Jesusi.com Homepage

 

 

 게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나?

 
Philosophy 

철학 - 지혜의 탐구

Marx, Karl

마르크스

 

  • 관련된 사람
    • 바쿠닌
    • 엥겔스
    • 프라일리그라트
    • 프루동
    • 하이네
    • 하인드먼
    • 헤스
  • 이론
    • 경제학
      • 가치학설
      • 경제사학
      • 경제이론
      • 노동가치설
      • 이자이론
      • 임금이론
      • 잉여가치론
      • 자본이론
      • 토지국유화론
    • 경향문학의 옹호
    • 교육
      • 노작교육
      • 사회주의 교육
    • 사회과학적·철학적 이론
      • 경제철학
      • 계급 개념
      • 계급 없는 사회
      • 공산주의 이론
      • 공상적 사회주의
      • 국가
      • 근대화
      • 대상화
      • 도시빈민
      • 모순
      • 무신론
      • 반영론
      • 변증법적 유물론
      • 사회구조
      • 사회사상
      • 사회주의
      • 소외개념
      • 실천
      • 역사적 유물론
      • 이데올로기
      • 인간 
      • 전쟁
      • 정치
      • 종교
      • 총체성
      • 헤겔의 법철학
      • 혁명
  • 활동
    • 고타 강령
    • <자본론>
    • 제1인터내셔널

1 Introduction

Karl Marx, revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist, was the author (with Friedrich Engels) of Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (1848), commonly known as The Communist Manifesto, the most celebrated pamphlet in the history of the socialist movement, as well as of its most important book, Das Kapital. These writings and others by Marx and Engels form the basis of the body of thought and belief known as Marxism.

This article deals with Marx's life, his thinking, his accomplishments, and the development of Marxist theory. See the articles SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM for full treatment of those ideologies.

2 Life and works of Marx

 

2.1 EARLY YEARS

Karl Heinrich Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the city of Trier in the Rhine province of Prussia, now in Germany. He was the oldest surviving boy of nine children. His father, Heinrich, a successful lawyer, was a man of the Enlightenment, devoted to Kant and Voltaire, who took part in agitations for a constitution in Prussia. His mother, born Henrietta Pressburg, was from Holland. Both parents were Jewish and were descended from a long line of rabbis, but, a year or so before Karl was born, his father--probably because his professional career required it--was baptized in the Evangelical Established Church. Karl was baptized when he was six years old. Although as a youth Karl was influenced less by religion than by the critical, sometimes radical social policies of the Enlightenment, his Jewish background exposed him to prejudice and discrimination that may have led him to question the role of religion in society and contributed to his desire for social change.

Marx was educated from 1830 to 1835 at the high school in Trier. Suspected of harbouring liberal teachers and pupils, the school was under police surveillance. Marx's writings during this period exhibited a spirit of Christian devotion and a longing for self-sacrifice on behalf of humanity. In October 1835 he matriculated at the University of Bonn. The courses he attended were exclusively in the humanities, in such subjects as Greek and Roman mythology and the history of art. He participated in customary student activities, fought a duel, and spent a day in jail for being drunk and disorderly. He presided at the Tavern Club, which was at odds with the more aristocratic student associations, and joined a poets' club that included some political activists. A politically rebellious student culture was, indeed, part of life at Bonn. Many students had been arrested; some were still being expelled in Marx's time, particularly as a result of an effort by students to disrupt a session of the Federal Diet at Frankfurt. Marx, however, left Bonn after a year and in October 1836 enrolled at the University of Berlin to study law and philosophy.

Marx's crucial experience at Berlin was his introduction to Hegel's philosophy, regnant there, and his adherence to the Young Hegelians. At first he felt a repugnance toward Hegel's doctrines; when Marx fell sick it was partially, as he wrote his father, "from intense vexation at having to make an idol of a view I detested." The Hegelian pressure in the revolutionary student culture was powerful, however, and Marx joined a society called the Doctor Club, whose members were intensely involved in the new literary and philosophical movement. Their chief figure was Bruno Bauer, a young lecturer in theology, who was developing the idea that the Christian Gospels were a record not of history but of human fantasies arising from emotional needs and that Jesus had not been a historical person. Marx enrolled in a course of lectures given by Bauer on the prophet Isaiah. Bauer taught that a new social catastrophe "more tremendous" than that of the advent of Christianity was in the making. The Young Hegelians began moving rapidly toward atheism and also talked vaguely of political action.

The Prussian government, fearful of the subversion latent in the Young Hegelians, soon undertook to drive them from the universities. Bauer was dismissed from his post in 1839. Marx's "most intimate friend" of this period, Adolph Rutenberg, an older journalist who had served a prison sentence for his political radicalism, pressed for a deeper social involvement. By 1841 the Young Hegelians had become left republicans. Marx's studies, meanwhile, were lagging. Urged by his friends, he submitted a doctoral dissertation to the university at Jena, which was known to be lax in its academic requirements, and received his degree in April 1841. His thesis analyzed in a Hegelian fashion the difference between the natural philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus. More distinctively, it sounded a note of Promethean defiance: (see also Index: Hegelianism)

Philosophy makes no secret of it. Prometheus' admission: "In sooth all gods I hate," is its own admission, its own motto against all gods, . . . Prometheus is the noblest saint and martyr in the calendar of philosophy.

