid the spectre of Proudhon to rest, Marx now had to confront a much tougher rival, who formed a new tendency – collectivist anarchism – and sought to win control of the organization.

The International and the Paris Commune
The period from late Sixties to early Seventies was rich in social conflicts. Many workers who took part in protest actions decided to make contact with the International, whose reputation was spreading ever wider, and despite its limited resources the General Council never failed to respond with appeals for solidarity to its European sections and the organization of fund-raising.

Across Europe, the Association continued to increase the number of its members and to develop an efficient organizational structure. During this period, Bakunin’s ideas began to spread in a number of cities, especially in Southern Europe. More symbolically significant still, at least for the hopes it initially awakened, was its new mooring on the other side of the Atlantic, where immigrants who had arrived in recent years began to establish the first sections of the International in the United States. However, the organization suffered from two handicaps at birth that it would never overcome. Despite repeated exhortations from the General Council in London, it was unable either to cut across the nationalist character of its various affiliated groups or to draw in workers born in the ‘New World’. When the German, French, and Czech sections founded the Central Committee of the International for North America, in December 1870, it was unique in the history of the International in having only ‘foreign-born’ members. The most striking aspect of this anomaly was that the International in the United States never disposed of an English-language press organ. At the beginning of the 1870s, the International reached a total of 50 sections with a combined membership of 4,000, but this was still only a tiny proportion of the American industrial workforce of more than two million.

With this general background, the International made provisions for its fifth congress in September 1870. This was originally scheduled to be held in Paris, but repressive operations by the French government made the General Council opt instead for Mainz. Marx probably also thought that the greater number of German delegates close to his positions would help to stem the advance of the Bakuninists. But then the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war, on 19 July 1870, left no choice but to call off the congress.

The conflict at the heart of Europe meant that the top priority now was to help the workers’ movement express an independent position, far from the nationalist rhetoric of the time. In his First Address on the Franco–Prussian War, Marx called upon the French workers to drive out Charles Louis Bonaparte (1808–1873) and to obliterate the empire he had established eighteen years earlier. The German workers, for their part, were supposed to prevent the defeat of Bonaparte from turning into an attack on the French people:

in contrast to old society, with its economical miseries and its political delirium, a new society is springing up, whose international rule will be Peace, because its national ruler will be everywhere the same – Labour! The pioneer of that new society is the International Working Men’s Association (Marx, 2014a, p. 239).

Although Bakunin had urged the workers to turn patriotic war into revolutionary war (see Lehning, 1977, p. xvi.), the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association in London initially opted for silence (see Musto, 2014, pp. 30–36). It charged Marx with the task of writing a text in the name of the International, but he delayed its publication for complicated, deeply held reasons. Well aware of the real relationship of forces on the ground as well as the weaknesses of the Paris Commune, born in March 1871, he knew that it was doomed to defeat. He had even tried to warn the French working class back in September 1870, in his Second Address on the Franco–Prussian War:

Any attempt at upsetting the new government in the present crisis, when the enemy is almost knocking at the doors of Paris, would be a desperate folly. The French workmen […] must not allow themselves to be swayed by the national souvenirs of 1792 […]. They have not to recapitulate the past, but to build up the future. Let them calmly and resolutely improve the opportunities of republican liberty, for the work of their own class organization. It will gift them with fresh herculean powers for the regeneration of France, and our common task – the emancipation of labour. Upon their energies and wisdom hinges the fate of the republic (Marx, 1986, p. 269).

A fervid declaration hailing the victory of the Paris Commune would have risked creating false expectations among workers throughout Europe, eventually becoming a source of demoralization and distrust. Marx therefore decided to postpone delivery and stayed away from meetings of the General Council for several weeks. His grim forebodings soon proved all too well founded, and on 28 May, little more than two months after its proclamation, the Paris Commune was drowned in blood. Two days later, he reappeared at the General Council with a manuscript entitled The Civil War in France. It was read and unanimously approved, then published over the names of all the Council members. The document had a huge impact over the next few weeks, greater than any other document of the workers’ movement in the nineteenth century.

Despite Marx’s passionate defense, and despite the claims both of reactionary opponents and of dogmatic Marxists eager to glorify the International, it is out of the question that the General Council actually pushed for the Parisian insurrection.

After the defeat of the Paris Commune, the International was at the eye of the storm, held to blame for every act against the established order. ‘When the great conflagration took place at Chicago’, Marx mused with bitter irony, ‘the telegraph round the world announced it as the infernal deed of the International; and it is really wonderful that to its demoniacal agency has not been attributed the hurricane ravaging the West Indies’ (Institute of Marxism-Leninism, 1967, p. 461). Governments all over Europe sharpened their instruments of repression, fearing that other uprisings might follow the one in Paris. Adolphe Thiers (1797–1877) immediately outlawed the International and asked the British prime minister, William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898), to follow his example; it was the first diplomatic exchange relating to a workers’ organization. Pope Pius IX (1792–1878) exerted similar pressure on the Swiss government, arguing that it would a serious mistake to continue tolerating ‘that International sect which would like to treat the whole of Europe as it treated Paris. Those gentlemen […] are to be feared, because they work on behalf of the eternal enemies of God and mankind’ (Institute of Marxism-Leninism, 1968, p. 460). Giuseppe Mazzini – who for a time had looked to the International with hope – had similar views and considered that principles of the International had become those of ‘denial of God, […] the fatherland, […] and all individual property’ (Mazzini, 1978, pp. 499–501).

Criticism of the Paris Commune even spread to sections of the workers’ movement. Following the publication of The Civil War in France, both the trade union leader George Odger (1813–1877) and the old Chartist Benjamin Lucraft (1809–1897) resigned from the International, bending under the pressure of the hostile press campaign. However, no trade union withdrew its support for the organization – which suggests once again that the failure of the International to grow in Britain was due mainly to political apathy in the working class (Collins & Abramsky, 1965, p. 222).

Despite the bloody denouement in Paris and the wave of calumny and government repression elsewhere in Europe, the International grew stronger and more widely known in the wake of the Commune. For capitalists and the middle classes it represented a great threat to the established order, whereas for workers it fuelled hopes for a world without injustice, exploitation and alienation. The labour movement had an enormous vitality and that was apparent everywhere. Newspapers linked to the International increased in both number and overall sales. The insurrection of Paris fortified the workers’ movement, impelling it to adopt more radical positions and to intensify its militancy. Once again, France showed that revolution was possible, clarifying its goal to be building a society different from that of capitalism, but also that, to achieve this, the workers would have to create durable and well-organized forms of political association. The next step to take then, as stated by Marx, was understanding that ‘the economic movement [of the working class] and its political action are indissolubly united’ (Marx & Engels, 2014b, p. 285). That led the International to push (at the London Conference of 1871) for the foundation of a key instrument of the modern workers’ movement: the political party.

The most important decision taken at the conference, for which it would be remembered later, was the approval of Édouard Vaillant’s (1840–1915) Resolution IX. The leader of the Blanquists – whose residual forces had joined the International after the end of the Commune – proposed that the organization should be transformed into a centralized, disciplined party, under the leadership of the General Council. Despite some differences, particularly over the Blanquist position that a tightly organized nucleus of militants was sufficient for the revolution, Marx did not hesitate to form an alliance with Vaillant’s group: not only to strengthen the opposition to Bakuninite anarchism within the International, but above all to create a broader consensus for the changes deemed necessary in the new phase of the class struggle. The resolution passed in London therefore stated:

that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes; that this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes; and that the combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economic struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists.

Centralists vs. Autonomists: The Crisis of the International
Whereas the Geneva Congress of 1866 established the importance of trade unions, the London Conference of 1871 shifted the focus to the political party. For Marx, the self-emancipation of the working class required a long and arduous process – the polar opposite of the theories and practices in Sergei Nechaev’s (1847–1882) Catechism of a Revolutionary, whose advocacy of secret societies was condemned by the delegates in London (see Burgelin, Langfeldt, & Molnár, 1962b, p. 237; Marx, 1988a, p. 23) but enthusiastically supported by Bakunin.

Marx was probably surprised when signs of restlessness and even rebellion against the political line of the General Council began to appear in many countries. In a number of federations, the decisions taken in London were judged an unacceptable encroachment on local political autonomy. The opposition to the General Council was varied in character and sometimes had mainly personal motives; a strange alchemy held it together and made leadership of the International very difficult.

The final battle came at the Fifth Congress of the International that took place in The Hague, in September 1872, and that was attended by 65 delegates from a total of 14 countries. The most important decision taken at The Hague was to incorporate Resolution IX of the 1871 London Conference into the statutes of the Association, as a new article 7a. Whereas the Provisional Statutes of 1864 had stated that ‘the economic emancipation of the working class is the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means’ (Engels & Marx, 2014, p. 265), this insertion mirrored the new relationship of forces within the organization. Political struggle was now the necessary instrument for the transformation of society since: ‘the lords of land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defence and perpetuation of their economic monopolies, and for the enslavement of labour. The conquest of political power has therefore become the great duty of the working class’ (Engels & Marx, 2014, p. 268).

The International was now very different from how it had been at the time of its foundation: the radical-democratic components had walked out after being increasingly marginalized; the mutualists had been defeated and many converted; reformists no longer constituted the bulk of the organization (except in Britain); and anticapitalism had become the political line of the whole Association, as well as of recently formed tendencies such as the anarcho-collectivists. Moreover, although the years of the International had witnessed a degree of economic prosperity that in some cases made conditions less parlous, the workers understood that real change would come not through such palliatives but only through the end of human exploitation. They were also basing their struggles more and more on their own material needs, rather than the initiatives of particular groups to which they belonged.

The wider picture, too, was radically different. The unification of Germany in 1871 confirmed the onset of a new age in which the nation-state would be the central form of political, legal, and territorial identity; this placed a question mark over any supranational body that financed itself from membership dues in each individual country and required its members to surrender a sizeable share of their political leadership. At the same time, the growing differences between national movements and organizations made it extremely difficult for the General Council to produce a political synthesis capable of satisfying the demands of all. It is true that, right from the beginning, the International had been an agglomeration of trade unions and political associations far from easy to reconcile with one another, and that these had represented sensibilities and political tendencies more than organizations properly so called. By 1872, however, the various components of the Association – and workers’ struggles, more generally – had become much more clearly defined and structured. The legalization of the British trade unions had officially made them part of national political life; the Belgian Federation of the International was a ramified organization, with a central leadership capable of making significant, and autonomous, contributions to theory; Germany had two workers’ parties, the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany and the General Association of German Workers, each with representation in parliament; the French workers, from Lyons to Paris, had already tried ‘storming the heavens’; and the Spanish Federation had expanded to the point where it was on the verge of becoming a mass organization. Similar changes had occurred in other countries.

The initial configuration of the International had thus become outmoded, just as its original mission had come to an end. The task was no longer to prepare for and organize Europe-wide support for strikes, nor to call congresses on the usefulness of trade unions or the need to socialize the land and the means of production. Such themes were now part of the collective heritage of the organization as a whole. After the Paris Commune, the real challenge for the workers’ movement was a revolutionary one: how to organize in such a way as to end the capitalist mode of production and to overthrow the institutions of the bourgeois world. It was no longer a question of how to reform the existing society, but how to build a new one (see Jacques Freymond, 1962, p. x). For this new advance in the class struggle, Marx thought it indispensable to build working-class political parties in each country. It was therefore decided that the General Council of the organization had to be transferred to New York and this resolution represented the end of the International.

Internationalism after the International
In later decades, the workers’ movement adopted a consistent socialist programme, expanded throughout Europe and then the rest of the world, and built new structures of supranational coordination. Apart from the continuity of names (the Second International from 1889–1916, the Third International from 1919–1943, or the Socialist International created in 1951), the various ‘Internationals’ of socialist politics have referred – although in very different ways – to the legacy of the so-called ‘First’ International. Thus, its revolutionary message proved extraordinarily fertile, producing results over time much greater than those achieved during its existence.

The International was the locus of some of the most famous debates of labour movement, such as that on Communism and Anarchy. The congresses of the International were also the place where, for the first time, a major transnational organization came to decisions about crucial issues, which had been discussed before its foundation, that subsequently became strategic points in the political program of socialist movements across the world. Among these are: the indispensable function of trade unions; the socialization of land and means of productions; the importance of participating in elections, and doing this through independent parties of the working class; and the conception of war as an inevitable product of the capitalist system.

An abyss separates the hopes of those times from the mistrust so characteristic of our own, the anti-systemic spirit and solidarity of the age of the International from the ideological subordination and individualism of a world reshaped by neoliberal competition and privatization.

The world of labor has suffered an epochal defeat, and the Left is still in the midst of deep crisis (see Musto, 2017). After decades of neoliberal policies, we have returned to an exploitative system, similar from many points of view to that of the nineteenth century. Labor market ‘reforms’ — a term now shed of its original progressive mean¬ing — have introduced more and more ‘flexibility’ with each passing year, creating deeper inequalities. Other major political and economic shifts have succeeded one another after the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Among them, there have been the social changes generated by globalization, the ecological disasters produced by the present mode of production, the growing gulf between the wealthy exploitative few and the huge impoverished majority, one of the biggest economic crises of capitalism (the one erupted in 2008) in history, the blustery winds of war, racism and chauvinism, and, most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a context such as this, class solidarity is all the more indispensable. It was Marx himself who emphasized that the confrontation between workers — including between local and migrant workers (who are moreover discriminated) — is an essential element of the domination of the ruling classes. New ways of organizing social conflict, political parties, and trade unions must certainly be invented, as we cannot reproduce schemes used 150 years ago. But the old lesson of the International that workers are defeated if they do not organize a common front of the exploited is still valid. Without that, our only horizon is a war between the poor and unbridled competition between individuals.

The barbarism of today’s world order imposes upon the contemporary workers’ movement the urgent need to reorganize itself on the basis of two key characteristics of the International: the multiplicity of its structure and radicalism in objectives. The aims of the organization founded in London in 1864 are today more timely than ever. To rise to the challenges of the present, however, the new International cannot evade the twin requirements of pluralism and anticapitalism.

Bibliography
Archer, J. P. W. (1997). The First International in France, 1864–1872. University Press of America.
Bakunin, M. (1973). Programme of the Alliance [International Alliance of Socialist Democracy]. In A. Lehning (Ed.), Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings (pp. 174–175). Jonathan Cape.
Bensimon, F., Deluermoz, Q., & Moisand, J. (2018). “Arise Ye Wretched of the Earth”: The First International in a Global Perspective, Brill.
Braunthal, J. (1966). History of the International. Nelson.
Burgelin, H., Langfeldt, K., & Molnár, M. (Eds.). (1962a). La première Internationale, vol. I [1866–1868]. Droz.
Burgelin, H., Langfeldt, K., & Molnár, M. (Eds.). (1962b). La première Internationale, vol. II [1869–1872]. Droz.
Carr, E. H. (1961). Michael Bakunin. Vintage.
Collins, H. (1968). The International and the British Labour Movement: Origin of the International in England. In Colloque International sur La première Internationale, La Première Internationale: l’institute, l’implantation, le rayonnement (pp.). Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Collins, H., & Abramsky, C. (1965). Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement. MacMillan.
Cordillot, M. (2010). Aux origines du socialisme moderne. La première internationale, la Commune de Paris, l’exil, Éditions de l’Atelier.
Cordillot, M. (Ed.). (2021). La Commune de Paris 1871. Les acteurs, l’événement, les lieux, Les Éditions de l’Atelier/Éditions Ouvrières.
De Paepe, C. (2014). [Strike Against War]. In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 230–231). Bloomsbury.
D’Hondt, J. (1968). Rapport de synthèse. In Colloque International sur La première Internationale, La Première Internationale: l’institute, l’implantation, le rayonnement (pp.). Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Engels, F., & Marx, K. (2014). General Rules of the International Working Men’s Association. In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 265–268). Bloomsbury.
Freymond, J. (1962). Introduction. In H. Burgelin, K. Langfeldt, & M. Molnár (Eds.), La première Internationale, vol. I [1866–1868] (pp.). Droz.
Gianni, E. (2008). L’internazionale italiana fra libertari ed evoluzionisti: i congressi della Federazione italiana e della Federazione Alta Italia dell’Associazione internazionale dei lavoratori, 1872–1880, Pantarei.
Haupt, G. (1978). L’Internazionale socialista dalla Comune a Lenin. Einaudi.
Haupt, G. (1986). Aspect of International Socialism 1871–1914. Cambridge University Press.
Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.C., C.P.S.U. (Ed.). (1967). The General Council of the First International 1870–1871: Minutes. Progress.
Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.C., C.P.S.U. (Ed.). (1968). The General Council of the First International 1871–1872: Minutes. Progress.
Lehning, A. (1977). Introduction. In Idem. (Ed.), Bakunin – Archiv, vol. VI: Michel Bakounine sur la Guerre Franco–Allemande et la Révolution Sociale en France (1870–1871) (pp. ix–lxvi). Brill.
Léonard, M. (2011). L’émancipation des travailleurs. Une histoire de la Première Internationale. La Fabrique.
Maréchal, C. (1962). Report of the Liège Section. In H. Burgelin, K. Langfeldt, & M. Molnár (Eds.), La première Internationale, vol. I [1866–1868] (pp.). Droz.
Marx, K. (1986). Second Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association on the Franco–Prussian War. In K. Marx, & F. Engels, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Volume 22. Marx and Engels 1870–71 (pp. 263–270). Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. (1988a). Declaration of the General Council on Nechayev’s Misuse of the Name of the International Working Men’s Association. In K. Marx, & F. Engels, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Volume 23. Marx and Engels 1871–74 (p. 23). Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. (1988b). Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels, 16 September 1868. In K. Marx, & F. Engels, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Volume 43. Letters 1868–70 (pp. 100–103). Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. (1992). Karl Marx to Domela Nieuwenhuis, 22 February 1881. In K. Marx, & F. Engels, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Volume 46. Letters 1880–83 (pp. 65–67). Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. (2014a). First Address on the Franco–Prussian War. In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 236–239). Bloomsbury.
Marx, K. (2014b). On the Right of Inheritance. In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 163–165). Bloomsbury.
Marx, K. (2014c). Resolutions of the Brussels Congress (1868). In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 89–93). Bloomsbury.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2014a). Against Sectarianism. In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 287–289). Bloomsbury.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2014b). On the Political Action of the Working Class and Other Matters. In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 283–286). Bloomsbury.
Mazzini, G. (1978). L’Internazionale. In G. M. Bravo (Ed.), La Prima Internazionale: Storia documentaria, vol. II (pp. 499–501). Editori Riuniti.
Musto, M. (2012). Revisiting Marx’s Concept of Alienation. In M. Musto (Ed.), Marx for Today (pp. 92–116). Routledge.
Musto, M. (2014). Introduction. In M. Musto (Ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (pp. 1–68). Bloomsbury.
Musto, M. (2017). The Post-1989 Radical Left in Europe: Results and Prospects. Socialism and Democracy, 31(2), 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2017.1337997
Musto, M. (2018). Another Marx: Early Manuscripts to the International. Bloomsbury.
Musto, M. (2021). The Experience of the Paris Commune and Marx’s Reflections on Communism. In M. Musto (Ed.), Rethinking Alternatives with Marx: Economy, Ecology and Migration (263–284). Palgrave Macmillan.
Musto, M. (Ed.). (2021). Karl Marx’s Writings on Alienation. Palgrave.
Rougerie, J. (2019). Eugène Varlin. Aux origines du mouvement ouvrier, Éditions du Détour.
Rubel, M. (1974). Marx critique du marxisme. Payot.
Schrupp, A. (1999). Nicht Marxistin und auch nicht Anarchistin. Frauen in der Ersten Internationale, Ulrike Helmer Verlag.
Tarcus, H. (2007). Marx en la Argentina. Sus primeros lectores obreros, intelectuales y científicos (1871-1910), Siglo XXI.

Categories
Journal Articles

Marx’s Theory of the Dialectical Function of Capitalism

I.  The Importance of the Development of Capitalism in Marx’s Early Political Works
The conviction that expansion of the capitalist mode of production was a basic prerequisite for the birth of communist society runs through the whole of Marx’s oeuvre. In one of his first public lectures, which he gave at the German Workers’ Association in Brussels and incorporated into a preparatory manuscript entitled “Wages,” Marx spoke of a “‘positive aspect of capital,’ of large-scale industry, of free competition, of the world market” (1976, 436). To the workers who had come to listen to him, he said:

I do not need to explain to you in detail how without these production relations neither the means of production—the material means for the emancipation of the proletariat and the foundation of a new society—would have been created, nor would the proletariat itself have taken to the unification and development through which it is really capable of revolutionizing the old society and itself (Marx 1976, 436).

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, he argued with Engels that revolutionary attempts by the working class during the final crisis of feudal society had been doomed to failure, “owing to the then-undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the material conditions for its emancipation, conditions [. . .] that could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone” (Marx and Engels 1976, 514). Nevertheless, he recognized more than one merit in that period: not only had it “put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations” (486); “for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it [had] substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (487). Marx and Engels did not hesitate to declare that “the bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part” (486). By making use of geographical discoveries and the nascent world market, it had “given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country” (488).

Moreover, in the course of barely a century, “the bourgeoisie [had] created more colossal and more massive productive forces than all preceding generations together” (489). This had been possible once it had “subjected the country to the rule of the towns” and rescued “a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life” so widespread in European feudal society (488).  More important still, the bourgeoisie had “forged the weapons that bring death to itself” and the human beings to use them: “the modern working class, the proletarians” (490); these were growing at the same pace at which the bourgeoisie was expanding. For Marx and Engels, “the advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association” (496).

Marx developed similar ideas in The Class Struggles in France, arguing that only the rule of the bourgeoisie “tears up the roots of feudal society and levels the ground on which a proletarian revolution is alone possible” (Marx 1978, 56). Also in the early 1850s, when commenting on the principal political events of the time, he further theorized the idea of capitalism as a necessary prerequisite for the birth of a new type of society.  In one of the reviews, he wrote hand in hand with Engels for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, he argued that in China “in eight years the calico bales of the English bourgeoisie [had] brought the oldest and least perturbable kingdom on earth to the eve of a social upheaval, which, in any event, is bound to have the most significant results for civilization” (Marx and Engels 1978, 267).

Three years later, in “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” he asserted: “England has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating—the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia” (Marx 1979a, 217–218). He had no illusions about the basic features of capitalism, being well aware that the bourgeoisie had never “effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation” (221). But he was also convinced that world trade and the development of the productive forces of human beings, through the transformation of material production into “scientific domination of natural agencies,” were creating the basis for a different society: “bourgeois industry and commerce [would] create these material conditions of a new world” (222).

Marx’s views on the British presence in India were amended a few years later, in an article for the New York Tribune on the Sepoy rebellion, when he resolutely sided with those “attempting to expel the foreign conquerors” (Marx 1986, 341). His judgment on capitalism, on the other hand, was reaffirmed, with a more political edge, in the brilliant “Speech at the Anniversary of the People’s Paper.”. Here, in recalling that historically unprecedented industrial and scientific forces had come into being with capitalism, he told the militants present at the event that “steam, electricity and the self-acting mule were revolutionists of a rather more dangerous character than even the citizens Barbès, Raspail and Blanqui” (Marx 1980, 655).

II. The Conception of Capitalism in Marx’s Economic Writings
In the Grundrisse, Marx repeated several times the idea that certain “civilizing tendencies” of society manifested themselves with capitalism (Marx 1973, 414). He mentioned the “civilizing tendency of external trade” (256), as well as the “propagandistic (civilizing) tendency” of the “production of capital,” an “exclusive” property that had never manifested itself in “earlier conditions of production” (542). He even went so far as to quote appreciatively the historian John Wade (1788–1875), who, in reflecting on the creation of free time generated by the division of labour, had suggested that “capital is only another name for civilization” (585).

At the same time, however, Marx attacked the capitalist as “usurper” of the “free time created by the workers for society” (Marx 1973, 634). In a passage very close to the positions expressed in the Manifesto of the Communist Party or, in 1853, in the columns of the New York Tribune, Marx wrote:

production founded on capital creates universal industriousness on one side [. . . and] on the other side a system of general exploitation of the natural and human qualities, a system of general utility [. . .]. Thus, capital creates the bourgeois society, and the universal appropriation of nature as well as of the social bond itself by the members of society. Hence the great civilizing influence of capital; its production of a stage of society in comparison to which all earlier ones appear as mere local developments of humanity and as nature-idolatry. For the first time, nature becomes purely an object for humankind, purely a matter of utility; ceases to be recognized as a power for itself. [. . .] In accord with this tendency, capital drives beyond national barriers and prejudices as much as beyond nature worship, as well as all traditional, confined, complacent, encrusted satisfactions of present needs, and reproductions of old ways of life. It is destructive towards all of this, and constantly revolutionizes it, tearing down all the barriers which hem in the development of the forces of production, the expansion of needs, the all-sided development of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and mental forces. (Marx 1973, 409–10)

At the time of the Grundrisse, therefore, the ecological question was still in the background of Marx’s preoccupations, subordinate to the question of the potential development of individuals.

One of Marx’s most analytic accounts of the positive effects of capitalist production may be found in volume one of Capital.  Although much more conscious than in the past of the destructive character of capitalism, his magnum opus repeats the six conditions generated by capital—particularly its “centralization”—which are the fundamental prerequisites that lay the potential for the birth of communist society. These conditions are: 1) cooperative labour; 2) the application of science and technology to production; 3) the appropriation of the forces of nature by production; 4) the creation of large machinery that workers can only operate in common; 5) the economizing of the means of production; and 6) the tendency to create the world market. For Marx,

hand in hand with [. . .] this expropriation of many capitalists by a few, other developments take place on an ever-increasing scale, such as the growth of the co-operative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the planned exploitation of the soil, the transformation of the means of labour into forms in which they can only be used in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialized labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and, with this, the growth of the international character of the capitalist regime. (Marx 1992a, 929)

Marx well knew that, with the concentration of production in the hands of fewer and fewer bosses, “the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation and exploitation” (Marx 1992a, 929) was increasing for the working classes, but he was also aware that “the cooperation of wage-labourers is entirely brought about by the capital that employs them” (Marx 1992a, 453). He had come to the conclusion that the extraordinary growth of productive forces under capitalism—a phenomenon greater than in all previous modes of production—had created the conditions to overcome the social-economic relations it had itself generated, and hence to advance to a socialist society. As in his considerations on the economic profile of non-European societies, the central point of Marx’s thinking here was the progression of capitalism towards its own overthrow. In volume three of Capital, he wrote that “usury” had a “revolutionary effect” in so far as it contributed to the destruction and dissolution of “forms of ownership which provide[d] a firm basis for the articulation of [medieval] political life and whose constant reproduction [was] a necessity for that life.” The ruin of the feudal lords and petty production meant “centralizating the conditions of labour” (Marx 1993, 732).

In volume one of Capital, Marx wrote that “the capitalist mode of production is a historically necessary condition for the transformation of the labour process into a social process” (Marx 1992a, 453). As he saw it, “the socially productive power of labour develops as a free gift to capital whenever the workers are placed under certain conditions, and it is capital which places them under these conditions” (Marx 1992a, 451). Marx maintained that the most favourable circumstances for communism could develop only with the expansion of capital:

He [the capitalist] is fanatically intent on the valorization of value; consequently, he ruthlessly forces the human race to produce for production’s sake. In this way he spurs on the development of society’s productive forces, and the creation of those material conditions of production which alone can form the real basis of a higher form of society, a society in which the free and full development of every individual form the ruling principle. (Marx 1992a, 739)

Subsequent reflections on the decisive role of the capitalist mode of production in making communism a real historical possibility appear all the way through Marx’s critique of political economy. To be sure, he had clearly understood—as he wrote in the Grundrisse—that, if one of the tendencies of capital is “to create disposable time,” it subsequently “converts it into surplus value” (Marx 1973, 708). Still, with this mode of production, labour is valorized to the maximum, while “the amount of labour necessary for the production of a given object is [. . .] reduced to a minimum.” For Marx this was a fundamental point. The change it involved would “redound to the benefit of emancipated labour” and was “the condition of its emancipation” (Marx 1973, 701). Capital was thus, “despite itself, instrumental in creating the means of social disposable time, in order to replace labour time for the whole society to a diminishing minimum, and thus to free everyone’s time for their own development” (Marx 1973, 708).

Marx also noted that, to bring about a society in which the universal development of individuals was achievable, it was “necessary above all that the full development of the forces of production” should have become “the condition of production” (Marx 1973, 542). He therefore stated that the “great historical quality” of capital is:

to create this surplus labour, superfluous labour from the standpoint of mere use value, mere subsistence; and its historic destiny is fulfilled as soon as, on one side, there has been such a development of needs that surplus labour above and beyond necessity has itself become a general need arising out of individual needs themselves—and, on the other side, when the severe discipline of capital, acting on succeeding generations, has developed general industriousness as the general property of the new species—and, finally, when the development of the productive powers of labour, which capital incessantly whips onward with its unlimited mania for wealth, and of the sole conditions in which this mania can be realized, have flourished to the stage where the possession and preservation of general wealth require a lesser labour time of society as a whole, and where the labouring society relates scientifically to the process of its progressive reproduction, its reproduction in a constantly greater abundance; hence where labour in which a human being does what a thing could do has ceased. [. . .] This is why capital is productive; i.e., an essential relation for the development of the social productive forces. It ceases to exist as such only where the development of these productive forces themselves encounters its barrier in capital itself. (Marx 1973, 325)

Marx reaffirmed these convictions in the text “Results of the Immediate Process of Production.”  Having recalled the structural limits of capitalism—above all, the fact that it is a mode of “production in contradiction, and indifference, to the producer”—he focuses on its “positive side” (Marx 1992b, 1037). In comparison with the past, capitalism presents itself as “a form of production not bound to a level of needs laid down in advance, and hence it does not predetermine the course of production itself” (1037). It is precisely the growth of “the social productive forces of labour” that explains “the historic significance of capitalist production in its specific form” (1024). Marx, then, in the social-economic conditions of his time, regarded as fundamental the process of the creation of “wealth as such, i.e., the relentless productive forces of social labour, which alone can form the material base of a free human society” (990). What was “necessary” was to “abolish the contradictory form of capitalism” (1065).

The same theme recurs in volume three of Capital, when Marx underlines that the raising of “the conditions of production into general, communal, social conditions [. . .] is brought about by the development of the productive forces under capitalist production and by the manner and form in which this development is accomplished” (Marx 1993, 373).

While holding that capitalism was the best system yet to have existed, in terms of the capacity to expand the productive forces to the maximum, Marx also recognized that—despite the ruthless exploitation of human beings—it had a number of potentially progressive elements that allowed individual capacities to be fulfilled much more than in past societies. Deeply averse to the productivist maxim of capitalism, to the primacy of exchange-value and the imperative of surplus-value production, Marx considered the question of increased productivity in relation to the growth of individual capacities. Thus, he pointed out in the Grundrisse:

Not only do the objective conditions change in the act of reproduction, e.g., the village becomes a town, the wilderness a cleared field, etc., but the producers change, too, in that they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production, transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs and new language. (Marx 1973, 494)

This greatly more intense and complex development of the productive forces generated “the richest development of the individuals” (541) and “the universality of relations” (542). For Marx,

Capital’s ceaseless striving towards the general form of wealth drives labour beyond the limits of its natural paltriness, and thus creates the material elements for the development of the rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption, and whose labour also therefore appears no longer as labour, but as the full development of activity itself, in which natural necessity in its direct form has disappeared; because a historically created need has taken the place of the natural one. (325)

In short, for Marx capitalist production certainly produced “the alienation of the individual from himself and from others, but also the universality and the comprehensiveness of his relations and capacities” (162). Marx emphasized this point a number of times.

