Philosophy Forums


Is Engels corrupting Marx here?

PrintPrint


Is Engels corrupting Marx here?
sheps
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431
Posted 08/17/09 - 08:03 AM:
Subject: Is Engels corrupting Marx here?
quote post
#1
I know that Engels has a bit of a reputation for 'vulgarising' some of Marx's thought when he collated his works after he died. I refer, though, to a particularly interesting part of a letter to August Bebel, dated 1875, on the subject of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, where he mainly focuses on the Lassellean's desire to lump all classes who aren't part of the proliteriat into 'one reactionary mass,' and their commitment to a 'free state.'

Engels says in this letter to Bebel, however, something which I see as being fundamentally un-Marxist:

"Fifthly, there is not a word about the organisation of the working class as a class by means of the Trade Unions. And that is a very essential point, for this is the real class organisation of the proliteriat, in which it carries on its daily struggles with capital, in which it trains itself, and which nowadays even amid the worst reaction (as in Paris at present) can simply no longer be smashed. Considering the importance which this organisation has attained also in Germany, it would be absolutely necessary in our opinion to mention it in the programme and if possible to leave open a place for it in the Party organisation."

This sounds like it is endorsing Trade Unions, which I was always taught were a 'bourgeois illusion' according to classical Marxism, in the same way that politics is. Trade Unions cannot really accomplish anything meaningful, etc. So am I wrong? Did Marx endorse Trade Unions? Or is Engels merely being oppurtunist when he says "it would be absolutely necessary in our opinion to mention it in the programme and if possible to leave open a place for it in the Party organisation." Note the use of the word "our." This, to me at least, implies that this is the opinion of Marx as well.

You can read the whole of the Critique of the Gotha Program and Engel's letter to Bebel here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

The Midnight Sun Never Sets.
MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190
Posted 08/18/09 - 08:14 AM:
quote post
#2
I can't remember Marx ever saying anything about trade unions specifically, but I would imagine he would categorise most trade unionists as being "utopian" socialists, presumably because they were taking active measures of social reform rather than sitting down and wondering about a future world... Apparentely Engels not only vulgarised Marx's views, but he also supported Marx by giving him a glass house and providing him with regular supplies of stones.

Marx would presumably say that the trade unionists of the 19th century were fighting a futile task, since the laws of economic development meant that the standard of living of the working class would progressively worsen until the revolution, making any effort at improving workers' conditions prior to the revolution a waste of time.

Doubt requires a reason to doubt.

Nothing is immune from potential doubt.

The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.
quickly
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 234
Posted 08/20/09 - 01:11 AM:
quote post
#3
I can't say anything specific here. I don't recall Marx speaking pejoratively about trade unions in Capital. Moreover, it seems as thought many forms of organization and labor protection that classical Marxist denigrate and Marx becomes cynical about are regarded as effective ameliorative measures (esp. the British industrial investigatory committees).

You might be interested in this selection of letters, from which this stands out:

From "Russian Policy Against Turkey - Chartism": There exists a class of philanthropists, and even of socialists, who consider strikes as very mischievous to the interests of the "workingman himself," and whose great aim consists in finding out a method of securing permanent average wages. Besides, the fact of the industrial cyclus, with its various phases, putting every such average wages out of the question. I am, on the very contrary, convinced that the alternative rise and fall of wages, and the continual conflicts between masters and men resulting therefrom, are, in the present organization of industry, the indispensable means of holding up the spirit of the laboring classes, of combining them into one great association against the encroachments of the ruling class, and of preventing them from becoming apathetic, thoughtless, more or less well-fed instruments of production. In a state of society founded upon the antagonism of classes, if we want to prevent Slavery in fact as well as in name, we must accept war. In order to rightly appreciate the value of strikes and combinations, we must not allow ourselves to be blinded by the apparent insignificance of their economical results, but hold, above all things, in view their moral and political consequences. Without the great alternative phases of dullness, prosperity, over-excitement, crisis and distress, which modern industry traverses in periodically recurring cycles, with the up and down of wages resulting from them, as with the constant warfare between masters and men closely corresponding with those variations in wages and profits, the working-classes of Great Britain, and of all Europe, would be a heart-broken, a weak-minded, a worn-out, unresisting mass, whose self-emancipation would prove as impossible as that of the slaves of Ancient Greece and Rome. We must not forget that strikes and combinations among the serfs were the hot-beds of the mediaeval communes, and that those communes have been in their turn, the source of life of the now ruling bourgeoisie.


Edited by quickly on 08/20/09 - 01:30 AM

Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura
quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com

(cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)
quickly
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 234
Posted 08/20/09 - 02:41 AM:
quote post
#4
I searched through Capital and found the following, from the Apendix S.IV [The Sale of Labour-Power and the Trade Unions] pp. 1069 of the Fowkes translation:

[The] value of labour-power constitutes the conscious and explicit foundation of the trade unions, whose importance for the English working class can scarcely be overestimated. The trade unions aim at nothing less than to prevent the reduction of wages below the level that is traditionally maintained in the various branches of industry. That is to say, they wish to prevent the price of labour-power from falling below its value. They are aware, of course, that if there is a change in the relations of supply and demand, this results in a change in the market price [of labour-power]...[pp. 1070] [Unions] never allow their members to work for less than [the] minimum. They are insurance societies formed by the workers themselves.


So: I have no idea what MarchHare is talking about. The context of the above passage is the regulation of wages vis-a-vis the value of labor-power in regards to its function and market prices; and Marx appears to wholeheartedly endorse the notion that the association of labor is the primary means by which wages can be ensured to remain at an equivalent value to the value of labor power. It seems, also, to be a direct prescriptive response to the cycle of the industrial reserve.

I would also guess that Marx's "prophecy" in "The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation" (Capital Ch. 32) is formed on the basis of unionization and association. At least, this is how I read it. For instance, the development of the primary historical contradiction of capitalism into the "negation of the negation" is predicted to proceed along the following lines (whether or not they are true is another issue):

[pp. 929] [Along] with centralization, or 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 transformation of the means of labour into forms in which they can 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...
.

I think the important moments here are the development of cooperation, the centralization of the means of production, and the socialization of labor, all of which indicate that the worker's labor will become more self-aware, more centralized, and necessarily more associated. If Marx believes that unionization is a key way in which wages are maintained at their market value, I would believe that workers and trade unions are two ways in which the change he desires can be effected.

Edited by quickly on 08/20/09 - 02:50 AM

Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura
quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com

(cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)
Download thread as


Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.