In 1841 Marx, together with other Young Hegelians, was much influenced by the publication of Das Wesen des Christentums (1841; The Essence of Christianity) by Ludwig Feuerbach. Its author, to Marx's mind, successfully criticized Hegel, an idealist who believed that matter or existence was inferior to and dependent upon mind or spirit, from the opposite, or materialist, standpoint, showing how the "Absolute Spirit" was a projection of "the real man standing on the foundation of nature." Henceforth Marx's philosophical efforts were toward a combination of Hegel's dialectic--the idea that all things are in a continual process of change resulting from the conflicts between their contradictory aspects--with Feuerbach's materialism, which placed material conditions above ideas. (see also Index: dialectical materialism)

In January 1842 Marx began contributing to a newspaper newly founded in Cologne, the Rheinische Zeitung. It was the liberal democratic organ of a group of young merchants, bankers, and industrialists; Cologne was the centre of the most industrially advanced section of Prussia. To this stage of Marx's life belongs an essay on the freedom of the press. Since he then took for granted the existence of absolute moral standards and universal principles of ethics, he condemned censorship as a moral evil that entailed spying into people's minds and hearts and assigned to weak and malevolent mortals powers that presupposed an omniscient mind. He believed that censorship could have only evil consequences.

On Oct. 15, 1842, Marx became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung. As such, he was obliged to write editorials on a variety of social and economic issues, ranging from the housing of the Berlin poor and the theft by peasants of wood from the forests to the new phenomenon of communism. He found Hegelian idealism of little use in these matters. At the same time he was becoming estranged from his Hegelian friends for whom shocking the bourgeois was a sufficient mode of social activity. Marx, friendly at this time to the "liberal-minded practical men" who were "struggling step-by-step for freedom within constitutional limits," succeeded in trebling his newspaper's circulation and making it a leading journal in Prussia. Nevertheless, Prussian authorities suspended it for being too outspoken, and Marx agreed to coedit with the liberal Hegelian Arnold Ruge a new review, the Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher ("German-French Yearbooks"), which was to be published in Paris.

First, however, in June 1843 Marx, after an engagement of seven years, married Jenny von Westphalen. Jenny was an attractive, intelligent, and much-admired woman, four years older than Karl; she came of a family of military and administrative distinction. Her half-brother later became a highly reactionary Prussian minister of the interior. Her father, a follower of the French socialist Saint-Simon, was fond of Karl, though others in her family opposed the marriage. Marx's father also feared that Jenny was destined to become a sacrifice to the demon that possessed his son.

Four months after their marriage, the young couple moved to Paris, which was then the centre of socialist thought and of the more extreme sects that went under the name of communism. There, Marx first became a revolutionary and a communist and began to associate with communist societies of French and German workingmen. Their ideas were, in his view, "utterly crude and unintelligent," but their character moved him: "The brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with them, but a fact of life, and the nobility of man shines upon us from their work-hardened bodies," he wrote in his so-called "Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844" (written in 1844; Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 [1959]). (These manuscripts were not published for some 100 years, but they are influential because they show the humanist background to Marx's later historical and economic theories.)

The "German-French Yearbooks" proved short-lived, but through their publication Marx befriended Friedrich Engels, a contributor who was to become his lifelong collaborator, and in their pages appeared Marx's article "Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie" ( "Toward the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right") with its oft-quoted assertion that religion is the "opium of the people." It was there, too, that he first raised the call for an "uprising of the proletariat" to realize the conceptions of philosophy. Once more, however, the Prussian government intervened against Marx. He was expelled from France and left for Brussels--followed by Engels--in February 1845. That year in Belgium he renounced his Prussian nationality.

2.2 BRUSSELS PERIOD

The next two years in Brussels saw the deepening of Marx's collaboration with Engels. Engels had seen at firsthand in Manchester, Eng., where a branch factory of his father's textile firm was located, all the depressing aspects of the Industrial Revolution. He had also been a Young Hegelian and had been converted to communism by Moses Hess, who was called the "communist rabbi." In England he associated with the followers of Robert Owen. Now he and Marx, finding that they shared the same views, combined their intellectual resources and published Die heilige Familie (1845; The Holy Family), a prolix criticism of the Hegelian idealism of the theologian Bruno Bauer. Their next work, Die deutsche Ideologie (written 1845-46, published 1932; The German Ideology), contained the fullest exposition of their important materialistic conception of history, which set out to show how, historically, societies had been structured to promote the interests of the economically dominant class. But it found no publisher and remained unknown during its authors' lifetimes.