In the Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863, he noted that “a greater diversity of production [and] an extension of the sphere of social needs and the means for their satisfaction [. . .] also impels the development of human productive capacity and thereby the activation of human dispositions in fresh directions” (Marx 1988a, 199). In Theories of Surplus Value (1861–1863), he made it clear that the unprecedented growth of the productive forces generated by capitalism not only had economic effects but “revolutionises all political and social relationships” (Marx 1991, 344). And in volume one of Capital, he wrote that “the exchange of commodities breaks through all the individual and local limitations of the direct exchange of products, [but] there also develops a whole network of social connections of natural origin [gesellschaftlicher Naturzusammenhänge], entirely beyond the control of the human agents” (Marx 1992a, 207). It is a question of production that takes place “in a form adequate to the full development of the human race” (Marx 1992a, 638).

Finally, Marx took a positive view of certain tendencies in capitalism regarding women’s emancipation and the modernization of relations within the domestic sphere. In the important political document “Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council: The Different Questions,” which he drafted for the first congress of the International Working Men’s Association in 1866, he wrote that “although under capital it was distorted into an abomination [. . .] to make children and juvenile persons of both sexes co-operate in the great work of social production [is] a progressive, sound and legitimate tendency” (Marx 1985a, 188).

Similar judgments may be found in volume one of Capital, where he wrote:

However terrible and disgusting the dissolution of the old family ties within the capitalist system may appear, large-scale industry, by assigning an important part in socially organized processes of production, outside the sphere of the domestic economy, to women, young persons and children of both sexes, does nevertheless create a new economic foundation for a higher form of the family and of relations between the sexes. (Marx 1992a, 620–621)

Marx further noted that “the capitalist mode of production completes the disintegration of the primitive familial union which bound agriculture and manufacture together when they were both at an undeveloped and childlike stage.” One result of this was an “ever-growing preponderance [of] the urban population,” “the historical motive power of society” which “capitalist production collects together in great centres” (637). Using the dialectical method, to which he made frequent recourse in Capital and in its preparatory manuscripts, Marx argued that “the elements for forming a new society” were taking shape through the “maturing [of] material conditions and the social combination of the process of production” under capitalism (635). The material premises were thus being created for “a new and higher synthesis” (637). Although the revolution would never arise purely through economic dynamics but would always require the political factor as well, the advent of communism “requires that society possess a material foundation, or a series of material conditions of existence, which in their turn are the natural and spontaneous product [naturwüchsige Produkt] of a long and tormented historical development” (173).

III. Capitalism in Marx’s Later Political Interventions
Similar theses are presented in a number of short but significant political texts, contemporaneous with or subsequent to the composition of Capital, which confirm the continuity of Marx’s thinking. In Value, Price and Profit, he urged workers to grasp that, “with all the miseries that [capitalism] imposes on them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economic reconstruction of society” (Marx 1985c, 149).

In the “Confidential Communication on Bakunin” (1985d) sent on behalf of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association to the Brunswick committee of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP), Marx maintained that “although revolutionary initiative will probably come from France, England alone can serve as the lever for a serious economic revolution.”  He explained this as follows:

It is the only country where there are no more peasants and where landed property is concentrated in a few hands. It is the only country where the capitalist form—that is to say, combined labour on a large scale under capitalist masters—embraces virtually the whole of production. It is the only country where the great majority of the population consists of wage labourers. It is the only country where the class struggle and the organization of the working class by the trade unions have attained a certain degree of maturity and universality. It is the only country where, because of its domination on the world market, every revolution in economic matters must immediately affect the whole world. If landlordism and capitalism are classical features in England, on the other hand, the material conditions for their destruction are the most mature here. (Marx 1985d, 86)

In his “Notes on Bakunin’s Book Statehood and Anarchy,” which contain important indications of his radical differences with the Russian revolutionary concerning the prerequisites for an alternative society to capitalism, Marx reaffirmed, also with respect to the social subject that would lead the struggle for socialism that “a social revolution is bound up with definite historical conditions of economic development; these are its premises. It is only possible, therefore, where alongside capitalist production the industrial proletariat accounts for at least a significant mass of the people” (Marx 1989e, 518).

In the “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (1989f), in which he took issue with aspects of the platform for unification of the General Association of German Workers (ADAV) and the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany, Marx proposed: “In proportion as labour develops socially, and becomes therefore a source of wealth and culture, poverty and destitution develop among the workers, and wealth and culture among the non-workers.” And he added: “What had to be done here [. . .] was to prove concretely how in present capitalist society the material, etc., conditions have at last been created which enable and compel the workers to lift this historical curse” (Marx 1989f, 82–83).

Finally, in the “Preamble to the Programme of the French Workers’ Party” (1989g), a short text which he wrote three years before his death, Marx emphasized that an essential condition for the workers to be able to appropriate the means of production was “the collective form, whose material and intellectual elements are shaped by the very development of capitalist society” (Marx 1989g, 340).

Thus, with a continuity stretching from his early formulations of the materialist conception of history, in the 1840s, to his final political interventions of the 1880s, Marx highlighted the fundamental relationship between the productive growth generated by the capitalist mode of production and the preconditions for the communist society for which the workers’ movement must struggle. The research he conducted in the last years of his life, however, helped him to review this conviction and to avoid falling into the economism that marked the analyses of so many of his followers.

IV. A Not Always Necessary Transition 
Marx regarded capitalism as a “necessary point of transition” (Marx 1973, 515) for the conditions to unfold that would allow the proletariat to fight with some prospect of success to establish a socialist mode of production. In another passage in the Grundrisse, he repeated that capitalism was a “point of transition” (540) towards the further progress of society, which would permit “the highest development of the forces of production” and “the richest development of individuals” (541). Marx described “the contemporary conditions of production” as “suspending themselves and [. . .] positing the historic presuppositions for a new state of society” (461).

With an emphasis that sometimes heralds the idea of a capitalist predisposition to self-destruction,  Marx declared that “as the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result” (Marx 1973, 712). He said he was convinced that “the last form of servitude” (with this “last” Marx was certainly going too far),

assumed by human activity, that of wage labour on one side, capital on the other, is thereby cast off like a skin, and this casting-off itself is the result of the mode of production corresponding to capital; the material and mental conditions of the negation of wage labour and of capital, themselves already the negation of earlier forms of unfree social production, are themselves results of its production process. The growing incompatibility between the productive development of society and its hitherto existing relations of production expresses itself in bitter contradictions, crises, spasms. The violent destruction of capital not by relations external to it, but rather as a condition of its self-preservation, is the most striking form in which advice is given it to be gone and to give room to a higher state of social production. (Marx 1973, 749–750)

Further confirmation that Marx considered capitalism a fundamental stage for the birth of a socialist economy may be found in Theories of Surplus Value. Here he expressed his agreement with the economist Richard Jones (1790–1855), for whom “capital and the capitalist mode of production” were to be “accepted” merely as “a transitional phase in the development of social production.” Through capitalism, Marx writes, “the prospect opens up of a new society, [a new] economic formation of society, to which the bourgeois mode of production is only a transition” (Marx 1991, 346).

Marx elaborated a similar idea in volume one of Capital and its preparatory manuscripts. In the famous unpublished “Appendix: Result of the Immediate Process of Production,” he wrote that capitalism came into being following a “complete economic revolution”:

On the one hand, it creates the real conditions for the domination of labour by capital, perfecting the process and providing it with the appropriate framework. On the other hand, by evolving conditions of production and communication and productive forces of labour antagonistic to the workers involved in them, this revolution creates the real premises of a new mode of production, one that abolishes the contradictory form of capitalism. It thereby creates the material basis of a newly shaped social process and hence of a new social formation. (Marx 1992b, 1065)

In one of the concluding chapters of Capital, volume one—“The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation”—he stated:

The centralization of the means of production and the socialization of labour reaches a point at which they become incompatible with the capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. (Marx 1992a, 929)

Although Marx held that capitalism was an essential transition, in which the historical conditions were created for the workers’ movement to struggle for a communist transformation of society, he did not think that this idea could be applied in a rigid, dogmatic manner. On the contrary, he denied more than once—in both published and unpublished texts—that he had developed a unidirectional interpretation of history, in which human beings were everywhere destined to follow the same path and pass through the same stages.

V. The Possible Path of Russia
In the final years of his life, Marx repudiated the thesis wrongly attributed to him that the bourgeois mode of production was historically inevitable. His distance from this position was expressed when he found himself drawn into the debate on the possible development of capitalism in Russia. In an article entitled “Marx before the Tribunal of Yu Zhukovsky,” the Russian writer and sociologist Nikolai Mikhailovsky (1842–1904) accused him of considering capitalism as an unavoidable stage for the emancipation of Russia too (Mikhailovsky 1877, 321–356).  Marx replied, in a letter he drafted to the political-literary review Otechestvennye Zapiski (Fatherland Annals), that in volume one of Capital he had “claim[ed] no more than to trace the path by which, in Western Europe, the capitalist economic order emerged from the womb of the feudal economic order” (Marx 1983, 135).  Marx referred to a passage in the French edition of volume one of Capital (1872–1875), which suggested that the basis of the separation of the rural masses from their means of production had been “the expropriation of the agricultural producers,” but that “only in England” had this process “so far been accomplished in a radical manner,” and that “all the countries of Western Europe [were] following the same course” (Marx 1983, 135).  Accordingly, the object of his examination was only “the old continent,” not the whole world.

Marx referred to a passage in the French edition of Capital (Le Capital, Paris 1872–1875), where he asserted that the basis for the separation of the producers from their means of production was the “expropriation of the agricultural producers,” adding that “only in England [had this been] accomplished in a radical manner,” but that “all the other countries of Western Europe [were] following the same course” (Marx 1989h, 634).

This is the spatial horizon within which we should understand the famous statement in the preface of Capital, volume one: “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.” Writing for a German readership, Marx observed that, “just like the rest of Continental Western Europe, we suffer not only from the development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that development.” In his view, alongside “the modern evils,” the Germans were “oppressed by a whole series of inherited evils, arising from the passive survival of archaic and outmoded modes of production, with their accompanying train of anachronistic social and political relations” (Marx 1992a, 91).  It was for the German who might “in optimistic fashion comfort himself with the thought that in Germany things are not nearly so bad,” that Marx asserted “De te fabula narratur!” (90).

Marx also displayed a flexible approach to other European countries, since he did not think of Europe as a homogeneous whole. In a speech he gave in 1867 to the German Workers’ Educational Society in London, later published in Der Vorbote (The Harbinger) in Geneva, he argued that German proletarians could successfully carry out a revolution because, “unlike the workers in other countries, they need not go through the lengthy period of bourgeois development” (Marx 1985b, 415).

Marx expressed the same convictions in 1881, when the revolutionary Vera Zasulich (1849–1919) solicited his views on the future of the rural commune (obshchina). She wanted to know whether it might develop in a socialist form, or whether it was doomed to perish because capitalism would necessarily impose itself in Russia, too. In his reply, Marx stressed that in volume one of Capital he had “expressly restricted [. . .] the historical inevitability” of the development of capitalism—which had effected “a complete separation of the producer from the means of production”—to the countries of Western Europe” (Marx 1989c, 360).

In the preliminary drafts of the letter, Marx dwells on the peculiarities deriving from the coexistence of the rural commune with more advanced economic forms. Russia, he observed, is

contemporary with a higher culture, it is linked to a world market dominated by capitalist production. By appropriating the positive results of this mode of production, it is thus in a position to develop and transform the still archaic form of its rural commune, instead of destroying it. (Marx 1989c, 362)

The peasantry could “thus incorporate the positive acquisitions devised by the capitalist system without passing through its Caudine Forks” (Marx 1989d, 368).

To those who argued that capitalism was an unavoidable stage for Russia too, on the grounds that it was impossible for history to advance in leaps, Marx asked ironically whether this meant that Russia, “like the West,” had had “to pass through a long incubation period in the engineering industry [. . .] in order to utilize machines, steam engines, railways, etc.” Similarly, had it not been possible “to introduce in the twinkling of an eye, the entire mechanism of exchange (banks, credit institutions, etc.), which it took the West centuries to devise?” (Marx 1989d, 349). It was evident that the history of Russia, or of any other country, did not inevitably have to retrace all the stages that the history of England or other European nations had experienced. Hence, the socialist transformation of the obshchina might also take place without necessarily having to pass through capitalism.

In the same period, Marx’s theoretical research on precapitalist community relations, compiled in his Ethnographic Notebooks, were leading him in the same direction as the one evident in his reply to Zasulich. Spurred on by his reading of the work of the US anthropologist Lewis Morgan (1818–1881), he wrote in propagandistic tones that “Europe and America,” the nations where capitalism was most developed, could “aspire only to break [their] chains by replacing capitalist production with cooperative production, and capitalist property with a higher form of the archaic type of property, i.e., communist property” (Marx 1989c, 362).

Marx’s model was not at all a “primitive type of cooperative or collective production” resulting from “the isolated individual,” but one deriving from “socialization of the means of production” (Marx 1989b, 351). He had not changed his (thoroughly critical) view of the rural communes in Russia, and in his analysis the development of the individual and social production preserved intact their irreplaceable centrality.
In Marx’s reflections on Russia, then, there is no dramatic break with his previous ideas.  The new elements in comparison with the past involve a maturation of his theoretical-political position, which led him to consider other possible roads to communism that he had earlier considered unrealizable.

VI. Conclusions
The idea that the development of socialism might be plausible in Russia did not have as its sole foundation Marx’s study of the economic situation there. Contact with the Russian Populists, like his contact with the Paris Communards a decade earlier, helped to make him ever more open to the possibility that history would witness not only a succession of modes of production, but also the irruption of revolutionary events and of the subjectivities that produce them. He felt called upon to pay even more heed to historical specificities, and to the uneven development of political and economic conditions among different countries and social contexts.

Beyond his unwillingness to accept that a predefined historical development might appear in the same way in different economic and political contexts, Marx’s theoretical advances were due to the evolution of his thinking on the effects of capitalism in economically backward countries. He no longer maintained, as he had in 1853 in an article on India for the New-York Tribune, that “bourgeois industry and commerce create [the] conditions of a new world” (Marx 1979b, 222). Years of detailed study and close observation of changes in international politics had helped him to develop a vision of British colonialism quite unlike the one he had expressed as a journalist in his mid-thirties.  The effects of capitalism in colonial countries now looked very different to him. Referring to the “East Indies,” in one of the drafts of his letter to Zasulich, he wrote that “everyone [. . .] realizes that the suppression of communal ownership  there was nothing but an act of English vandalism, pushing  the native people backwards not forwards” (Marx 1989d, 365).  In his view, “all they [the British] managed to do was ruin native agriculture and double the number and severity of the famines” (Marx 1989d, 368).  Capitalism did not, as its apologists boasted, bring progress and emancipation, but the pillage of natural resources, environmental devastation and new forms of servitude and human dependence.

Marx returned in 1882 to the possibility of a concomitance between capitalism and forms of community from the past. In January, in the preface to the new Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which he co-authored with Engels, the fate of the Russian rural commune is linked to that of proletarian struggles in Western Europe:

In Russia we find, face to face with the rapidly developing capitalist swindle and bourgeois landed property, which is just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, a form of primeval common ownership of land, even if greatly undermined, pass directly to the higher form of communist common ownership? Or must it, conversely, first pass through the same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical development of the West? The only answer possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for communist development. (Marx and Engels 1989a, 426)

In 1853, Marx had already analysed the effects produced by the economic presence of the English in China in the article “Revolution in China and in Europe” written for the New York Tribune. Marx thought it was possible that the revolution in this country could lead to “the explosion of the long-prepared general crisis, which, spreading abroad, will be closely followed by political revolutions on the Continent.”  He added that this would be a “curious spectacle, that of China sending disorder into the Western World while the Western powers, by English, French and American war-steamers, are conveying ‘order’ to Shanghai, Nanking and the mouths of the Great Canal” (Marx 1979b, 98).

Besides, Marx’s reflections on Russia were not the only reason for him to think that the destinies of different revolutionary movements, active in countries with dissimilar social-economic contexts, might become entwined with one another. Between 1869 and 1870, in various letters and a number of documents of the International Working Men’s Association—perhaps most clearly and concisely in a letter to his comrades Sigfrid Meyer (1840–1872) and August Vogt (1817–1895)—he associated the future of England (“the metropolis of capital”) with that of the more backward Ireland. The former was undoubtedly “the power that has hitherto ruled the world market,” and therefore “for the present the most important country for the workers’ revolution”; it was, “in addition, the only country where the material conditions for the revolution have developed to a certain state of maturity” (Marx and Engels 1988, 474–475).

However, “after studying the Irish question for years,” Marx had become convinced that “the decisive blow against the ruling classes in England”—and, deluding himself, “decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world”—“cannot be struck in England, but only in Ireland.” The most important objective remained “to hasten the social revolution in England,” but the “sole means of doing this” was “to make Ireland independent” (Marx and Engels 1988, 473–476).  In any event, Marx considered industrial, capitalist England to be strategically central for the struggle of the workers’ movement; the revolution in Ireland, possible only if the “forced union between the two countries” was ended, would be a “social revolution”  that would manifest itself “in outmoded forms” (Marx 1985d, 86). The subversion of bourgeois power in nations where the modern forms of production were still only developing would not be sufficient to bring about the disappearance of capitalism.

The dialectical position that Marx arrived at in his final years allowed him to discard the idea that the socialist mode of production could be constructed only through certain fixed stages.  The materialist conception of history that he developed is far from the mechanical sequence to which his thought has been reduced several times. It cannot be assimilated with the idea that human history is a progressive succession of modes of production, mere preparatory phases before the inevitable conclusion: the birth of a communist society.

Moreover, he explicitly denied the historical necessity of capitalism in every part of the world. In the famous “Preface” to the Critique of Political Economy, he tentatively listed the progression of “Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production,” as the end of the “prehistory of human society” (Marx 1987, 263–264) and similar phrases can be found in other writings. However, this idea represents only a small part of Marx’s larger oeuvre on the genesis and development of different forms of production. His method cannot be reduced to economic determinism.

Marx did not change his basic ideas about the profile of future communist society, as he sketched it from the Grundrisse on. Guided by hostility to the schematisms of the past, and to the new dogmatisms arising in his name, he thought it might be possible that the revolution would break out in forms and conditions that had never been considered before.

Bibliography
Ahmad, A. 1992. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. London: Verso.
al-Azm, S. J. 1980. “Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse.” Khamsin: Journal of Revolutionary Socialists of the Middle-East, no. 8: 5–26.
Arico, J. 2014. Marx and Latin America. Leiden: Brill.
Chakrabarty, D. 2000 Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, P. 2004. The Politics of the Governed: Popular Politics in Most of the World. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dussel, E. 1990. El último Marx (1863–1882) y la liberación latinoamericana. México D. F.: Siglo XXI.
Guha, R. 1997. Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Habib, I. 2006. “Marx’s Perception of India.” In Karl Marx on India, edited by I. Husain, xix–liv. New Delhi: Tulika.
Krader, L. ed. 1972. The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Krader, L. 1975. The Asiatic Mode of Production. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Lazarus, N. 2002. “The Fetish of ‘the West’ in Postcolonial Theory.” In Marxism, Modernity and Postcolonial Studies, edited by C. Bartolovich and N. Lazarus, 43–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K. 1963. Œuvres. Économie I. Paris: Gallimard.
Marx, K. 1973. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. London: Penguin/New Left Review.
Marx, K. 1976. “Wages.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 6, 415–437. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1978. The Class Struggles in France. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 10, 45–146., London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1979a. “The Future Results of British Rule in India.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 12, 217–223. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1979b. “Revolution in China and in Europe.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 12, 93–100. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1980. “Speech at the Anniversary of the People’s Paper.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 14, 655–656. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1983. “A Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski.” In Late Marx and the Russian Road, edited by T. Shanin, 134–138. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Marx, K. 1985a. “Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council: The Different Questions.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 20, 185–193. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1985b. “Report of a Speech by Karl Marx at the Anniversary Celebration of the German Workers’ Educational Society in London, February 28, 1867.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 20, 415. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1985c. Value, Price and Profit. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 20, 101–149. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1985d. “Confidential Communication on Bakunin.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 21, 112–124. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1986. “Investigation of Tortures in India.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 15, 336–341. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1987. Critique of Political Economy. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 29, 257–417. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1988a. Economic Manuscript of 1861–1863. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 30, 9–411. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1988b. “Exzerpte aus John Wade: History of the Middle and Working Classes.” In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe2, vol. IV/4, 288–301. Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. 1988c. “Exzerpte aus John Wade: History of the Middle and Working Classes (Fortsetzung).” In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe2, vol. IV/4, 303. Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. 1989a. “Letter to Otechestvenniye Zapiski.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 196–201. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1989b. “First Draft of the Letter to Vera Zasulich.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 346–359. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1989c. “Second Draft of the Letter to Vera Zasulich.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 360–363. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1989d. “Third Draft of the Letter to Vera Zasulich.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 364–369. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1989e. “Notes on Bakunin’s Book Statehood and Anarchy.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 485–526. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1989f. Critique of the Gotha Programme. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 75–99. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1989g. “Preamble to the Programme of the French Workers’ Party.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 340–342. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1989h. Le Capital, Paris 1872–1875. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe2, vol. II/7, 9–702. Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. 1991. Theories of Surplus Value (1861–1863). In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 33, 9–504. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K. 1992a. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. London: Penguin Classics.
Marx, K. 1992b. “Appendix: Results of the Immediate Process of Production.” In Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1, 943–1084. London: Penguin Classics.
Marx, K. 1993. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 3. London: Penguin Classics.
Marx, K., and Engels F. 1976. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 6, 477–519. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K., Engels F. 1978. “Review, January-February 1850.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 10, 257–270. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K., and Engels F. 1983. Letters 1856–59. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 40. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K., and Engels F. 1987. Letters 1856–59. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 42. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K., and Engels F. 1988. Letters 1868–70. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 43. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K., and Engels F. 1989a. “Preface to the Second Russian Edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, 425–426. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K., and Engels F. 1991. Letters 1874–79. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 45. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, K., and Engels F. 1992. Letters 1880–83. In Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 46. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Mikhailovsky, N. 1877. “Karl Marks pered sudom g. Yu. Zhukovskogo.” Otechestvennye Zapiski 4 (10): 321–356.
Musto, M. 2008. “History, Production and Method in the ‘1857 Introduction.’” In Karl Marx’s Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy 150 Years Later, edited by M. Musto, 3–32. London and New York: Routledge.
Musto, M. 2010. “The Formation of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: From the Studies of 1843 to the Grundrisse.” Socialism and Democracy 24 (2, July): 66–100.
Musto, M. 2014. “Introduction.” In Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later, edited by M. Musto, 1–68. London: Bloomsbury.
Musto, M. 2018. “Capital: The Unfinished Critique.” In Another Marx: Early Manuscripts to the International, edited by M. Musto, 137–68. London: Bloomsbury.
Musto, M., ed. 2019. Marx’s Capital after 150 Years: Critique and Alternative to Capitalism. London: Routledge.
Musto, M. 2020a. “Communism.” In The Marx Revival: Key Concepts and New Interpretations, edited by M. Musto, 24–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Musto, M. 2020b. The Last Years of Karl Marx: An Intellectual Biography, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Musto, M. 2020c. “New Profiles of Marx after the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²).” Contemporary Sociology 49 (4): 407–419.
Said, E. 1995. Orientalism. London: Penguin.
Sawer, M. 1977. Marxism and the Question of the Asiatic Mode of Production. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Shanin, T. ed. 1983. Late Marx and the Russian Road. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Wade, J. 1835. History of the Middle and Working Classes. 3rd ed. London: Wilson.

Categories
Journal Articles

Novas caracterizações de Marx após a Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2)

O ressurgimento de Marx
Há mais de uma década, jornais e periódicos prestigiosos que contam com um amplo público leitor têm descrito Karl Marx como um teórico previdente, cuja atualidade é constantemente confirmada. Muitos autores com visões progressistas sustentam que suas ideias continuam indispensáveis para qualquer um que acredita ser necessário construir uma alternativa ao capitalismo. Em quase todo lugar, ele é tema de cursos universitários e de conferências internacionais. Seus escritos, reimpressos ou publicados em novas edições, têm reaparecido nas prateleiras das livrarias, e o estudo de sua obra, após vinte anos ou mais de negligência, tem ganhado impulso crescente. Os anos de 2017 e 2018 trouxeram maior intensidade a esse “ressurgimento de Marx”[1], graças a muitas iniciativas ao redor do mundo ligadas ao 150° aniversário da publicação de O capital e o bicentenário do nascimento de Marx.

As ideias de Marx têm mudado o mundo. Apesar da ratificação de suas teorias, tornadas ideologias dominantes e doutrinas de Estado para uma parte considerável da humanidade no século XX, não existe edição completa de todas as suas obras e manuscritos. O principal motivo para isso está no caráter incompleto dos trabalhos de Marx: as obras que ele publicou somam consideravelmente menos que o número total de projetos deixados inacabados, para não falar do imenso Nachlass [espólio] de notas relativas a suas infinitas pesquisas. Marx deixou, então, muito mais manuscritos que aqueles enviados aos tipógrafos. A incompletude foi uma parte inseparável de sua vida: a pobreza por vezes opressiva na qual ele viveu, assim como seus constantes problemas de saúde, se somaram às suas aflições diárias; seu método rigoroso e sua autocrítica impiedosa aumentaram as dificuldades de muitos de seus empreendimentos. Além disso, sua paixão pelo conhecimento permaneceu inalterada ao longo do tempo e sempre o levou a novos estudos. No entanto, seus incessantes trabalhos teriam as consequências teóricas mais extraordinárias para o futuro.

A retomada da publicação da Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2), a edição histórico-crítica das obras completas de Marx e Friedrich Engels, em 1998, foi de particular relevância para a reavaliação das realizações de Marx. Já vieram a lume mais vinte e oito volumes (quarenta[2] foram publicados entre 1975 e 1989) e outros estão em preparação. A MEGA2 está organizada em quatro seções: (1) todas as obras, artigos e esboços escritos por Marx e Engels (com exceção de O capital); (2) O capital e todos seus materiais preparatórios; (3) a correspondência, que consiste em 4.000 cartas escritas por Marx e Engels e 10.000 escritas a eles por outros, um grande número das quais publicado pela primeira vez na MEGA2; e (4) os excertos, anotações e notas marginais. Essa quarta seção atesta os trabalhos verdadeiramente enciclopédicos de Marx: desde seu tempo na universidade, era seu hábito compilar estratos dos livros que lia[3], entremeando-os frequentemente com reflexões que esses estratos lhe sugeriam. O legado literário de Marx contém cerca de duzentos cadernos de notas. Eles são essenciais para a compreensão da gênese de sua teoria e daqueles elementos que fora incapaz de desenvolver do modo que gostaria. Os excertos preservados, que cobrem o longo intervalo de tempo entre 1838 e 1882, estão escritos em oito idiomas (alemão, grego antigo, latim, francês, inglês, italiano, espanhol e russo) e se referem às mais variadas disciplinas. Eles foram tomados de obras de filosofia, história da arte, religião, política, direito, literatura, história, economia política, relações internacionais, tecnologia, matemática, fisiologia, geologia, mineralogia, agronomia, antropologia, química e física – incluindo não apenas livros, jornais e artigos de periódicos, mas também atas parlamentares, bem como estatísticas governamentais e relatórios. Essa imensa reserva de conhecimento, da qual muito foi publicado em anos recentes ou ainda aguarda ser impresso, foi o canteiro de obras para a teoria crítica de Marx e a MEGA2 deu acesso inédito a ele[4].

Esses materiais inestimáveis – muitos disponíveis apenas em alemão e, portanto, confinados em pequenos círculos de pesquisadores – nos mostram um autor muito diferente daquele que vários críticos, ou autodenominados discípulos, apresentaram por tanto tempo. De fato, as novas aquisições textuais presentes na MEGA2 possibilitam dizer que, dos clássicos do pensamento político, econômico e filosófico, Marx é o autor cujo perfil mais mudou nas décadas iniciais do século XXI. A nova configuração política decorrente da implosão da União Soviética também contribuiu para essa nova percepção, pois o fim do marxismo-leninismo finalmente libertou a obra de Marx dos grilhões de uma ideologia que dista anos-luz de sua concepção de sociedade.

Pesquisas recentes têm refutado as várias abordagens que reduzem a concepção marxiana de sociedade comunista ao desenvolvimento superior das forças produtivas. Por exemplo, tem sido mostrada a importância que Marx atribuiu à questão ecológica: ele denunciou repetidas vezes o fato de que a expansão do modo capitalista de produção aumenta não apenas o roubo do trabalho dos trabalhadores, mas também a pilhagem dos recursos naturais. Marx se aprofundou em várias outras questões que, embora frequentemente subestimadas, ou até mesmo ignoradas, por estudiosos de sua obra, estão ganhando importância crucial para a agenda política de nosso tempo. Entre essas questões estão a liberdade individual nas esferas econômica e política, emancipação de gênero, a crítica do nacionalismo, o potencial emancipatório da tecnologia, e formas de propriedade coletiva não controladas pelo Estado. Assim, trinta anos após a queda do muro de Berlim, tornou-se possível ler um Marx muito diferente do teórico dogmático, economicista e eurocêntrico que circulou por tanto tempo entre nós.

Novas descobertas sobre a gênese da concepção materialista da história
Em fevereiro de 1845, após intensos 15 meses em Paris que foram cruciais para sua formação política, Marx foi obrigado a mudar para Bruxelas, onde foi autorizado a residir sob a condição de que ele “não publique nada sobre a política atual”[5]. Durante os três anos que passou na capital belga, ele prosseguiu de modo profícuo com seus estudos de economia política e concebeu a ideia de escrever, junto com Engels, Joseph Weydemeyer e Moses Hess, uma “crítica da moderna filosofia alemã, tal como exposta pelos seus representantes Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer e Max Stirner, e do socialismo alemão, tal como exposto por seus vários profetas”[6]. O texto resultante, postumamente publicado sob o título A ideologia alemã, tinha um duplo objetivo: combater as últimas formas do neo-hegelianismo na Alemanha, e então, como escreveu Marx ao editor Carl Wilhelm Julius Leske, “preparar o público para o ponto de vista adotado em minha Economia, que é diametralmente oposto à ciência alemã, passada e presente”[7]. Esse manuscrito, sobre o qual ele trabalhou até junho de 1846, nunca foi terminado, mas o auxiliou a elaborar de modo mais nítido, ainda que não em uma forma definitiva, aquilo que, quarenta anos depois, Engels definiu para o público mais amplo como “a concepção materialista da história”[8].

