Royal Road to Science — Marx Engels Collected Works Volume 7, Marx and Engels Neue Rheinische Zeitung Articles June-November 1848
Welcome back.
The structure of this entry will be:
- This introduction, including the MECW Preface
- Comments on, and extensive quotes from 38 of the 141 newspaper entries (and from a couple of other Marx/Engels documents) from June to November of that remarkable year, 1848
- Short notes about the 39 documents form the appendices that provide more background information on Marx and Engels in this period of time
What will not be included in my entry a summary conclusion — I will do that at the end of Volume 9. Volumes 7, 8, and 9 of the MECW are almost entirely made of newspaper entries by Marx and Engels, and all cover the 1848–49 revolutionary period. The MECW had an important task as 357 of the 422 articles contained in these three volumes were published in English for the first time. Honestly, though I was looking forward to “Wage Labour and Capital” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 5–8 and 11, 1849) more than reading more of these entries about how poorly Prussia did in the First Schleswig War, but I was pleasantly surprised how exciting some of the journalism was in this volume, especially around the events in Paris.
The MECW “Preface” for Volume 7, which to be fair, makes no claims of objectivity, confidently summarizes this period of unrest as follows:
“The series of revolutions of this period arose primarily from the crisis of feudalism and absolutism, which still prevailed in a considerable part of Europe. Emerging bourgeois society needed to rid itself of feudal relics and abolish such legacies of the feudal age as the political dismemberment of Germany and Italy and the national oppression of the Poles, Hungarians and other European nations that were striving for independence.
“Feudalism had already been swept away in France by the revolution of 1789–94. But another bourgeois revolution became inevitable when the rapacious rule of the financial aristocracy, the top crust of the bourgeoisie, and the political monopoly it enjoyed began to hamper the further development of capitalism.
“Unlike previous bourgeois revolutions, those of 1848 and 1849 took place when fundamental social contradictions had already developed within bourgeois society and when the proletariat had already entered the political arena. The deepening conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie — a conflict which became especially acute in France, and also in England, the most advanced capitalist country at that time — left its imprint on the revolutionary events of that period, influenced their course and determined their specific character.”
I don’t think though there is anything historically controversial about the next two sentences: “Marx and Engels in these years made clear the organic unity of their revolutionary theory and practice. They were by no means merely detached observers, but played a very active and practical part in the revolutionary events themselves.”
Almost the entire 7th volume is made of entries written by Engels (the majority) and Marx (slightly less so); or some unknown contributor that could have been either or a mix of both of them, in Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The New Rhenish paper (about five years after the old one we read about was shut down) declared itself an organ of democracy. But specifically as Engels said, “a democracy which everywhere emphasised in every point the specific proletarian character.” It did not follow the line of any single party or organization necessarily, but with Marx as editor, gave opinion and fact oriented reporting for its readers in daily editions until it would be shut down like the original paper before it, this time due to the expulsion of Marx himself. The paper consistently put itself at the radical left of the pro-democracy movements, and pulled no punches when they believed the liberal bourgeoise sided with the aristocracy against more radical changes.
Some of the concepts contained within these entries — German unification, an idea of a United States of Europe made of independent republics, self determination for people without states, a “revolutionary dictatorship of the people” to repress counter-revolution, and the limitations of a “model” liberal democracy (the part played by Belgium in this volume) — remained controversies for a century or more. But “always historicize!”; these are by their very nature entries by Marx and Engels on “current events” of their day.
Finally, the appendices translate some valuable primary documents about the repression of the left, including our authors, who again end up on the run (or in the case of Engels, end up on a stroll from Paris all the way to Switzerland, as he once against took up some more what I have been calling “travel writing” — while also analyzing the French peasantry with his usual lack of self-censorship.)
II. Newspaper Entries*
*Before the actual newspaper entries begin, there is also an important entry: the “Demands of the Communist Party of Germany”.
At first I thought the demands would have made more sense to put in MECW V6, because it sounds similar to the documents grouped together from that volume regarding the eventual Communist Manifesto. However, I see the logic in putting it in this otherwise newspaper-oriented volume — because it makes demands around the creation of a German republic that was not a part of the Manifesto. These geographically/”nationally” focused demands anticipate Marx and Engels journalism in the later half of 1848 more than the Manifesto, so it seems a respectable choice by the publishers.