During his Brussels years, Marx developed his views and, through confrontations with the chief leaders of the working-class movement, established his intellectual standing. In 1846 he publicly excoriated the German leader Wilhelm Weitling for his moralistic appeals. Marx insisted that the stage of bourgeois society could not be skipped over; the proletariat could not just leap into communism; the workers' movement required a scientific basis, not moralistic phrases. He also polemicized against the French socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in Misère de la philosophie (1847; The Poverty of Philosophy), a mordant attack on Proudhon's book subtitled Philosophie de la misère (1846; The Philosophy of Poverty). Proudhon wanted to unite the best features of such contraries as competition and monopoly; he hoped to save the good features in economic institutions while eliminating the bad. Marx, however, declared that no equilibrium was possible between the antagonisms in any given economic system. Social structures were transient historic forms determined by the productive forces: "The handmill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steammill, society with the industrial capitalist." Proudhon's mode of reasoning, Marx wrote, was typical of the petty bourgeois, who failed to see the underlying laws of history.

An unusual sequence of events led Marx and Engels to write their pamphlet The Communist Manifesto. In June 1847 a secret society, the League of the Just, composed mainly of emigrant German handicraftsmen, met in London and decided to formulate a political program. They sent a representative to Marx to ask him to join the league; Marx overcame his doubts and, with Engels, joined the organization, which thereupon changed its name to the Communist League and enacted a democratic constitution. Entrusted with the task of composing their program, Marx and Engels worked from the middle of December 1847 to the end of January 1848. The London Communists were already impatiently threatening Marx with disciplinary action when he sent them the manuscript; they promptly adopted it as their manifesto. It enunciated the proposition that all history had hitherto been a history of class struggles, summarized in pithy form the materialist conception of history worked out in The German Ideology, and asserted that the forthcoming victory of the proletariat would put an end to class society forever. It mercilessly criticized all forms of socialism founded on philosophical "cobwebs" such as "alienation." It rejected the avenue of "social Utopias," small experiments in community, as deadening the class struggle and therefore as being "reactionary sects." It set forth 10 immediate measures as first steps toward communism, ranging from a progressive income tax and the abolition of inheritances to free education for all children. It closed with the words, "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

Revolution suddenly erupted in Europe in the first months of 1848, in France, Italy, and Austria. Marx had been invited to Paris by a member of the provisional government just in time to avoid expulsion by the Belgian government. As the revolution gained in Austria and Germany, Marx returned to the Rhineland. In Cologne he advocated a policy of coalition between the working class and the democratic bourgeoisie, opposing for this reason the nomination of independent workers' candidates for the Frankfurt Assembly and arguing strenuously against the program for proletarian revolution advocated by the leaders of the Workers' Union. He concurred in Engels' judgment that The Communist Manifesto should be shelved and the Communist League disbanded. Marx pressed his policy through the pages of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, newly founded in June 1849, urging a constitutional democracy and war with Russia. When the more revolutionary leader of the Workers' Union, Andreas Gottschalk, was arrested, Marx supplanted him and organized the first Rhineland Democratic Congress in August 1848. When the king of Prussia dissolved the Prussian Assembly in Berlin, Marx called for arms and men to help the resistance. Bourgeois liberals withdrew their support from Marx's newspaper, and he himself was indicted on several charges, including advocacy of the nonpayment of taxes. In his trial he defended himself with the argument that the crown was engaged in making an unlawful counterrevolution. The jury acquitted him unanimously and with thanks. Nevertheless, as the last hopeless fighting flared in Dresden and Baden, Marx was ordered banished as an alien on May 16, 1849. The final issue of his newspaper, printed in red, caused a great sensation. (see also Index: "Neue Rheinische Zeitung")

2.3 EARLY YEARS IN LONDON

Expelled once more from Paris, Marx went to London in August 1849. It was to be his home for the rest of his life. Chagrined by the failure of his own tactics of collaboration with the liberal bourgeoisie, he rejoined the Communist League in London and for about a year advocated a bolder revolutionary policy. An "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League," written with Engels in March 1850, urged that in future revolutionary situations they struggle to make the revolution "permanent" by avoiding subservience to the bourgeois party and by setting up "their own revolutionary workers' governments" alongside any new bourgeois one. Marx hoped that the economic crisis would shortly lead to a revival of the revolutionary movement; when this hope faded, he came into conflict once more with those whom he called "the alchemists of the revolution," such as August von Willich, a communist who proposed to hasten the advent of revolution by undertaking direct revolutionary ventures. Such persons, Marx wrote in September 1850, substitute "idealism for materialism" and regard

pure will as the motive power of revolution instead of actual conditions. While we say to the workers: "You have got to go through fifteen, twenty, fifty years of civil wars and national wars not merely in order to change your conditions but in order to change yourselves and become qualified for political power," you on the contrary tell them, "We must achieve power immediately."