A primeira edição de A ideologia alemã, publicada em 1932, bem como todas as versões posteriores que apenas incorporaram pequenas modificações, foram enviadas às gráficas com a aparência de um livro completo. Em particular, os editores desse manuscrito de fato inacabado criaram a falsa impressão de que A ideologia alemã incluía um capítulo inicial essencial sobre Feuerbach, no qual Marx e Engels expunham exaustivamente as leis do “materialismo histórico” (um termo nunca usado por Marx). De acordo com Althusser, esse foi o lugar onde eles conceituaram “uma inequívoca ruptura epistemológica” com seus escritos anteriores (Althusser, s/d, p. 33). A ideologia alemã logo se tornou um dos mais importantes textos filosóficos do século XX. De acordo com Henri Lefebvre, ele expôs as “teses fundamentais do materialismo histórico” (Lefebvre, 1968, p. 71). Maximilien Rubel defendia que esse “manuscrito contém a demonstração mais elaborada do conceito crítico e materialista de história” (Rubel, 1980, p. 13). David McLellan foi igualmente incisivo em sustentar que ele “continha a mais detalhada consideração de Marx acerca de sua concepção materialista da história” (McLellan, 1975, p. 37).

Graças ao volume I/5 da MEGA2, “Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Deutsche Ideologie. Manuskripte und Drucke (1845-1847)”[9], muitas dessas reivindicações podem agora ser suavizadas e A ideologia alemã, restituída à sua incompletude original. Essa edição – que compreende 17 manuscritos com um total de 700 páginas mais o aparato crítico de 1200 páginas, fornecendo variações e correções autorais e indicando a paternidade de cada seção – estabelece de uma vez por todas o caráter fragmentário do texto[10]. A falácia do “comunismo  científico” característica do século XX e todas as instrumentalizações de A ideologia alemã recordam um trecho a ser encontrado no próprio texto, pois que a sua crítica convincente da filosofia alemã dos tempos de Marx ressoa, também, uma advertência amarga contra futuras tendências exegéticas: “Havia uma mistificação não apenas em suas respostas, mas também em suas perguntas”[11].

No mesmo período, o jovem revolucionário nascido em Trier expandiu os estudos que havia iniciado em Paris. Ele passou os meses de julho e agosto de 1845 em Manchester a mergulhar na vasta literatura econômica de língua inglesa e a compilar nove cadernos de estratos (os assim chamados Cadernos de Manchester), majoritariamente a partir de manuais de economia política e livros sobre história econômica. O volume IV/4 da MEGA2, publicado em 1988, contém os cinco primeiros desses cadernos, junto com três cadernos de anotações de Engels do mesmo período em Manchester[12]. O volume IV/5, “Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Exzerpte und Notizen. Juli 1845 bis Dezember 1850”[13], completa essa série de textos e disponibiliza aos pesquisadores suas partes antes não publicadas. Ele inclui os cadernos 6, 7, 8 e 9, que contém os excertos marxianos de 16 obras de economia política. O mais considerável desse grupo adveio de Labour’s wrong and Labour’s Remedy [Os males do trabalho e seu remédio] (1839), de John Francis Bray, e de quatro textos de Robert Owen, em particular de seu Book of the New Moral World [Livro do novo mundo moral] (1840-1844), todos os quais evidenciam o grande interesse de Marx à época pelo socialismo inglês e seu profundo respeito por Owen, um autor que muitos marxistas têm precipitadamente descartado como “utópico”. O volume termina com cerca de vinte páginas escritas por Marx entre 1846 e 1850, além de algumas notas de estudo de Engels do mesmo período.

Esses estudos sobre teoria socialista e economia política não eram um entrave para o habitual engajamento político de Marx e Engels. As mais de 800 páginas do recentemente publicado volume I/7, “Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe. Februar bis Oktober 1848”[14], permite-nos estimar a escala disso em 1848, um dos anos mais desgastantes em termos de atividade política e jornalística das vidas dos autores do Manifesto do partido comunista. Após um movimento revolucionário de extensão e intensidade inéditas mergulhar a ordem política e social da Europa continental em uma crise, os governos vigentes tomaram todas as contramedidas possíveis para pôr um fim às insurreições. O próprio Marx sofreu as consequências e foi expulso da Bélgica em março daquele ano. Contudo, uma república acabara de ser proclamada na França, e Ferdinand Flocon, um ministro do governo provisório, convidou Marx a retornar a Paris: “Caro e bravo Marx, (…) a tirania o baniu, mas a França livre reabrirá suas portas para ti”. Naturalmente, Marx colocou de lado seus estudos sobre economia política e assumiu a atividade jornalística em apoio à revolução, ajudando, assim, no traçado de um rumo político apropriado. Depois de um breve período em Paris, ele mudou, em abril, para a Renânia e, dois meses mais tarde, começou a editar a Neue Rheinische Zeitung [Nova Gazeta Renana], que, nesse meio tempo, havia sido fundada em Colônia. Uma campanha intensa em suas colunas deu suporte à causa dos insurgentes e incitou o proletariado a promover “a revolução social e republicana”[15].

Quase todos os artigos presentes na Neue Rheinische Zeitung foram publicados de modo anônimo. Um dos méritos desse volume é ter atribuído corretamente a autoria de 36 textos a Marx ou a Engels, enquanto coletâneas anteriores haviam nos deixado em dúvida quanto a quem escreveu qual peça. De um total de 275 artigos, 125 são integralmente impressos aqui pela primeira vez em uma edição das obras de Marx e Engels. Um apêndice apresenta, ainda, 16 documentos interessantes, contendo relatos de algumas de suas intervenções nas conferências da Liga dos Comunistas, nas assembleias da Sociedade Democrática de Colônia e na Associação de Viena. Quem tiver interesse pela atividade política e jornalística de Marx durante 1848, o “ano da revolução”, encontrará aqui um material muito valioso para aprofundar seu conhecimento.

O capital: a crítica inacabada
O movimento revolucionário que se ergueu por toda a Europa em 1848 foi derrotado dentro de um curto espaço de tempo e, em 1849, após duas ordens de expulsão da Prússia e da França, Marx não teve outra opção além de atravessar o Canal da Mancha. Ele permaneceria na Inglaterra como uma pessoa exilada e apátrida pelo resto de sua vida, mas a reação europeia não poderia tê-lo confinado em um lugar melhor para escrever sua crítica da economia política. Àquela época, Londres era o principal centro econômico e financeiro do mundo, o “demiurgo do cosmo burguês”[16], e, portanto, o lugar mais favorável a partir do qual se podia observar os últimos desenvolvimentos econômicos da sociedade capitalista. Ele também se tornou correspondente do New-York Tribune, o jornal com maior circulação nos Estados Unidos da América.

Marx esperou por muitos anos a eclosão de uma nova crise e, quando ela se materializou em 1857, dedicou muito do seu tempo à análise de suas características principais. O volume I/16, “Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Artikel Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858”[17], inclui 84 artigos que ele publicou entre o outono de 1857 e o fim de 1858 no New-York Tribune, dentre os quais aqueles em que expressa suas primeiras reações ao público financeiro de 1857. Não obstante o fato de que o diário americano publicava frequentemente editoriais não assinados, a pesquisa para esse novo volume da MEGA2 possibilitou atribuir mais dois artigos a Marx, bem como incluir quatro artigos que foram substancialmente modificados pelos editores e outros três cuja origem permanece incerta.

Movido por uma desesperada necessidade de melhorar sua situação econômica, Marx também ingressou no comitê editorial do The New American Cyclopædia e concordou em redigir uma certa quantidade de verbetes para esse projeto (o volume I/16 contém 39 deles). Mesmo que o pagamento de dois dólares por página fosse muito baixo, ainda assim era uma receita que ingressava em suas desastrosas finanças. Além disso, ele confiou a maioria do trabalho a Engels, de modo que pudesse dedicar mais tempo aos seus escritos econômicos.

Nesse período, o trabalho de Marx foi notável e abrangente. Paralelamente a seu compromisso jornalístico, ele preencheu, entre agosto de 1857 e maio de 1858, os oito cadernos celebremente conhecidos como Grundrisse. Mas ele também colocou a si mesmo a extenuante tarefa de um estudo analítico da primeira crise econômica mundial. O volume IV/4, “Karl Marx, Exzerpte, Zeitungsausschnitte und Notizen zur Weltwirtschaftskrise (Krisenhefte). November 1857 bis Februar 1858”[18], contribui de modo decisivo para nosso conhecimento acerca de um dos intervalos mais profícuos da produção teórica de Marx. Ele descreveu seu surto febril de atividade em uma carta a Engels de dezembro de 1857:

Tenho trabalhado demais, geralmente até às 4 da manhã. O trabalho é duplo: 1. A elaboração das linhas fundamentais [Grundrisse] da economia política. (Em favor do público, é absolutamente essencial adentrar a matéria até o fundo, assim como para mim, individualmente, é absolutamente essencial se livrar desse pesadelo.) 2. A presente crise. Além dos artigos para a [New-York] Tribune, o que faço é apenas registrá-la, o que, entretanto, toma um tempo considerável. Penso que em algum momento da primavera devemos escrever juntos um panfleto sobre o caso, como um lembrete ao público alemão de que continuamos lá como sempre, e sempre os mesmos[19].

Portanto, o plano de Marx era trabalhar simultaneamente em dois projetos: um trabalho teórico sobre a crítica do modo de produção capitalista, e um livro mais estritamente atual sobre as vicissitudes da crise em curso. Essa é a razão pela qual Marx, diferentemente do que ocorre em volumes anteriores similares, não compila, nos assim chamados Cadernos sobre a Crise, estratos de obras de outros economistas; antes, coletou uma grande quantidade de boletins de notícias sobre os maiores colapsos bancários, sobre as variações nos preços do mercado acionário, mudanças nos padrões dos fluxos comerciais, taxas de desemprego e produção industrial. A atenção particular dispensada a essa última distinguiu sua análise em relação àquela de muitos outros que atribuíam às crises a concessão deficiente de crédito e o aumento nos fenômenos especulativos. Marx dividiu suas notas em três cadernos distintos. No primeiro e mais curto caderno, intitulado “1857 France”, ele coletou dados sobre a situação do comércio francês e as principais medidas tomadas pelo Banco da França. O segundo, o “Livro sobre a Crise de 1857”, tinha quase o dobro do tamanho do primeiro e lidava principalmente com o Reino Unido e o mercado monetário. Temas similares foram tratados no terceiro caderno, o “Livro sobre a Crise Comercial”. Pouco maior que o segundo, Marx anotara nesse caderno dados e notícias sobre relações industriais, a produção de matérias-primas e o mercado de trabalho.

O trabalho de Marx foi, como sempre, rigoroso: ele copiou de mais de uma dúzia de periódicos e jornais, em ordem cronológica, as partes mais interessantes de vários artigos e qualquer outra informação que ele pudesse usar para condensar aquilo que estava acontecendo. Sua principal fonte foi o semanário The Economist, de onde extraiu cerca de metade de suas notas, embora também consultasse frequentemente a Morning Star, The Manchester Guardian e The Times. Todos os estratos foram compilados em inglês. Nesses cadernos, Marx não se deteve na transcrição dos principais boletins de notícias a respeito dos Estados Unidos e do Reino Unido. Ele também rastreou os eventos mais significantes em outros países europeus – em particular França, Alemanha, Áustria, Itália e Espanha – e interessou-se vigorosamente por outras partes do mundo, em especial Índia e China, o Extremo Oriente, Egito e, até mesmo, Brasil e Austrália.

Com o passar das semanas, Marx desistiu da ideia de publicar um livro sobre a crise e concentrou todas as suas energias em seu trabalho teórico, a crítica da economia política, que, do seu ponto de vista, não poderia admitir mais nenhum atraso. Ainda assim, os Cadernos sobre a crise permanecem particularmente úteis para a refutação de uma falsa ideia sobre os principais interesses de Marx nesse período. Em uma carta a Engels do começo de 1858, ele escreveu que, “quanto ao método”, lançar mão da “Lógica de Hegel foi de grande utilidade” para seu trabalho, e que, além disso, queria destacar seu “aspecto racional”[20]. Com base nisso, alguns intérpretes da obra de Marx têm concluído que, ao escrever os Grundrisse, ele gastou um tempo considerável estudando a filosofia hegeliana. Mas a publicação do volume IV/14 deixa muito claro que sua principal preocupação à época era com a análise empírica dos eventos ligados à grande crise econômica que há tanto tempo estava prevendo.

Os esforços infatigáveis de Marx para completar sua “crítica da economia política” são, ainda, o tema principal do volume III/12, “Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Briefwechsel. Januar 1862 bis September 1864”[21], que contém sua correspondência do começo de 1862 até a fundação da Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores. Das 425 cartas preservadas, 112 são correspondências entre Marx e Engels, enquanto 35 foram escritas por eles para terceiros, e 278 remetidas a eles por terceiros (sendo 227 cartas desse grupo publicadas aqui pela primeira vez). A inclusão das últimas – a diferença mais significante em relação a todas as edições anteriores – constitui um verdadeiro tesouro para o leitor interessado, dado que fornece uma gama de novas informações sobre eventos e teorias que Marx e Engels aprenderam com mulheres e homens com quem compartilhavam um compromisso político.

Como todos os outros volumes de correspondência da MEGA2, esse também termina com um registro de cartas escritas por - ou endereçadas a - Marx e Engels que não deixaram mais do que vestígios atestando sua existência. Elas chegam a um total de 125 cartas, quase um quarto do número que sobreviveu, e incluem 57 escritas por Marx. Nesses casos, mesmo o pesquisador mais exigente nada pode fazer além de especular sobre várias hipóteses conjecturais.

Entre os principais pontos de discussão presentes na correspondência de Marx no começo dos anos 1860 estavam a guerra civil norte-americana, a revolta polonesa contra a ocupação russa, e o nascimento do Partido Social-Democrata da Alemanha inspirado pelos princípios de Ferdinand Lassalle. No entanto, um tema constantemente recorrente era sua luta para progredir na escrita de O capital.

Nesse período, Marx se lançou em uma nova área de pesquisa: as Teorias sobre o mais-valor. Em mais de dez cadernos, ele dissecou minuciosamente a abordagem dos maiores economistas que lhe precederam, sendo sua ideia básica a de que “todos os economistas compartilham o erro de examinar o mais-valor não como tal, não em sua forma pura, mas nas formas particulares do lucro e da renda”[22]. Entrementes, a situação econômica de Marx continuava desesperadora. Em junho de 1862 escreveu a Engels: “Todo dia minha esposa diz desejar que ela e as crianças estivessem seguras em seus túmulos, e realmente não posso culpá-la, pois as humilhações, tormentos e inquietações que se passa em tal situação são, de fato, indescritíveis”. A situação era tão extrema que Jenny decidiu vender alguns livros da biblioteca pessoal de seu marido – ainda que ela não tenha conseguido encontrar ninguém que quisesse comprá-los. Contudo, Marx conseguiu “trabalhar duro” e expressou uma nota de satisfação a Engels: “estranho dizer, mas minha massa cinzenta está funcionando melhor em meio à pobreza circundante do que funcionava há anos”[23]. Em setembro, Marx escreveu a Engels que poderia conseguir um emprego “em um escritório ferroviário” no ano novo[24]. Em dezembro, repetiu a seu amigo Ludwig Kugelmann que as coisas haviam se tornado tão desesperadoras que ele tinha “decidido se tornar um ‘homem prático’”; nada deu certo, no entanto. Marx relatou com seu típico sarcasmo: “Felizmente – ou talvez teria que dizer infelizmente? – não consegui o cargo por conta da minha caligrafia ruim”[25].

Paralelamente às tensões financeiras, Marx sofreu por demais com problemas de saúde. Não obstante, do verão de 1863 a dezembro de 1865, ele embarcou na continuidade da edição das várias partes nas quais ele havia decidido subdividir O capital. Ao fim e ao cabo, ele conseguiu elaborar o primeiro esboço do Livro I; o único manuscrito do Livro III, no qual redigira sua única consideração acerca do processo completo da produção capitalista; e uma versão inicial do Livro II, contendo a primeira apresentação geral do processo de circulação do capital.

O volume II/11 da MEGA2, “Karl Marx, Manuskripte zum zweiten Buch des ‘Kapitals’ 1868 bis 1881”[26], contém todos os manuscritos finais relativos ao Livro II de O capital que Marx esboçou entre 1868 e 1881. Nove desses dez manuscritos não haviam sido publicados até então. Em outubro de 1867, Marx retomou o Livro II de O capital, mas vários problemas de saúde forçaram-no a outra súbita interrupção. Alguns meses depois, quando foi capaz de prosseguir com o trabalho, já haviam se passado cerca de três anos desde a última versão que ele escrevera. Marx finalizou os primeiros dois capítulos durante a primavera de 1868, além de um grupo de manuscritos preparatórios – sobre a relação entre mais-valor e taxa de lucro, a lei da taxa de lucro, e as metamorfoses do capital – que o ocuparam até o fim do ano. A nova versão do terceiro capítulo foi terminada no decurso dos dois anos seguintes. O volume II/11 se encerra com uma série de textos curtos que o já envelhecido Marx escreveu entre fevereiro de 1877 e a primavera de 1881.

Os esboços do Livro II de O capital, que foram deixados inconclusivos, apresentam uma série de problemas teóricos. No entanto, a versão final do Livro II foi publicada por Engels em 1885 e aparece, agora, no volume II/13 da MEGA2 intitulado “Karl Marx, Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Zweiter Band. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Engels. Hamburg 1885”[27].

Por fim, o volume II/4.3, “Karl Marx, Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863-1868. Teil 3”[28], completa a segunda seção da MEGA². Esse volume, que dá sequência aos prévios II/4.1 e II/4.2[29], contém 15 manuscritos concebidos entre o outono de 1867 e o fim de 1868, os quais permaneceram inéditos até então. Sete desses manuscritos são fragmentos de esboços do Livro III de O capital; apresentam um caráter altamente fragmentário e Marx nunca conseguiu atualizá-los de modo a refletir o progresso de sua pesquisa. Outros três manuscritos correspondem ao Livro II, enquanto os cinco remanescentes lidam com questões concernentes à interdependência entre os Livros II e III e incluem excertos comentados retirados das obras de Adam Smith e Thomas Malthus. Os últimos são particularmente instigantes para aqueles economistas interessados na teoria marxiana da taxa de lucro e em suas ideias sobre a teoria do preço. Estudos filológicos ligados à preparação desse volume também mostraram que o manuscrito original do Livro I de O capital (do qual o “Capítulo seis. Resultados do processo imediato de produção” era considerado a única parte preservada) data, na verdade, do período de 1863-1864, e que Marx o cortou e colou na cópia que ele preparava para publicação[30].

Com a publicação do volume II/4.3 da MEGA2 todos os textos complementares relacionados a O capital se tornaram disponíveis: da famosa “Introdução”, escrita em julho de 1857 durante uma das maiores quebras na história do capitalismo, até os últimos fragmentos redigidos na primavera de 1881. Estamos falando de 15 volumes, mais outros tantos tomos vultosos que constituem um formidável aparato crítico para o texto principal. Eles incluem todos os manuscritos do fim dos anos 1850 e início dos 1860, a primeira versão de O capital publicada em 1867 (partes das quais seriam modificadas em edições subsequentes), a tradução francesa revisada por Marx que apareceu entre 1872 e 1875, e todas as alterações feitas por Engels nos manuscritos dos Livros II e III. Junto a isso, a coleção clássica dos três livros de O capital aparece positivamente diminuta. Não é exagero dizer que só agora podemos compreender completamente os méritos, limites e incompletudes da magnum opus de Marx.

O trabalho editorial que Engels levou a cabo após a morte de seu amigo, isto é, o de preparar as partes não terminadas de O capital para publicação, foi extremamente complexo. Os vários manuscritos, esboços e fragmentos dos Livros II e III, escritos entre 1864 e 1881, correspondem a aproximadamente 2.350 páginas da MEGA2. Engels publicou com êxito o Livro II em 1885 e o III, em 1894. Contudo, é preciso ter em mente que esses dois livros surgiram da reconstrução de textos incompletos, frequentemente formados por material heterogêneo. Eles foram escritos em momentos distintos e, assim, incluem versões diferentes, e por vezes contraditórias, das ideias de Marx.

A Internacional, as pesquisas de Marx após O capital, e os trabalhos finais de Engels
Imediatamente após a publicação de O capital, Marx retomou a atividade militante e assumiu um compromisso permanente com o trabalho da Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores. Essa fase de sua biografia política está documentada no volume I/21, “Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe. September 1867 bis März 1871”[31], que contém mais de 150 textos e documentos do período de 1867-1871, bem como as atas de 169 reuniões do Conselho Geral em Londres nas quais Marx interveio, atas essas que foram omitidas por todas as edições anteriores dos trabalhos de Marx e Engels[32]. Enquanto tal, esse volume provê material de pesquisa para anos cruciais da vida da Internacional.

Desde os primeiros dias de 1864 as ideias de Proudhon eram hegemônicas na França, na Suíça francófona e na Bélgica e os mutualistas – nome pelo qual seus seguidores eram conhecidos – eram a ala mais moderada da Internacional. Resolutamente hostis à intervenção estatal em qualquer campo, eles se opunham à socialização da terra e dos meios de produção, bem como a qualquer uso do instrumento de greve. Os textos publicados nesse volume mostram como Marx teve um papel central na longa luta para reduzir a influência de Proudhon na Internacional. Eles incluem documentos relacionados à preparação dos congressos de Bruxelas (1868) e da Basileia (1869), onde a Internacional fez seu primeiro pronunciamento explícito sobre a socialização dos meios de produção por autoridades estatais e a favor do direito de abolir a propriedade individual sobre a terra. Isso marcou uma vitória importante para Marx e a primeira aparição de princípios socialistas no programa político de uma importante organização de trabalhadores.

Além do programa político da Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores, o fim dos anos 1860 e início dos 1870 foram ricos em conflitos sociais. Muitos trabalhadores que participavam de ações de protesto decidiram contactar a Internacional, cuja reputação se espalhava cada vez mais, a fim de pedir apoio a suas lutas. Nesse período surgiram, ainda, algumas seções de trabalhadores irlandeses na Inglaterra. Marx estava preocupado com a divisão que o nacionalismo brutal havia produzido nas fileiras do proletariado e, em um documento que veio a ser conhecido como “Confidential Communication”, ele enfatizou que “a burguesia inglesa não apenas explorou a miséria irlandesa para deteriorar a situação da classe trabalhadora na Inglaterra por meio da imigração forçada de irlandeses pobres”; ela também se provou capaz de dividir os trabalhadores “em dois campos hostis”[33]. No seu modo de entender, “uma nação que escraviza outra forja suas próprias correntes”[34] e a luta de classes não poderia ignorar um assunto tão decisivo. Outro tema importante no volume, tratado com particular atenção nos escritos de Engels para The Pall Mall Gazette, foi a oposição à Guerra Franco-Prussiana de 1870-1871.

O trabalho de Marx na Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores perdurou entre 1864 e 1872, e o novíssimo volume IV/18, “Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Exzerpte und Notizen. Februar 1864 bis Oktober 1868, November 1869, März, April, Juni 1870, Dezember 1872”[35], fornece a parte até então desconhecida dos estudos que ele realizara durante esses anos. A pesquisa de Marx ocorreu tanto próximo à impressão do Livro I de O capital quanto após 1867, enquanto preparava os livros II e III para publicação. Esse volume da MEGA² consiste em cinco livros de excertos e quatro cadernos com resumos de mais de uma centena de obras publicadas, relatórios de debates parlamentares e artigos jornalísticos. A parte mais considerável e teoricamente importante desses materiais envolve a pesquisa de Marx sobre agricultura, sendo, aqui, seus principais interesses a renda da terra, as ciências naturais, as condições agrárias em vários países europeus e nos Estados Unidos, Rússia, Japão e Índia, e os sistemas de posse da terra em sociedades pré-capitalistas.

Marx leu atentamente Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie (1843) [A química em sua aplicação na agricultura e fisiologia], um livro escrito pelo cientista alemão Justus von Liebig e que ele considerava essencial, uma vez que permitiu-lhe modificar sua crença de que as descobertas científicas da agricultura moderna haviam resolvido o problema da regeneração do solo. Desde então, ele apresentou um interesse cada vez mais vivo naquilo que hoje chamaríamos de “ecologia”, em particular na erosão do solo e no desmatamento. Dentre os outros livros que impressionaram Marx fortemente nesse período, também deveria ser atribuído um lugar especial à Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-, Hof-, Dorf-, und Stadt-Verfassung und der öffentlichen Gewalt (1854) [Introdução à história da constituição da marca, sítio, povoado e cidade e da autoridade pública], escrito pelo teórico político e historiador jurídico Georg Ludwig von Maurer. Em uma carta a Engels, ele disse que achou os livros de Maurer “extremamente relevantes”, uma vez que eles abordaram de um jeito completamente diferente “não apenas a era primitiva, mas também todo o desenvolvimento posterior das cidades imperiais livres, do privilégio da posse dos proprietários rurais, da autoridade pública, e a luta entre o campesinato livre e a servidão”[36]. Ademais, Marx endossou a demonstração de Maurer de que a propriedade privada da terra pertencia a um período histórico preciso e não poderia ser considerada como uma característica natural da civilização humana. Por fim, Marx estudou em profundidade três obras alemãs escritas por Karl Fraas: Klima und Pflanzenwelt in der Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte beider (1847) [Clima e reino vegetal no tempo. Uma contribuição para a história de ambas], Geschichte der Landwirtschaft (1852) [História da agricultura] e Die Natur der Landwirtschaft (1857) [A natureza da agricultura]. Ele achou a primeira dessas obras “muito interessante”, especialmente ao se referir à parte em que Fraas demonstra que o “clima e a flora mudam historicamente”. Marx o descreveu como um “darwinista antes de Darwin”, que admitiu que “mesmo as espécies têm se desenvolvido historicamente”. Ele foi surpreendido, ainda, pelas considerações ecológicas de Fraas e sua preocupação correlata de que “o cultivo – quando prossegue em crescimento natural e não é controlado conscientemente (como um burguês, naturalmente ele não alcança esse ponto) – deixa desertos atrás de si”. Marx poderia detectar nisso tudo “uma tendência socialista inconsciente”[37].

Após a publicação dos assim chamados Cadernos sobre agricultura, pode-se argumentar com maior grau de certeza que, se Marx tivesse tido forças para finalizar os últimos dois livros de O capital, a ecologia teria tido um papel muito mais importante em seu pensamento[38]. Evidentemente, a crítica ecológica de Marx era anticapitalista em seu enfoque e, para além das esperanças que ele colocava no progresso científico, envolvia o questionamento do modo de produção como um todo.

A magnitude dos estudos marxianos sobre as ciências naturais se tornou completamente visível desde a publicação do volume IV/26, “Karl Marx, Exzerpte und Notizen zur Geologie, Mineralogie und Agrikulturchemie. März bis September 1878”[39]. Na primavera e no verão de 1878, a geologia, mineralogia e agroquímica eram mais centrais para os estudos de Marx do que a economia política. Ele compilou estratos de uma série de livros, incluindo The natural history of the raw materials of commerce (1872) [A história natural das matérias-primas do comércio], de John Yeats; Das Buch der Natur (1848) [O livro da natureza], do químico Friedrich Schoedler; e Elements of agricultural chemistry and geology (1858) [Elementos de química agrária e geologia], do químico e mineralogista James Johnston. Entre junho e início de setembro, atracou-se com The student’s manual of geology (1857) [Manual do estudante de geologia] de Joseph Jukes[40], do qual copiou o maior número de estratos. O foco principal desses estratos são questões de metodologia científica, os estágios do desenvolvimento da geologia como disciplina, e sua utilidade para a produção industrial e agrária.

A assimilação de tais questões despertou em Marx a necessidade de desenvolver suas ideias a respeito do lucro, algo com o qual havia se ocupado contínua e intensivamente em meados dos anos 1860, quando escreveu o esboço da parte sobre “A transformação do excedente do lucro em renda da terra”, constituinte do Livro III de O capital. Alguns dos resumos de textos sobre ciências naturais tinham o objetivo de lançar uma luz mais intensa sobre o material em estudo. Mas outros excertos, mais voltados a aspectos teóricos, eram destinados à conclusão do Livro III. Engels recordou mais tarde que Marx “vasculhou (…) a pré-história, agronomia, propriedade russa e americana da terra, geologia etc., para desenvolver a seção sobre a renda da terra no Livro III de O capital em uma profundidade (…) nunca tentada”[41]. Esses volumes da MEGA2 são ainda mais importantes porque servem para desacreditar o mito, repetido em uma série de biografias e estudos sobre Marx, de que após O capital ele havia satisfeito sua curiosidade intelectual e desistido completamente de novos estudos e pesquisas[42].

Por fim, três livros da MEGA2 publicados na última década dizem respeito ao último Engels. O volume I/30, “Friedrich Engels, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe. Mai 1883 bis September 1886”[43], contém 43 textos escritos por ele nos três anos que se passaram após a morte de Marx. Dos 29 textos mais importantes dentre esses, 17 consistem em peças jornalísticas que apareceram em alguns dos principais jornais da imprensa proletária europeia. Embora nesse período estivesse especialmente absorvido pela edição dos manuscritos incompletos de O capital deixados por Marx, Engels não se furtou de intervir em uma série de questões políticas e teóricas candentes. Lançou, ainda, uma obra polêmica que mirava o reaparecimento do idealismo nos círculos acadêmicos alemães, a saber, Ludwig Feuerbach e o fim da filosofia clássica alemã (1886). Os outros 14 textos, publicados nesse volume como um apêndice, são algumas das traduções do próprio Engels e uma série de artigos assinados por outros autores em colaboração com ele.

A MEGA2 também publicou um novo conjunto de correspondências de Engels. O volume III/30, “Friedrich Engels, Briefwechsel. Oktober 1889 bis November 1890”[44], apresenta 406 cartas preservadas do total de 500 ou mais que ele escreveu entre outubro de 1889 e novembro de 1890. Além do mais, a inclusão inédita de cartas de outros correspondentes possibilita apreciar de modo mais profundo a contribuição de Engels para o crescimento dos partidos proletários na Alemanha, na França e no Reino Unido, no que diz respeito a toda uma gama de questões teóricas e organizacionais. Alguns dos itens em questão se referem ao nascimento da Segunda Internacional, cujo congresso de fundação ocorreu em 14 de julho de 1889, e aos muitos debates nela em curso.

Finalmente, o volume I/32, “Friedrich Engels, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe. März 1891 bis August 1895”[45], reúne escritos dos últimos quatro anos e meio da vida de Engels. Há uma série de peças jornalísticas escritas para os maiores jornais socialistas da época, incluindo Die Neue Zeit, Le Socialiste e Critica Sociale, bem como prefácios e posfácios a várias reimpressões das obras de Marx e Engels, transcrições de discursos, entrevistas e saudações a congressos partidários, relatos de conversas, documentos esboçados por Engels em colaboração com outros, e uma série de traduções.

Portanto, esses três volumes se revelarão extremamente úteis para um estudo aprofundado das contribuições teóricas e políticas tardias de Engels. As numerosas publicações e conferências internacionais programadas para o bicentenário de seu nascimento (1820-2020) certamente não falharão em sondar esses vinte anos que se passaram após a morte de Marx, período em que dedicou suas energias para a difusão do marxismo.