The 17 demands are short enough and important enough that you could read it in a couple of minutes, so I’ll dispense summarizing them. The conclusion though is some good prose: “It is to the interest of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasants to support these demands with all possible energy. Only by the realisation of these demands will the millions in Germany, who have hitherto been exploited by a handful of persons and whom the exploiters would like to keep in further subjection, win the rights and attain to that power to which they are entitled as the producers of all wealth.”
The first of the newspaper entries in V7 is fittingly about the creation of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung itself. It declares itself an attempt at a daily newspaper, which proves important as the events of 1848 moved so quickly as to warrant it! And the first of the endnotes on the newspaper entries (#7 here) does an excellent job summarizing the publishing methods and history of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung:
“Marx and Engels decided to publish the paper in Cologne, the capital of the Rhine Province, one of the most economically and politically advanced regions in Germany. The new paper was given the name of the New Rheinische Zeitung to emphasise that it was to continue the revolutionary-democratic traditions of the Rheinische Zeitung, which Marx had edited in 1842 and 1843. Taking account of the specific circumstances, with the absence of an independent mass workers’ party in Germany, Marx, Engels and their followers entered the political scene as a Left, actually proletarian, wing of the democratic movement. This determined the stand of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, which began to appear under the subtitle ‘The Organ of Democracy’.
“When they started the paper, Marx and Engels had to cope with serious financial difficulties as well as with the opposition from sectarian elements in the Communist League (Hess, Anneke and others), who intended to publish a purely local sheet under a similar title. In April and May 1848, Marx and Engels worked hard selling shares in the paper, finding contributors and establishing regular contacts with democratic periodicals in other countries. The editorial committee was known for its unanimity of views, well-co-ordinated work and strict division of functions.
“As a rule, Marx and Engels wrote the editorials formulating the paper’s stand on the most important questions of the revolution.”
Though it’s covered in the endnotes for this entry, we’ll deal more with the eventual repression of the paper as it arises in sequential order.
The next piece I will quote from (and all of these will be in chronological order for Volumes 7, 8, and 9) is from June 1st, 1848, “The Latest Heroic Deed of the House of Bourbon.” This deals with the revolutions emerging from the Italian states, specifically the Bourbon Kingdoms of the Two Sicilies (I always said you can never have too many Sicilies!)
I found this Engels entry notable for its examinations of and negative attitude towards the so-called “lumpenproletariat”: “This action of the Neapolitan lumpenproletariat decided the defeat of the revolution. Swiss guardsmen, Neapolitan soldiers and lazzaroni combined pounced upon the defenders of the barricades. The palaces along Toledo Street, which had been swept clean with grape-shot, collapsed under the cannon-balls of the troops. The frantic mob of victors tore into the houses, stabbed the men, speared the children, violated the women only to murder them afterwards, plundered everything in sight and then set fire to the pillaged dwellings. The lazzaroni proved to be the greediest and the Swiss the most brutal.”
The endnotes define the “lazzaroni” as “a contemptuous nickname for declassed proletarians, primarily in the Kingdom of Naples. They were repeatedly used by the absolutist Government in the struggle against liberal and democratic movements.” It is notable here that Engels furthered the concerns regarding “lumpen” that we read about in early volumes. But he also had an optimism for the future in Italy: “Already Calabria is in flames, in Palermo a Provisional Government has been formed and the Abruzzi will also erupt. The inhabitants of all the exploited provinces will move upon Naples and, united with the people of that city, will take revenge on the royal traitor and his brutal mercenaries.”
The very next piece, also from June 1st, is “The Democratic Party”, which gives Marx the chance to stake an independent position of their paper: “ Every new organ of public opinion is generally expected to show enthusiasm for the party whose principles it supports, unqualified confidence in the strength of this party, and constant readiness either to use the real power to back the principles, or to use the glamour of the principles to cover up real weaknesses. We shall not live up to these expectations. We shall not seek to gild defeats with deceptive illusions.” This reminded me a bit of the famous “tell no lies, claim no easy victories” quote as well.