The militant faction in turn ridiculed Marx for being a revolutionary who limited his activity to lectures on political economy to the Communist Workers' Educational Union. The upshot was that Marx gradually stopped attending meetings of the London Communists. In 1852 he devoted himself intensely to working for the defense of 11 communists arrested and tried in Cologne on charges of revolutionary conspiracy and wrote a pamphlet on their behalf. The same year he also published, in a German-American periodical, his essay "Der Achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Napoleon" (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte), with its acute analysis of the formation of a bureaucratic absolutist state with the support of the peasant class. In other respects the next 12 years were, in Marx's words, years of "isolation" both for him and for Engels in his Manchester factory.

From 1850 to 1864 Marx lived in material misery and spiritual pain. His funds were gone, and except on one occasion he could not bring himself to seek paid employment. In March 1850 he and his wife and four small children were evicted and their belongings seized. Several of his children died--including a son Guido, "a sacrifice to bourgeois misery," and a daughter Franziska, for whom his wife rushed about frantically trying to borrow money for a coffin. For six years the family lived in two small rooms in Soho, often subsisting on bread and potatoes. The children learned to lie to the creditors: "Mr. Marx ain't upstairs." Once he had to escape them by fleeing to Manchester. His wife suffered breakdowns.

During all these years Engels loyally contributed to Marx's financial support. The sums were not large at first, for Engels was only a clerk in the firm of Ermen and Engels at Manchester. Later, however, in 1864, when he became a partner, his subventions were generous. Marx was proud of Engels' friendship and would tolerate no criticism of him. Bequests from the relatives of Marx's wife and from Marx's friend Wilhelm Wolff also helped to alleviate their economic distress.

Marx had one relatively steady source of earned income in the United States. On the invitation of Charles A. Dana, managing editor of The New York Tribune, he became in 1851 its European correspondent. The newspaper, edited by Horace Greeley, had sympathies for Fourierism, a Utopian socialist system developed by the French theorist Charles Fourier. From 1851 to 1862 Marx contributed close to 500 articles and editorials (Engels providing about a fourth of them). He ranged over the whole political universe, analyzing social movements and agitations from India and China to Britain and Spain.

In 1859 Marx published his first book on economic theory, Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy). In its preface he again summarized his materialistic conception of history, his theory that the course of history is dependent on economic developments. At this time, however, Marx regarded his studies in economic and social history at the British Museum as his main task. He was busy producing the drafts of his magnum opus, which was to be published later as Das Kapital. Some of these drafts, including the Outlines and the Theories of Surplus Value, are important in their own right and were published after Marx's death.

2.4 ROLE IN THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL

Marx's political isolation ended in 1864 with the founding of the International Working Men's Association. Although he was neither its founder nor its head, he soon became its leading spirit. Its first public meeting, called by English trade union leaders and French workers' representatives, took place at St. Martin's Hall in London on Sept. 28, 1864. Marx, who had been invited through a French intermediary to attend as a representative of the German workers, sat silently on the platform. A committee was set up to produce a program and a constitution for the new organization. After various drafts had been submitted that were felt to be unsatisfactory, Marx, serving on a subcommittee, drew upon his immense journalistic experience. His "Address and the Provisional Rules of the International Working Men's Association," unlike his other writings, stressed the positive achievements of the cooperative movement and of parliamentary legislation; the gradual conquest of political power would enable the British proletariat to extend these achievements on a national scale.

As a member of the organization's General Council, and corresponding secretary for Germany, Marx was henceforth assiduous in attendance at its meetings, which were sometimes held several times a week. For several years he showed a rare diplomatic tact in composing differences among various parties, factions, and tendencies. The International grew in prestige and membership, its numbers reaching perhaps 800,000 in 1869. It was successful in several interventions on behalf of European trade unions engaged in struggles with employers.

In 1870, however, Marx was still unknown as a European political personality; it was the Paris Commune that made him into an international figure, "the best calumniated and most menaced man of London," as he wrote. When the Franco-German War broke out in 1870, Marx and Engels disagreed with followers in Germany who refused to vote in the Reichstag in favour of the war. The General Council declared that "on the German side the war was a war of defence." After the defeat of the French armies, however, they felt that the German terms amounted to aggrandizement at the expense of the French people. When an insurrection broke out in Paris and the Paris Commune was proclaimed, Marx gave it his unswerving support. On May 30, 1871, after the Commune had been crushed, he hailed it in a famous address entitled Civil War in France:

History has no comparable example of such greatness. . . . Its martyrs are enshrined forever in the great heart of the working class.

In Engels' judgment, the Paris Commune was history's first example of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx's name, as the leader of The First International and author of the notorious Civil War, became synonymous throughout Europe with the revolutionary spirit symbolized by the Paris Commune.