Outro Marx?
Que Marx emerge da nova edição histórico-crítica de seus trabalhos? Em certos aspectos, ele difere do pensador que muitos discípulos e oponentes apresentaram ao longo dos anos – sem falar das estátuas de pedra encontradas em praças públicas sob regimes não-livres da Europa Oriental, estátuas essas que o representavam apontando para o futuro com imperiosa certeza. Por outro lado, poderia ser enganoso trazer à baila a ideia – como fazem aqueles que, de modo muito entusiástico, saúdam um “Marx desconhecido” após cada novo texto que pela primeira vez surge – de que a pesquisa recente virou do avesso tudo aquilo que já se conhecia sobre ele. O que a MEGA2 fornece é, antes, a base textual para repensar um Marx diferente: diferente não porque a luta de classes abandona seu pensamento (como alguns acadêmicos desejariam, em uma variação do antigo bordão do “Marx economista” contra o “Marx político” que busca, em vão, apresentá-lo como um clássico inócuo); mas radicalmente diferente do autor que foi dogmaticamente convertido em fons et origo [fonte e origem] do “socialismo realmente existente” e supostamente fixado apenas no conflito classista.

Os novos avanços alcançados no âmbito dos estudos marxianos sugerem que a exegese da obra de Marx está novamente se tornando, assim como muitas outras vezes no passado, cada vez mais refinada. Por muito tempo, vários marxistas colocaram os escritos do jovem Marx em primeiro plano, principalmente os Manuscritos econômico-filosóficos de 1844 e A ideologia alemã, enquanto o Manifesto do partido comunista permanecia seu texto mais amplamente lido e citado. Naqueles primeiros escritos, no entanto, são encontradas muitas ideias que foram suplantadas em sua obra tardia. Por muito tempo, a dificuldade em examinar a pesquisa de Marx realizada nas duas últimas décadas de sua vida obstruiu nosso conhecimento acerca de importantes ganhos que ele obteve. Mas é sobretudo em O capital e seus esboços preliminares, bem como nas pesquisas de seus últimos anos, que encontramos as reflexões mais preciosas sobre a crítica da sociedade burguesa. Elas representam as últimas conclusões a que Marx chegou, embora não as definitivas. Se examinadas criticamente à luz das mudanças que o mundo sofreu desde a sua morte, elas ainda podem se mostrar úteis à tarefa de teorizar, após os fracassos do século XX, um modelo socioeconômico alternativo ao capitalismo.

A edição MEGA2 tem desmentido todas as alegações de que Marx seja um pensador sobre quem tudo já foi escrito e dito. Ainda há muito para se aprender com Marx. Hoje, é possível fazer isso estudando não apenas aquilo que ele escreveu em seus trabalhos publicados, mas estudando também as questões e dúvidas contidas em seus manuscritos inacabados.

Referências bibliográficas
ALTHUSSER, L. For Marx. London: Verso, [sem data no original].

LEFEBVRE, H. Dialectical Materialism, London: Cape Editions, 1968.

MARX, K. “Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1867-68 (Excerpt)”, Historical Materialism, vol. 27, n. 4, 2019, p. 162-192.

MCLELLAN, D. Karl Marx, London: Fontana, 1975.

MOSELEY, F. (ed.). Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864-1865, Leiden: Brill, 2015.

MUSTO, M. (ed.). The Marx Revival: Essential Concepts and New Interpretations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

MUSTO, M. The Last Years of Karl Marx: An Intellectual Biography. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2020a.

MUSTO, M. O velho Marx: uma biografia de seus últimos anos (1881-1883). Trad. Rubens Enderle. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2018.

MUSTO, M. (ed.), Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later, New York: Bloomsbury, 2014.

MUSTO, M. (org.). Trabalhadores, uni-vos!: antologia política da I Internacional. Trad, Rubens Enderle. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2014a.

MUSTO, M. “The Rediscovery of Karl Marx”. International Review of Social History, vol. 52, n. 3, 2007, p. 477-498.

RUBEL, M. Marx Life and Works, London: Macmillan, 1980.

SAITO, K. Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2017.

SMITH, D. Marx’s World: Global Society and Capital Accumulation in Marx’s Late Manuscripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, no prelo.

 

Resumo

O artigo apresenta as novas descobertas e possibilidades de interpretações da obra de Marx a partir da retomada da publicação da MEGA2. Argumenta que a nova edição histórico-crítica não revela um Marx desconhecido, mas indica a existência de facetas diferentes em sua obra. O exame das notas e do material não publicado por Marx permite chamar a atenção para seu interesse naquilo que hoje denominamos ecologia e para aspectos de sua crítica à sociedade burguesa que podem nos auxiliar no desenvolvimento de uma perspectiva anticapitalista própria ao século XXI.

Palavras-chave: MEGA2, Marx, materialismo histórico, Internacional

 

Abstract

The article presents the new discoveries and possibilities of interpretations of Marx’s work from the resumption of the publication of MEGA2. He argues that the new historical-critical edition does not reveal an unknown Marx, but indicates the existence of different facets in his work. The examination of notes and material not published by Marx himself allows to draw attention to his interest in what we now call ecology and to aspects of his criticism of bourgeois society that can assist us in the development of an anti-capitalist perspective proper to the 21st century.

Keywords: MEGA2, Marx, historical materialism, International

[1] Os tomos II/4.1 e II/4.2 foram publicados antes da interrupção da MEGA2, enquanto o II/4.3 saiu em 2012. Esse livro em três partes leva a 67 o número total de volumes da MEGA2 publicados desde 1975. No futuro, alguns dos demais volumes serão publicados apenas na forma digital. NT: Os tomos II/4.1 e II/4.2 da MEGA2 se referem aos Manuscritos Econômicos de 1863-1867; o II/4.3, por sua vez, aumenta o recorte temporal anterior em um ano e apresenta os Manuscritos Econômicos de 1863-1868.

[2] A publicação do volume IV/32 da MEGA2, Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Die Bibliotheken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, editado por Hans-Peter Harstick, Richard Sperl e Hanno Strauß, Akademie, Berlin, 1999, foi de particular relevância para o conhecimento do conteúdo da biblioteca de Marx. Ela consiste em um index de 1.450 livros (em 2.100 tomos) – dois terços dos quais pertencentes a Marx e Engels. Essa compilação indica todas as páginas de cada volume nas quais Marx e Engels deixaram anotações e marginálias.

[3] Para uma resenha de todos os 13 volumes da MEGA2 publicados de 1998 – o ano da retomada dessa edição – até 2007, cf.  Musto (2007). Essa resenha crítica cobre os 15 volumes – que somam o total de 20.508 páginas – publicados entre 2008 e 2019.

[4] Karl Marx, “Marx’s Undertaking Not to Publish Anything in Belgium on Current Politics”, Marx-Engels Collected Works [doravante MECW], vol. 4, p. 677. N.T. Para facilitar a leitura, todas as referências a publicações extraídas da MECW e da MEGA2 serão feitas em nota de rodapé.

[5] Karl Marx, “Declaration against Karl Grün”, MECW, vol. 6, p. 72.

[6] Karl Marx para Carl Wilhelm Julius Leske, 1 de agosto de 1846, MECW, vol. 38, p. 50.

[7] Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, MECW, vol. 26, p. 519. Na verdade, Engels já usara essa expressão em 1859 em sua resenha de Para a crítica da economia política de Marx, mas o artigo não teve ressonância e o termo só começou a circular após a publicação de seu Ludwig Feuerbach.

[8] MEGA2, vol. I/5, editado por Ulrich Pagel, Gerald Hubmann e Christine Weckwerth, Berlim: De Gruyter, 2017, p. 1.893.

[9] Alguns anos antes da publicação do volume I/5 da MEGA2 e com base na edição alemã de Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Joseph Weydemeyer, Die Deutsche Ideologie. Artikel, Druckvorlagen, Entwürfe, Reinschriftenfragmente und Notizen zu ”I. Feuerbach” und “II Sankt Bruno”, que apareceu como uma edição especial do periódico Marx-Engels Jahrbuch em 2003, Terrell Carver e Daniel Blank forneceram uma nova edição no idioma inglês do assim chamado “Capítulo sobre Feuerbach”: Marx and Engels’s “German Ideology” Manuscripts: Presentation and Analysis of the “Feuerbach Chapter”, New York: Palgrave, 2014. Os dois autores defenderam a fidelidade máxima aos originais, criticando, além disso, a edição do Marx-Engels Jahrbuch (agora incorporada ao volume I/5) pelo fato de que ela, alinhada com antigos editores do século XX, organizara os distintos manuscritos como se eles formassem o esboço de uma obra totalmente coesa, ainda que nunca completada.

[10] Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, MECW, vol. 5, p. 28.

[11] Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels, Exzerpte und Notizen Juli bis August 1845, MEGA2, vol. IV/4, editado pelo Instituto de Marxismo-Leninismo, Berlim: Dietz, 1988.

[12] MEGA2, vol. IV/5, editado por Georgij Bagaturija, Timm Graßmann, Aleksandr Syrov and Ljudmila Vasina, Berlim: De Gruyter, 2015, p. 650.

[13] MEGA2, vol. I/7, editado por Jürgen Herren and François Melis, Berlim: De Gruyter, 2016, p. 1.774.

[14] Karl Marx, “The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution”, MECW, vol. 8, p. 178.

[15] Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, MECW, vol. 10, p. 134.

[16] MEGA2, I/16, editado por Claudia Rechel e Hanno Strauß, Berlim: De Gruyter, 2018, p. 1.181.

[17] MEGA2, vol. IV/14, editado por Kenji Mori, Rolf Hecker, Izumi Omura e Atsushi Tamaoka, Berlim: De Gruyter, 2017, p. 680.

[18] Karl Marx a Friedrich Engels, 18 de dezembro de 1857, MECW, vol. 40, p. 224.

[19] Karl Marx a Friedrich Engels, 16 de janeiro de 1858, MECW, vol. 40, p. 249.

[20] MEGA2, vol. III/12, editado por Galina Golovina, Tat’jana Gioeva e Rolf Dlubek, Berlim: Akademie, 2013, p. 1.529.

[21] Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, vol. I, MECW, vol. 30, p. 348.

[22] Karl Marx a Friedrich Engels, 18 de junho de 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 380.

[23] Karl Marx a Friedrich Engels, 10 de setembro de 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 417.

[24] Karl Marx a Ludwig Kugelmann, 28 de dezembro de 1862, MECW, vol. 41, p. 436.

[25] MEGA2, vol. II/11, editado por Teinosuke Otani, Ljudmila Vasina e Carl-Erich Vollgraf, Berlim: Akademie, 2008, p. 1.850.

[26] MEGA22, vol. II/13, Berlim: Akademie, 2008, p. 800.

[27] MEGA2, vol. II/4.3, editado por Carl-Erich Vollgraf, Berlim: Akademie, 2012, p. 1.065. Uma pequena parte desse texto foi traduzida recentemente para o inglês: Marx (2019).

[28] O volume II/4.2 foi traduzido recentemente para o inglês em Moseley (2015).

[29] Veja Carl-Erich Vollgraf, “Einführung”, em MEGA2, vol. II/4.3, cit., p. 421-74.

[30] MEGA2, vol. I/21, editado por Jürgen Herres, Berlim: Akademie, 2009, p. 2.432.

[31] Algumas delas – como os discursos e resoluções apresentados nos congressos da Internacional – foram, em vez disso, incluídas em uma antologia publicada por ocasião do 150° aniversário dessa organização:  cf. Musto (2014).

[32] Karl Marx, “Confidential Communication”, MECW, vol. 21, p. 120.

[33] Ibid.

[34] MEGA2, vol. IV/18, editado por Teinosuke Otani, Kohei Saito e Timm Graßmann, Berlim: De Gruyter, 2019, p. 1.294.

[35] Karl Marx a Friedrich Engels, 25 de março de 1868, MECW, vol. 42, p. 557.

[36] Ibid., p. 558-559.

[37] Sobre essas questões, veja também o trabalho de um dos editores do volume IV/8 da MEGA2: Saito (2017).

[38] MEGA2, vol. IV/26, editado por Anneliese Griese, Peter Krüger e Richard Sperl, Berlim: Akademie, 2011, p. 1.104.

[39] Ibid., p. 139-679.

[40] Friedrich Engels, “Marx, Heinrich Karl”, MECW, vol. 27, p. 341. O grande interesse de Marx nas ciências naturais, interesse esse que ficou praticamente desconhecido por muito tempo, é evidente também no volume IV/31 da MEGA2, a saber, Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels. Naturwissenschaftliche Exzerpte und Notizen. Mitte 1877 bis Anfang 1883, editado por Annalise Griese, Friederun Fessen, Peter Jäckel e Gerd Pawelzig, Berlim: Akademie, 1999, que apresenta as notas sobre química orgânica e inorgânica tomadas por Marx após 1877.

[41] Veja Musto (2020). Um marco importante para esse tema será a publicação do livro editado por David Smith, pela Yale University Press em 2021, “Marx’s World: Global Society and Capital Accumulation in Marx’s Late Manuscripts”.

[42] MEGA2, vol. I/30, editado por Renate Merkel-Melis, Berlim: Akademie, 2011, p. 1.154.

[43] MEGA2, vol. III/30, editado por Gerd Callesen e Svetlana Gavril’čenko, Berlim: Akademie, 2013, p. 1.512.

[44] MEGA2, vol. I/32, editado por Peer Kösling, Berlim: Akademie, 2010, p. 1.590.

[45] MEGA2, vol. I/32, editado por Peer Kösling, Berlim: Akademie, 2010, p. 1.590.

Categories
Journal Articles

Για τη Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ

Tον Αύγουστο του 1893, όταν το Προεδρείο προσκάλεσε τη Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ να μιλήσει σε μια σύνοδο του Συνεδρίου της Ζυρίχης της Δεύτερης Διεθνούς, η Ρόζα βάδισε με θάρρος ανάμεσα στο πλήθος των εκλεγμένων αντιπροσώπων και των ακτιβιστών που συνωθούνταν στην κεντρική αίθουσα.

Ήταν μια από τις λίγες παρούσες γυναίκες, στο άνθος της νεότητάς της, λεπτοκαμωμένη, και με μια παραμόρφωση του ισχίου που την υποχρέωνε να κουτσαίνει ήδη από την ηλικία των πέντε ετών. H πρώτη εντύπωση που έδωσε σε όσους την έβλεπαν για πρώτη φορά ήταν αυτή ενός πραγματικά αδύναμου πλάσματος. Όμως, στη συνέχεια, καθώς μιλούσε όρθια σε μια καρέκλα ώστε να ακούγεται καλύτερα, γοήτευσε πολύ γρήγορα όλο το ακροατήριο με τη δεξιότητα της σκέψης και την πρωτοτυπία των θέσεών της.

Το πολωνικό εθνικό ζήτημα
Κατά την άποψή της, το κεντρικό αίτημα του πολωνικού εργατικού κινήματος δεν θα έπρεπε να είναι ένα ανεξάρτητο πολωνικό κράτος, όπως υποστήριζαν όλοι πριν απ’ αυτήν. H Πολωνία βρισκόταν ακόμα υπό τριμερή κυριαρχία, μοιρασμένη μεταξύ της Γερμανικής, της Αυστρο-ουγγρικής και της Ρωσικής Αυτοκρατορίας. Η επανένωσή της φαινόταν δύσκολο εγχείρημα και οι εργάτες θα έπρεπε να κατευθύνουν τις φιλοδοξίες τους σε στόχους που θα γεννούσαν πρακτικούς αγώνες στο όνομα συγκεκριμένων αναγκών.

Κινούμενη σε μια γραμμή επιχειρηματολογίας που θα ανέπτυσσε στα χρόνια που θα ακολουθούσαν, επιτέθηκε σ’ αυτούς που εστίαζαν στα εθνικά θέματα και προειδοποίησε για τον κίνδυνο να χρησιμοποιηθεί η ρητορική του πατριωτισμού προκειμένου να υποτιμηθεί η ταξική πάλη και να απωθηθεί το κοινωνικό ζήτημα από το προσκήνιο. Δεν υπήρχε κανένας λόγος σε όλες τις μορφές καταπίεσης που υφίστατο το προλεταριάτο να προσθέσουμε την «υπαγωγή στην πολωνική εθνικότητα». Για την αποφυγή αυτής της παγίδας, η Λούξεμπουργκ έθεσε ως στόχο την ανάπτυξη αυτοδιοικούμενων περιοχών, και την ενίσχυση της πολιτιστικής αυτονομίας, η οποία μετά την εδραίωση ενός σοσιαλιστικού τρόπου παραγωγής θα λειτουργούσε ως ανάχωμα απέναντι σε κάθε αναβίωση σωβινισμού και νέων μορφών διακρίσεων. H στόχευση αυτών των συλλογισμών ήταν η διάκριση μεταξύ του εθνικού ζητήματος και αυτού του εθνικού κράτους.

Κόντρα στο ρεύμα
Η παρέμβαση στο Συνέδριο της Ζυρίχης σηματοδότησε τη συνολική διανοητική βιογραφία μιας γυναίκας που γενικά αναγνωρίζεούται ως μια από τις σημαντικότερες εκπροσώπους του σοσιαλισμού του 20 αιώνα. Η Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ, που γεννήθηκε πριν από 150 χρόνια, στις 5 Μαρτίου του 1871 στο Zamość της υπό τσαρική κατοχή Πολωνίας, έζησε ολόκληρη τη ζωή της στα άκρα, αναμετρούμενη με διάφορες αντιξοότητες, και κολυμπώντας πάντα κόντρα στο ρεύμα. Εβραϊκής καταγωγής, υποφέροντας από μια σωματική αναπηρία από μικρή ηλικία, μετοίκισε στη Γερμανία σε ηλικία 27 ετών και κατόρθωσε να αποκτήσει εκεί τη γερμανική υπηκοότητα μέσω ενός εικονικού γάμου. Καθώς ήταν ασυμβίβαστα υπέρ της ειρήνης με το ξέσπασμα του Πρώτου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου, φυλακίστηκε αρκετές φορές για τις ιδέες της. Υπήρξε παθιασμένη αντίπαλος του ιμπεριαλισμού στη διάρκεια μιας νέας και βίαιης αποικιακής επέκτασης. Αγωνίστηκε εναντίον της θανατικής ποινής στην καρδιά της βαρβαρότητας. Και, ας μην ξεχνάμε ποτέ ότι ήταν μια γυναίκα που έζησε σε κόσμους που κατοικούνταν σχεδόν αποκλειστικά από άντρες. Συχνά ήταν η μοναδική γυναικεία παρουσία τόσο στο Συνέδριο του Πανεπιστημίου της Ζυρίχης, όπου απέκτησε ένα διδακτορικό τίτλο το 1897 με μια διατριβή για τη Βιομηχανική Ανάπτυξη της Πολωνίας, όσο και στην ηγεσία της Γερμανικής Σοσιαλδημοκρατίας. Το Κόμμα την όρισε ως την πρώτη γυναίκα που δίδαξε στην κομματική σχολή κεντρικών στελεχών – εργασία στην οποία απασχολήθηκε από το 1907 ως το 1914, ενώ στο ίδιο διάστημα δημοσίευσε τη Συσσώρευση του κεφαλαίου (1913) και εργάστηκε πάνω σ’ ένα ανολοκλήρωτο σχέδιο μιας Εισαγωγής στην Πολιτική Οικονομία (1925).

Οι δυσκολίες αυτές συμπληρώθηκαν από το ανεξάρτητο πνεύμα της και την αυτονομία της – ένα προτέρημα που συχνά οδηγεί σε δυσκολίες, ακόμα και σε αριστερά κόμματα. Δίνοντας δείγματα μιας ζωηρής ευστροφίας, είχε την ικανότητα να αναπτύσσει νέες ιδέες και να τις υπερασπίζεται με παρρησία, και μάλιστα με μια αφοπλιστική ειλικρίνεια, μπροστά σε μορφές όπως ο Αύγουστος Μπέμπελ και ο Καρλ Κάουτσκι (o οποίος είχε το καθοριστικό πλεονέκτημα της άμεσης επαφής με τον Ένγκελς). Στόχος της δεν ήταν να επαναλαμβάνει κάθε φορά τα λόγια του Μαρξ, αλλά να τα ερμηνεύσει ιστορικά, και να τα αναπτύσσει περαιτέρω, όταν κάτι τέτοιο είναι αναγκαίο. Γι’ αυτήν, η ελευθερία να διατυπώνει την άποψή της και να εκφράζει τις κριτικές της θέσεις στο εσωτερικό του κόμματος ήταν ένα αναπαλλοτρίωτο δικαίωμα. Το κόμμα όφειλε να είναι ένας χώρος όπου θα μπορούσαν να συνυπάρξουν διαφορετικές απόψεις, στον βαθμό που τα μέλη του συμμερίζονταν τις θεμελιώδεις αρχές του.

Κόμμα, απεργία, επανάσταση
Η Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ ξεπέρασε με επιτυχία τα πάμπολλα εμπόδια που αντιμετώπισε, και στη διάρκεια της σφοδρής αντιπαράθεσης μετά τη ρεφορμιστική στροφή του Έντουαρντ Μπερνστάιν αναδείχτηκε σε μια αναγνωρίσι- μη μορφή της πιο εξέχουσας οργάνωσης του ευρωπαϊκού εργατικού κινήματος. Ενώ ο Μπερνστάιν στο περίφημο κείμενό του Οι προϋποθέσεις του σοσιαλισμού και τα καθήκοντα της Σοσιαλδημοκρατίας (1897-99) είχε καλέσει το κόμμα να κόψει τις γέφυρες με το παρελθόν του και να μεταστραφεί σε μια δύναμη σταδιακών αλλαγών, η Λούξεμπουργκ στο Κοινωνική μεταρρύθμιση ή επανάσταση; (1898-99) επέμενε ότι στη διάρκεια κάθε ιστορικής περιόδου «το έργο των μεταρρυθμίσεων συνεχίζεται μόνο στην  κατεύθυνση  που  ορίστηκε  από  την ώθηση της  τελευταίας  επανάστασης». Αυτοί  που  επιδιώκουν  «στο  κοτέτσι του αστικού κοινοβουλευτισμού» τις αλλαγές που θα καθιστούσε εφικτές η επαναστατική κατάκτηση της πολιτικής εξουσίας, δεν επιλέγουν «έναν πιο ήσυχο, ασφαλέστερο και βραδύτερο δρόμο για τον ίδιο στόχο», αλλά μάλλον «ένα διαφορετικό στόχο». Έχουν αποδεχτεί τον αστικό κόσμο και την ιδεολογία του.

Το ζήτημα δεν ήταν η βελτίωση του υπάρχοντος κοινωνικού καθεστώτος, αλλά η οικοδόμηση ενός τελείως διαφορετικού. Ο ρόλος των εργατικών συν- δικάτων – τα οποία μπορούσαν να αποσπάσουν από τα αφεντικά μόνο κά- ποιες ευνοϊκότερες συνθήκες στο πλαίσιο του καπιταλιστικού τρόπου παραγωγής – και η Ρώσικη Επανάσταση του 1905 αποτέλεσε το έναυσμα για κάποιες σκέψεις σχετικά με τα πιθανά υποκείμενα και τις δράσεις που θα μπορούσαν να παραγάγουν ένα ριζικό μετασχηματισμό της κοινωνίας. Στο βιβλίο Μαζική απεργία, κόμμα και Συνδικάτα (1906), που ανέλυε τα κύρια γεγονότα σε μεγάλες εκτάσεις της Ρωσικής Αυτοκρατορίας, η Λούξεμπουργκ υπογράμμισε τον κρίσιμο ρόλο των ευρύτατων και σε μεγάλο βαθμό ανοργάνωτων στρωμάτων του προλεταριάτου. Στην οπτική της, οι πραγματικοί πρωταγωνιστές της ιστορίας ήταν οι μάζες. Στη Ρωσία, «το στοιχείο του αυθορμητισμού» – μια έννοια που οδήγησε πολλούς στο να την κατηγορήσουν ότι υπερεκτίμησε την ταξική συνείδηση των μαζών – ήταν κρίσιμο και κατά συνέπεια, ο ρόλος του κόμματος δεν θα έπρεπε να είναι να προετοιμάσει τη μαζική απεργία, αλλά «να τοποθετηθεί επικεφαλής του κινήματος συνολικά».

Για τη Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ, η μαζική απεργία ήταν «o ζωντανός σφυγμός της επανάστασης», και ταυτόχρονα, «o ισχυρότερος κινητήριος τροχός της». Ήταν ο πραγματικός «τρόπος κίνησης των προλεταριακών μαζών, η εκπληκτική μορφή του προλεταριακού αγώνα στην επανάσταση». Δεν ήταν μια απλή απομονωμένη δράση αλλά η σύνοψη μιας μακράς περιόδου ταξικών αγώνων. Επιπλέον, δεν θα έπρεπε να παραγνωρίζεται το γεγονός ότι «στη δίνη της επαναστατικής περιόδου», το προλεταριάτο μετασχηματιζόταν κατά ένα τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε ακόμα και το υψηλότερο αγαθό, η ζωή – για να μην μιλήσουμε για την υλική ευημερία – είχε μικρή αξία σε σύγκριση με τα ιδεώδη του αγώνα». Οι μαζικές απεργίες της Ρωσίας έδειξαν πώς σε μια τέτοια περίοδο, η «αδιάκοπη αμφίδρομη δράση των πολιτικών και οικονομικών αγώνων» ήταν τέτοια ώστε το πέρασμα από τη μια μορφή αγώνων στην άλλη ήταν άμεσα εφικτό.

Κομμουνισμός σημαίνει ελευθερία και δημοκρατία
Σχετικά με το ζήτημα των οργανωτικών μορφών, και ειδικότερα, τον ρόλο του κόμματος, η Λούξεμπουργκ ενεπλάκη σε μια άλλη έντονη αντιπαράθεση εκείνη την εποχή, αυτή τη φορά, με τον Λένιν. Στο έργο του Ένα βήμα μπροστά, δύο βήματα πίσω (1904), ο ηγέτης των μπολσεβίκων υπερασπίστηκε τις θέσεις του Δευτέρου Συνεδρίου του Ρώσικου Σοσιαλδημοκρατικού Εργατικού Kόμματος, προτάσσοντας μια αντίληψη του κόμματος ως ενός συμπαγούς πυρήνα επαγγελματιών επαναστατών, μιας πρωτοπορίας που έχει  ως καθήκον να καθοδηγεί τις μάζες. Από την άλλη πλευρά, η Λούξεμπουργκ στο Οργανωτικά ζητήματα της Ρωσικής Σοσιαλδημοκρατίας (1904), υποστήριξε ότι ένα εξαιρετικά συγκεντρωτικό κόμμα δημιουργούσε μια πολύ επικίνδυνη δυναμική «τυφλής υπακοής στην κεντρική εξουσία». To κόμμα δεν θα πρέπει να καταπνίγει,  αλλά  αντίθετα,  να  αναπτύσσει την εμπλοκή της κοινωνίας, ώστε να εξασφαλίζεται «η σωστή ιστορική αξιολόγηση των μορφών πάλης». Ο Μαρξ έγραψε κάποτε ότι «ένα βήμα πραγματικού κινήματος είναι σημαντικότερο από δεκάδες  προγράμματα». Και η Λούξεμπουργκ προεξέτεινε αυτή τη ρήση στον ισχυρισμό ότι «τα λάθη που διαπράττει ένα πραγματικά επαναστατικό εργατικό κίνημα είναι απείρως πιο γόνιμα  και  πολύτιμα από το αλάθητο της καλύτερης από όλες τις πιθανές κεντρικές επιτροπές».

H σύγκρουση αυτή απέκτησε ακόμα μεγαλύτερη σημασία μετά τη σοβιετική επανάσταση του 1917, στην οποία η Λούξεμπουργκ παρείχε την άνευ όρων υποστήριξή της. Ανήσυχη από τα γεγονότα που εξελίσσονταν στη Ρωσία (αρχίζοντας από τους τρόπους αντιμετώπισης της αγροτικής μεταρρύθμισης), ήταν η πρώτη από το κομμουνιστικό στρατόπεδο που παρατήρησε ότι «μια παρατεταμένη κατάσταση συναγερμού» θα ασκούσε μια «εκφυλιστική επιρροή στην κοινωνία». Στο δημοσιευμένο μετά θάνατον κείμενό της Η Ρώσικη Επανάσταση (1922 [1918]), υπογράμμιζε ότι η ιστορική αποστολή του προλεταριάτου, με την κατάκτηση της πολιτικής εξουσίας, ήταν «η δημιουργία μιας σοσιαλιστικής δημοκρατίας που θα αντικαθιστούσε την αστική δημο- κρατία – και όχι η κατάργηση της δημοκρατίας συνολικά». Ο κομμουνισμός σήμαινε «την πιο ενεργή, απεριόριστη συμμετοχή των λαϊκών μαζών, την απεριόριστη δημοκρατία», που δεν προσβλέπει στην καθοδήγησή της από τους αλάθητους ηγέτες. Οι πραγματικά διαφορετικοί πολιτικοί και κοινωνικοί ορίζοντες θα ανοίγονταν μέσω μιας τέτοιας σύνθετης διαδικασίας αυτού του τύπου, και όχι μέσω του περιορισμού της ελευθερίας «μόνο στους υποστηρικτές της Κυβέρνησης, μόνο στα μέλη ενός κόμματος».

H Λούξεμπουργκ ήταν απόλυτα πεπεισμένη ότι «ο σοσιαλισμός από τη φύση του, δεν μπορεί να εκχωρηθεί από τα πάνω», θα πρέπει να επεκτείνει τη δημοκρατία, και όχι να τη συρρικνώσει. Έγραφε ότι «το αρνητικό, τo τσάκισμα μπορεί να είναι αντικείμενο ενός διατάγματος. Αυτό όμως δεν ισχύει για το θετικό, το χτίσιμο». Γι’ αυτές τις «νέες περιοχές», μόνο «η εμπειρία» θα «ήταν σε θέση να διορθώνει και να ανοίγει νέους δρόμους». Η Ένωση των Σπαρτακιστών, που ιδρύθηκε το 1914 μετά από μια διάσπαση του SPD και που αργότερα εξελίχθηκε στο Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα της Γερμανίας (KPD), δήλωνε ρητά ότι δεν θα αναλάβει «ποτέ την κυβερνητική εξουσία παρά μόνον αποκρινόμενη στη σαφή και αναμφισβήτητη θέληση της μεγάλης πλειοψηφίας των προλεταριακών μαζών όλης της Γερμανίας».

Παρ’ όλον ότι έκαναν αντίθετες πολιτικές επιλογές, τόσο οι Σοσιαλδημοκράτες, όσο και οι Μπολσεβίκοι λαθεμένα αντιλαμβάνονταν τρόπο τη δημοκρατία και την επανάσταση ως δυο εναλλακτικές διαδικασίες. Αντίθετα, για τη Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ, ο πυρήνας της πολιτικής θεωρίας ήταν μια αξεδιάλυτη ενότητα αυτών των δυο. Η παρακαταθήκη της αφυδατώθηκε και από τις δυο πλευρές: Οι σοσιαλδημοκράτες, συνένοχοι στη στυγνή δολοφονία της σε ηλικία 47 ετών, από τα χέρια δεξιών παραστρατιωτικών, την πολέμησαν ανεπιφύλακτα όλα αυτά τα χρόνια, για τους επαναστατικούς τόνους της σκέψης της, ενώ οι σταλινικοί απέφυγαν με κάθε τρόπο να διαδώσουν τις ιδέες της, εξ αιτίας του κριτικού και ασυμβίβαστου χαρακτήρα τους.