On June 7th “The Programmes of the Radical-Democratic Party and of the Left at Frankfurt” was published. Though the main thrust of the article is so side with the further left against the more moderate left, I found this an especially notable observation: “Leaving alone the fact that all its constituent parts have a similar structure, the United States of America covers an area equal to that of civilized Europe. Only a European federation would be analogous to it. But in order to federate with other states Germany must first of all become one state. The conflict between centralization and federalism in Germany is a conflict between modern culture and feudalism…Even from a purely bourgeois point of view, the solid unity of Germany is a primary condition for her deliverance from her present wretchedness and for the building up of her national wealth. And how could modern social problems be solved in a territory that is split into 39 small states?”
On June 7th came the first of many articles on the “The Agreement Debates”; that is, “debates in the Prussian National Assembly, which met in Berlin in May 1848 to draft a Constitution “by agreement with the Crown” according to the formula proposed by the Hansemann-Camphausen Government.”
I am highlighting this particular piece because of an interesting passage by Engels on value and political economy: “The wool producers are almost exclusively large landed proprietors, i.e. feudal lords from Brandenburg, Prussia, Silesia and Posen. The wool manufacturers are for the most part big capitalists, i.e. gentlemen of the big bourgeoisie. Hence, the price of wool is a matter not of general interest but of class interests. The question is whether the big landed aristocracy will profit to the exclusion of the big bourgeoisie or whether it will be the other way around. Herr Hansemann who has been sent to Berlin as the representative of the big bourgeoisie, the party now in power, betrays it to the landed aristocracy, the conquered party. The only interest which this entire matter holds for us democrats lies in the fact that Herr Hansemann has taken up the cause of the conquered party, that he does not support the merely conservative class but the reactionary class.”
On June 9th came “A New Partition of Poland” by Engels. We’ll see many pieces on Poland for years to come; what I found entertaining about this one was Engel’s use of irony, referring to a “seventh” partition of Poland. What he meant by seven was adding previous partitions by Prussia, Austria, and Russia from 1772–1795 to a contemporary Austrian annexation of free Crackow in 1846. The concluding sentence implies an argument for both a German and Polish republic, run by their own citizens: “But no matter whether the Ministry, the Agreement Assembly, or the Frankfurt Assembly ratify the decision of Herr von Pfuel, the demarcation line will not be ‘finally settled’ so long as two other powers have not ratified it as well: the German nation and the Polish nation.”
On June 11th Engels published “Cologne in Danger”, which sounds like a good dime store spy thriller. What it actually describes is a city on edge on a continent on edge: “In Naples guard lieutenants and Swiss mercenaries have succeeded in drowning the young liberty in the people’s blood. In France, an Assembly of capitalists fetters the Republic by means of Draconic laws… In England and Ireland masses of Chartists and Repealers are thrown into gaol and unarmed meetings are dispersed by dragoons. In Frankfurt the National Assembly itself now appoints the triumvirate which the blessed Federal Diet proposed and the Committee of Fifty rejected. In Berlin the Right is winning blow by blow through numerical superiority and drumming, and the Prince of Prussia declares the revolution null and void by moving back into the ‘property of the entire nation.’”
“The property of the entire nation” line is a nice reference to some wonderful graffiti, i.e. “the words inscribed by armed workers in Berlin on the walls of the palace of the Prince of Prussia, who had fled to England during the March revolution of 1848.”
As troops amassed in Cologne in fear of rebellion, Engels preached calm: “We warn the workers of Cologne earnestly not to fall into this trap set for them by the reactionaries. We urgently plead with them not to give the old-Prussian party the slightest pretext for placing Cologne under the despotism of martial law. We beg them to let Whit Sunday and Whit Monday pass in an especially tranquil atmosphere and thereby frustrate the entire scheme of the reactionaries.”
From June 14th to 17th, the Zeitung published “The Berlin Debate on the Revolution”, with one entry per day over the four days. Of course it wasn’t much of a debate: “At last the Agreement Assembly has made its position clear. It has rejected the idea of revolution and accepted the theory of agreement.”
For background from the endnotes, “On March 24, 1848, soldiers and non-commissioned officers killed on the night of March 18 during the popular insurrection were buried at the Invaliden Cemetery in Berlin. In their public announcements the authorities deliberately underestimated the number of casualties in order to disguise the extent of the fighting and to cover up the fact that the troops had been beaten by the people.”