The advent of the Commune, however, exacerbated the antagonisms within the International Working Men's Association and thus brought about its downfall. English trade unionists such as George Odger, former president of the General Council, opposed Marx's support of the Paris Commune. The Reform Bill of 1867, which had enfranchised the British working class, had opened vast opportunities for political action by the trade unions. English labour leaders found they could make many practical advances by cooperating with the Liberal Party and, regarding Marx's rhetoric as an encumbrance, resented his charge that they had "sold themselves" to the Liberals.

A left opposition also developed under the leadership of the famed Russian revolutionary Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin. A veteran of tsarist prisons and Siberian exile, Bakunin could move men by his oratory, which one listener compared to "a raging storm with lightning, flashes and thunderclaps, and a roaring as of lions." Bakunin admired Marx's intellect but could hardly forget that Marx had published a report in 1848 charging him with being a Russian agent. He felt that Marx was a German authoritarian and an arrogant Jew who wanted to transform the General Council into a personal dictatorship over the workers. He strongly opposed several of Marx's theories, especially Marx's support of the centralized structure of the International, Marx's view that the proletariat class should act as a political party against prevailing parties but within the existing parliamentary system, and Marx's belief that the proletariat, after it had overthrown the bourgeois state, should establish its own regime. To Bakunin, the mission of the revolutionary was destruction; he looked to the Russian peasantry, with its propensities for violence and its uncurbed revolutionary instincts, rather than to the effete, civilized workers of the industrial countries. The students, he hoped, would be the officers of the revolution. He acquired followers, mostly young men, in Italy, Switzerland, and France, and he organized a secret society, the International Alliance of Social Democracy, which in 1869 challenged the hegemony of the General Council at the congress in Basel, Switz. Marx, however, had already succeeded in preventing its admission as an organized body into the International.

To the Bakuninists, the Paris Commune was a model of revolutionary direct action and a refutation of what they considered to be Marx's "authoritarian communism." Bakunin began organizing sections of the International for an attack on the alleged dictatorship of Marx and the General Council. Marx in reply publicized Bakunin's embroilment with an unscrupulous Russian student leader, Sergey Gennadiyevich Nechayev, who had practiced blackmail and murder.

Without a supporting right wing and with the anarchist left against him, Marx feared losing control of the International to Bakunin. He also wanted to return to his studies and to finish Das Kapital. At the congress of the International at The Hague in 1872, the only one he ever attended, Marx managed to defeat the Bakuninists. Then, to the consternation of the delegates, Engels moved that the seat of the General Council be transferred from London to New York City. The Bakuninists were expelled, but the International languished and was finally disbanded in Philadelphia in 1876.

2.5 LAST YEARS

During the next and last decade of his life, Marx's creative energies declined. He was beset by what he called "chronic mental depression," and his life turned inward toward his family. He was unable to complete any substantial work, though he still read widely and undertook to learn Russian. He became crotchety in his political opinions. When his own followers and those of the German revolutionary Ferdinand Lassalle, a rival who believed that socialist goals should be achieved through cooperation with the state, coalesced in 1875 to found the German Social Democratic Party, Marx wrote a caustic criticism of their program (the so-called Gotha Program), claiming that it made too many compromises with the status quo. The German leaders put his objections aside and tried to mollify him personally. Increasingly, he looked to a European war for the overthrow of Russian tsarism, the mainstay of reaction, hoping that this would revive the political energies of the working classes. He was moved by what he considered to be the selfless courage of the Russian terrorists who assassinated the tsar, Alexander II, in 1881; he felt this to be "a historically inevitable means of action."

Despite Marx's withdrawal from active politics, he still retained what Engels called his "peculiar influence" on the leaders of working-class and socialist movements. In 1879, when the French Socialist Workers' Federation was founded, its leader Jules Guesde went to London to consult with Marx, who dictated the preamble of its program and shaped much of its content. In 1881 Henry Mayers Hyndman in his England for All drew heavily on his conversations with Marx but angered him by being afraid to acknowledge him by name.

During his last years Marx spent much time at health resorts and even traveled to Algiers. He was broken by the death of his wife on Dec. 2, 1881, and of his eldest daughter, Jenny Longuet, on Jan. 11, 1883. He died in London, evidently of a lung abscess, on March 14, 1883.

2.6 CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE

At Marx's funeral in Highgate Cemetery, Engels declared that Marx had made two great discoveries, the law of development of human history and the law of motion of bourgeois society. But "Marx was before all else a revolutionist." He was "the best-hated and most-calumniated man of his time," yet he also died "beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow-workers."