Κατά του μιλιταρισμού, του πολέμου και του ιμπεριαλισμού
To άλλο κρίσιμο σημείο των πολιτικών πεποιθήσεων και του ακτιβισμού της Λούξεμπουργκ ήταν η διπλή της αντίθεση απέναντι στον πόλεμο και οι κινητοποιήσεις της κατά του μιλιταρισμού. Εδώ αποδείχτηκε ικανή να επικαιροποιήσει τη θεωρητική προσέγγιση της Αριστεράς, και να κερδίσει την υπο-στήριξη κάποιων οξυδερκών αποφάσεων των Συνεδρίων της Δεύτερης Διεθνούς, οι οποίες, παρ’ ότι απαξιωμένες, αποτελούσαν ένα αγκάθι στα πλευρά των υποστηρικτών του Πρώτου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Σύμφωνα με την ανάλυσή της, η λειτουργία των στρατών, η ατέρμων ανανέωση του εξοπλι- σμού τους και η επαναλαμβανόμενη έκρηξη πολέμων δεν θα έπρεπε να κα- τανοούνται μόνο με τους κλασικούς όρους της πολιτικής σκέψης του δέκατου ένατου αιώνα. Αντίθετα, συνδέονται στενά με τις δυνάμεις που επιδιώκουν την καταστολή των εργατικών αγώνων και χρησιμοποιούνται ως χρήσιμα εργαλεία από τα αντιδραστικά συμφέροντα με σκοπό να διαιρέσουν την εργατική τάξη.

Εκτός αυτού, αντιστοιχούσαν σ’ ένα συγκεκριμένο οικονομικό στόχο της εποχής. Ο καπιταλισμός χρειαζόταν τον ιμπεριαλισμό και τον πό- λεμο, ακόμα και σε ειρηνικές εποχές, προκειμένου να αυξήσει την παραγωγή, όπως επίσης και για να κατακτήσει τις νέες αγορές που πρωτοεμφανίζονταν στην αποικιακή περιφέρεια έξω από την Ευρώπη. Όπως έγραψε στη Συσσώρευση του κεφαλαίου, «η πολιτική βία δεν είναι τίποτα άλλο από ένα όχημα για την οικονομική διαδικασία» – μια κρίση που συνοδεύτηκε από μια από τις πιο αμφιλεγόμενες θέσεις του βιβλίου, σύμφωνα με την οποία η ανα- νέωση των εξοπλισμών ήταν απαραίτητη για την παραγωγική επέκταση του καπιταλισμού.

H εικόνα αυτή απείχε πολύ από τα αισιόδοξα ρεφορμιστικά σενάρια, και για να τη συνοψίσει, η Λούξεμπουργκ χρησιμοποίησε μια διατύπωση που θα αντηχούσε ευρέως στη διάρκεια του εικοστού αιώνα: «σοσιαλισμός ή βαρβαρότητα». Εξήγησε ότι ο δεύτερος όρος θα μπορούσε να αποφευχθεί μόνο μέσω της συνειδητοποιημένης μαζικής πάλης, και εφ’ όσον ο αντιμιλιταρι- σμός απαιτούσε ένα υψηλό επίπεδο πολιτικής συνείδησης,  ήταν  μια  από τους μεγαλύτερους υπέρμαχους της γενικής απεργίας κατά του πολέμου – ένα όπλο που πολλοί άλλοι, του Μαρξ συμπεριλαμβανομένου, υποτίμησαν. Υποστήριξε ότι απέναντι στα νέα πολεμικά σενάρια θα έπρεπε να αντιταχθεί το ζήτημα της εθνικής άμυνας και ότι το σύνθημα «πόλεμος στον πόλεμο!» θα έπρεπε να καταστεί «ο ακρογωνιαίος λίθος της πολιτικής της εργατικής τάξης». Όπως έγραψε στην Κρίση της Σοσιαλδημοκρατίας (1916), γνωστή επίσης ως The Junius Pamphlet, η Δεύτερη Διεθνής κατέρρευσε γιατί απέτυχε «να οργανώσει μια κοινή τακτική και δράση του προλεταριάτου σε όλες τις χώρες». Από τότε και στο εξής, ο «κύριος στόχος» του προλεταριάτου θα έπρεπε επο- μένως να είναι «ο αγώνας κατά του ιμπεριαλισμού και η αποτροπή των πολέμων σε καιρούς ειρήνης όπως και σε καιρούς πολέμου».

Χωρίς να χάσει την τρυφερότητά της
Ένας πολίτης του κόσμου με το όραμα «αυτού που έρχεται», η Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ έλεγε ότι αισθανόταν σαν στο σπίτι της «παντού στον κόσμο, όπου υπάρχουν σύννεφα και πουλιά, και ανθρώπινα δάκρυα». Παθιαζόταν με τη βοτανική και αγαπούσε τα ζώα, και όπως μπορούμε να δούμε από τις επιστολές της, ήταν μια γυναίκα με ευαισθησίες, που τα είχε καλά με τον εαυτό της, παρά τις πικρές εμπειρίες που της επιφύλαξε η ζωή της. Για τη συνιδρύτρια της Ένωσης των Σπαρτακιστών, η πάλη των τάξεων δεν ήταν απλά ένα ζήτημα αύξησης των μισθών. Δεν φιλοδόξησε ποτέ να είναι μια απλή επίγονος και ο σοσιαλισμός της δεν ήταν ποτέ οικονομιστικός. Βουτηγμένη στα δράματα της εποχής της, επιδίωξε να επικαιροποιήσει τον μαρξισμό, χωρίς να θέσει υπό αμφισβήτηση τα θεμέλιά του. Οι προσπάθειές της σ’ αυτή την κατεύθυνση αποτελούν μια σταθερή προειδοποίηση για την Αριστερά ότι δεν θα πρέπει να περιορίσει την πολιτική της δραστηριότητα σε ήπια καταπραϋντικά, παραιτούμενη από την προσπάθεια να αλλάξει την υπάρχουσα κατά- σταση πραγμάτων. Ο τρόπος που έζησε, το γεγονός ότι κατόρθωσε να παντρέψει τη θεωρητική επεξεργασία με την κοινωνική δράση, προσφέρουν ένα εξαιρετικό διαχρονικό μάθημα στη νέα γενιά των αγωνιστών που επέλεξαν να συνεχίσουν τους αγώνες στους οποίους αυτή είχε δώσει.

Categories
Journal Articles

La alternativa posible de la Comuna de París

Los burgueses siempre lo habían conseguido todo. Desde la revolución de 1789, habían sido los únicos que se habían enriquecido en tiempos de prosperidad, mientras que la clase trabajadora había tenido que soportar regularmente el coste de las crisis. La proclamación de la Tercera República abrió nuevos escenarios y ofreció la oportunidad de revertir este rumbo. Napoleón III había sido derrotado y capturado por los alemanes, en Sedán, el 4 de septiembre de 1870. En enero un año después se rendía París, que había estado sitiada durante más de cuatro meses, lo que obligó a los franceses a aceptar las condiciones impuestas por Otto von Bismarck. Se produjo un armisticio que permitió la celebración de elecciones y el posterior nombramiento de Adolphe Thiers como jefe del poder ejecutivo, con el apoyo de una amplia mayoría legitimista y orleanista. En la capital, sin embargo, a diferencia del resto del país, la conjunción progresista-republicana tuvo éxito con una abrumadora mayoría y el descontento popular fue más generalizado que en otros lugares. La perspectiva de un ejecutivo que dejase inmutables todas las injusticias sociales, que quería desarmar la ciudad y estaba dispuesto a hacer recaer el precio de la guerra sobre los menos favorecidos, desató la rebelión. El 18 de marzo estalló una nueva revolución; Thiers y su ejército tuvieron que refugiarse en Versalles.

De lucha y de gobierno
Los insurgentes decidieron celebrar inmediatamente elecciones libres, para garantizar la legitimidad democrática de la insurrección. El 26 de marzo, una abrumadora mayoría (190.000 contra 40.000 votos) aprobó las razones de la revuelta y 70 de los 85 miembros electos se declararon a favor de la revolución. Los 15 representantes moderados del llamado “parti de maires” (partido de los alcaldes), grupo formado por ex presidentes de algunos distritos, dimitieron inmediatamente y no se incorporaron al consejo de la comuna. Poco después fueron seguidos por cuatro radicales. Los 66 miembros restantes, que no se distinguían fácilmente por su doble afiliación política, representaban posiciones muy variadas. Entre ellos había una veintena de republicanos neo-jacobinos (incluidos los influyentes Charles Delescluze y Felix Pyat), una docena de prosélitos de Auguste Blanqui, 17 miembros de la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores (incluidos los mutualistas seguidores de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, que con frecuencia no estaban de acuerdo con los colectivistas afines a Karl Marx) y un par de independientes. La mayoría de los miembros de la Comuna eran trabajadores o representantes reconocidos de la clase trabajadora. De ellos, 14 procedían de la Guardia Nacional. Fue precisamente el comité central de esta el que depositó el poder en manos de la Comuna, aunque este acto fue el inicio de una larga serie de contradicciones y conflictos entre las dos entidades.

El 28 de marzo, una gran masa de ciudadanos se reunió cerca del Hôtel de Ville y recibió con alegría la inauguración de la nueva asamblea que oficialmente tomó el nombre de la Comuna de París. Aunque solo duró 72 días, fue el evento político más importante en la historia del movimiento obrero del siglo XIX. La Comuna revivió la esperanza de una población agotada por meses de penurias. En los barrios surgieron comités y grupos en apoyo. En cada rincón de la metrópoli se multiplicaron las iniciativas de solidaridad y los planes para la construcción de un mundo nuevo. Montmartre pasó a llamarse “la ciudadela de la libertad”. Uno de los sentimientos predominantes fue el deseo de compartir. Militantes como Louise Michel dieron ejemplo por su espíritu de abnegación. Víctor Hugo escribió sobre ella: “Hiciste lo que hacen las grandes almas locas. Has dado gloria a los que están aplastados y sometidos”. Sin embargo, la Comuna no vivió gracias al impulso de un dirigente o de unas pocas figuras carismáticas. De hecho, su principal característica fue su dimensión claramente colectiva. Mujeres y hombres se ofrecieron voluntarios para un proyecto de liberación común. La autogestión ya no se consideró más una utopía. La auto-emancipación se convirtió en algo esencial.

La transformación del poder político
Entre los primeros decretos de emergencia proclamados para frenar la pobreza desenfrenada estaba el bloqueo del pago de los alquileres (era justo que “la propiedad hiciera su parte de sacrificio”) y la suspensión de la venta de objetos -por un valor no superior a 20 Francos-, depositados en las casas de empeño. También se crearon nueve comisiones colegiadas para reemplazar los ministerios existentes: guerra, finanzas, seguridad general, educación, subsistencia, justicia, trabajo y comercio, relaciones exteriores, y servicios públicos. Posteriormente se nombró un delegado para gestionar cada una de ellas.

El 19 de abril, tres días después de las elecciones parciales tras las cuales fue posible reemplazar los 31 escaños que quedaron vacantes casi de inmediato, la Comuna redactó la Declaración al Pueblo Francés, en la que se aseguraba “la garantía absoluta de la libertad individual, de la libertad de conciencia y la libertad de trabajo” y “la intervención permanente de la ciudadanía en los asuntos comunes”. Se afirmaba que el conflicto entre París y Versalles “no podía terminar con compromisos ilusorios” y que el pueblo tenía “el deber de luchar y vencer”. Mucho más significativos que el contenido de este texto, síntesis un tanto ambigua para evitar tensiones entre las distintas tendencias políticas, fueron los actos concretos a través de los cuales los militantes de la Comuna lucharon por una transformación total del poder político. Iniciaron una serie de reformas que tenían como objetivo cambiar profundamente no solo la forma en que se administraba la política, sino su propia naturaleza. La democracia directa de la Comuna preveía la revocabilidad de los representantes electos y el control de su labor a través de la vinculación de mandatos (medida insuficiente para resolver la compleja cuestión de la representación política). Los magistrados y otros cargos públicos, también sujetos a control permanente y la posibilidad de revocación, no serían designados arbitrariamente, como en el pasado, sino mediante oposición o elecciones transparentes. Había que impedir la profesionalización de la esfera pública. Las decisiones políticas no debían corresponder a pequeños grupos de funcionarios y técnicos, sino ser tomadas por el pueblo. Los ejércitos y las fuerzas policiales ya no serían instituciones separadas del cuerpo de la sociedad. La separación entre Iglesia y Estado era una necesidad indispensable.

Sin embargo, el cambio político no terminaba con la adopción de estas medidas. Debía ir mucho más a la raíz. La burocracia tenía que reducirse drásticamente, transfiriendo el ejercicio del poder a manos del pueblo. El ámbito social tenía que prevalecer sobre el político y este último – como ya había argumentado Henri de Saint-Simon – dejaría de existir como función especializada, ya que sería asimilado progresivamente por las actividades de la sociedad civil. El cuerpo social recuperaría así las funciones que habían sido transferidas al estado. Derribar la dominación de clase existente no era suficiente; había que extinguir el dominio de clase como tal. Todo esto habría permitido la realización del plan diseñado por los comuneros: una república constituida por la unión de asociaciones libres verdaderamente democráticas que se convertirían en impulsoras de la emancipación de todos sus componentes. Era el autogobierno de los productores.

La prioridad de las reformas sociales
La Comuna creía que las reformas sociales eran incluso más relevantes que las transformaciones en el orden político. Representaban su razón de ser, el termómetro con el que medir la fidelidad a los principios para los que había nacido, el elemento de diferenciación definitivo frente a las revoluciones que la habían precedido en 1789 y 1848. La Comuna ratificó varias disposiciones con una clara connotación de clase. La fecha de vencimiento de las deudas se pospuso tres años, sin pago de intereses. Se suspendieron los desahucios por impago de los alquileres y se adoptaron medidas para que las casas desocupadas fueran requisadas a favor de las personas sin hogar. Se hicieron proyectos para limitar la duración de la jornada laboral (de las 10 horas iniciales a las ocho previstas en el futuro), se prohibió, bajo sanción, la práctica generalizada entre los empresarios de imponer multas espurias a los trabajadores con el único propósito de reducir sus salarios. Se decretaron salarios mínimos decentes. Se adoptó la prohibición de la acumulación de múltiples puestos de trabajo y se estableció un límite máximo para los salarios de los cargos públicos. Se hizo todo lo posible para aumentar el suministro de alimentos y reducir los precios. Se prohibió el trabajo nocturno en las panaderías y se abrieron algunas carnicerías municipales. Se implementaron diversas medidas de asistencia social para los más vulnerables, incluido el suministro de alimentos a mujeres y niños abandonados, y se aprobó el fin de la discriminación entre niños legítimos y naturales.

Todos los comuneros creían que la educación era un factor indispensable para la liberación de los individuos, sinceramente convencidos de que representaba el requisito previo de cualquier cambio social y político serio y duradero. Por tanto, animaron múltiples y relevantes debates en torno a las propuestas de reforma del sistema educativo. La escuela sería obligatoria y gratuita para todos, niños y niñas. La enseñanza religiosa sería reemplazada por la enseñanza laica, inspirada en el pensamiento racional y científico, y los costes del culto ya no recaerían en el presupuesto estatal. En las comisiones especialmente creadas y en la prensa se produjeron numerosas tomas de posición destacando cuán fundamental era la decisión de invertir en la educación femenina. Para convertirse verdaderamente en un “servicio público”, la escuela tenía que ofrecer las mismas oportunidades a los “niños de ambos sexos”. Por último, debía prohibir “las distinciones de raza, nacionalidad, fe o posición social”. Los avances de carácter teórico fueron acompañados de las primeras iniciativas prácticas y, en más de un distrito, miles de niños de la clase trabajadora recibieron material didáctico gratuito y entraron, por primera vez, en un edificio escolar.

La Comuna también legisló medidas de carácter socialista. Se decidió que los talleres abandonados por los propietarios que habían huido de la ciudad, a quienes se les garantizó una indemnización a su regreso, serían entregados a asociaciones cooperativas de trabajadores. Los teatros y museos -que estarían abiertos a todos y no serían de pago- fueron colectivizados y confiados a la dirección de quienes se habían adherido a la “Federación de Artistas de París”, presidida por el pintor e incansable militante Gustave Courbet. En él participaron unos 300 escultores, arquitectos, litógrafos y pintores (entre muchos también Édouard Manet). A esta iniciativa le siguió el nacimiento de la “Federación artística” que agrupó a los actores y al mundo de la ópera.

Todas estas acciones y disposiciones se llevaron a cabo sorprendentemente en solo 54 días, en un París todavía atormentado por los efectos de la guerra franco-prusiana. La Comuna sólo pudo funcionar del 29 de marzo al 21 de mayo y, además, en medio de una heroica resistencia a los ataques de Versalles, en una defensa que requería un gran derroche de energía humana y de recursos económicos. Además, dado que la Comuna no tenía ningún medio de coerción, muchas de las decisiones tomadas no se aplicaron de manera uniforme en el amplio territorio de la ciudad. Sin embargo, constituyeron un notable intento de reforma social y señalaron el camino de un posible cambio.

Una lucha colectiva y feminista
La Comuna fue mucho más que las medidas aprobadas por su asamblea legislativa. Incluso aspiró a alterar sustancialmente el espacio urbano, como lo demuestra la decisión de demoler la Columna Vendôme, reputada como un monumento a la barbarie y símbolo reprensible de la guerra, y secularizar algunos lugares de culto, destinando su uso a la comunidad. La Comuna vivió gracias a una extraordinaria participación masiva y un sólido espíritu de ayuda mutua. En este levantamiento contra la autoridad jugaron un papel destacado los clubes revolucionarios, que surgieron con increíble rapidez en casi todos los distritos. Se establecieron 28 y representaron uno de los ejemplos más importantes de la movilización espontánea que acompañó a la Comuna. Abiertos todas las noches, ofrecieron a la ciudadanía la oportunidad de reunirse, después del trabajo, para discutir libremente la situación social y política, verificar lo que habían logrado sus representantes y sugerir alternativas para la solución de los problemas cotidianos. Se trataba de asociaciones horizontales que favorecían la formación y expresión de la soberanía popular, pero también espacios de auténtica hermandad y fraternidad de hombres y mujeres. Eran espacios donde todos podían respirar la embriagadora posibilidad de convertirse en dueños de su propio destino.

En esta vía de emancipación no existía la discriminación nacional. El título de ciudadano de la Comuna estaba garantizado a todos los que trabajaban por su desarrollo y los extranjeros tenían los mismos derechos sociales garantizados que los franceses. Prueba de este principio de igualdad fue el papel predominante que asumieron varios extranjeros (unos 3.000 en total). El húngaro, miembro de la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores, Léo Frankel, no solo fue uno de los funcionarios electos de la Comuna, sino también el responsable de la comisión de trabajo, uno de los “ministerios” más importantes de París. Los polacos Jaroslaw Dombrowski y Walery Wroblewski, fueron nombrados generales con mando de la Guardia Nacional y desempeñaron un papel igualmente importante.

En este contexto, las mujeres, aún privadas del derecho al voto y, en consecuencia, también de sentarse entre los representantes del Consejo de la Comuna, jugaron un papel fundamental en la crítica del orden social existente. Transgredieron las normas de la sociedad burguesa y afirmaron su nueva identidad en oposición a los valores de la familia patriarcal. Salieron de la dimensión privada y se ocuparon de la esfera pública. Formaron la “Unión de Mujeres por la Defensa de París y por la Atención a los Heridos” (nacida gracias a la incesante actividad de Élisabeth Dmitrieff, militante de la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores) y jugaron un papel central en la identificación de batallas sociales estratégicas. Consiguieron el cierre de los burdeles, lograron la igualdad salarial con los maestros varones, acuñaron el lema “a igual trabajo, igual salario”, reclamaron igualdad de derechos en el matrimonio, exigieron el reconocimiento de las uniones libres, promovieron la creación de cámaras sindicales exclusivamente femeninas. Cuando, a mediados de mayo, la situación militar empeoró, cuando las tropas de Versalles llegaron a las puertas de París, las mujeres tomaron las armas e incluso lograron formar su propio batallón. Muchos expiraron su último aliento en las barricadas. La propaganda burguesa las convirtió en objeto de los ataques más despiadados, acusándolas de haber incendiado la ciudad durante los enfrentamientos y atribuyéndoles el despectivo calificativo de “las petroleras”.

¿Centralizar o descentralizar?
La Comuna quería establecer una auténtica democracia. Era un proyecto ambicioso y difícil. La soberanía popular a la que aspiraban los revolucionarios implicaba la participación del mayor número posible de ciudadanos. A finales de marzo, se habían desarrollado en París una miríada de comisiones centrales, subcomités de barrio, clubes revolucionarios y batallones de soldados que flanqueaban el duopolio ya complejo compuesto por el consejo de la Comuna y el comité central de la Guardia Nacional. Este último, de hecho, había conservado el control del poder militar, a menudo operando como un verdadero contrapoder del primero. Si el compromiso directo de una gran parte de la población constituía una garantía democrática vital, la multiplicidad de autoridades sobre el terreno complicaban el proceso de toma de decisiones y hacían tortuosa la aplicación de las ordenanzas.

El problema de la relación entre la autoridad central y los organismos locales produjo no pocos cortocircuitos, lo que resultó en una situación caótica y muchas veces paralizante. El ya precario equilibrio saltó por completo cuando, ante la emergencia de la guerra, la indisciplina presente en las filas de la Guardia Nacional y una creciente ineficacia de la acción gubernamental, Jules Miot propuso la creación de un Comité de Salud Pública de cinco integrantes – una solución inspirada en el modelo dictatorial de Maximilien Robespierre de 1793. La medida fue aprobada el 1 de mayo, por 45 votos a favor y 23 en contra. Fue un error dramático que decretó el principio del fin de una experiencia política sin precedentes y dividió a la Comuna en dos bloques opuestos. A los primeros pertenecían los neo-jacobinos y blanquistas, partidarios de la concentración del poder y, en última instancia, de la primacía de la dimensión política sobre la social. El segundo incluía a la mayoría de los miembros de la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores, para quienes el ámbito social era más importante que el político. Consideraban necesaria la separación de poderes y creían que la república nunca debía cuestionar las libertades políticas. Coordinados por el infatigable Eugène Varlin, hicieron público su claro rechazo a las derivas autoritarias y no participaron en la elección del Comité de Salud Pública. Para ellos, el poder centralizado en manos de unos pocos individuos contradecía los postulados de la Comuna. Sus cargos electos no eran los poseedores de la soberanía -esta pertenecía al pueblo- y, por tanto, no tenían derecho a enajenarla. El 21 de mayo, cuando la minoría participó nuevamente en una sesión del consejo de la Comuna, se hizo un nuevo intento de restablecer la unidad en su seno. Pero ya era demasiado tarde.

La Comuna, sinónimo de la revolución
La Comuna de París fue reprimida con brutal violencia por los ejércitos de Versalles. Durante la llamada “semana sangrienta” (del 21 al 28 de mayo) fueron muertos entre 17.000 y 25.000 ciudadanos. Los últimos enfrentamientos tuvieron lugar a lo largo del perímetro del cementerio de Père-Lachaise. El joven Arthur Rimbaud describió la capital francesa como una “ciudad dolorosa, casi muerta”. Fue la masacre más violenta de la historia de Francia. Solo 6.000 comuneros lograron escapar y refugiarse en el exilio en Inglaterra, Bélgica y Suiza. Hubo 43.522 prisioneros. Un centenar de ellos fueron condenados a muerte tras juicios sumarísimos de los consejos de guerra, mientras que otros 13.500 fueron enviados a prisión, a trabajos forzados o deportados (en buena parte, especialmente, a la remota Nueva Caledonia). Algunos de ellos se solidarizaron y compartieron la misma suerte que los insurgentes argelinos que habían liderado la revuelta anticolonial de Mokrani, que tuvo lugar al mismo tiempo que la Comuna y que también fue aplastada violentamente por las tropas francesas.

El espectro de la Comuna intensificó la represión anti-socialista en toda Europa. Justificando la violencia estatal sin precedentes ejercida por Thiers, la prensa conservadora y liberal acusó a los comuneros de los peores crímenes y expresó gran alivio por la restauración del “orden natural” y la legalidad burguesa, así como su satisfacción por el triunfo de la “civilización” sobre la “anarquía”. Aquellos que se habían atrevido a cuestionar la autoridad y atacar los privilegios de la clase dominante fueron castigados de manera ejemplar. Las mujeres volvieron a ser consideradas seres inferiores y los trabajadores, con sus manos sucias y llenas de callos, que se habían atrevido a pensar que podían gobernar, fueron devueltos a los lugares que se les reservaba en la sociedad.

Sin embargo, la insurrección parisina dio fuerza a las luchas de los trabajadores y las empujó hacia posiciones más radicales. A raíz de su derrota, Eugène Pottier escribió una canción destinada a convertirse en la más famosa del movimiento obrero. Sus versos dicen: “¡Agrupémonos todos en la lucha final. El género humano es la internacional! (Groupons-nous, et demain, L’Internationale sera le genre humain!). París había demostrado que era necesario perseguir el objetivo de construir una sociedad radicalmente diferente de la capitalista. A partir de ese momento, aunque El tiempo de las cerezas nunca llegó para sus protagonistas (según el título de la célebre canción compuesta por el comunero Jean Baptiste Clément), la Comuna encarnó la idea abstracta y el cambio concreto al mismo tiempo. Se convirtió en sinónimo del concepto mismo de revolución, fue una experiencia ontológica de la clase trabajadora. En La guerra civil en Francia, Marx afirmó que esta “vanguardia del proletariado moderno” logró “acercar a los trabajadores de todo el mundo a Francia”. La Comuna de París cambió la conciencia de los trabajadores y su percepción colectiva. Después de 150 años, su bandera roja sigue ondeando y nos recuerda que siempre es posible una alternativa. Vive la Commune!

Traducción de Gustavo Buster

Categories
Journal Articles

Il Comunismo secondo Marx

1. Comunismo come libera associazione
Nel Libro primo del Capitale, Marx argomentò che il capitalismo è un modo di produzione sociale «storicamente determinato», nel quale il prodotto del lavoro è trasformato in merce.
In conseguenza di questa peculiarità, gli individui hanno valore solo in quanto produttori e «l’esistenza dell’essere umano» è asservita all’atto della «produ[zione] di merci». Pertanto, è «il processo di produzione [a] padroneggi[are] gli esseri umani», non viceversa. Il capitale «non si preoccupa della durata della vita della forza-lavoro» e non ritiene rilevante il miglioramento delle condizioni del proletariato. Quello che gli «interessa è unicamente […] il massimo [sfruttamento] di forza lavoro […], così come un agricoltore avido ottiene aumentati proventi dal suolo rapinandone la fertilità».

Nei Grundrisse, Marx ricordò che, poiché nel capitalismo, «lo scopo del lavoro non è un prodotto particolare che sta in […] rapporto con i bisogni […] dell’individuo, ma [è, invece,] il denaro […], la laboriosità dell’individuo non ha alcun limite». In siffatta società «tutto il tempo di un individuo è posto come tempo di lavoro e [l’uomo] viene degradato a mero operaio, sussunto sotto il lavoro». Ciò nonostante, l’ideologia borghese presenta questa condizione come se l’individuo godesse di una maggiore libertà e fosse protetto da norme giuridiche imparziali, in grado di garantire giustizia ed equità. Paradossalmente, malgrado l’economia sia giunta a un livello di sviluppo in grado di consentire a tutta la società di vivere in condizioni migliori rispetto al passato, «le macchine più progredite costringono l’operaio a lavorare più a lungo di quanto era toccato al selvaggio o di quanto lui stesso aveva fatto, [prima di allora,] con strumenti più semplici e rozzi».

Al contrario, il comunismo fu definito da Marx come «un’associazione di liberi esseri umani che lavor[a]no con mezzi di produzione comuni e spend[o]no coscientemente le loro molteplici forze-lavoro individuali come una sola forza-lavoro sociale». Definizioni simili sono presenti in numerosi manoscritti di Marx. Nei Grundrisse, egli scrisse che la società postcapitalista si sarebbe fondata sulla «produzione sociale». Nei Manoscritti economici del 1863-1867, parlò del «passaggio del modo di produzione capitalistico al modo di produzione del lavoro associato. Nella Critica al programma di Gotha (1875), Marx definì l’organizzazione sociale «fondata sulla proprietà comune dei mezzi di produzione» come «società cooperativa».

Nel Libro primo del Capitale, Marx chiarì che il «principio fondamentale» di questa «forma superiore di società» sarebbe stato il «pieno e libero sviluppo di ogni individuo». Ne La guerra civile in Francia, espresse la sua approvazione per le misure adottate dai comunardi che lasciavano «presagire la tendenza di un governo del popolo per il popolo». Più precisamente, nelle sue valutazioni circa le riforme politiche della Comune di Parigi, egli ritenne che «il vecchio governo centralizzato avrebbe dovuto cedere il passo, anche nelle province, all’autogoverno dei produttori». L’espressione venne ripresa negli Estratti e commenti critici a «Stato e anarchia» di Bakunin, dove specificò che un radicale cambiamento sociale avrebbe avuto «inizio con l’autogoverno della comunità». L’idea di società di Marx è, dunque, l’antitesi dei totalitarismi sorti in suo nome nel XX secolo. I suoi testi sono utili non solo per comprendere il modo di funzionamento del capitalismo, ma anche per individuare le ragioni dei fallimenti delle esperienze socialiste fin qui compiute.

In riferimento al tema della cosiddetta libera concorrenza, ovvero l’apparente eguaglianza con la quale operai e capitalisti si trovano posti sul mercato nella società borghese, Marx dichiarò che essa era tutt’altro dalla libertà umana tanto esaltata dagli esegeti del capitalismo. Egli riteneva che questo sistema costituisse un grande impedimento per la democrazia e mostrò, meglio di chiunque altro, che i lavoratori non ricevono il corrispettivo di quello che producono. Nei Grundrisse, spiegò che quanto veniva rappresentato come uno «scambio di equivalenti» era, invece, «appropriazione di lavoro altrui senza scambio, ma sotto la parvenza dello scambio». Le relazioni tra le persone erano «determinate soltanto dai loro interessi egoistici». Questa «collisione di individui» era stata spacciata come la «forma assoluta di esistenza della libera individualità nella sfera della produzione e dello scambio». Per Marx non vi era, in realtà, «niente di più falso», poiché, «nella libera concorrenza, non gli individui, ma il capitale è posto in condizioni di libertà». Nei Manoscritti economici del 1861-63 egli denunciò che era «il capitalista a incassare questo pluslavoro – [che era] […] tempo libero [e] […] la base materiale dello sviluppo e della cultura in generale […] – in nome della società». Nel Libro primo del Capitale, egli denunciò che la ricchezza della borghesia è possibile solo mediante la «trasformazione in tempo di lavoro di tutto il tempo di vita delle masse».