What Engels draws from the events is a common theme throughout the 1848–49 period, confirmed again and again:
“The results of the revolution were, on the one hand, the arming of the people, the right of association and the sovereignty of the people, won de facto; on the other hand, the retention of the monarchy and the Camphausen-Hansemann Ministry, that is a Government representing the big bourgeoisie.
Thus the revolution produced two sets of results, which were bound to diverge. The people was victorious; it had won liberties of a pronounced democratic nature, but direct control passed into the hands of the big bourgeoisie and not into those of the people.
In short, the revolution was not carried through to the end. The people let the big bourgeoisie form a Government and the big bourgeoisie promptly revealed its intentions by inviting the old Prussian nobility and the bureaucracy to enter into an alliance with it…The big bourgeoisie, which was all along anti-revolutionary, concluded a defensive and offensive alliance with the reactionary forces, because it was afraid of the people, i.e. of the workers and the democratic bourgeoisie.”
On June 18th, the paper published “The Agreement Assembly of June 15”. German revolutionaries had more spontaneously stormed an arsenal and grabbed weapons but were ultimately disarmed by state reinforcements. “The Bastille, however, has not yet been stormed.” Then the author (Marx or Engels, it’s unclear) proposes something else that reoccurs through these volumes: “But from the East an apostle of revolution is approaching impetuously and irresistibly. He is already standing at the gates of Thorn. It is the Tsar. The Tsar will save the German revolution by centralising it.” The idea is that Russia is a major force of reaction, and “Germany” being pushed into war with it could cause a German revolution (and at least at one point in August, they wonder about a Russian revolution as well.)
On June 18th came the first piece on “The Prague Uprising.” Lest anyone think Engels position on a united German republic was some sort of Teutonic nationalism or vulgar patriotism, it is worth pointing out one of the many times here his “anti Russian” writings were also anti-Prussian/Austrian and in favor of an oppressed people against the great powers: “But it is the gallant Czechs themselves who are most of all to be pitied. Whether they win or are defeated, their doom is sealed. They have been driven into the arms of the Russians by 400 years of German oppression, which is being continued now in the street-fighting waged in Prague. In the great struggle between Western and Eastern Europe, which may begin very soon, perhaps in a few weeks, the Czechs are placed by an unhappy fate on the side of the Russians, the side of despotism opposed to the revolution.”
The same day, the paper also published a grammatically-amusing warning from the authorities on Cologne (see above): “For several evenings in a row, unusually numerous crowds of people have shown up on the public squares and streets of the city, which have aroused the fear in nervous people that illegal demonstrations are imminent. I am not one of these nervous people, and I like it well if the street traffic moves freely. If, however, contrary to expectations, some immature persons should get the idea of misusing this traffic for knavish tricks and insulting raillery, I must urge the better part of the public to dissociate itself immediately from these elements, for serious disturbances of public order will be met by serious counter-measures and I should be very sorry if during a possible conflict the careless should come to harm rather than the guilty.
Trier, June 16, 1848
The royal Landrat and Chief Burgomaster Regierungs-Rat Sebaldt”
Marx or Engels replied sarcastically, “‘He likes it well if the street traffic moves freely.’ What a pleasant liking Herr Sebaldt has!”
On June 25th, Marx wrote about “Patow’s Commutation Memorandum” (feudal reforms of Prussia.) This is a good update on what was actually happening, as “the government is provoking a peasant war” by swindling the peasants of property that they considered “settled” matters from laws enacted in 1814 and 1840. Marx’s language about the aristocracy was again colorful if the translation is even close: “Yes, most of these exactions, and especially the most oppressive among them, would have continued unto eternity if Herr Patow had had his way. It was precisely Herr Patow who was assigned this department, to spare the bumpkin-Junkers in the Marches, in Pomerania, in Silesia as much as possible, and to cheat the peasants of the fruits of the Revolution as much as possible! The Berlin Revolution made all these feudal relations forever impossible. The peasants, naturally, immediately did away with them in practice. There was nothing left for the government to do but to put in legal form the actually existing abolition of all feudal burdens by the will of the people. But before the nobility decided on its Fourth of August, its castles were in flames.”