The contradictory emotions Marx engendered are reflected in the sometimes conflicting aspects of his character. Marx was a combination of the Promethean rebel and the rigorous intellectual. He gave most persons an impression of intellectual arrogance. A Russian writer, Pavel Annenkov, who observed Marx in debate in 1846 recalled that "he spoke only in the imperative, brooking no contradiction," and seemed to be "the personification of a democratic dictator such as might appear before one in moments of fantasy." But Marx obviously felt uneasy before mass audiences and avoided the atmosphere of factional controversies at congresses. He went to no demonstrations, his wife remarked, and rarely spoke at public meetings. He kept away from the congresses of the International where the rival socialist groups debated important resolutions. He was a "small groups" man, most at home in the atmosphere of the General Council or on the staff of a newspaper, where his character could impress itself forcefully on a small body of coworkers. At the same time he avoided meeting distinguished scholars with whom he might have discussed questions of economics and sociology on a footing of intellectual equality. Despite his broad intellectual sweep, he was prey to obsessive ideas such as that the British foreign minister, Lord Palmerston, was an agent of the Russian government. He was determined not to let bourgeois society make "a money-making machine" out of him, yet he submitted to living on the largess of Engels and the bequests of relatives. He remained the eternal student in his personal habits and way of life, even to the point of joining two friends in a students' prank during which they systematically broke four or five streetlamps in a London street and then fled from the police. He was a great reader of novels, especially those of Sir Walter Scott and Balzac; and the family made a cult of Shakespeare. He was an affectionate father, saying that he admired Jesus for his love of children, but sacrificed the lives and health of his own. Of his seven children, three daughters grew to maturity. His favourite daughter, Eleanor, worried him with her nervous, brooding, emotional character and her desire to be an actress. Another shadow was cast on Marx's domestic life by the birth to their loyal servant, Helene Demuth, of an illegitimate son, Frederick; Engels as he was dying disclosed to Eleanor that Marx had been the father. Above all, Marx was a fighter, willing to sacrifice anything in the battle for his conception of a better society. He regarded struggle as the law of life and existence.

The influence of Marx's ideas has been enormous. Marx's masterpiece, Das Kapital, the "Bible of the working class," as it was officially described in a resolution of the International Working Men's Association, was published in 1867 in Berlin and received a second edition in 1873. Only the first volume was completed and published in Marx's lifetime. The second and third volumes, unfinished by Marx, were edited by Engels and published in 1885 and 1894. The economic categories he employed were those of the classical British economics of David Ricardo; but Marx used them in accordance with his dialectical method to argue that bourgeois society, like every social organism, must follow its inevitable path of development. Through the working of such immanent tendencies as the declining rate of profit, capitalism would die and be replaced by another, higher, society. The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class. Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production until finally "the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated."

Marx never claimed to have discovered the existence of classes and class struggles in modern society. "Bourgeois" historians, he acknowledged, had described them long before he had. He did claim, however, to have proved that each phase in the development of production was associated with a corresponding class structure and that the struggle of classes led necessarily to the dictatorship of the proletariat, ushering in the advent of a classless society. Marx took up the very different versions of socialism current in the early 19th century and welded them together into a doctrine that continued to be the dominant version of socialism for half a century after his death. His emphasis on the influence of economic structure on historical development has proved to be of lasting significance.

Although Marx stressed economic issues in his writings, his major impact has been in the fields of sociology and history. Marx's most important contribution to sociological theory was his general mode of analysis, the "dialectical" model, which regards every social system as having within it immanent forces that give rise to "contradictions" (disequilibria) that can be resolved only by a new social system. Neo-Marxists, who no longer accept the economic reasoning in Das Kapital, are still guided by this model in their approach to capitalist society. In this sense, Marx's mode of analysis, like those of Thomas Malthus, Herbert Spencer, or Vilfredo Pareto, has become one of the theoretical structures that are the heritage of the social scientist. (L.S.F./D.T.McL.)

3 Marxism

The term Marxism is used in a number of different ways. In its most essential meaning it refers to the thought of Karl Marx but is usually extended to include that of his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels. There is also Marxism as it has been understood and practiced by the various socialist movements, particularly before 1914. Then there is Soviet Marxism as worked out by Lenin and modified by Stalin, which under the name of Marxism-Leninism became the doctrine of the communist parties set up after the Russian Revolution. Offshoots of this include Marxism as interpreted by the anti-Stalinist Leon Trotsky and his followers, Mao Zedong's (Mao Tse-tung's) Chinese variant of Marxism-Leninism, and various Third World Marxisms. There are also the post-World War II nondogmatic Marxisms that have modified Marx's thought with borrowings from modern philosophies, principally from those of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger but also from Sigmund Freud and others.

