Author: Ma Guochuan Spod
Source: Caijing Magazine
7 Nov 2016
Marx was not a Marxist from the beginning. Popular Marxism is the thought of Marx before 1850
The economist John Maynard Keynes once said, "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, right or wrong, have more influence than the average person understands." People who think they can be completely independent of knowledge and prefer to practice are often slaves of some deceased economist. ”
Marx was such an "economist and political philosopher" who influenced the course of world history. However, as history fades away, more than 100 years later, the image of Marx is fixed like a sculpture, which is admirable and inaccessible. Fortunately, Marx left a large number of manuscripts, which can give future generations an insight into the mental journey of a thinker.
"The circulation of Marx's manuscripts is very, very complicated, and it is also a good story," said Fred E. Schrader, a distinguished professor at Fudan University, "initially given to Engels, who gave them to the headquarters of the German Social Democratic Party, and in 1938 the German Social Democratic Party handed them over to the Netherlands Institute of Social History." These manuscripts are now all electronic and can be found on the Internet. Anyone who wants to study can read it, but I am afraid that no one can understand it, because Marx knows several languages, and there are many abbreviations, as well as his own creative writing, which is very difficult to read. ”
As a famous German scholar, Spold is one of the few people who can read Marx's handwriting, and he is also a scholar who has rarely seen all of Marx's manuscripts in the world today. Spold's dissertation focused on the manuscripts of Marx's ideological transformations from 1850 to 1860. From 2002 to 2012, as a member of the editorial board of the new works of Marx and Engels of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, he was responsible for collating, editing and publishing Marx's unpublished historical notes, and made many new discoveries and experiences.
In Shanghai, Mr. Spold was interviewed by Caijing reporter, detailing his understanding of reading Marx's manuscripts, and describing to us a Marx who was both familiar and unfamiliar.
The real Marx, and why "Marxists" distort Marx
Text/Ma Guochuan
Originally published in Caijing magazine on November 7, 2016
The economist John Maynard Keynes once said, "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, right or wrong, have more influence than the average person understands." People who think they are completely immune to intellectual influences and to focus on practice are often slaves of some deceased economist. ”
Marx was such an "economist and political philosopher" who influenced the course of world history. However, as history gradually drifts away, more than 100 years later, the image of Marx is fixed like a sculpture, which is admirable and difficult to approach. Fortunately, Marx left a large number of manuscripts, which can give future generations an insight into the mental journey of a thinker.
"The circulation of Marx's manuscripts is very, very complicated, and a good story," said Fred E. Schrader, a distinguished professor at Fudan University, "initially given to Engels, who gave them to the headquarters of the German Social Democratic Party, and in 1938 the German Social Democratic Party handed them over to the Netherlands Institute of Social History." These manuscripts are now all electronic and can be found on the Internet. Anyone who wants to study can read it, but I am afraid that no one can understand it, because Marx knows several languages, and there are many abbreviations, as well as his own creative writing, which is very difficult to read. ”
As a famous German scholar, Schford is a person who can rarely read Marx's handwriting, and he is also a scholar who rarely sees all of Marx's manuscripts in the world today. Sford's doctoral dissertation was based on the manuscripts of Marx's ideological changes from 1850 to 1860. From 2002 to 2012, as a member of the editorial board of the new complete works of Marx and Engels of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, he was responsible for collating, editing and publishing Marx's unpublished historical notes, and made many new discoveries and experiences.
In a café on Julu Road in Shanghai, Mr. Stford was interviewed by this reporter, detailing his understanding of reading Marx's manuscripts, and describing to us a Marx who was both familiar and unfamiliar.
Fred E. Schrader
Why did Marx start reflecting after 1850?
Caijing: Although Marx is very well-known in China, after all, he was already a figure more than 100 years ago, so ordinary Chinese do not know him personally. You take classes at university and are students interested in Marx?
Schford: When I teach Chinese students, I find that they can't accept the real Marx.
In fact, Marx was a 19th-century man, and all the materials and information he used were 19th-century, but his ideas were ahead of their time and were not limited to solving the problems of 19th-century capitalism. The two are disconnected, and many people don't realize it.