Nei Grundrisse, Marx osservò che nel capitalismo «gli individui sono sussunti dalla produzione sociale», la quale esiste come qualcosa che è a «loro estraneo». Essa viene realizzata solamente in funzione dell’attribuzione del valore di scambio conferito ai prodotti, la cui compravendita avviene soltanto «post festum». Inoltre, «tutti i fattori sociali della produzione», comprese le scoperte scientifiche che si palesano come «una scienza altrui, esterna all’operaio», sono poste dal capitale. Lo stesso associarsi degli operai nei luoghi e nell’atto della produzione è «operato dal capitale» ed è, pertanto, «soltanto formale». L’uso dei beni creati da parte dei lavoratori «non è mediat[o] dallo scambio di lavori o di prodotti di lavoro reciprocamente indipendenti [, bensì] […] dalle condizioni sociali della produzione entro le quali agisce l’individuo». Marx fece comprendere come l’attività produttiva nella fabbrica «riguarda[sse] solo il prodotto del lavoro, non il lavoro stesso», dal momento che avveniva «in un ambiente comune, sotto vigilanza, irreggimentazione, maggiore disciplina, immobilità e dipendenza».

Nel comunismo, invece, la produzione sarebbe stata «immediatamente sociale […], il risultato dell’associazione che ripartisce il lavoro al proprio interno». Essa sarebbe stata controllata dagli individui come «loro patrimonio comune». Il «carattere sociale della produzione» avrebbe fatto sì che l’oggetto del lavoro fosse stato, «fin dal principio, un prodotto sociale e generale». Il carattere associativo «è presupposto» e «il lavoro del singolo si pone, sin dalla sua origine, come lavoro sociale». Come volle sottolineare nella Critica al programma di Gotha, nella società postcapitalistica «i lavori individuali non [sarebbero] più diventa[ti] parti costitutive del lavoro complessivo attraverso un processo indiretto, ma in modo diretto». In aggiunta, gli operai avrebbero potuto creare le condizioni per una «scomparsa [del]la subordinazione servile degli individui alla divisione del lavoro».

Nel Libro primo del Capitale, Marx evidenziò che nella società borghese «l’operaio esiste in funzione del processo di produzione e non il processo di produzione per l’operaio». Inoltre, parallelamente allo sfruttamento dei lavoratori, si manifestava anche quello verso l’ambiente. All’opposto delle interpretazioni che hanno assimilato la concezione marxiana della società comunista al mero sviluppo delle forze produttive, il suo interesse per la questione ecologica fu rilevante. Marx denunciò, ripetutamente, che lo sviluppo del modo di produzione capitalistico determinava un aumento «non solo nell’arte di rapinare l’operaio, ma anche nell’arte di rapinare il suolo». Per suo tramite, venivano minate entrambe le «fonti da cui sgorga ogni ricchezza: la terra e l’operaio».

Nel comunismo, viceversa, si sarebbero create le condizioni per una forma di «cooperazione pianificata», in virtù della quale «l’operaio si [sarebbe] spoglia[to] dei suoi limiti individuali e [avrebbe] sviluppa[to] la facoltà della sua specie». Nel Libro secondo Marx scrisse che nel comunismo la società sarebbe stata in grado di «calcolare in precedenza quanto lavoro, mezzi di produzione e di sussistenza [avrebbe potuto] adoperare». Essa si sarebbe così differenziata, anche da questo punto di vista, dal capitalismo, sotto il quale «l’intelletto sociale si fa valere sempre soltanto post festum, [facendo] così intervenire, costantemente, grandi perturbamenti». Anche in alcuni brani del Libro terzo, Marx offrì chiarimenti sulle differenze tra il modo di produzione socialista e quello basato sul mercato, auspicando la nascita di una società «organizzata come una associazione cosciente e sistematica». Egli affermò che «è solo quando la società controlla efficacemente la produzione, regolandola in anticipo, che essa crea il legame fra la misura del tempo di lavoro sociale dedicato alla produzione di un articolo determinato e l’estensione del bisogno sociale che tale articolo deve soddisfare».

Nelle Glosse marginali al «Trattato di economia politica» di Adolf Wagner, infine, compare un’altra indicazione in proposito: «il volume della produzione» avrebbe dovuto essere «regolato razionalmente». L’applicazione di questo criterio avrebbe consentito di abbattere anche gli sprechi dell’«anarchico sistema della concorrenza», il quale, nel ricorrere delle sue crisi strutturali, oltre a «determina[re] lo sperpero smisurato dei mezzi di produzione e delle forze-lavoro sociali», non era in grado di risolvere le contraddizioni derivanti dall’introduzione dei macchinari, dovute essenzialmente «al loro uso capitalistico».

2. Proprietà collettiva e tempo libero
Per ribaltare questo stato di cose, contrariamente a quanto credevano molti socialisti contemporanei a Marx, non bastava modificare la redistribuzione dei beni di consumo. Occorreva modificare alla radice gli assetti produttivi della società. Fu per questo che, nei Grundrisse, Marx annotò che «lasciare sussistere il lavoro salariato e, allo stesso tempo, sopprimere il capitale [era] una rivendicazione che si autocontraddice[va]». Occorreva, viceversa, la «dissoluzione del modo di produzione e della forma di società fondati sul valore di scambio». Nel discorso pubblicato con il titolo Salario, prezzo e profitto, egli ammonì gli operai affinché sulle loro bandiere non apparisse «la parola d’ordine conservatrice “Equo salario per un’equa giornata di lavoro”», ma il «motto rivoluzionario “Soppressione del sistema del lavoro salariato”».

Per di più, come si trova dichiarato nella Critica al programma di Gotha, nel modo di produzione capitalistico «le condizioni materiali della produzione [erano] a disposizione dei non operai sotto forma di proprietà del capitale e proprietà della terra, mentre la massa [era] soltanto proprietaria della [propria] forza lavoro». Pertanto, era essenziale rovesciare i rapporti proprietari alla base del modo di produzione borghese. Nei Grundrisse, Marx ricordò che «le leggi della proprietà privata – ovvero la libertà, l’uguaglianza, la proprietà sul lavoro e la sua libera disposizione – si riversano nella mancanza di proprietà dell’operaio, nell’espropriazione del suo lavoro e nel suo riferirsi a esso come proprietà altrui». In un intervento svolto, nel 1869, al Consiglio generale dell’Associazione internazionale dei lavoratori, Marx affermò che la «proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione» serviva soltanto ad assicurare alla classe borghese il «potere con il quale essa [avrebbe] costr[etto] altri esseri umani a lavorare» per lei. Egli ribadì lo stesso concetto in un altro breve scritto politico, il Programma elettorale dei lavoratori socialisti, aggiungendo che «i produttori possono essere liberi solo quando sono in possesso dei mezzi di produzione» e che l’obiettivo della lotta del proletariato doveva essere la «restituzione alla comunità di tutti i mezzi di produzione».

Nel Libro terzo del Capitale, Marx osservò che, quando i lavoratori avrebbero instaurato un modo di produzione comunista, «la proprietà privata del globo terrestre da parte di singoli individui [sarebbe] appar[sa] così assurda come la proprietà privata di un essere umano da parte di un altro essere umano». Egli manifestò la sua più radicale critica verso l’idea di possesso distruttivo insita nel capitalismo, ricordando che «anche un’intera società, una nazione, o anche tutte le società di una stessa epoca prese complessivamente, non sono proprietarie della terra». Per Marx, gli esseri umani erano «soltanto […] i suoi usufruttuari» e, dunque, avevano «il dovere di tramandare alle generazioni successive [il mondo] migliorato, come boni patres familias».

Un diverso assetto della proprietà dei mezzi di produzione avrebbe mutato alla radice anche i tempi di vita della società. Nel Libro primo del Capitale, Marx disvelò, con inequivocabile chiarezza, le ragioni per le quali, nel capitalismo, «l’economia di lavoro mediante lo sviluppo della forza produttiva del lavoro non ha affatto lo scopo di accorciare la giornata lavorativa». Il tempo che il progredire della tecnica e della scienza renderebbe disponibile per i singoli viene, infatti, immediatamente convertito in pluslavoro. La classe dominante ha come unica ambizione quella di «ridurre il tempo di lavoro necessario per la produzione di una determinata quantità di merci». Il suo solo scopo è quello di sviluppare la forza produttiva con il solo fine di «abbrevia[re] la parte della giornata lavorativa nella quale l’operaio deve lavorare per sé stesso, per prolungare […] la parte […] nella quale l’operaio può lavorare gratuitamente per il capitalista». Questo sistema differisce dalla schiavitù o dalle corvées dovute al signore feudale, poiché «pluslavoro e lavoro necessario sfumano l’uno nell’altro» e rendono più difficilmente percettibile l’entità dello sfruttamento.

Nei Grundrisse, Marx mise bene in evidenza che è solo grazie a questo surplus del tempo di lavoro di tutti che si rende possibile il «tempo libero per alcuni». La borghesia consegue l’accrescimento delle sue facoltà materiali e culturali solo grazie alla limitazione imposta a quello del proletariato. Lo stesso accade nelle nazioni capitalisticamente più avanzate, a discapito delle periferie del sistema. Nei Manoscritti economici del 1861-1863, Marx ribadì che il progresso della classe dominante è speculare alla «mancanza di sviluppo della massa lavoratrice». Il tempo libero della prima «corrisponde al tempo asservito» dei lavoratori; «lo sviluppo sociale dell’una fa del lavoro di [questi] altr[i] la propria base naturale». Questo tempo di pluslavoro degli operai non solo è il pilastro sul quale poggia la «esistenza materiale» della borghesia, ma crea la condizione anche per il suo «tempo libero, la sfera del [suo] sviluppo». Come meglio non si potrebbe dichiarare: «il tempo libero dell’una corrisponde al […] tempo soggiogato al lavoro […] dell’altra».

Per Marx, al contrario, la società comunista sarebbe stata caratterizzata da una diminuzione generalizzata dei tempi di lavoro. Nel documento Istruzioni per i delegati del Consiglio Generale provvisorio. Le differenti questioni, da lui predisposto per il primo congresso dell’Associazione internazionale dei lavoratori, enunciò che la riduzione della giornata lavorativa era la «condizione preliminare senza la quale [sarebbero] aborti[ti] tutti gli ulteriori tentativi di miglioramento e di emancipazione». Era necessario non solo «fare recuperare l’energia e la salute alla classe lavoratrice», ma anche «fornire a essa la possibilità di sviluppo intellettuale, di relazioni e attività sociali e politiche». Nel Libro primo del Capitale, Marx argomentò che il «tempo per un’educazione da esseri umani, per lo sviluppo intellettuale, per l’adempimento di funzioni sociali, per rapporti socievoli, per la libera espressione delle energie vitali, fisiche e mentali», considerati dai capitalisti «fronzoli puri e semplici», sarebbero stati gli elementi fondativi della nuova società. Il decremento delle ore destinate al lavoro – non solo del tempo di lavoro necessario per creare nuovo pluslavoro in favore della classe capitalista – avrebbe favorito, così appuntò Marx nei Grundrisse, «il libero sviluppo delle individualità», ovvero «la formazione e lo sviluppo artistico e scientifico […] degli individui, grazie al tempo divenuto libero e ai mezzi creati per tutti loro».

Sulla base di queste convinzioni, egli ravvisò nella «economia di tempo, e [nella] ripartizione pianificata del tempo di lavoro nei diversi rami di produzione, la prima legge economica alla base della produzione sociale». Nelle Teorie sul plusvalore precisò, ancor più, che «la ricchezza non è niente altro che tempo disponibile». Nella società comunista l’autogestione dei lavoratori avrebbe dovuto assicurare una maggiore quantità di tempo che non doveva essere «assorbito dal lavoro immediatamente produttivo, [ma] dar[e] luogo al godimento, all’ozio e, pertanto, alla libera attività e al libero sviluppo». In questo testo, così come nei Grundrisse, Marx citò un breve pamphlet intitolato La fonte e il rimedio delle difficoltà nazionali dedotte dai principi di economia politica in una lettera al signor John Russell, del quale condivideva pienamente la definizione di benessere formulata dall’anonimo autore: «una nazione si può dire veramente ricca, quando in essa invece di lavorare per 12 ore si lavora soltanto per sei. La ricchezza reale non è l’imposizione del tempo di lavoro supplementare, ma è il tempo [che viene reso] disponibile a ogni individuo e a tutta la società, fuori da quello usato nella produzione immediata». La medesima idea si trova ribadita in un altro brano dei Grundrisse, nel quale Marx domandava retoricamente: «che cos’è la ricchezza se non l’universalità dei bisogni, delle capacità, dei godimenti, delle forze produttive degli individui? […] Che cos’è se non l’estrinsecazione assoluta delle [loro] doti creative?». È evidente, dunque, che il modello socialista al quale egli guardava non contemperava uno stato di miseria generalizzata, ma il conseguimento di una maggiore ricchezza collettiva.

3. Ruolo dello Stato, diritti individuali e libertà
Nella società comunista, accanto alle trasformazioni dell’economia, avrebbero dovuto essere ridefiniti anche il ruolo dello Stato e le funzioni della politica. Ne La guerra civile in Francia, Marx tenne a chiarire che, in seguito alla presa del potere, la classe lavoratrice avrebbe dovuto lottare per «estirpare le basi economiche sulle quali riposa l’esistenza delle classi e, quindi, il dominio di classe». Una volta che sarà «emancipato il lavoro, ogni essere umano div[errà] un lavoratore e il lavoro produttivo cess[erà] di essere l’attributo di una classe». La nota affermazione «la classe operaia non può semplicemente impadronirsi della macchina statale così com’è» stava a significare, come Marx ed Engels spiegarono nell’opuscolo Le cosiddette scissioni nell’Internazionale, che il movimento operaio avrebbe dovuto tendere a trasformare «le funzioni governative […] in semplici funzioni amministrative». Anche se con una formulazione alquanto concisa, negli Estratti e commenti critici a «Stato e anarchia» di Bakunin, Marx spiegò che «la distribuzione delle funzioni [governative avrebbe dovuto] diven[tare] un fatto amministrativo che non attribuisce alcun potere». In questo modo, si sarebbe potuto evitare, quanto più possibile, che l’esercizio degli incarichi politici generasse nuove dinamiche di dominio e soggezione.

Marx valutò che, con lo sviluppo della società moderna, «il potere dello Stato [aveva] assu[nto] sempre più il carattere di potere nazionale del capitale sul lavoro, di una forza pubblica organizzata di asservimento sociale, di uno strumento del dispotismo di classe». Nel comunismo, al contrario, i lavoratori avrebbero dovuto impedire che lo Stato divenisse un ostacolo alla piena emancipazione degli individui. A essi Marx indicò la necessità che «gli organi meramente repressivi del vecchio potere governativo [fossero] amputati», mentre le sue «funzioni legittime» avrebbe[ro] dovuto essere «strappate da un’autorità che usurpava il primato della società […] e restituite agli agenti responsabili della società». Nella Critica al programma di Gotha Marx chiarì che «la libertà consiste nel mutare lo Stato da organo sovrapposto alla società in organo assolutamente subordinato ad essa», chiosando con sagacia che «le forme dello Stato sono più o meno libere nella misura in cui limitano la “libertà dello Stato”».

In questo stesso testo, Marx sottolineò anche l’esigenza che, nella società comunista, le politiche pubbliche privilegiassero la «soddisfazione collettiva dei bisogni». Le spese per le scuole, le istituzioni sanitarie e gli altri beni comuni sarebbero «notevolmente aumentat[e] fin dall’inizio, rispetto alla società attuale, e [sarebbero] aument[ate] nella misura in cui la nuova società si verrà sviluppando». L’istruzione avrebbe assunto una funzione di primario rilievo e, così come aveva ricordato ne La guerra civile in Francia, riferendosi al modello adottato dai comunardi parigini nel 1871, «tutti gli istituti di istruzione [sarebbero] stati aperti gratuitamente al popolo e liberati da ogni ingerenza sia della Chiesa che dello Stato». Solo così la cultura sarebbe «stata resa accessibile a tutti» e la scienza affrancata sia «dai pregiudizi di classe [che] dalla forza del governo».

Differentemente dalla società liberale, nella quale «l’eguale diritto» lascia inalterate le disuguaglianze esistenti, per Marx nella società comunista «il diritto [avrebbe] dov[uto] essere disuguale, invece di essere uguale». Una sua trasformazione in tal senso avrebbe riconosciuto, e tutelato, gli individui in base ai loro specifici bisogni e al minore o maggiore disagio delle loro condizioni, poiché «non sarebbero individui diversi, se non fossero disuguali». Sarebbe stato possibile, inoltre, determinare la giusta partecipazione di ciascuna persona ai servizi e alla ricchezza disponibile. La società che ambiva a seguire il principio «ognuno secondo le sue capacità, a ognuno secondo i suoi bisogni» aveva, davanti a sé, questo cammino complesso e irto di difficoltà. Tuttavia, l’esito finale non era garantito da «magnifiche sorti e progressive» e, allo stesso tempo, non era irreversibile.

Marx assegnò un valore fondamentale alla libertà individuale e il suo comunismo fu radicalmente diverso tanto dal livellamento delle classi, auspicato da diversi suoi predecessori, quanto dalla grigia uniformità politica ed economica, realizzata da molti suoi seguaci. Nell’Urtext, però, pose l’accento anche sull’«errore di quei socialisti, specialmente francesi», che, considerando «il socialismo [quale] realizzazione delle idee borghesi», avevano cercato di «dimostrare che il valore di scambio [fosse], originariamente […], un sistema di libertà ed eguaglianza per tutti, […] falsificato [… poi] dal capitale». Nei Grundrisse, Marx etichettò come «insulsaggine [quella] di considerare la libera concorrenza quale ultimo sviluppo della libertà umana». Difatti, questa tesi «non significa[va] altro se non che il dominio della borghesia [era] il termine ultimo della libertà umana», idea che, ironicamente, Marx definì «allettante per i parvenus».

Allo stesso modo, egli contestò l’ideologia liberale secondo la quale «la negazione della libera concorrenza equivale alla negazione della libertà individuale e della produzione sociale basata sulla libertà individuale». Nella società borghese si rendeva possibile soltanto un «libero sviluppo su base limitata, sulla base del dominio del capitale». A suo avviso, «questo genere di libertà individuale [era], al tempo stesso, la più completa soppressione di ogni libertà individuale e il più completo soggiogamento dell’individualità alle condizioni sociali, le quali assumono la forma di poteri oggettivi […] [e] oggetti indipendenti […] dagli stessi individui e dalle loro relazioni».

L’alternativa all’alienazione capitalistica era realizzabile solo se le classi subalterne avessero preso coscienza della loro condizione di nuovi schiavi e avessero dato inizio alla lotta per una trasformazione radicale del mondo nel quale venivano sfruttati. La loro mobilitazione e la loro partecipazione attiva a questo processo non poteva arrestarsi, però, all’indomani della presa del potere. Avrebbe dovuto proseguire al fine di scongiurare la deriva verso un socialismo di Stato nei cui confronti Marx manifestò sempre la più tenace e convinta opposizione.

In una significativa lettera indirizzata, nel 1868, al presidente dell’Associazione generale degli operai tedeschi, Marx spiegò che «l’operaio non andava trattato con provvedimenti burocratici», affinché potesse obbedire «all’autorità e ai superiori; la cosa più importante era insegnargli a camminare da solo». Egli non mutò mai questa convinzione nel corso della sua esistenza. Non a caso, come primo punto degli Statuti dell’Associazione Internazionale dei Lavoratori, da lui redatto, aveva posto: «l’emancipazione della classe lavoratrice deve essere opera dei lavoratori stessi». Aggiungendo, in quello immediatamente successivo, che la loro lotta non doveva «tendere a costituire nuovi privilegi e monopoli di classe, ma a stabilire diritti e doveri eguali per tutti».

Molti dei partiti e dei regimi politici sorti nel nome di Marx, utilizzando in modo strumentale e citando impropriamente il concetto di «dittatura del proletariato», non hanno seguito la direzione da lui indicata. Tuttavia, ciò non vuol dire che non sia possibile provarci ancora.

References
1. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 108.
2. Ibid., p. 111.
3. Ibid., p. 113.
4. Ibid., p. 301.
5. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., i, p. 185.
6. Ibid., ii, p. 406.
7. Ibid., p. 405.
8. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 110.
9. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., i, p. 117.
10. K. Marx, Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863-1867, mega2, ii/4.2, Dietz Verlag, Berlin 2012, p. 662.
11. K. Marx, Critica al programma di Gotha, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1990, p. 14. Palmiro Togliatti ha erroneamente tradotto questa espressione con il termine «società collettivista».
12. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 648.
13. K. Marx, La guerra civile in Francia. Indirizzo del Consiglio generale dell’Associazione internazionale dei lavoratori, in Marx Engels Opere, xxii, La Città del Sole-Editori Riuniti, Napoli-Roma 2008, p. 304.
14. Ibid., p. 297.
15. Marx, Estratti e commenti critici a «Stato e anarchia» di Bakunin cit., p. 356.
16. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., ii, p. 141.
17. Ibid., p. 333.
18. K. Marx, Manoscritti economici del 1861-1863, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1980, p. 200.
19. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 578.
20. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., i, p. 100.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., p. 117.
23. Ibid., ii, p. 241.
24. Ibid., p. 393.
25. Ibid., i, p. 118.
26. Ibid., ii, 243
27. Ibid., p. 244.
28. Ibid., i, p. 100.
29. Ibid., p. 117.
30. Ibid.
31. Marx, Critica al programma di Gotha cit., pp. 14-5.
32. Ibid., p. 17.
33. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 537.
34. Ibid., p. 552.
35. Ibid., p. 553.
36. Ibid., p. 371.
37. K. Marx, Il capitale. Libro secondo. Il processo di circolazione del capitale, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1989, p. 331.
38. K. Marx, Il capitale. Libro terzo. Il processo complessivo della produzione capitalistica, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1989, p. 763.
39. Ibid., p. 231.
40. Marx, Glosse marginali al «Trattato di economia politica» di Adolf Wagner cit., p. 1409.
41. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 578.
42. Ibid., p. 486.
43. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., i, p. 296.
44. Ibid., p. 241.
45. Marx, Salario, prezzo e profitto cit., p. 150.
46. Marx, Critica al programma di Gotha cit., p. 18.
47. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., ii, p. 364.
48. Marx, Critica dell’anarchismo cit., p. 279.
49. J. Guesde, P. Lafargue, K. Marx, Programma elettorale dei lavoratori socialisti, in M. Musto, L’ultimo Marx, 1881-1883. Saggio di biografia intellettuale, Donzelli, Roma 2016, pp. 137-40.
50. Marx, Il capitale. Libro terzo cit., p. 887.
51. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 360.
52. Ibid., pp. 360-1.
53. Ibid., p. 271.
54. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., ii, p. 404.
55. K. Marx, Manoscritti del 1861-1863, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1980, p. 194
56. Ibid., p. 195
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid., p. 194
59. K. Marx, Risoluzioni del Congresso di Ginevra, in Prima Internazionale, Lavoratori di tutto il mondo, unitevi! cit., p. 35.
60. Marx, Il capitale. Libro primo cit., p. 300.
61. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., ii, p. 402.
62. Ibid., i, pp. 118-9.
63. K. Marx, Teorie sul plusvalore iii, in Marx Engels Opere, xxxvi, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1979, p. 274.
64. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., ii, p. 402.
65. Ibid., p. 112.
66. Marx, La guerra civile in Francia cit., p. 300.
67. K. Marx – F. Engels, Le cosiddette scissioni nell’Internazionale, in Idd., Critica dell’anarchismo cit., p. 76.
68. Marx, Estratti e commenti critici a «Stato e anarchia» di Bakunin cit., p. 357.
69. Marx, La guerra civile in Francia cit., p. 294.
70. Ibid., p. 298.
71. Marx, Critica al programma di Gotha cit., p. 28.
72. Ibid., p. 14.
73. Marx, La guerra civile in Francia cit., p. 297.
74. Marx, Critica al programma di Gotha cit., p. 18.
75. K. Marx, Frammento del testo primitivo, in Id., Scritti inediti di Economia politica, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1963, p. 91.
76. Marx, Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica cit., ii, p. 335.
77. Karl Marx a Johann Baptist von Schweitzer, 13 ottobre 1868, in K. Marx, Lettere: gennaio 1868-luglio 1870, Marx Engels Opere, xliii, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1975, p. 620.
78. K. Marx, Indirizzo inaugurale e statuti provvisori dell’Associazione Internazionale degli Operai, in Marx Engels Opere, xx, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1987, p. 14.

Categories
Journal Articles

美国内战和波兰独立斗争

马塞罗·默斯托 著  张福公 译
内容提要 | 19世纪60年代初,马克思在外交和国际政治方面的新闻工作和学术兴趣促使他将注意力聚焦于两个突出的历史事件:第一是美国内战的爆发,当时七个蓄奴州宣布脱离美利坚合众国;第二是波兰人民抵抗俄国占领的起义。

马克思对这些历史事件的分析也借助国际工人协会影响了他的政治努力。本文探讨了马克思对美国内战和波兰独立斗争的研究是如何同他的理论发展和政治介入紧密联系起来的。通过考察,马克思把捉到了在这些事件中发挥作用的微观动力学,这使得他能够为工人阶级组织提供有效的国际主义干预建议。

关 键 词 | 美国内战  奴隶制  波兰起义  国际工人协会  解放
作者简介 | 马塞罗·默斯托(Marcello Musto),加拿大约克大学副教授
译者简介 | 张福公(1990— ),南京师范大学哲学系讲师(南京 210023)

一、美国反对奴隶制的斗争
1861年春,美国内战的爆发震动了整个世界政治。这场战争是在亚伯拉罕·林肯当选美国总统后不久开始的,当时七个蓄奴州即南卡罗来纳州、密西西比州、佛罗里达州、亚拉巴马州、佐治亚州、路易西安纳州和得克萨斯州宣布脱离美利坚合众国。随后,弗吉尼亚州、阿肯色州、田纳西州、北卡罗来纳州以及后来的密苏里州和肯塔基州(尽管后两者没有正式宣布脱离)加入了脱离合众国的行列。随之而来的血腥冲突夺走南部同盟(the Confederacy,主张维持和扩大奴隶制)和北部联邦(the Union,忠于林肯但在某些情况下承认奴隶制的合法性)大约75万人的生命。

马克思立即着手研究这一事件,并在7月初写信给恩格斯指出:“南部和北部之间的冲突,在北部五十年来一再屈辱地退让之后,终于(撇开‘骑士等级’的新的无耻的要求不谈)由于西北部各州的非凡发展对事件进程产生影响而爆发了。” 在马克思看来,这种脱离主义运动没有任何合法性。他们应被视为“篡夺”,因为“他们无论在什么地方都没有举行过全民投票”。无论如何,“这不仅仅是脱离北部,而且是巩固和加强南部三十万奴隶主对五百万白人实行寡头统治的问题”。几天之后,马克思意识到“至于脱离问题,英国各报的报道完全不真实”,因为除了南卡罗来纳州以外,到处“都有过对脱离的极其强烈的反抗”。而且,在允许选举协商的地方,一切活动都是在应受谴责的情况下进行的。譬如,在墨西哥湾的各州,“真正的人民投票只在几个州里举行了”。在弗吉尼亚州,“南部同盟的大批军队突然开入该州”,而“关于脱离问题的投票,就是在这些军队的掩护下进行的(纯粹是波拿巴式的)。尽管不断采取恐怖手段,但还是有五万票拥护联邦”。在得克萨斯州,“除南卡罗来纳以外,它拥有最强大的蓄奴党和最残暴的恐怖手段,但仍然有一万一千票拥护联邦”。在亚拉巴马州,“人民既没有就脱离问题举行投票,也没有就新宪法等问题举行投票。这里选出的代表大会以六十一票对三十九票通过脱离法令。但是几乎完全由白人居住的北部各郡投的这三十九票比那六十一票代表了更多的自由人;因为根据美国宪法,每个奴隶主同时还可以替他五分之三的奴隶投票”。至于路易西安纳州,“在选举代表大会的代表时,投票赞成联邦的比赞成脱离派的多。但是这些代表倒过去了”。

马克思在写给恩格斯的信中提到的这些想法在他的新闻稿件中得到了更为重要的论证补充。除了投给《纽约每日论坛报》的零星稿件之外,马克思于1861年10月也开始为维也纳的自由派日报《新闻报》(Die Presse)撰稿,该报当时有3万名订阅者,是奥地利最受欢迎的报纸,也是最受欢迎的德语报纸之一。这些文章的主题——也包括关于法国对墨西哥的第二次入侵的报道——主要是美国内战对英国的经济影响。马克思尤其关注了贸易发展和财政状况,并评估了公众舆论的趋势。因此,在《伦敦的工人大会》(1862年)中,他对英国工人组织的示威活动表示欣慰,他们虽然“在议会中是没有代表的”,但却成功提升了自己的“政治影响”,阻止了英国对联邦的军事干预。

同样地,当美国海军在一艘英国船只上非法逮捕两名南部同盟的外交官时,马克思就“特伦特号”事件(Trent Affair)为《纽约每日论坛报》撰写了一篇慷慨激昂的文章。他写道,美国永远不应忘记:“至少英国的工人阶级从来没有背弃过它”。对于他们来说,“尽管被收买的、不负责任的报界天天进行恶毒的煽动,但在这和平处于千钧一发的整个时期内,没有一次主张战争的集会能在联合王国召开成功”。当“把官方的和富裕的约翰牛的伪善、威逼、怯懦和愚蠢的行为拿来和这种立场作比较的时候”,“英国工人阶级的正确立场”更值得赞扬:一方是勇敢和一致,另一方则是不连贯和自相矛盾。他在1861年5月写给拉萨尔的一封信中评论道:“所有的英国官方报刊自然都支持奴隶主。正是这些先生们,曾以他们反对奴隶贸易的慈善言论使全世界都听得发腻。但是棉花啊,棉花! ”

马克思对美国内战的兴趣远远超出了这场内战对英国的影响。他首先想要阐明这场冲突的本质。他在内战爆发几个月后为《纽约每日论坛报》撰写的文章就是一个很好的例子。他在《伦敦“泰晤士报”评奥尔良亲王赴美》一文中指出:“欧洲各国人民知道,为联邦的继续存在而战就是为反对奴隶制度的继续存在而战,这场战争是迄今为止最高形式的人民自治向有史以来最卑鄙、最无耻的奴役人类的形式作战。”

马克思在《新闻报》上发表的一些文章中更深入地分析了两个敌对党派的论点。他首先揭露了英国自由党和保守党的虚伪。在《北美内战》(1861年10月25日)一文中,马克思嘲笑当时英国的主流报刊《泰晤士报》的“辉煌的发现”,即认为美国南北战争“仅仅是一个关税战争,是保护关税制度与自由贸易制度之间的战争”,其结论是英国没有选择余地,只能宣布支持南部同盟所代表的“自由贸易”。而包括《经济学家》和《星期六评论》在内的许多报刊进一步发挥了这一论点,并坚持认为“奴隶制度问题……是与这次战争毫无关系的”。

在反驳这些解释时,马克思提请大家注意这场冲突背后的政治动机。他指出,南部奴隶主的主要目的是维持对参议院的控制,从而“对美国产生政治影响”。为此,有必要征服新的地区(如1845年发生的吞并得克萨斯州)或将美国的现有地区变为“蓄奴州”。 美国奴隶制的支持者是“一个狭小的寡头统治,与之对立的是好几百万所谓‘白种贫民’,这些白种贫民的人数由于地产的集中而不断增长,而他们的处境也只有罗马帝国极度衰微时期的罗马平民才可比拟”。因此,“取得新的领地和有希望取得新的领土”是将穷人的利益与奴隶主的利益等同起来的唯一可行的方式,“把他们的热烈的事业欲引到一个无害的方向,并且用他们自己有一天也会成为奴隶主的希望来羁縻他们”。另一方面,林肯追求的目标是“把奴隶制度严格地限制在其旧有地区之内”,“由于经济规律,势必使奴隶制度逐渐消亡”,从而消灭“蓄奴州”的政治“领导权”。

马克思在文章中反驳道:“由此可见,整个过程过去和现在都是以奴隶制问题为基础的。这里的意思还不是说,现有的蓄奴州内部的奴隶是否应当解放,而是说,北部的2000万自由居民是否应当继续屈从于30万奴隶主的寡头统治。”基于对这种经济形式的扩张主义机制的深刻洞察,马克思指出,问题的关键在于:“共和国的各个巨大领地是应当成为建立自由州的基地,还是应当成为培植奴隶制的地方;最后,用武力向墨西哥、中美和南美扩展奴隶制度是否应当成为联邦的国家政策的指导原则。”

这些评论突显了马克思与朱塞佩·加里波第(Giuseppe Garibaldi)之间的分歧,后者拒绝在北方军队中建立指挥所,认为这只是一场与奴隶解放无关的权力斗争。对于加里波第的立场以及他未能恢复双方和平的努力,马克思在给恩格斯的信中评论道:“加里波第这头蠢驴由于给北方佬写信谈同心一致而声名扫地了。” 鉴于加里波第无法理解当时正在发生的过程的真正目标或选择,马克思在对可能的历史发展作出一种非极多主义的警告(non-maximalist alert)的同时,立刻意识到美国内战的结果将对全世界产生决定性的影响,并设定了依循奴隶制道路或解放道路前进的历史时钟。

1864年11月,面对各种事件急剧变化的状况,马克思告诉他的表舅莱昂·菲利浦斯(Lion Philips):“林肯当选时,问题只是在于不对奴隶主作出任何新的让步,然而现在,废除奴隶制已是大家公认的、并且一部分是已经实现了的目的。”他还补充道:“应当承认,象这样迅速地完成这样的大转变还从未有过。它将会对全世界发生极其良好的影响。”

二、亚伯拉罕·林肯和安德鲁·约翰逊
1864年11月,林肯连任总统使马克思有机会代表国际工人协会发表具有明确政治意义的祝贺:“如果说您在第一次当选时的适中的口号是反抗奴隶主的权势,那末您在第二次当选时的胜利的战斗号召则是:消灭奴隶制!”