After these updates came some of the biggest events of the time in Europe: what historians now call the “June Days Uprising” (les journées de Juin) of 1848 France. For the sake of space and time (and for the fact that I may be the main audience for all of these Medium posts), I won’t try to summarize all of the events of February or June 1848 in France. That would make more sense, if at all, to do as a preface to/along with The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon which is in a later edition of the MECW. The main thing to know in Volume 7 is that Marx and Engels excitedly wrote daily updates on the events of the “Paris uprising”.
Some samples to give a flavor [dates are publication dates, not those of the actual events; sometimes there was a 1–3 day lag]:
- “Cologne, June 24, 10 p.m. Letters of the 23rd from Paris have failed to arrive. A courier who has passed through Cologne has told us that when he left fighting had broken out in Paris between the people and the national guard”
- “Cologne, June 25, 10 p.m. Letters from Paris have again failed to arrive; the Paris newspapers which came today are those of the 23rd and in the regular course of the postal service they should have arrived already yesterday evening. In these circumstances, the only sources at our disposal are the confused and contradictory reports of Belgian newspapers and our own knowledge of Paris. Accordingly we have tried to give our readers as accurate a picture as possible of the uprising of June 23.”
- June 26th, “The insurrection is purely a workers’ uprising. The workers’ anger has burst forth against the Government and the Assembly which had disappointed their hopes, taken daily recourse to new measures which served the interests of the bourgeoisie against the workers, dissolved the Labour Commission at the Luxembourg, limited the national workshops and issued the law against gatherings. The decidedly proletarian nature of the insurrection emerges from all the details…Thus, the two parties separated in the evening after making a date for the following morning. The first day of battle resulted in no advantages for the Government. The insurgents, who had been pushed back, could reoccupy the lost positions during the night, as indeed they did. The Government, on the other hand, had two important points against it: it had fired with grape-shot and it had been unable to crush the rebellion during its first day. With grape-shot, however, and one night, not of victory but of mere truce, rebellion ceases and revolution begins.”
- June 27th, “What is most striking in this desperate battle is the savagery with which the ‘defenders of order’ fight. They who in former times displayed such tender feelings for every drop of ‘citizen’s blood’ and who had even sentimental fits over the death of the municipal guards on February 24, shoot down the workers like wild beasts. Not a word of compassion or of reconciliation and no sentimentality whatever, but violent hatred and cold fury against the insurgent workers reign in the ranks of the national guard and in the National Assembly. The bourgeoisie, fully conscious of what it is doing, conducts a war of extermination against them. The workers will wreak terrible vengeance on the bourgeoisie no matter whether it wins for the moment or is defeated at once. After a battle like that of the three June days, only terrorism is still possible whether it be carried out by one side or the other.”
- June 29th, “The bourgeoisie declared the workers to be not ordinary enemies who have to be defeated but enemies of society [sound familiar? — ed] who must be destroyed. The bourgeois spread the absurd assertion that the workers, whom they themselves had forcibly driven to revolt, were interested only in plunder, arson and murder and that they were a gang of robbers who had to be shot down like beasts in the forest. Yet, for 3 days the insurgents held a large part of the city and behaved with great restraint.”
- Marx’s longer “The June Revolution”: “Collisions proceeding from the very conditions of bourgeois society must be overcome by fighting, they cannot be reasoned out of existence. The best form of polity is that in which the social contradictions are not blurred, not arbitrarily — that is, merely artificially, and therefore only seemingly — kept down. The best form of polity is that in which these contradictions reach a stage of open struggle in the course of which they are resolved.”
- July 1st, Engels, “The insurgents made excellent use of this negligence by launching the great battle which followed the skirmishes of June 23. It is simply amazing how quickly the workers mastered the plan of campaign, how well-concerted their actions were and how skillfully they used the difficult terrain. This would be quite inexplicable if in the national workshops the workers had not already been to a certain extent organized on military lines and divided into companies, so that they only needed to apply their industrial Organization to their military enterprise in order to create a fully organized army.”
By this time, the revolutionary activity ended. Around 10,000 had died, and 4,000 more revolutionaries were deported to Algeria. Again, more analysis will come later from Marx after the French Coup of 1851 inspired him to further work on his theory of history in action by analyzing the French events.