Unlike Marx, Engels was more realistic, and he wanted to solve the problems of social democracy and the nationalization of banks in the 19th century. Marx wrote in the manuscript that none of this would work. Marx had a large number of manuscripts of notes, many topics were not discussed with Engels and were not published. The correspondence is still about the two people's relatively consistent views. In fact, in his discussions with Engels, Marx was constantly testing what step Engels could accept. To solve the problems of capitalist society, the discussion between Engels and Marx was limited to the political level, while Marx thought more deeply in his notes, thinking from many aspects such as economic structure, production structure, and mode of production.
Caijing: Legend has it that Marx and Engels were close friends, but it seems otherwise?
Sford: They are very good friends, but they are not completely ideologically identical. They were close comrades-in-arms in the 1840s, writing together The Communist Manifesto and The German Ideology. Judging by the manuscript, you write a paragraph, I write a paragraph, and comment on each other. But after 1850 they were clearly separated.
Marx is a true scholar, he is constantly conducting thought experiments, and he is constantly testing Engels to see how far you can understand and how far you can communicate. However, Engels did not understand Marx's other ideas, so after 1850, the two had ideological differences. But emotionally it is still the same, but in theory seek common ground while reserving differences. Marx himself continued to think and explore.
Caijing: Seeking common ground while reserving differences in ideology is rare to find.
Sfford: They have always been very good friends emotionally, and Engels knew that Marx was a wizard, and he needed such a wizard. Marx also needed Engels, because Engels was a real politician of action, and Marx could not put it into action at all. In addition, Engels did support him financially.
Caijing: You said that Marx's thinking changed from 1850, but in the 80s of last century, Marx's "1844 Political Economy Manuscript" had a great influence in Chinese intellectual circles. It suddenly became clear that there was another completely different Marx. Was Marx's ideological change earlier?
Sfooter: The 1844 Manuscript of Political Economy is actually Marx's reading notes, and what is seen in the archives is not a book, but an unfinished manuscript. It's philosophical thinking, it's about human liberation, so it's very meaningful.
The book was first published in 1932 and then everyone forgot about it. By the time of the thaw of the Soviet Union in the 1950s, it was rediscovered against Stalin. Marx advocated human liberation, liberalism, and the individual, and Western scholars also used this to oppose Stalin's dictatorship. This view also has an impact on China after the reform and opening up. It's particularly interesting that this book has been brought out again and again.
Before 1850, Marx's ideas were relatively clear, that is, violent revolution, proletarian power and other ideas. Lenin particularly appreciated this set, and Leninism developed along such a line. But after 1850, Marx entered into reflection.
Caijing: Why did Marx reflect at this time, what events or factors prompted his transformation?
Sfolder: First of all, there were two economic crises in 1847-1848 and 1857-1858, and Marx suddenly realized that this was not only an economic crisis, but also a financial crisis. Money is divided into two parts, 10% into the field of personal consumption, and 90% is the operation of capital such as bonds and stocks. Completely different from past crises, this is the first global financial crisis, and political revolution will not solve these problems at all. Most importantly, he realized that henceforth, the economic crisis was no longer a national affair, but a global one. The idea of economic globalization began to emerge here with Marx.
Secondly, after the French Revolution of 1848, the "Second French Empire" was established, and the political and economic basis was the National Bank, heavy industry, credit banks, etc. Marx originally believed that this empire could not last, and sooner or later it would collapse and the proletariat would take power. As a result, contrary to his expectations, French society became increasingly stable. This shocked him very strongly, and it also prompted him to start reflecting on those thoughts of the past.
Another factor was the-for-tat struggle with Proudhon. Proudhon was a brother of the German Social Democratic Party and actually supported Napoleon III. For Marx to answer Proudhon's theory, he had to think deeply.
"Both politics and the military are losers relative to the market"
Caijing: Judging from the data, at that time, Engels insisted on the practicality of politicians, and even practiced horseback shooting and prepared for war.
Stoff: Marx drilled into his laboratory of ideas and turned to economics and financial research, studying the internal logic and operating mechanism of economic crises. Before that, he was not an expert on economic issues, and after really entering the research, he found that the original conclusion was completely different.
Caijing: In a nutshell, what changes occurred in Marx's thinking after 1850?
Suffder: He feels more and more that political revolution and violent revolution will not work. Violent revolution only changes the soup without changing the medicine, and the government is changed, but the capitalist system cannot be broken by political revolution.
Caijing: As an economist, what did Marx think about the relationship between the government and the market?
Stoff: After 1850, Marx's thinking revolved around the operation of capital, and he never came to a conclusion.