南部统治阶级的一些代表宣称,“奴隶制是仁慈的制度”,甚至鼓吹它是“解决劳资关系这一重大问题的老办法”。因此,马克思迫切希望澄清事实真相:“欧洲的工人阶级立即了解到(甚至在上层阶级为南部同盟派上流人士进行的狂热袒护向工人阶级发出了可怕的警号以前就已经了解到),奴隶主的叛乱将是一次财产对劳动所进行的普遍的十字军征讨的信号,在大西洋彼岸进行的这一大规模的战争关系着劳动者的命运,关系着他们对未来的期望,甚至关系着他们已经获得的果实。” 然后,马克思提出了一个同样十分重要的问题:“只要作为北部的真正政治力量的工人竟容许奴隶制玷污自己的共和国,只要他们在那些不问是否同意就被买卖的黑人面前夸耀白人工人享有自己出卖自己和自己选择主人的高贵特权,那他们就既不能取得真正的劳动自由,也不能支援他们欧洲兄弟的解放斗争。” 马克思在《资本论》第一卷中提出了非常类似的观点,在那里,他明确强调:“在北美合众国,只要奴隶制使共和国的一部分还是畸形的,任何独立的工人运动就仍然处于瘫痪状态。在黑人的劳动打上屈辱烙印的地方,白人的劳动也不能得到解放”。但是,“从奴隶制的死亡中,立刻萌发出一个重新变得年轻的生命。南北战争的第一个果实,就是争取八小时工作日运动”。

马克思很清楚林肯的温和政治立场,他也没有掩盖他的一些盟友的种族偏见。但他总是不带任何宗派主义地明确强调南部的奴隶制与北方的雇佣劳动制度之间的差异。马克思明白,美国正在发展着的各种条件将摧毁世界上最臭名昭著的制度之一。奴隶制和种族压迫的终结将使全世界的工人运动能在一个更有利的框架中进行,以建立无阶级的社会和共产主义的生产方式。

由于约翰逊总统在1865年4月14日林肯遇刺身亡后继任总统职位,马克思便撰写了《国际工人协会致约翰逊总统的公开信》。马克思想提醒安德鲁·约翰逊,他作为总统所肩负的“任务就是借助法律来根除那些曾用刀剑砍倒的东西”,即“领导政治改革和社会复兴的艰巨工作……开创劳动解放的新纪元”。

几年后,马克思代表国际工人协会发表了一篇《致合众国全国劳工同盟的公开信》(1869年)。他清楚地意识到:“工人阶级的苦难同金融贵族、暴发户贵族和其他因战争而出现的寄生虫的穷奢极欲形成鲜明的对比。” 然而,不应忘记的是“国内战争总还有好的结果,那就是奴隶的解放以及因此而对你们本身的阶级运动所起的刺激作用”。最后,他总结道:“一个光荣的任务落在你们的肩上,那就是要向世界证明:现在,工人阶级终于不再作为一个驯服的追随者,而是作为一支独立的力量登上历史舞台,他们已经意识到自己的责任,并能在他们的所谓的主人们叫嚷战争的地方卫护和平。”

三、关于波兰革命与俄国的反动角色问题
至于马克思为《新闻报》撰写的许多精彩的分析性文章,只有其中一部分被发表出来。1862年2月,他写信给恩格斯说,“从德国当前的恶劣情况来看”,维也纳《新闻报》并没有成为“原来所指望的奶牛”来支撑令他苦恼的财务状况。“这些家伙”可能“每四篇文章只登一篇”,因此他不仅没有足够的收入来改善他的家庭状况,还要遭受“白费时间”和揣测“仁慈的编辑部是否会恩准发表某一篇文章”的苦恼。 马克思在4月份重复了这一想法,他向恩格斯发表了一段讽刺性的评论:“维科在自己的《新科学》中说,德国是欧洲唯一的还在用‘英雄语言’的国家。如果这个老那不勒斯人有幸领略维也纳《新闻报》或柏林《国民报》的语言,那他是会抛弃这种成见的。” 1862年底,马克思决定放弃与奥地利报纸的合作。在一年多的时间里,他成功发表了52篇文章,其中一些文章是在恩格斯的帮助下撰写的。

虽然震动美国的各种事件是马克思研究国际政治问题的主要焦点,但他在19世纪60年代初也一直在密切关注俄国和东欧的一切主要动向。在1860年6月写给拉萨尔的一封信中,马克思对一个重要的政治焦点问题发表了自己的看法:他反对俄国及其盟友亨利·帕默斯顿(Henry Palmerston)和路易·波拿巴(Louis Bonaparte)。他试图说服拉萨尔,他们的“党”的立场和那个带有浪漫主义观点的托利党政治家大卫·乌尔卡尔特 (David Urquhart)的立场之间没有任何不合法之处。对于乌尔卡尔特——为了达到反俄和反自由的目的,他厚颜无耻地再版了马克思于19世纪50年代初刊登在英国宪章派的机关报上的反对帕麦斯顿的文章,马克思写道:“他在主观上无疑是一个反动分子……但是这丝毫不妨碍他所领导的在对外政策方面的运动成为客观上革命的运动……这我根本不在乎;正如,比方说在同俄国打仗的时候,你不会在乎你的邻人向俄国人开枪是出于黑、红、黄的[即民族主义的——作者注]动机还是出于革命的动机一样。”马克思继续说:“同时十分明显,在对外政策方面,像‘反动的’和‘革命的’这类字眼是毫无用处的。”

马克思一直在寻找一种可能抑制俄国在欧洲政治中的反动作用的反抗迹象,并在1863年初写信给恩格斯(即波兰一月起义爆发和俾斯麦随即帮助镇压起义后不久)说:“在欧洲又广泛地揭开了革命的纪元。” 四天后,他表示道:“波兰事件和普鲁士的干涉,这的确是一种使我们非说话不可的形势。”

鉴于这些事件的重要性,马克思认为只通过发表文章来发声是不够的。因此,他建议立即在伦敦以德意志工人教育协会(German Workers’ Educational Association)的名义发表一份接近其政治立场的宣言。如果他想继续申请德国公民身份和“返回德国”,这将为他提供掩护。恩格斯应该写这本小册子的“军事部分”,重点是“德国在复兴波兰在军事和政治上的利害关系”,而马克思将撰写它的“外交部分”。 当1863年2月18日普鲁士众议院谴责政府政策并通过一项支持中立的决议时,马克思热情洋溢地指出:“我们很快就会有革命了。” 正如他所看到的那样,波兰问题提供了“一个新的理由,来证明在霍亨索伦世袭领地存在的时候,要捍卫德国的利益是不可能的。” 俾斯麦对沙皇亚历山大二世的支持,或者他授权“普鲁士将[波兰]领土视为俄国的领土”,构成了马克思继续完成他的计划的政治动机。

正是在这一时期,马克思开始了他的另一个周密研究计划。他在5月下旬寄给恩格斯的一封信中说,在过去的几个月里,他除了研究政治经济学,也一直在研究波兰问题的各个方面;这使他能够“努力填补自己在俄国—波兰—普鲁士事件方面的缺陷(外交的和历史的) ”。因此,在1863年2月至5月间,他写了一篇题为《波兰、普鲁士和俄国》的手稿,这些手稿很好地记录了柏林对莫斯科的历史性从属。对于霍亨索伦王朝来说,“俄国的发展代表了普鲁士的发展规律”,“没有俄国就没有普鲁士”。相反,在马克思看来,“波兰的复兴将意味着当前俄国的溃败,挫败其篡取全球霸权的企图”。出于同样的原因,“波兰的覆灭——对俄国来说是一件好事——[意味着]德国的某种衰落,(因为)唯一能够抵挡普遍的斯拉夫洪水的大坝崩溃了”。但这篇拟作的文章最终没有完成。这一次,责任显然在于恩格斯(他负责撰写最重要的军事部分),而马克思的“外交部分”则“随时准备写好,它将只是作为一点补充”。然而,当年10月,马克思设法发表了《伦敦德意志工人教育协会支援波兰的呼吁书》(1863年),以帮助波兰自由战士筹集资金。它开篇就是一个响亮的声明:“波兰问题是德国问题。没有独立的波兰,就不可能有独立统一的德国,就不可能使德国摆脱从第一次瓜分波兰时开始造成的对俄国的从属地位。”但在马克思看来,“德国贵族阶级早就承认沙皇是幕后的最高的国家统治者。德国资产阶级一声不响,消极冷淡地坐视英勇的人民遭到屠杀”。而“英国工人阶级”已经“博得了历史上永不泯灭的荣誉,它通过充满热情的群众大会打破了统治阶级三番两次地为维护美国奴隶主而组织干涉的企图”,并将与波兰反抗者并肩作战。

这场持续了一年多的斗争是有史以来最长时间的反俄斗争。这场斗争直到1864年4月才结束,俄国人处决了革命政府的代表、最终镇压了这场起义。当年五月,俄军还完成了对北高加索的占领,从而结束了自1817年就已爆发的一场战争。对此,马克思再次表现出非凡的洞察力,不同于“欧洲以白痴般的冷漠态度加以观望”,他将“镇压波兰起义和占领高加索这两件事”看作“是1815年以来最严重的欧洲事件”。

四、第一国际对波兰斗争的支援
马克思继续投身于对波兰问题的研究,并多次在第一国际内部进行讨论。实际上,由于一些法国和英国的工人组织在伦敦明确表达了对波兰人民反抗沙皇侵占的声援,因此,第一国际于1863年7月组织召开了最重要的基金会筹备会议。

后来,在第一国际成立三个月后,在总理事会常务委员会于1864年12月召开的一次会议上,记者彼得·福克斯(Peter Fox)在他给波兰人的公开信中说:“法国人在传统上比英国人更加同情波兰人。” 对此,马克思并没有提出异议。但是,正如他写信给恩格斯时所说的那样,他已经“把法国人不断背弃波兰人的历史上无可争辩的情景,从路易十五起直到第二个波拿巴止,作了详尽的描绘”。正是在这一语境下,他撰写了一篇新的手稿,即后来所说的《波兰和法国》(1864年)。该手稿是用英语写成的,时间上涵盖了从1648年的“威斯特伐利亚和约(the Peace of Westphalia)”到1812年这一段时期。

在一年后的1865年9月,即第一国际在伦敦举行的会议刚结束后不久,马克思提交了一份关于欧洲工人运动外交政策的议程草案。作为一项优先事项,马克思表示:“需要通过实现民族自决权并在民主和社会的基础上恢复波兰的途径来消除俄国佬在欧洲的影响的必要性。”而这需要几十年才能实现。但马克思对波兰问题的分析表明,马克思在面对各个遥远地区发生的重大历史事件时,能够及时掌握世界上正在发生的事件,并为事件的转化作出贡献。而当今世界的左翼运动迫切需要复兴这种国际主义视野。

参考书目
i 马克思用它来指称当时美国南部的种植园主。——译者注
ii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第180~181页。
iii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第181页。
iv 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第181页。马克思在撰写此文时并不熟悉的1860年人口普查记录了超过394000名奴隶主,或8%的美国家庭。然而,奴隶的数量总计为3950000。参见United States Census Office, Population of the United States in 1860, Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census Under the Secretary of the Interior, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1866.
v 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第186页。
vi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第187页。
vii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第187页。
viii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第187页。
ix 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第188页。
x 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第188页。
xi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第480页。
xii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第463页。
xiii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第463页。
xiv 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第464页。
xv 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(下),人民出版社,1975年,第601页。
xvi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第344页。有关马克思对奴隶制的思考,参见W. Backhaus, Marx, Engels und die Sklaverei, Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1974.
xvii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第346~347页。
xviii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第347页。
xix 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第348页。
xx 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第354页。
xxi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第355页。
xxii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第355页。
xxiii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第356页。
xxiv 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第356页。关于“南部奴隶制的内在扩张主义特征”,参见R. Blackburn, An Unfinished Revolution: Marx and Lincoln, London: Verso, London 2011, p. 21.
xxv 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第173页。
xxvi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷(下),人民出版社,1972年,第439页。
xxvii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷(下),人民出版社,1972年,第439页。
xxviii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第20页。
xxix 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第20页。这里马克思引用的话是出自奴隶主A.斯蒂芬斯(A. Stephens)于1861年3月21日在萨凡纳(Savannah)发表的演讲,该演讲发表在1861年3月27日的《纽约每日论坛报》上。
xxx 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第20~21页。
xxxi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第21页。
xxxii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第44卷,人民出版社,2001年,第348页。
xxxiii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第44卷,人民出版社,2001年,第348页。
xxxiv 关于两者的差异,参见A. Kulikoff, Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx in Dialogue, New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
xxxv 罗宾·布莱克本(Robin Blackburn)指出:“打败奴隶主统治集团和解放奴隶,并不会摧毁资本主义制度,但它将会为无论是白人还是黑人劳工的组织和进步创造出更为有利的条件。在马克思看来,富有的奴隶主类似于欧洲的贵族,而推翻他们的任务也类似于他在《共产党宣言》中早已宣扬过的作为德意志革命者当下目标的民主革命。”译文参考[英]罗宾·布莱克本:《未完成的革命:马克思与林肯》,李晓江、陈志刚译,社会科学文献出版社,2013年,第17页。
xxxvi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第109页。
xxxvii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第402页。
xxxviii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第402页。
xxxix 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷,人民出版社,1956年,第402~403页。
xl 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第216页。
xli 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第230页。
xlii K. Marx, Lord Palmerston, in MECW, vol.12, 1979, pp. 341-406.
xliii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(下),人民出版社,1975年,第547页。 关于马克思对俄国的政治观念的研究,参见Dawid Rjasanow, Karl Marx über den Ursprung der Vorherrschaft Russland in Europa, Die Neue Zeit, Ergänzungshefte Nr.5, 1909, pp.1-64; Bernd Rabehl, Die Kontroverse innerhalb des russischen Marxismus über die asiatischen und westlich-kapitalistischen Ursprünge der Gesellschaft, des Kapitalismus und des zaristischen Staates in Russland, in Ulf Wolter (ed.), Karl Marx. Die Geschichte der Geheimdiplomatie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Über den asiatischen Ursprung der russischen Despotie; Berlin: Olle und Wolter, 1977, pp.112-78; 另参见Bruno Bongiovanni, Le repliche della storia, Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1989, pp. 171-189.
xliv 参见Marcello Musto, Another Marx: Early Manuscripts to the International, London–New York: Bloomsbury, 2018, p.132。译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(下),人民出版社,1975年,第548页。
xlv 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第322页。
xlvi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第323页。
xlvii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第323页。
xlviii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第330页。
xlix 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第331页。
l K. Marx, Manoscritti Sulla Questione Polacca (1863-1864), Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1981, p. 89. 关于所有马克思讨论波兰问题的手稿的主题性文集,参见K. Marx, Manuskripte über die Polnische Frage (1863-1864), S’-Gravenhage: Mouton and co., 1961。 关于按照文章的时间顺序汇编而成的版本,参见K. Marx, Przyczynki do historii kwestii polskiej. Rękopisyzlat 1863 -1864 / Beitrage zur Geschichte der polnischen Frage, Manuskipte aus den Jahren 1863-1864, Warsaw: Książka i Wiedza, 1971。
li 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第346页。
lii K. Marx, Manoscritti Sulla Questione Polacca (1863-1864), Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1981, p.7.
liii K. Marx, Manoscritti Sulla Questione Polacca (1863-1864), Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1981, p.7.
liv K. Marx, Manoscritti Sulla Questione Polacca (1863-1864), Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1981, p.7. B.邦乔瓦尼(B. Bongiovanni)指出:“在马克思这个国际大事件的热情观察者看来,那种对社会进步不够敏感而在某种程度上带有陈旧特征的危险偏执的解决问题方式……在某种程度上是走向最终斗争即解决资本主义生产方式所支配的世界中的特殊矛盾的准备工作。”参见B. Bongiovanni, Introduzione, in K. Marx, Manoscritti Sulla Questione Polacca (1863-1864), Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1981, p. xxv。
lv 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第327页。
lvi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第614页。
lvii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第614页。
lviii 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷,人民出版社,1963年,第615页。
lix 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷(上),人民出版社,1975年,第401~402页。
lx 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷(上),人民出版社,1972年,第42页。
lxi 译文参考《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷(下),人民出版社,1972年,第489页。译文略有改动。

Categories
Journal Articles

New Profiles of Marx after the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²)

I. The Marx Revival
For more than a decade now, prestigious newspapers and journals with a wide readership have been describing Karl Marx as a far-seeing theorist whose topicality receives constant confirmation. Many authors with progressive views maintain that his ideas continue to be indispensable for anyone who believes it is necessary to build an alternative to capitalism. Almost everywhere, he is now the theme of university courses and international conferences. His writings, reprinted or brought out in new editions, have reappeared on bookshop shelves, and the study of his work, after twenty years or more of neglect, has gathered increasing momentum. The years 2017 and 2018 have brought further intensity to this “Marx revival”, thanks to many initiatives around the world linked to the 150th anniversary of the publication of Capital and the bicentenary of Marx’s birth.

Marx’s ideas have changed the world. Yet despite the affirmation of Marx’s theories, turned into dominant ideologies and state doctrines for a considerable part of humankind in the twentieth century, there is still no full edition of all his works and manuscripts. The main reason for this lies in the incomplete character of Marx’s oeuvre; the works he published amount to considerably less than the total number of projects left unfinished, not to speak of the mountainous Nachlass of notes connected with his unending researches. Marx left many more manuscripts than those he sent to the printers. The sometimes-grinding poverty in which he lived, as well as his constant ill health, added to his daily worries; his rigorous method and merciless self-criticism increased the difficulties of many of his undertakings. Moreover, his passion for knowledge remained unaltered over time and always drove him on to fresh study. Nevertheless, his ceaseless labors would have the most extraordinary theoretical consequences for the future.

Of particular value for a reevaluation of Marx’s achievement was the resumed publication in 1998 of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²), the historical-critical edition of the complete works of Marx and Friedrich Engels. Twenty-eight more volumes have already appeared (40 were published between 1975 and 1989), and others are in the course of preparation. The MEGA² is organized in four sections: (1) all the works, articles, and drafts written by Marx and Engels (with the exception of Capital); (2) Capital and all its preparatory materials; (3) the correspondence—consisting of 4,000 letters by Marx and Engels and 10,000 written to them by others, a large number published for the first time in the MEGA²; and (4) the excerpts, annotations, and marginal notes. This fourth section bears witness to Marx’s truly encyclopedic labors: ever since his time at university, it was his habit to compile extracts from the books he read, often interspersing them with reflections that they suggested to him.

Marx’s literary bequest contains some two hundred notebooks. They are essential for an understanding of the genesis of his theory and of those elements he was unable to develop as he would have wished. The surviving excerpts, covering the long time-span from 1838 to 1882, are written in eight languages (German, ancient Greek, Latin, French, English, Italian, Spanish, and Russian) and refer to the most varied disciplines. They were taken from works of philosophy, art history, religion, politics, law, literature, history, political economy, international relations, technology, mathematics, physiology, geology, mineralogy, agronomy, anthropology, chemistry, and physics—including not only books and newspaper and journal articles but also parliamentary minutes as well as government statistics and reports. This immense store of knowledge, much of it published in recent years or still waiting to be printed, was the construction site for Marx’s critical theory, and MEGA² has enabled access to it for the first time.

These priceless materials—many available only in German and therefore confined to small circles of researchers—show us an author very different from the one that numerous critics, or self-styled disciples, presented for such a long time. Indeed, the new textual acquisitions in MEGA² make it possible to say that, of the classics of political, economic, and philosophical thought, Marx is the author whose profile has changed the most in the opening decades of the twenty-first century. The new political setting, following the implosion of the Soviet Union, has also contributed to this fresh perception. For the end of Marxism-Leninism finally freed Marx’s work from the shackles of an ideology light years away from his conception of society.

Recent research has refuted the various approaches that reduce Marx’s conception of communist society to superior development of the productive forces. For example, it has shown the importance he attached to the ecological question: on repeated occasions, he denounced the fact that expansion of the capitalist mode of production increases not only the theft of workers’ labor but also the pillage of natural resources. Marx went deeply into many other issues that, though often underestimated, or even ignored, by scholars of his work, are acquiring crucial importance for the political agenda of our times. Among these are individual freedom in the economic and political sphere, gender emancipation, the critique of nationalism, the emancipatory potential of technology, and forms of collective ownership not controlled by the state. Thus, thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it has become possible to read a Marx very unlike the dogmatic, economistic, and Eurocentric theorist who was paraded around for so long.

II. New Discoveries on the Genesis of the Materialist Conception of History
In February 1845, after 15 intensive months in Paris that were crucial for his political formation, Marx was forced to move to Brussels, where he was allowed residence on condition that he “did not publish anything on current politics” (Marx 1975b:677).  During the three years spent in the Belgian capital, he pressed on fruitfully with his studies of political economy and conceived the idea of writing, along with Engels, Joseph Weydemeyer, and Moses Hess, a “critique of modern German philosophy as expounded by its representatives Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner, and of German socialism as expounded by its various prophets” (Marx 1976:72). The resulting text, posthumously published under the title The German Ideology, had a dual aim: to combat the latest forms of neo-Hegelianism in Germany, and then, as Marx wrote to the publisher Carl Wilhelm Julius Leske on August 1, 1846, “to prepare the public for the viewpoint adopted in my Economy, which is diametrically opposed to German scholarship past and present” (Marx and Engels 1982:50; cf. Musto 2018:57). This manuscript, on which he worked right up to June 1846, was never completed, but it helped him to elaborate more clearly than before, though still not in a definitive form, what Engels defined for the wider public 40 years later as “the materialist conception of history” (Engels 1990a:519).

The first edition of The German Ideology, published in 1932, as well as all later versions, which only incorporated slight modifications, were sent to the printers with the semblance of a completed book. In particular, the editors of this actually unfinished manuscript created the false impression that The German Ideology included an essential opening chapter on Feuerbach in which Marx and Engels exhaustively set out the laws of “historical materialism” (a term never used by Marx). As stated by Althusser, this was the place where they conceptualized “an unequivocal epistemological break” with their previous writings (Althusser 1996:33). The German Ideology soon turned into one of the most important philosophical texts of the twentieth century. According to Henri Lefebvre (1968:71), it set out the “fundamental theses of historical materialism.” Maximilien Rubel (1980:13) held that this “manuscript contains the most elaborate statement of the critical and materialist concept of history.” David McLellan (1975:37) was equally forthright in maintaining that it “contained Marx’s most detailed account of his materialist conception of history.”

Thanks to Volume I/5 of MEGA², Deutsche Ideologie: Manuskripte und Drucke (1845–1847) (Marx and Engels 2017; 1893 pages), many such claims can now be downsized and The German Ideology restored to its original incompleteness. This edition—which comprises 17 manuscripts with a total of 700 pages plus a 1200-page critical apparatus providing variations and authorial corrections and indicating the paternity of each section—establishes once and for all the fragmentary character of the text. The twentieth-century fallacy of “scientific communism” and all the instrumentalizations of The German Ideology call to mind a phrase to be found in the text itself. For its cogent critique of German philosophy in Marx’s lifetime also sounds an acerbic warning against future exegetical trends: “Not only in its answers, even in its questions there was a mystification” (Marx and Engels 1976:28).

In the same period, the young Trier-born revolutionary extended the studies he had begun in Paris. In 1845, he spent July and August in Manchester delving into the vast English-language economic literature and compiling nine books of extracts (the so-called Manchester Notebooks), mostly from manuals of political economy and books on economic history. The MEGA² volume IV/4, Exzerpte und Notizen Juli bis August 1845 (Marx and Engels 1988), contains the first five of these notebooks, together with three books of Engels’s notes from the same time in Manchester. Volume IV/5, Exzerpte und Notizen Juli 1845 bis Dezember 1850 (Marx and Engels 2015; 650 pages), completes this series of texts and makes their previously unpublished parts available to researchers. It includes Notebooks 6, 7, 8, and 9, containing Marx’s excerpts from 16 works of political economy. The most sizeable of this group came from John Francis Bray’s Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy (1839) and four texts by Robert Owen, in particular his Book of the New Moral World (1849), all of which evince Marx’s great interest at the time in English socialism and his deep respect for Owen, an author whom too many Marxists have over-hastily written off as “utopian.”  The volume ends with twenty or so pages that Marx wrote between 1846 and 1850, plus some of Engels’s study notes from the same period.

These studies of socialist theory and political economy were not a hindrance to Marx’s and Engels’s habitual political engagement. The 800 pages and more of the recently published Volume I/7, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, Februar bis Oktober 1848 (Marx and Engels 2016; 1294 pages), allows us to appreciate the scale of this in 1848, one of the most consuming years of political and journalistic activity in the lives of the authors of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. After a revolutionary movement of unprecedented scope and intensity plunged the political and social order of continental Europe into crisis, governments in place took all possible countermeasures to put an end to the insurrections. Marx himself suffered the consequences and was expelled from Belgium in March. However, a republic had just been proclaimed in France, and Ferdinand Flocon, a minister in the Provisional Government, invited Marx to return to Paris: “Dear and valiant Marx . . . the tyranny banished you, but free France will reopen its doors to you.” Marx naturally set aside his studies of political economy and took up journalistic activity in support of the revolution, helping to chart a recommended political course. After a short period in Paris, in April he moved to the Rhineland and two months later began editing the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, which had meanwhile been founded in Cologne. An intense campaign in its columns weighed in behind the cause of the insurgents and urged the proletariat to promote “the social and republican revolution” (Marx 1977:178).

Nearly all the articles in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung were published anonymously. One of the merits of the MEGA2 volume I/7 is to have correctly attributed the authorship of 36 texts to either Marx or Engels, whereas previous collections had left us in doubt about who wrote which piece. Out of a total of 275, a full 125 are printed here for the first time in an edition of the works of Marx and Engels. An appendix also features 16 interesting documents containing accounts of some of their interventions at the meetings of the League of Communists, the aggregates of the Democratic Society of Cologne and the Vienna Union. Those interested in Marx’s political and journalistic activity during the “year of the revolution,” 1848, will find here much invaluable material to deepen their knowledge.

III. Capital: The Unfinished Critique
The revolutionary movement that rose up throughout Europe in 1848 was defeated within a short space of time, and in 1849, after two expulsion orders from Prussia and France, Marx had no other option than to make his way across the Channel. He would remain in England, an exile and stateless person, for the rest of his life, but European reaction could not have confined him in a better place to write his critique of political economy. At that time, London was the world’s leading economic and financial center, the “demiurge of the bourgeois cosmos” (Marx 1978:134), and therefore the most favorable location from which to observe the latest economic developments of capitalist society. He also became a correspondent for the New-York Tribune, the newspaper with the largest circulation in the United States of America.

For many years Marx awaited the outbreak of a new crisis, and when this materialized in 1857 he devoted much of his time to analyzing its key features. Volume I/16, Artikel Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858 (Marx and Engels 2018; 1181 pages), includes 84 articles that he published between autumn 1857 and the end of 1858 in the New-York Tribune, including those expressing his first reactions to the financial panic of 1857. The American daily often printed unsigned editorials, but research for this new volume of MEGA² has made it possible to attribute two more articles to Marx, as well as appending four that were substantially modified by the editors and a further three whose origin remains uncertain.

Driven by a desperate need to improve his economic circumstances, Marx also joined the editorial committee of The New American Cyclopædia and agreed to compose a number of entries for this project (MEGA2 volume I/16 contains 39 of these pieces). Although the payment of $2 per page was very low, it was still an addition to his disastrous finances. Moreover, he entrusted most of the work to Engels, so that he would be able to devote more time to his economic writings.