The paper continued covering a wide variety of issues even as rebellions happened from Prague to Paris, like “Herr Forstman On the State Credit.” One of the more directly economic works of this volume, Marx or Engels observes the particular national qualities of Capital in various countries at the time:
“On what does the price of money depend? It depends on the relationship of supply and demand at a given time and upon the currently existing scarcity or abundance of money. On what does the scarcity or abundance of money depend? It depends on the state of industry at the particular time and on the stagnation or prosperity of commerce in general.
“On what does the price of government securities depend? It depends likewise on the relationship of supply and demand at the ‘time. But on what does this relationship depend? It depends on many circumstances, which in Germany, in particular, are extremely complicated.
“State credit is of decisive importance in France, England, Spain and in general in those countries whose government securities are. traded on the world market. State credit plays a secondary role in Prussia and the smaller German states whose securities are quoted only on the small local exchanges. Here most government securities are not used for speculation but for the safe investment of capital and to secure a fixed rent. Only a disproportionately small part reaches the stock exchanges and is traded. Almost the entire national debt is in the hands of small pensioners, widows and orphans, boards of guardians, etc. A fall of the exchange quotations due to the decrease of the state credit is an additional reason for this type of state creditors not to sell their stocks. The interest is just enough for them to get by. If they sell these stocks at a heavy loss, they are ruined. The small number of securities which circulates on the few small local exchanges cannot, of course, be subject to the enormous and rapid fluctuations of supply and demand, of rise and fall like the enormous mass of French, Spanish etc. securities which are mainly designed for speculation and are traded on all the world’s great stock exchanges in large quantities.
“Hence it happens only rarely in Prussia that capitalists, through lack of money, are forced to sell their bonds at any price and thereby push down the exchange prices, while in Paris, Amsterdam etc. that is an everyday occurrence, which particularly after the February revolution affected the incredibly rapid fall of the French government securities much more than the diminished state credit.”
The whole piece is really worth reading!
Another economic piece was published across July 25th and 29th, also by either Marx or Engels), about “The Bill on the Compulsory Loan and its Motivation.” The bill had been proposed to the Prussian National Assembly and earned the criticism of our writers. This gets into circulation a little more deeply than they had to this point, although not with the same level of development as later:
“A cotton manufacturer employs 100 workers, for example. He pays to each of them 9 silver groschen daily. Thus every day 900 silver groschen, i.e. 30 talers, migrate from his pocket into the pockets of the workers and from there into the pockets of the epiciers [grocers-ed], landlords, shoemakers, tailors etc. This migration of the 30 talers is known as their circulation. From the moment when the manufacturer can sell his cotton material only at a loss or not at all, he ceases to produce and to employ his workers, and with the cessation of production the migration of the 30 talers, i.e. their circulation, ceases. We shall create circulation by force! exclaims Hansemann. Why does the manufacturer let his money lie idle? Why does he not let it circulate? When the weather is fine, many people circulate in the open air. Hansemann drives the people outside and forces them to circulate so as to create fine weather. What a great weather-maker!”
As a Pennsylvanian, I enjoyed this part as well: “There is a famous story about a stout-hearted Pennsylvanian who never lent a dollar to his friends. He had such confidence in their orderly mode of life, and he gave such credit to their business that to the day of his death he never gained the ‘certainty’ that they were in ‘real need’ of a dollar. He regarded their impetuous demands as rather a test of his confidence, and the confidence of this man was unshakeable.
“The Prussian state authority found the entire state inhabited by Pennsylvanians.”
Marx or Engels also use some basic arithmetic to argue against a graduated tax/loan that would not graduate to the same extreme rate wealth did:
“The ability to supply money rises with wealth. In other words: the more money one has at one’s disposal the more money one has to dispose of. So far, it is undoubtedly correct. The fact, however, that the ability to supply money rises only in arithmetical progression even if the various amounts of wealth are in geometrical proportion is a discovery by Hansemann which is bound to earn him greater fame with posterity than Malthus gained by the statement that food supply grows only in arithmetical progression whereas population grows in geometrical progression. [Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population]
Thus, for example, if different amounts of wealth are to each other as
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512,
then, according to Herr Hansemann’s discovery, the ability to supply money grows in the ratio of
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.”
The author(s) conclude by arguing for resisting paying a single penny to the “compulsory loan” tax, which they also said lacked the ability to properly inspect the ledgers of merchants or inventory the already existing wealth; and further, was an attempt at a mandatory patriotism from corrupt ruling classes.