3.1 THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX

The written work of Marx cannot be reduced to a philosophy, much less to a philosophical system. The whole of his work is a radical critique of philosophy, especially of Hegel's idealist system and of the philosophies of the left and right post-Hegelians. It is not, however, a mere denial of those philosophies. Marx declared that philosophy must become reality. One could no longer be content with interpreting the world; one must be concerned with transforming it, which meant transforming both the world itself and men's consciousness of it. This, in turn, required a critique of experience together with a critique of ideas. In fact, Marx believed that all knowledge involved a critique of ideas. He was not an empiricist. Rather, his work teems with concepts (appropriation, alienation, praxis, creative labour, value, etc.) that he had inherited from earlier philosophers and economists, including Hegel, Johann Fichte, Kant, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. What uniquely characterizes the thought of Marx is that, instead of making abstract affirmations about a whole group of problems such as man, knowledge, matter, and nature, he examines each problem in its dynamic relation to the others and, above all, tries to relate them to historical, social, political, and economic realities. (see also Index: Hegelianism)

3.1.1 Historical materialism.

In 1859, in the preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx wrote that the hypothesis that had served him as the basis for his analysis of society could be briefly formulated as follows:

In the social production that men carry on, they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and intellectual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men which determines their existence; it is on the contrary their social existence which determines their consciousness.

Raised to the level of historical law, this hypothesis was subsequently called historical materialism. Marx applied it to capitalist society, both in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and in other writings. Although Marx reflected upon his working hypothesis for many years, he did not formulate it in a very exact manner: different expressions served him for identical realities. If one takes the text literally, social reality is structured in the following way:

1. Underlying everything as the real basis of society is the economic structure (what in late 20th-century language is sometimes called the infrastructure). This structure includes (a) the "material forces of production," that is, the labour and means of production, and (b) the overall "relations of production," or the social and political arrangements that regulate production and distribution. Although Marx stated that there is a correspondence between the "material forces" of production and the indispensable "relations" of production, he never made himself clear on the nature of the correspondence, a fact that was to be the source of differing interpretations among his later followers.

2. Above the economic structure rises the superstructure consisting of legal and political "forms of social consciousness" that correspond to the economic structure. Marx says nothing about the nature of this correspondence between ideological forms and economic structure, except that through the ideological forms men become conscious of the conflict within the economic structure between the material forces of production and the existing relations of production expressed in the legal property relations. In other words, "The sum total of the forces of production accessible to men determines the condition of society" and is at the base of society. "The social structure and the state issue continually from the life processes of definite individuals . . . as they are in reality, that is acting and materially producing." The political relations that men establish among themselves are dependent on material production, as are the legal relations. This foundation of the social on the economic is not an incidental point: it colours Marx's whole analysis. It is found in Das Kapital as well as in The German Ideology and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.

3.1.2 Analysis of society.

To go directly to the heart of the work of Marx, one must focus on his concrete program for man. This is just as important for an understanding of Marx as are The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Marx's interpretation of man begins with human need. "Man," he wrote in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,

is first of all a natural being. As a natural being and a living natural being, he is endowed on the one hand with natural powers, vital powers . . . ; these powers exist in him as aptitudes, instincts. On the other hand, as an objective, natural, physical, sensitive being, he is a suffering, dependent and limited being . . . , that is, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, independent of him, but are the objects of his need, indispensable and essential for the realization and confirmation of his substantial powers.

The point of departure of human history is therefore living man, who seeks to satisfy certain primary needs. "The first historical fact is the production of the means to satisfy these needs." This satisfaction, in turn, opens the way for new needs. Human activity is thus essentially a struggle with nature that must furnish man with the means of satisfying his needs: drink, food, clothing, the development of his powers and then of his intellectual and artistic abilities. In this undertaking, man discovers himself as a productive being who humanizes himself by his labour. Furthermore, man humanizes nature while he naturalizes himself. By his creative activity, by his labour, he realizes his identity with the nature that he masters, while at the same time he achieves free consciousness. Born of nature man becomes fully human by opposing it. Becoming aware in his struggle against nature of what separates him from it, man finds the conditions of his fulfillment, of the realization of his true stature. The dawning of consciousness is inseparable from struggle. By appropriating all the creative energies, he discovers that "all that is called history is nothing else than the process of creating man through human labour, the becoming of nature for man. Man has thus evident and irrefutable proof of his own creation by himself." Understood in its universal dimension, human activity reveals that "for man, man is the supreme being." It is thus vain to speak of God, creation, and metaphysical problems. Fully naturalized, man is sufficient unto himself: he has recaptured the fullness of man in his full liberty.

Living in a capitalist society, however, man is not truly free. He is an alienated being; he is not at home in his world. The idea of alienation, which Marx takes from Hegel and Feuerbach, plays a fundamental role in the whole of his written work, starting with the writings of his youth and continuing through Das Kapital. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts the alienation of labour is seen to spring from the fact that the more the worker produces the less he has to consume, and the more values he creates the more he devalues himself, because his product and his labour are estranged from him. The life of the worker depends on things that he has created but that are not his, so that, instead of finding his rightful existence through his labour, he loses it in this world of things that are external to him: no work, no pay. Under these conditions, labour denies the fullness of concrete man. "The generic being (Gattungwesen) of man, nature as well as his intellectual faculties, is transformed into a being which is alien to him, into a means of his individual existence." Nature, his body, his spiritual essence become alien to him. "Man is made alien to man." When carried to its highest stage of development, private property becomes "the product of alienated labour . . . the means by which labour alienates itself (and) the realization of this alienation." It is also at the same time "the tangible material expression of alienated human life." (see also Index: production)