Marx’s work in this period was remarkable and wide-ranging. Alongside his journalistic commitments, from August 1857 to May 1858 he filled the eight notebooks famously known as the Grundrisse. But he also set himself the strenuous task of an analytic study of the first world economic crisis. Volume IV/14, Exzerpte, Zeitungsausschnitte und Notizen zur Weltwirtschaftskrise (Krisenhefte), November 1857 bis Februar 1858 (Marx 2017; 680 pages), decisively adds to our knowledge of one of the most fertile intervals of Marx’s theoretical production. In a letter to Engels of December 18, 1857, Marx described his feverish burst of activity:

I am working enormously, as a rule until 4 o’clock in the morning. I am engaged on a twofold task: 1. Elaborating the outlines [Grundrisse] of political economy. (For the benefit of the public it is absolutely essential to go into the matter to the bottom, as it is for my own, individually, to get rid of this nightmare.) 2. The present crisis. Apart from the articles for the [New-York] Tribune, all I do is keep records of it, which, however, takes up a considerable amount of time. I think that, somewhere about the spring, we ought to do a pamphlet together about the affair as a reminder to the German public that we are still there as always, and always the same. (Marx and Engels 1983:224)

So Marx’s plan was to work at the same time on two projects: a theoretical work on the critique of the capitalist mode of production, and a more strictly topical book on the vicissitudes of the ongoing crisis. This is why in the so-called Notebooks on Crisis, unlike previous similar volumes, Marx did not compile extracts from the work of other economists but collected a large quantity of news reports on the major bank collapses, on variations in stock market prices, changes in trade patterns, unemployment rates, and industrial output. The particular attention he paid to the latter distinguished his analysis from that of so many others who attributed crises exclusively to the faulty granting of credit and an increase in speculative phenomena. Marx divided his notes among three separate notebooks. In the first and shortest one, entitled “1857 France,” he collected data on the state of French trade and the chief measures taken by the Bank of France. The second, the “Book on the Crisis of 1857,” was nearly twice as long and dealt mainly with Britain and the money market. Similar themes were treated in the slightly longer third notebook, “Book on the Commercial Crisis,” in which Marx annotated data and news items on industrial relations, the production of raw materials, and the labor market.

Marx’s work was as rigorous as ever: he copied from more than a dozen journals and newspapers, in chronological order, the most interesting parts of numerous articles and any other information he could use to summarize what was happening. His principal source was The Economist—a weekly from which he drew roughly half of his notes—although he also frequently consulted Morning Star, The Manchester Guardian, and The Times. All the extracts were compiled in the English language. In these notebooks, Marx did not confine himself to transcribing the main news reports concerning the United States of America and Britain. He also tracked the most significant events in other European countries—particularly France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain—and took a lively interest in other parts of the world, especially India and China, the Far East, Egypt, and even Brazil and Australia.

As the weeks passed, Marx gave up the idea of publishing a book on the crisis and concentrated all his energies on his theoretical work, the critique of political economy, which in his view could brook no further delay. Yet the Notebooks on Crisis remain particularly useful in refuting a false idea of Marx’s main interests during this period. In a letter of January 16, 1858, to Engels, he wrote that “as regards method” to use for his work “Hegel’s Logic had been of great use to him” and added that he wanted to highlight its “rational aspect” (Marx and Engels 1983:249). On this basis, some interpreters of Marx’s work have concluded that when writing the Grundrisse he spent considerable time studying Hegelian philosophy. But the publication of Volume IV/14 makes it quite clear that his main concern at the time was with the empirical analysis of events linked to the great economic crisis that he had been predicting for so long.

Marx’s indefatigable efforts to complete his “critique of political economy” are also the main theme of Volume III/12, Briefwechsel, Januar 1862 bis September 1864 (Marx and Engels 2013; 1529 pages), which contains his correspondence from the beginning of 1862 up to the foundation of the International Working Men’s Association. Of the 425 surviving letters, 112 are exchanges between Engels and Marx, while 35 were written to, and 278 received from, third persons (227 of this group being published here for the first time). The inclusion of the latter—the most significant difference from all previous editions—constitutes a veritable treasure trove for the interested reader, providing a wealth of new information about events and theories that Marx and Engels learned from women and men with whom they had a shared political commitment.

Like all the other MEGA² volumes of correspondence, this one also ends with a register of letters written by, or addressed to, Marx and Engels that have left no more than traces testifying to their existence. These come to a total of 125, nearly a quarter of the number that have survived, and include a full 57 written by Marx. In these cases, even the most rigorous researcher can do no more than speculate about various conjectural hypotheses.

Among the key points of discussion in Marx’s correspondence from the early 1860s were the American Civil War, the Polish revolt against Russian occupation, and the birth of the Social Democratic Party of Germany inspired by the principles of Ferdinand Lassalle.  However, a constantly recurring theme was his struggle to make progress in the writing of Capital.

During this period, Marx launched into a new area of research: “Theories of Surplus Value.” Over ten notebooks, he minutely dissected the approach of major economists before him, his basic idea being that “all economists share the error of examining surplus-value not as such, in its pure form, but in the particular forms of profit and rent” (Marx 1988:348). Meanwhile, Marx’s economic circumstances continued to be desperate. On June 18, 1862, he wrote to Engels: “Every day my wife says she wishes she and the children were safely in their graves, and I really cannot blame her, for the humiliations, torments and alarums that one has to go through in such a situation are indeed indescribable.” The situation was so extreme that Jenny made up her mind to sell some books from her husband’s personal library—although she could not find anyone who wanted to buy them. Nevertheless, Marx managed to “work hard” and expressed a note of satisfaction to Engels: “strange to say, my grey matter is functioning better in the midst of the surrounding poverty than it has done for years” (Marx and Engels 1985:380). On September 10 of the same year, Marx wrote to Engels that he might get a job “in a railroad office” in the new year (ibid.:417).  On December 28, he repeated to his friend Ludwig Kugelmann that things had become so desperate that he had “decided to become a ‘practical man’”; nothing came of the idea, however. Marx reported with his typical sarcasm: “Luckily—or perhaps I should say unluckily?—I did not get the post because of my bad handwriting” (ibid.:436).

Along with the financial stresses, Marx suffered a great deal from health problems. Nevertheless, from summer 1863 to December 1865 he embarked on further editing of the various parts into which he had decided to subdivide Capital. In the end, he managed to draw up the first draft of Volume One; the sole manuscript of Volume Three, in which he gave his only account of the complete process of capitalist production; and an initial version of Volume Two, containing the first general presentation of the circulation process of capital.

Volume II/11 of MEGA², Manuskripte zum zweiten Buch des “Kapitals,” 1868 bis 1881 (Marx and Engels 2008; 1850 pages), contains all the final manuscripts pertaining to Volume Two of Capital that Marx drafted between 1868 and 1881.  Nine of these ten manuscripts had not been published previously. In October 1867, Marx returned to Capital, Volume Two, but various health issues forced another sudden interruption. A few months later, when he was able to resume work, nearly three years had passed since the last version he had written. Marx completed the first two chapters in the course of the spring of 1868, in addition to a group of preparatory manuscripts—on the relationship between surplus value and rate of profit, the law of the rate of profit, and the metamorphoses of capital—which occupied him until the end of the year. The new version of the third chapter was completed in the course of the next two years. Volume II/11 ends with a number of short texts that the aging Marx wrote between February 1877 and the spring of 1881.

The drafts of Capital, Volume Two, which were left in anything but a definitive state, present a number of theoretical problems. However, a final version of Volume Two was published by Engels in 1885, and it now appears in Volume II/13 of MEGA², entitled Karl Marx: Das Kapital: Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Zweiter Band. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Engels, Hamburg 1885 (Marx 2008; 800 pages).

Finally, Volume II/4.3, Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1868, Teil 3 (Marx 2012; 1065 pages), completes the second section of MEGA². This volume, which follows II/4.1 and II/4.2 in the previous series, contains 15 hitherto unpublished manuscripts from autumn 1867 to the end of 1868. Seven of these are draft fragments of Capital, Volume Three; they have a highly fragmentary character, and Marx never managed to update them in a way that reflected the progress of his research. Another three relate to Volume Two, while the remaining five tackle issues concerning the interdependence between Volumes Two and Three and include comments on excerpts from the works of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus. The latter are particularly stimulating for economists interested in Marx’s theory of the rate of profit and his ideas on price theory. Philological studies linked to the preparation of this volume have also shown that the original manuscript of Capital, Volume One (of which “Chapter Six: Results of the Immediate Process of Production” used to be considered the only surviving part) actually dates back to the 1863–64 period, and that Marx cut and pasted it into the copy he prepared for publication.

With the publication of MEGA2 volume II/4.3, all the ancillary texts relating to Capital have been made available, from the famous “Introduction,” written in July 1857 during one of the greatest crashes in the history of capitalism, to the last fragments composed in the spring of 1881. We are talking of 15 volumes plus just as many bulky auxiliary tomes that constitute a formidable critical apparatus for the main text. They include all the manuscripts from the late 1850s and early 1860s, the first version of Capital published in 1867 (parts of which would be modified in subsequent editions), the French translation reviewed by Marx that appeared between 1872 and 1875, and all the changes that Engels made to the manuscripts of Volumes Two and Three. Alongside this, the classical box set of the three volumes of Capital appears positively minute. It is no exaggeration to say that only now can we fully understand the merits, limits, and incompleteness of Marx’s magnum opus.

The editorial work that Engels undertook after his friend’s death to prepare the unfinished parts of Capital for publication was extremely complex. The various manuscripts, drafts, and fragments of Volumes Two and Three, written between 1864 and 1881, correspond to approximately 2,350 pages of the MEGA2. Engels successfully published Volume Two in 1885 and Volume Three in 1894. However, it must be borne in mind that these two volumes emerged from the reconstruction of incomplete texts, often consisting of heterogeneous material. They were written in more than one period in time and thus include different, and sometimes contradictory, versions of Marx’s ideas.

IV. The International, Marx’s Researches Following Capital, and Engels’s Final Labors
Immediately after the publication of Capital, Marx resumed militant activity and made a constant commitment to the work of the International Working Men’s Association. This phase in his political biography is documented in Volume I/21, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, September 1867 bis März 1871 (Marx and Engels 2009; 2,432 pages), which contains more than 150 texts and documents for the period from 1867 to 1871, as well as minutes of 169 meetings of the General Council in London (omitted from all previous editions of the works of Marx and Engels) in which Marx made an intervention. As such, it provides research material for crucial years in the life of the International.

Right from the earliest days, in 1864, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s ideas were hegemonic in France, French-speaking Switzerland, and Belgium, and the mutualists—the name by which his followers were known—were the most moderate wing of the International. Resolutely hostile to state intervention in any field, they opposed socialization of the land and the means of production as well as any use of strikes as a weapon. The texts published in this volume show how Marx played a key role in the long struggle to reduce Proudhon’s influence in the International. They include the documents related to the preparation of the congresses of Brussels (1868) and Basel (1869), where the International made its first clear pronouncement on the socialization of the means of production by state authorities and in favor of the right to abolish individual ownership of land. This marked an important victory for Marx and the first appearance of socialist principles in the political program of a major workers’ organization.

Beyond the International Working Men’s Association’s political program, the late 1860s and early 1870s were rich in social conflicts. Many workers who took part in protest actions decided to make contact with the International, whose reputation was spreading ever wider, and to ask it to support their struggles. This period also saw the birth of some IWMA sections of Irish workers in England. Marx was worried about the division that violent nationalism had produced within the ranks of the proletariat, and, in a document that has come to be known as the  “Confidential Communication,”  he emphasized that “the English bourgeoisie ha[d] not only exploited the Irish misery to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen”; it had also proved able to divide the workers “into two hostile camps” (Marx 1985:120). In his view, “a nation that enslaves another forges its own chains” (ibid.), and the class struggle could not evade such a decisive issue. Another major theme in the volume, treated with particular attention in Engels’s writings for The Pall Mall Gazette, was opposition to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870–71.

Marx’s work in the International Working Men’s Association lasted from 1864 to 1872, and the brand-new Volume IV/18, Exzerpte und Notizen, Februar 1864 bis Oktober 1868, November 1869, März, April, Juni 1870, Dezember 1872 (Marx and Engels 2019; 1294 pages) provides the hitherto unknown part of the studies he made during those years. Marx’s research took place either close to the printing of Volume One of Capital or after 1867 when he was preparing Volumes Two and Three for publication. This MEGA² volume consists of five books of excerpts and four notebooks containing summaries of more than one hundred published works, reports of parliamentary debates, and journalistic articles. The most sizeable and theoretically important part of these materials involves Marx’s research on agriculture, his main interests here being ground rent, the natural sciences, agrarian conditions in various European countries and the United States, Russia, Japan, and India, and land tenure systems in precapitalist societies.

Marx read attentively Chemistry in Its Application to Agriculture and Physiology (1843), a work by the German scientist Justus von Liebig that he considered essential because it allowed him to modify his previous belief that the scientific discoveries of modern agriculture solved the problem of soil replenishment. From then on, he took an ever-keener interest in what we would today call “ecology,” particularly soil erosion and deforestation. Among the other books that greatly impressed Marx in this period, a special place should also be assigned to the Introduction to the Constitutive History of the German Mark, Farm, Village, Town and Public Authority (1854) by the political theorist and legal historian Georg Ludwig von Maurer. In a letter to Engels on March 25, 1868, he said that he had found Maurer’s books “extremely significant,” since they approached in an entirely different way “not only the primitive age but also the entire later development of the free imperial cities, of the estate owners possessing immunity, of public authority, and of the struggle between the free peasantry and serfdom” (Marx and Engels 1987:557). Marx further endorsed Maurer’s demonstration that private property in land belonged to a precise historical period and could not be regarded as a natural feature of human civilization.

Finally, Marx studied in depth three German works by Karl Fraas: Climate and the Vegetable World throughout the Ages, a History of Both (1847), A History of Agriculture (1852), and The Nature of Agriculture (1857). He found the first of these “very interesting,” especially appreciating the part in which Fraas demonstrated that “climate and flora change in historical times.” He described the author as “a Darwinist before Darwin,” who admitted that “even the species have been developing in historical times.” Marx was also struck by Fraas’s ecological considerations and his related concern that “cultivation—when it proceeds in natural growth and is not consciously controlled (as a bourgeois he naturally does not reach this point)—leaves deserts behind it.” Marx could detect in all this “an unconscious socialist tendency” (Marx and Engels 1987:558–59).

Following the publication of the so-called Notebooks on Agriculture, it can be argued with more evidence than before that ecology might have played a much greater role in Marx’s thinking if he had had the energy to complete the last two volumes of Capital. Of course, Marx’s ecological critique was anticapitalist in its thrust and, beyond the hopes he placed in scientific progress, involved a questioning of the mode of production as a whole.

The scale of Marx’s studies in the natural sciences has become fully apparent since the publication of MEGA² volume IV/26, Exzerpte und Notizen zur Geologie, Mineralogie und Agrikulturchemie, März bis September 1878 (Marx 2011; 1104 pages). In the spring and summer of 1878, geology, mineralogy, and agrarian chemistry were more central to Marx’s studies than political economy. He compiled extracts from a number of books, including The Natural History of the Raw Materials of Commerce (1872) by John Yeats, The Book of Nature (1848) by the chemist Friedrich Schoedler, and Elements of Agricultural Chemistry and Geology (1856), by the chemist and mineralogist James Johnston. Between June and early September, he was grappling with Joseph Jukes’s Student’s Manual of Geology (1857) (see Marx 2011:139–679), from which he copied down the largest number of extracts. The main focus of these is questions of scientific methodology, the stages of the development of geology as a discipline, and its usefulness for industrial and agricultural production.

Such insights awakened in Marx a need to develop his ideas regarding profit, with which he had last intensively occupied himself in the mid-1860s, when he wrote the draft of the part on “The Transformation of Surplus-Profit into Ground Rent” of Capital, Volume Three. Some of the summaries of natural-scientific texts had the aim of throwing greater light on the material he was studying. But other excerpts, more geared to theoretical aspects, were meant to be used in the completion of Volume Three. Engels later recalled that Marx “combed . . . prehistory, agronomy, Russian and American landownership, geology, etc., in particular to work out, to an extent . . . never previously attempted, the section on ground rent in Volume III of Capital” (Engels 1990b:341). These volumes of MEGA² are all the more important because they serve to discredit the myth, repeated in a number of biographies and studies on Marx, that after Capital he had satisfied his intellectual curiosity and completely given up new study and research.

Three books of MEGA² published in the last decade concern the late work by Engels. Volume I/30, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe Mai 1883 bis September 1886 (Engels 2011; 1154 pages) contains 43 texts that he wrote in the three years following Marx’s death. Of the 29 most important of these, 17 consist of journalistic pieces that appeared in some of the main papers of the European working-class press. For although in this period he was mainly absorbed in editing Marx’s incomplete manuscripts of Capital, Engels did not neglect to intervene on a series of burning political and theoretical issues. He also brought out a polemical work that took aim at the resurgence of idealism in German academic circles, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. A further 14 texts, published as an appendix in this MEGA² volume, are some of Engels’s own translations and a series of articles signed by other authors who benefited from his collaboration.

MEGA² has also published a new set of Engels’s correspondence. Volume III/30, Briefwechsel Oktober 1889 bis November 1890 (Engels 2013; 1512 pages), contains 406 surviving letters from the total of 500 or more that he wrote between October 1889 and November 1890. Moreover, the inclusion for the first time of letters from other correspondents makes it possible to appreciate more deeply the contribution that Engels made to the growth of workers’ parties in Germany, France, and Britain, on a range of theoretical and organizational issues. Some of the items in question concern the birth and many ongoing debates in the Second International, whose founding congress took place on 14 July 1889.

Finally, Volume I/32, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe März 1891 bis August 1895 (Engels 2010; 1590 pages), brings together the writings from the last four and a half years of Engels’s life. There are a number of journalistic pieces for the major socialist papers of the time, including Die Neue Zeit, Le Socialiste, and Critica Sociale, but also prefaces and afterwords to various reprintings of works by Marx and Engels, transcriptions of speeches, interviews and greetings to party congresses, accounts of conversations, documents that Engels drafted in collaboration with others, and a number of translations.

These three volumes will therefore prove highly useful for a deeper study of Engels’s late theoretical and political contributions. The numerous publications and international conferences scheduled for the bicentenary of his birth (1820–2020) will certainly not fail to probe these twelve years following Marx’s death, during which he devoted his energies to the diffusion of Marxism.

V. Another Marx?
What Marx emerges from the new historical-critical edition of his works? In certain respects, he differs from the thinker whom many followers and opponents presented over the years—not to speak of the stone statues to be found in public squares under the unfree regimes of Eastern Europe, which showed him pointing to the future with imperious certainty. On the other hand, it would be misleading to invoke—as do those who over-excitedly hail an “unknown Marx” after each new text appears for the first time—that recent research has turned upside down everything that was already known about him. What MEGA² provides, rather, is the textual basis for rethinking a different Marx: not different because the class struggle drops out of his thought (as some academics would wish, in a variation of the old refrain of “Marx the economist” against “Marx the politician” that vainly seeks to present him as a toothless classic); but radically different from the author who was dogmatically converted into the fons et origo of “actually existing socialism” supposedly fixated on class conflict alone.

The new advances achieved in Marxian studies suggest that the exegesis of Marx’s work is again, as at many other times in the past, likely to become more and more refined. For a long time, many Marxists foregrounded the writings of the young Marx—primarily the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology—while the Manifesto of the Communist Party remained his most widely read and quoted text. In those early writings, however, one finds many ideas that were superseded in his later work. For a long time, the difficulty of examining Marx’s research in the last two decades of his life hampered our knowledge of the important gains he achieved. But it is above all in Capital and its preliminary drafts, as well as in the researches of his final years, that we find the most precious reflections on the critique of bourgeois society. These represent the last, though not the definitive, conclusions at which Marx arrived. If examined critically in the light of changes in the world since his death, they may still prove useful for the task of theorizing, after the failures of the twentieth century, an alternative social-economic model to capitalism.

The MEGA² edition has given the lie to all the claims that Marx is a thinker about whom everything has already been written and said. There is still so much to learn from Marx. Today it is possible to do this by studying not only what he wrote in his published works but also the questions and doubts contained in his unfinished manuscripts.

References
1. Among the main recent works marking this resurgence of interest, see Musto 2020a.
2. Tomes II/4.1 and II/4.2 were published before the interruption of MEGA², while Tome II/4.3 came out in 2012. This three-part book brings to 67 the total number of MEGA² volumes published since 1975.  In the future, some of the further volumes will be published only in digital form.
3. Of particular relevance for the content of Marx’s library was the publication of MEGA² vol. IV/32, Die Bibliotheken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels (Marx and Engels 1999), which consists of an index of 1,450 books (in 2,100 total volumes)—two-thirds of those owned by Marx and Engels. This compilation indicates all the pages of each volume on which Marx and Engels left annotations and marginalia.
4. For a review of all 13 MEGA² volumes published from 1998—the year of the resumption of this edition—to 2007, see Musto 2007. In this review essay are discussed the 15 volumes—amounting to a total of 20,508 pages—published between 2008 and 2019.
5. In fact, Engels already used this expression in 1859, in his review of Marx’s book A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, but the article had no resonance and the term began to circulate only after the publication of his Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.
6. A few years before the publication of the MEGA² vol. I/5, on the basis of the German edition of the Marx/Engels/Weydemeyer Die Deutsche Ideologie: Artikel, Druckvorlagen, Entwürfe, Reinschriftenfragmente und Notizen zu I. Feuerbach und II Sankt Bruno, which appeared as a special issue (vol. 2003) of the Marx-Engels Jahrbuch, Terrell Carver and David Blank (2014) provided a new English-language edition of the so-called “Chapter on Feuerbach.” The two authors argued for maximum fidelity to the originals, furthermore criticizing the Marx-Engels Jahrbuch edition (now incorporated in MEGA² vol. I/5) on the grounds that, in line with earlier twenty-century editors, it arranged the discrete manuscripts as if they formed the draft of a a fully cohesive, if never completed, work.
7. A small part of this text has recently been translated into English as “Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1867–68 (Excerpt)” (Marx 2019).
8. Volume II/4.2 has recently been translated into English as Fred Moseley (ed.), Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865 (2015).
9. See Carl-Erich Vollgraf, “Einführung,” in MEGA² vol. II/4.3:421–74 (Marx 2012).
10. Some of them—like the addresses and resolutions presented to the congresses of the International—were instead included in the anthology Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later (Musto 2014), which appeared on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of this organization.
11. On these questions, see also the work by Kohei Saito (one of the editors of MEGA² vol. IV/18), Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy (2017).
12. Marx’s great interest in the natural sciences, for a long time almost completely unknown, is also evident in MEGA² vol. IV/31, Naturwissenschaftliche Exzerpte und Notizen, Mitte 1877 bis Anfang 1883 (Marx and Engels 1999), which presented the notes on organic and inorganic chemistry taken by Marx after 1877.
13. See Marcello Musto, The Last Years of Karl Marx: An Intellectual Biography (2020b). An important milestone will be the publication of the volume edited by David Smith, Marx’s World: Global Society and Capital Accumulation in Marx’s Late Manuscripts (forthcoming 2021).

Bibliography
Althusser, Louis. 1996. For Marx. New York: Verso.
Bray, John Francis. 1893. Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy. Leeds, UK: D. Green.
Carver, Terrell, and David Blank. 2014. Marx and Engels’s “German Ideology” Manuscripts: Presentation and Analysis of the “Feuerbach Chapter.” New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Engels, Friedrich. 1990a. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. Pp. 353–98 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 26. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Engels, Friedrich. 1990b. “Marx, Heinrich Karl.” Pp. 332–43 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 27. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Engels, Friedrich. 2010. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/32, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, März 1891 bis August 1895, edited by Peer Kösling. Berlin: Akademie.
Engels, Friedrich. 2011. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/30, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, Mai 1883 bis September 1886, edited by Renate Merkel-Melis. Berlin: Akademie.
Engels, Friedrich. 2013. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. III/30, Briefwechsel Oktober 1889 bis November 1890, edited by Gerd Callesen and Svetlana Gavril’čenko. Berlin: Akademie.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1968. Dialectical Materialism. London: Cape Editions.
Marx, Karl. 1975a. “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.” Pp. 3–129 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1975b. “Marx’s Undertaking Not to Publish Anything in Belgium on Current Politics.” P. 677 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 4. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1976. “Declaration against Karl Grün.” Pp. 72–74 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 6. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1977. “The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution.” Pp. 154–78 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 8. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1978. The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850. Pp. 45–146 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 10. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1985. “Confidential Communication.” Pp. 112–24 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 21. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 1988. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 30, Economic Manuscript of 1861–63. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. 2008. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. II/13, Das Kapital: Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Zweiter Band. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Engels, Hamburg 1885. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl. 2011. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/26, Exzerpte und Notizen zur Geologie, Mineralogie und Agrikulturchemie, März bis September 1878, edited by Anneliese Griese, Peter Krüger, and Richard Sperl. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl. 2012. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. II/4.3, Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1868, Teil 3, edited by Carl-Erich Vollgraf. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl. 2015. Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865. Boston: Brill.
Marx, Karl. 2017. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/14, Exzerpte, Zeitungsausschnitte und Notizen zur Weltwirtschaftskrise (Krisenhefte), November 1857 bis Februar 1858, edited by Kenji Mori, Rolf Hecker, Izumi Omura, and Atsushi Tamaoka. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl. 2019. “Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1867–68 (Excerpt).” Historical Materialism 27(4):162–92.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1976. The German Ideology. Pp. 19–539 in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 5. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1982. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 38, Letters 1844–51. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1983. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 40, Letters 1856–59. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1985. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 41, Letters 1860–64. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1987. Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 42, Letters 1864–68. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1988. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/4, Exzerpte und Notizen Juli bis August 1845, edited by Nelly Rumjanzewa, Ljudmila Vasina, Sora Kasmina, Marija Marinitschewa, and Alexander Russkich. Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1999a. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/32, Die Bibliotheken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels: Annotiertes Verzeichnis des ermittelten Bestandes, edited by Hans-Peter Harstick, Richard Sperl, and Hanno Strauß. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1999b. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/31, Naturwissenschaftliche Exzerpte und Notizen, Mitte 1877 bis Anfang 1883, edited by Annalise Griese, Friederun Fessen, Peter Jäckel, and Gerd Pawelzig. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2008. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. II/11, Manuskripte zum zweiten Buch des “Kapitals,” 1868 bis 1881, edited by Teinosuke Otani, Ljudmila Vasina, and Carl-Erich Vollgraf. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2009. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/21, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, September 1867 bis März 1871, edited by Jürgen Herres. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2013. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. III/12, Briefwechsel, Januar 1862 bis September 1864, edited by Galina Golovina, Tat’jana Gioeva, and Rolf Dlubek. Berlin: Akademie.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2015. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/5, Exzerpte und Notizen Juli 1845 bis Dezember 1850, edited by Georgij Bagaturija, Timm Graßmann, Aleksandr Syrov, and Ljudmila Vasina. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2016. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/7, Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe, Februar bis Oktober 1848, edited by Jürgen Herren and François Melis. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2017. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/5, Deutsche Ideologie, Manuskripte und Drucke (1845–1847), edited by Ulrich Pagel, Gerald Hubmann, and Christine Weckwerth. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2018. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. I/16, Artikel Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858, edited by Claudia Rechel and Hanno Strauß. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2019. Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²). Vol. IV/18, Exzerpte und Notizen, Februar 1864 bis Oktober 1868, November 1869, März, April, Juni 1870, Dezember 1872, edited by Teinosuke Otani, Kohei Saito, and Timm Graßmann. Berlin: De Gruyter.
McLellan, David. 1975. Karl Marx. London: Fontana.
Musto, Marcello. 2007. “The Rediscovery of Karl Marx.” International Review of Social History 52(3):477–98.
Musto, Marcello, ed. 2014. Workers Unite! The International 150 Years Later. New York: Bloomsbury.
Musto, Marcello. 2018. Another Marx: Early Manuscripts to the International. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Musto, Marcello, ed. 2020a. The Marx Revival: Key Concepts and New Interpretations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Musto, Marcello. 2020b. The Last Years of Karl Marx: An Intellectual Biography. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Owen, Robert. 1849. The Book of the New Moral World. London: Home Colonization Society.
Rubel, Maximilien. 1980. Marx: Life and Works. London: Macmillan.
Saito, Kohei. 2017. Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Smith, David, ed. Forthcoming 2021. Marx’s World: Global Society and Capital Accumulation in Marx’s Late Manuscripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Categories
Journal Articles

Marx kései kutatásai az Európán kívüli társadalmakról

Bevezetés
Marx utolsó és nagyrészt még feltáratlan stúdiumai eloszlatják a mítoszt, miszerint utolsó éveiben Marx már nem írt semmi érdemlegeset. Marx munkásságának utolsó időszaka számára bizonyára nehéz volt, de egyszersmind elméletileg nagyon is jelentős. Az 1870-es évek végén Marx nemcsak folytatta korábbi kutatásait, hanem új területekre is kiterjesztette. Ezenfelül megvizsgált új politikai konfliktusokat (például a narodnyik mozgalom harcait Oroszországban a jobbágyság eltörlése után, vagy a gyarmati elnyomással szembeni ellenállást Indiában, Egyiptomban és Algériában), új elméleti kérdéseket (mint a közösségi földtulajdoné a prekapitalista társadalmakban, vagy a szocialista forradalom lehetősége a nem-kapitalista úton fejlődött országokban) és korábban általa nem tanulmányozott területeket (mint Oroszország, Észak-Afrika vagy India). Ehhez a korszakhoz tartoznak nemcsak A tőkéről szóló utolsó és befejezetlen kéziratai, hanem több tanulmány is a falusi közösségi földtulajdonról – különösen a Makszim Kovalevszkij munkásságáról írott kivonatok (1879–80) és az oroszországi obscsina jól ismert elemzése. Ezenkívül Marx megírta az Etnográfiai jegyzetfüzeteket (1880–1881),1 és még egyszer, életében utoljára, mélyen elmerült a történelemben, különösen India és Euró- pa történelmében. Mindezeknek a kérdéseknek a vizsgálata képessé tette őt arra, hogy árnyaltabb társadalomtudományi elképzeléseket dolgozzon ki, amelyeket befolyásoltak a Nyugat-Európán kívüli országok sajátságai.

A jelen tanulmány megkérdőjelezi Marxnak azt a régre visszanyúló, torzító bemutatását, mintha „eurocentrikus” és ökonomista gondolkodó lett volna, aki kizárólag az osztálykonfliktusokra fixálta a maga gondolkodását. Meg szeretném nyitni az olvasók előtt az utat, hogy vizsgálják meg újra Marx eszméit az antropológiáról, a nem nyugati társadalmakról és az európai gyarmatosítás bírálatáról tett kései megjegyzései fényében, s meg kívánom mutatni: hogyan kerülte el Marx a gazdasági determinizmusnak azt a csapdáját, amelybe oly sok követője később beleesett. Ahelyett, hogy merev módon alkalmazta volna a történelemre a gazdasági determinizmus sémáit, Marx rávilá- gított, milyen hatása van a társadalmi valóság alakítására, a változások elérésére a specifikus történelmi feltételeknek, és milyen központi szerepe van ebben a tudatos emberi beavatkozásnak is.

Marx, bár teljesen lekötötték intenzív elméleti tanulmányai, soha nem veszítette el érdeklődését korának gazdasági és nemzetközi politikai eseményei iránt sem. Amellett, hogy rendszeresen olvasta a fő „polgári” újságokat, megkapta és rendszeresen átnézte a német és francia munkásmozgalmi sajtót is. Miként egész életében, továbbra is kíváncsi volt a világra, és első osztályú tudással rendelkezett arról: mi történik a világban. A különböző országokban élő vezető politi- kai és szellemi figurákkal való levelezése gyakran új stimulusokat és mélyebb tudást adott neki egy sor különböző kérdésről.