If anything, it is: First, both politics and the military are losers relative to the market. Napoleon the First, as well as Bismarck, were losers in the face of a powerful market.
Second, the government is also a loser in the face of financial markets. Marx often said in his manuscript in a mocking tone that if there is any relationship between politics and the market, whether it is Anglo-American or German-French, the only relationship is that politicians are corrupted by the market. He came to laugh very poignantly that what you politicians want to do to the market, only to be corrupted by it. It is not the market that actively corrupts him, it is the politicians themselves who are actively corrupted.
Caijing: Marx spoke very brilliantly and very important. Did he foresee a planned economy?
Sfolder: He said that rational or rational market solutions are actually utopian, not that the state can solve economic problems by stepping in. Therefore, he simply could not agree with the so-called planned economy of the later Soviet Union.
Marx did not have a very complete vision of the future society. He said we can't imagine what the future society will look like. He emphasized the evolution of society itself, and was most opposed to the state's domination of production and distribution.
Caijing: So, what is Marx's attitude towards private ownership?
Suffder: If you read Marx carefully, even in the Communist Manifesto, he recognized the progressive role of private ownership in history. In the manuscript, he specifically said that private ownership played a great role in promoting society and developing productive forces in the 18th century, so that private ownership could be accepted by the whole society. In addition, private ownership is also very important for the development of individuals and for human freedom. He believes that even if you are a paid worker, you are a free person.
In Marx's view, if the development of productive forces goes beyond the boundaries of individual consumption, ownership itself is no longer private. To a certain extent, private ownership becomes a paradox.
Caijing: After private property exceeds a certain limit, it will become social public wealth. But it does not become public wealth in a political way, but the internal logic of self-evolution. Doesn't that mean?
Steffer: Money becomes capital, capital enters the circulation system of the public sphere, and private ownership is actually alienated. Private property is no longer privately owned. Marx did not just say that he would abolish private property, but that private ownership would one day surpass itself and deny itself. Moreover, private ownership goes beyond a certain level, which will negate the state, not say that it will be eliminated through state intervention.
What Marx meant was that society has the ability to reproduce and reproduce itself. One day social production will transcend society, beyond the interests of all individuals, beyond money, beyond capital, but it must be self-reproduction in society, and it is impossible for political external forces to surpass it.
"Marx opposed strengthening the role of the state in the economy"
Caijing: Did Marx participate in realpolitik after the 1850s, and to what extent?
Stoffe: He played a theoretical guiding role in the First International and the Second International, and participated very cautiously, and it was Engels who really participated, of course, they communicated with each other. The programs of the First International and the Second International were drafted by Marx, but these programs simplified his ideas, and there is a gap between the two, which can also be said to be contradictory.
Caijing: But about the Paris Commune of 1871, Marx soon wrote a book, "The French Civil War", which shows that he still cares about realpolitik.
Schford: During the Paris Commune, Marx wrote The French Civil War, which was actually an immediate response, without enough information and thought. After the Paris Commune, did the proletariat come to power? It is all conjecture, without a solid factual basis and sufficient information.
Caijing: After this, did Marx revise or correct some basic judgments?
Svauder: It's hard to say whether he reflected or not, because his interest and attention once again shifted to economic issues. But it can be seen that he increasingly believes that politics has little role in the capitalist economy, so he opposes strengthening the role of the state in the economy.
Marx believed that the state cannot prevail, cannot be strong, and politics cannot play a decisive role. Marx became increasingly opposed to political control of the economy, while Engels stressed the importance of nationalization.
Caijing: Many basic principles of Marxism, communism, violent revolution, public ownership, etc., are these things not the content of Marx's theory? Or is Marx's thought itself full of great contradictions?
Suffd: Marx's ideas were never a result, not a conclusion. Marx's ideas have always been developed and have never been finished.
For example, Capital was never finalized, and the first volume had eight editions and drafts, contradicting each other. The version that is now in use was compiled and finalized by Engels. Later, the German Marx Complete Works Research Group found that the first volume of Engels' "Capital" simplified it, and even added a lot of political content, some of which even conflicted with the content in Marx's manuscript. It cannot be said that Engels tampered with Marx's thought, and the authoritative version of Capital did not actually exist, because Marx himself left several open choices.
Caijing: After Marx's death, Engels published the second and third volumes of Capital.
Suffer: Because Marx left dozens of manuscripts, Engels put aside a lot of things he didn't understand, and chose which one was more suitable for him.