Not until August 1st do we get our first Neue Rheinische Zeitung article on “the State of Affairs in England” (by Engels, still the larger expert on British affairs.) After an interesting fact, it asks the sort of question that has frustrated socialists for a couple of centuries:
“The annual cost of poor-relief in England almost equals the entire expenditure of the Prussian state. Poverty and pauperism have been openly declared in England to be necessary elements of the present industrial system and the national wealth. Yet, despite this, where in England is there any trace of hatred against the bourgeoisie?
“There is no other country in the world where, with the huge growth of the proletariat, the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie has reached such a high level as in England; no other country presents such glaring contrasts between extreme poverty and immense wealth — yet where is there any trace of hatred against the bourgeoisie?”
The piece returns to the corn law, free trade, and monopolism debates of the previous volume, with the same conclusions.
Speaking of firsts, the first piece on Bakunin was written by Marx and published on August 2nd. Despite big fights that we’ll read about much later (I think culminating in 1872?), the initial mention here is an editorial correction/defense of Mikhail Bakunin, who was rumored to be in the secret service of Nicholas I by George Sand in an earlier edition of the paper. Marx therefore printed a letter from Sand to clear the name of Bakunin.
On August 7th, the paper published “The ‘Model State’ of Belgium”, using the “scare quotes” for the “Model State” consistently again. Marx wrote this piece, which continued his lifelong interest in measuring linen: “The decrease of the first six months of 1847 compared with those of 1846 amounted to 657,000 kilograms [of Linen], the decrease in 1848 compared with that in 1846 amounts to 1,613,000 kilograms or 64 per cent.” Joking aside, the notable part of the piece is its attempts to use data to measure the decay of an advanced European state, specifically “The spreading pauperism, the unprecedented hold that crime has over young people, and the systematic deterioration of Belgian industry.”
We go back to Poland on the same August 7th as well, where Engels contribution is the longest of this volume:
“A French historian has said: Il y a des peuples nécessaires — there are necessary nations. The Polish nation is undoubtedly one of the necessary nations of the nineteenth century.
“But for no one is Poland’s national existence more necessary than for us Germans.
“What is the main support of the reactionary forces in Europe since 1815, and to some extent even since the first French revolution? It is the Russian-Prussian-Austrian Holy Alliance. And what holds the Holy Alliance together? The partition of Poland, from which all the three allies have profited.
“The tearing asunder of Poland by the three powers is the tie which links them together; the robbery they jointly committed makes them support one another.”
Eventually it concludes, “You have swallowed the Poles, but, by God, you shall not digest them!”
On September 4th, the paper addressed for a second and more extensive time the issue of Karl Marx’s citizenship, this time denied by the Cologne City council. Eventually, the endnotes explain, “the Prussian Government deported Marx for alleged ‘violation of the right of hospitality’. This act and repressive measures against other editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung caused the newspaper to cease publication in May 1849.”
On September 9th, Engels returns to “The Danish-Prussian Armistice.” It does show an Engels closer to a German patriotism in the heat of this moment, speaking of “Germany’s honor” being in had bands during its losses against Denmark, and that “A sad thing for Germany that her first revolutionary war is the most ridiculous war ever waged.” Though his ire is mostly pointed at the old regimes of Europe, it edges a little more uncomfortably towards a patriotism than some of the other entries on Prussian affairs, at least for current leftist eyes.
10 and 11 days later, we read Engels on how the armistice contributed to “The Uprising in Frankfurt.” On the 19th, Engels expressed at least short-term concern of long-term optimism:
“We admit, nevertheless, that we have little hope of the courageous insurgents being able to win the day. Frankfurt is too small a town, the number of troops is disproportionately large, and the well-known counter-revolutionary sentiments of the local petty bourgeoisie are too great to allow us to be very hopeful.
“But even if the insurgents are defeated, this will settle nothing. The counter-revolution will become arrogant, it will enslave us for a time by introducing martial law, by suppressing freedom of the press, and banning the clubs and public meetings; but before long the crowing of the Gaelic cock will announce the hour of liberation, the hour of revenge.”
On the 20th, he places the events in Frankfurt into a larger, continental context of defeats for the working class: “What is the reason for the persistent victory of ‘order’ throughout Europe and for the series of recurrent defeats of the revolutionary party from Naples, Prague and Paris to Milan, Vienna and Frankfurt?
