The real originality of Marx and Engels lies in the field of politics, not in economics or philosophy. They were the first to discover the historical potential of the new class that capitalism had brought into existence—the modern proletariat, a class that could encompass a universal liberation from all prevailing forms of oppression and exploitation. The modern workers’ movement, capable of self-determination and self-emancipation, able to draw on the best of bourgeois culture and science, would have no need of utopias or religious exaltation. The political capacity of the proletariat sprang from its objective position within bourgeois society. Thus the analysis of capitalism, and of its historical antecedents and consequences, to be found in the writings of Marx and Engels—however necessarily partial its initial formulations—was a necessary underpinning for their political theory. But the decisive contribution made by the founders of historical materialism was the theory of proletarian revolution. Unfortunately, there has been an increasing tendency in twentieth-century Marxism to identify the philosophical method or epistemology employed by
The theory of proletarian revolution developed by Marx and Engels sets them quite apart from those who have been claimed as their precursors in matters of political science. The fact that their political theory was deeply grounded in an analysis of social and economic forces is in the greatest contrast to Machiavelli’s arbitrary and self-sufficient notion of politics. Their insistence that the working class could emancipate itself and all other oppressed groups is sharply at variance with the Machiavellian conception of the state as a simple instrument of princely manipulation, with its peremptory maxim to the effect that, as Machiavelli writes in the Discourses, ‘in all states, whatever their type of Government, the real rulers are never more than forty or fifty citizens’. There is no valid analogy between the Marxist conception of the party of proletarian revolution and Machiavelli’s Prince. Rousseau’s political ideas, based on a profound critique of social inequality, are discrepant with Marxism in a quite different way. With Rousseau, the critique of all political institutions is so radical and sweeping that the very notion of valid political representation or delegation is denied. Thus the sovereignty of the people is only possible if there are no parties or factions within the state and no communication between its citizens. Rousseau declares in the Social Contract: ‘It is therefore essential, if the general will is to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the state, and that each citizen should think only his own thoughts.’ Again, as we shall see, there is no valid analogy between Rousseau’s vision of the General Will, inaugurated by the Wise Legislator, and proletarian democracy forged in class struggle. footnote2
Marxist politics could not possibly spring fully armed from the heads of Marx and Engels, but required decades of participation in the workers’ movement. The development of capitalism and of the class struggle was constantly presenting them with new problems and new solutions. In those texts written by Marx or Engels as interventions in the workers’ movement, it is possible to trace their increasing awareness of the great variety of tactics and instruments of struggle that the working class would need if it was to carry through a successful socialist revolution against such a powerful antagonist as the world capitalist system. These works by Marx and Engels lack the brilliant paradoxes of their philosophy, the literary polish of their journalism or the intricate abstraction of their economics, but they are unsurpassed in clarity and vigour: they have proved to be the iron rations of revolutionary socialism. It is hoped that this account of the origins of Marxist politics, although unavoidably cursory and selective in its reference to the historical context of the writings of Marx and Engels, will nevertheless underline their crucial significance within the Marxist corpus.
If the definitive tenet of Marxism is the proletarian revolution, then it is possible to give a precise date to Marx’s first announcement that he had become a Marxist. In the early part of 1844 Marx published his last text as a critical philosopher and radical nationalist: ‘The Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’. In this he declares war on the stifling conditions that prevail in Germany in the name of philosophy and the proletariat. The material base, the ‘passive element’, in this revolution will be supplied by the proletariat, the radically oppressed class, while philosophy will determine the revolution’s goals. ‘Just as philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its intellectual weapons in philosophy . . . The emancipation of the German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat.’ footnote3
Marx spent the first part of 1844 studying political economy and filling his notebooks with the ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’. In June 1844 there was an armed revolt by the weavers in Silesia. It was to be dismissed as an event of little consequence by Marx’s closest collaborator, Arnold Ruge, writing under the name ‘A Prussian’ in the Paris émigré newspaper Vorwarts. Marx was provoked into an instant response: ‘Our so-called Prussian denies that the King “panicked” for a number of reasons, among them being the fact that few troops were needed to deal with the feeble weavers. . . . In a country where banquets with liberal toasts and liberal champagne froth provoke Royal Orders in Council . . . where the burning desire of the entire liberal bourgeoisie for freedom of the press and a constitution could be suppressed without a single soldier, in a country where passive obedience is the order of the day, can it be anything but an event, indeed a terrifying event, when armed troops have to be called out against feeble weavers? And in the first encounter the feeble weavers even gained a victory. They were only suppressed when reinforcements were brought up. Is the uprising of a mass of workers less dangerous because it can be defeated without the aid of a whole army? Our sharp-witted Prussian should compare the revolt of the Silesian weavers with the uprisings of the English workers. The Silesians will then stand revealed as strong weavers.’ Much of this article is still written in the old philosophical jargon and concerns an argument about the nature of the German revolution. But Marx concludes from the weavers’ revolt that the proletariat is the ‘active agent’ of the revolution and the political consciousness they revealed is greatly superior to ‘the meek, sober mediocrity’ of the political literature of the German bourgeoisie, ‘for all their philosophers and scholars’. Marx points out that ‘however limited an industrial revolt may be it contains within itself a universal soul’. Ruge had maintained that Germany needed ‘a social revolution with a political soul’. Marx in conclusion replies: ‘whether the idea of a social revolution with a political soul is paraphrase or nonsense, there is no doubt about the rationality of a political revolution with a social soul. All revolution—the overthrow of the existing ruling power and the dissolution of the old order —is a political act. But without revolution socialism cannot be made possible.’ footnote4