Kautsky and Lenin both felt that Engels' version was particularly good, because the clues in it were clear: first there was production, then there was exchange, surplus value, and after eliminating all of these, socialism was realized, so they desperately went down this line. But looking at Marx's manuscript, I can't find this clue at all, and it is completely the subjective understanding of posterity.
Caijing: The Marxism described by Lenin says that the crisis of capitalism is getting bigger and bigger every time, and finally the big bang and the working class seizes power. Did Marx acknowledge this view?
Suffder: Especially after 1860, Marx increasingly ruled out the conclusion of total collapse. He said that of course, it is possible to change a society, but it is impossible to smash it all at once by political means from the outside, and only in the space of different fields to find the possibility of changing society.
As a result, Marx's own rejection of ideas was eventually reinforced by Kautsky and Lenin.
Caijing: Did Marx propose a solution to the contradictions of capitalism?
Steffer: No. In his opinion, it is impossible to solve according to internal logic. To solve these problems in the current system, it is still necessary to enter the operation of capital, and there will inevitably be another economic crisis for many years. Solving it by pragmatic political means, he also felt that it was impossible. It is necessary to get out of this system and logic to solve it. But he said, I didn't figure out what to do.
"Marx was an extreme genius"
Caijing: As a thinker, what is the main thing Marx's research?
Schford: Marx's ideological research has no main line, and economics and finance are only part of it. He wanted to be an encyclopedic figure, so his manuscripts contained everything from electricity, chemistry, philology, biology, geography, and even his interest in mathematics. He has three historical manuscripts, from ancient Roman society all the way to the English Revolution, and he studies the legitimacy and logic of the succession of power.
Caijing: From reading the manuscripts, what kind of person do you think Marx was? What do you think of this person?
Steffer: Marx's manuscript is a great laboratory of ideas, experimenting with various models for solving social problems.
Marx was a man of the 19th century, but the conclusions he came from his research fit some of today's society. If you read Marx well, especially what he did not publish, you can see that he really had a kind of foresight. For example, the role of central banking, credit, and government bonds—things that did not happen in the 19th century—were fully inferred in Marx's manuscripts and described in great detail.
Marx was an extreme genius, or a genius "madman" who spent his life searching for a conclusion he could not have reached. In terms of genius, he can be compared with Hegel, who has touched the boundaries of what is possible at the level of thinking. All the politicians who came after him, or those who thought on his line, did not reach his heights.
Caijing: How to understand the boundaries of Marx's thinking?
Sfooter: For Marx, there are two aspects, one is that he wants to know what happened in history, what it actually looks like, this is something that is touchable, relatively material; Another is where is the tipping point of human spirit and thinking. He has been studying the evolution of the morphology of human consciousness, with conflicting results, and this is the tipping point he has touched.
In any sense, Marx was not the Marx promoted by the German Social Democratic Party or other parties. The real Marx was not portrayed later, especially by the German Social Democratic Party and later by Lenin.
Caijing: Actually, as early as when the first volume of Capital was published, many young Germans excitedly claimed to be Marxists after reading it. When Marx found out, he said angrily, I am everything, but I am definitely not a Marxist.
Stoffer: Indeed, Marx was not a Marxist from the beginning. Popular Marxism was the thought of Marx before 1850, and Marx himself became an anti-Marxist. It is a pity that no one studied it properly, and no one paid attention to Marx's later ideas, because they did not want to accept them.
Marxists say that Marx is inseparable as a statesman and thinker. But politicians must be communicative and have an audience, but Marx's own thinking is contradictory, and most things cannot be communicated, cannot be understood by the audience immediately. In this sense, Marx was not a politician. Especially after reading his manuscripts, I really can't squeeze the two together, it's completely two images.
Caijing: Since he was not a politician engaged in practice, Marx should not be responsible for the practice of the later communist movement?
Schford: In fact, a very small part of Marx's ideas were accepted in communist countries, mainly national revolutions, violent revolutions, and so on, which were Marx's ideas on socialism and communism inherited by Fourier, Saint-Simon, Owen and others before 1850. After studying the economic situation in Britain in the 1850s, Marx's thinking changed dramatically, as mentioned earlier.
Marxism and the theories that later developed are another history. It is not an extension of Marx's thought, but another relatively independent historical thread. As a thinker, Marx could not and should not take full responsibility for the practice of the communist movement.