“All parties know that the struggle impending in all civilized countries is quite different from, infinitely more significant than, all previous revolutions; in Vienna and Paris, in Berlin and Frankfurt, in London and Milan the point at issue is the overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie, an upheaval whose immediate consequences horrify all portly, stockjobbing bourgeois.
“Is there a revolutionary centre anywhere in the world where the red flag, the emblem of the militant, united proletariat of Europe, has not been found flying on the barricades during the last five months?
“The fight in Frankfurt against the Parliament of the combined landowners and the bourgeoisie was likewise waged under the red flag.
“The reason for all these defeats is that every uprising that now takes place is a direct threat to the political existence of the bourgeoisie, and an indirect threat to its social existence. The people, largely unarmed, have to fight not only the well-armed bourgeoisie but also the organized power of the bureaucratic and military state which the bourgeoisie has taken over. The people, who are unorganized and poorly armed, are confronted by all the other social classes, who are well organized and fully armed.”
By September 26th, there was full on “Counter-Revolution in Cologne”, leading the editor to write about the paper itself: “If these gentlemen go ahead with their plans, it will soon be a mystery how the editorial work of our newspaper is to be carried out. But we believe we can declare that all the manoeuvres directed against us will fail in their main aim and that our readers will continue as usual to receive the newspaper regularly.”
On September 27th and October 11th we learn about the gap in publication of the paper during further unrest:
“Cologne, September 26. Today we are also omitting the synopsis. We are hurrying to print the paper. We are being informed by a reliable source that the city will be placed in a state of siege within an hour or two, that the civic militia will be dissolved and disarmed, that the Neue Rheinische Zeitung…will be suspended, that courts martial will be instituted and that all the rights gained in March are to be suppressed. It is reported that the civic militia is not inclined to let itself be disarmed.”
And then on the 11th, “Due to the interest shown, particularly in Cologne, for the preservation of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, we have been able to overcome the financial difficulties brought about by the state of siege and to let the paper reappear. The editorial board remains the same. Ferdinand Freiligrath has newly joined it.
Karl Marx
Editor-in-Chief of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung”
The last entry of the newspaper section of Volume 7 is “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna”, which summarizes the entire volume very well: “The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
Appendices
The appendices include a lot of interesting little documents, like two of Marx’s passports, various legal proceedings against the paper, letters between Marx and a police Superintendent, a warrant for the arrest of Engels, and a report of a few mass meetings of German workers arriving by barge to vote outdoors for a socialist republic. These documents are not hosted on the HIAW or Marxists.org unfortunately.
One more piece from the Appendices I did find online, was Engels journal “From Paris to Berne.” As the noose of repression tied closer around communists in October 1848, Engels decided it might be a good time to travel by foot from Paris to Switzerland while taking some notes upon the peasantry and people he met along the way.
These travel notes are hosted here: https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/From_Paris_to_Berne
Unlike the travel writing of the very young Engels in V2, this includes more of his theory of history and contemporary politics. His path also sounds very different than our era of GPS and trail maps on smart phones:
“I could endure it no longer in this dead Paris. I had to leave it, no matter whither. So first of all to Switzerland. I had not much money, that meant going on foot. Nor was I set on taking the shortest route; one does not readily part from France.
“Thus one fine morning I set out and without any fixed plan marched due south. I lost my way among the villages once I had left the city’s outskirts behind me; there was nothing strange in that. Eventually I found myself on the highroad to Lyons. I followed it for some distance, leaving it from time to time to climb the hills. From the top one has splendid views up and down the Seine, to Paris and to Fontainebleau. One sees the river meandering far, far away in the broad valley, vineyards on the hills on both sides, further away the blue hills beyond which flows the Marne.
“But I did not wish to enter Burgundy by so direct a route; I wanted to reach the Loire first. So on the second day I left the highroad and went over the hills towards Orléans. I lost my way among the villages again of course, as my only guides were the sun and the peasants, cut off from the whole world and unable to tell right from left. I spent the night in some village whose name I was never able to make out in the peasant patois, fifteen leagues from Paris, on the watershed between Seine and Loire.”
Engels’ great trek was eventually cut short, possibly because Marx requested Engels’ assistance to write about Hungary.