Although there is no evidence that Marx ever disclaimed this anthropological analysis of alienated labour, starting with The German Ideology, the historical, social, and economic causes of the alienation of labour are given increasing emphasis, especially in Das Kapital. Alienated labour is seen as the consequence of market product, the division of labour, and the division of society into antagonistic classes. As producers in society, men create goods only by their labour. These goods are exchangeable. Their value is the average amount of social labour spent to produce them. The alienation of the worker takes on its full dimension in that system of market production in which part of the value of the goods produced by the worker is taken away from him and transformed into surplus value, which the capitalist privately appropriates. Market production also intensifies the alienation of labour by encouraging specialization, piecework, and the setting up of large enterprises. Thus the labour power of the worker is used along with that of others in a combination whose significance he is ignorant of, both individually and socially. In thus losing their quality as human products, the products of labour become fetishes, that is, alien and oppressive realities to which both the man who possesses them privately and the man who is deprived of them submit themselves. In the market economy, this submission to things is obscured by the fact that the exchange of goods is expressed in money. (see also Index: labour theory of value)

This fundamental economic alienation is accompanied by secondary political and ideological alienations, which offer a distorted representation of and an illusory justification of a world in which the relations of men with one another are also distorted. The ideas that men form are closely bound up with their material activity and their material relations: "The act of making representations, of thinking, the spiritual intercourse of men, seem to be the direct emanation of their material relations." This is true of all human activity: political, intellectual, or spiritual. "Men produce their representations and their ideas, but it is as living men, men acting as they are determined by a definite development of their powers of production." Law, morality, metaphysics, and religion do not have a history of their own. "Men developing their material production modify together with their real existence their ways of thinking and the products of their ways of thinking." In other words, "It is not consciousness which determines existence, it is existence which determines consciousness."

In bourgeois, capitalist society man is divided into political citizen and economic man. This duality represents man's political alienation, which is further intensified by the functioning of the bourgeois state. From this study of society at the beginning of the 19th century, Marx came to see the state as the instrument through which the propertied class dominated other classes.

Ideological alienation, for Marx, takes different forms, appearing in economic, philosophical, and legal theories. Marx undertook a lengthy critique of the first in Das Kapital and of the second in The German Ideology. But ideological alienation expresses itself supremely in religion. Taking up the ideas about religion that were current in left post-Hegelian circles, together with the thought of Feuerbach, Marx considered religion to be a product of man's consciousness. It is a reflection of the situation of a man who "either has not conquered himself or has already lost himself again" (man in the world of private property). It is "an opium for the people." Unlike Feuerbach, Marx believed that religion would disappear only with changes in society.

3.1.3 Analysis of the economy.

Marx analyzed the market economy system in Das Kapital. In this work he borrows most of the categories of the classical English economists Smith and Ricardo but adapts them and introduces new concepts such as that of surplus value. One of the distinguishing marks of Das Kapital is that in it Marx studies the economy as a whole and not in one or another of its aspects. His analysis is based on the idea that man is a productive being and that all economic value comes from human labour. The system he analyzes is principally that of mid-19th-century England. It is a system of private enterprise and competition that arose in the 16th century from the development of sea routes, international trade, and colonialism. Its rise had been facilitated by changes in the forces of production (the division of labour and the concentration of workshops), the adoption of mechanization, and technical progress. The wealth of the societies that brought this economy into play had been acquired through an "enormous accumulation of commodities." Marx therefore begins with the study of this accumulation, analyzing the unequal exchanges that take place in the market. (see also Index: wealth and income, distribution of)

According to Marx, if the capitalist advances funds to buy cotton yarn with which to produce fabrics and sells the product for a larger sum than he paid, he is able to invest the difference in additional production. "Not only is the value advance kept in circulation, but it changes in its magnitude, adds a plus to itself, makes itself worth more, and it is this movement that transforms it into capital." The transformation, to Marx, is possible only because the capitalist has appropriated the means of production, including the labour power of the worker. Now labour power produces more than it is worth. The value of labour power is determined by the amount of labour necessary for its reproduction or, in other words, by the amount needed for the worker to subsist and beget children. But in the hands of the capitalist the labour power employed in the course of a day produces more than the value of the sustenance required by the worker and his family. The difference between the two values is appropriated by the capitalist, and it corresponds exactly to the surplus value realized by capitalists in the market. Marx is not concerned with whether in capitalist society there are sources of surplus value other than the exploitation of human labour--a fact pointed out by Joseph Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy). He remains content with emphasizing this primary source:

Surplus value is produced by the employment of labour power. Capital buys the labour power and pays the wages for it. By means of his work the labourer creates new value which does not belong to him, but to the capitalist. He must work a certain time merely in order to reproduce the equivalent value of his wages. But when this equivalent value has been returned, he does not cease work, but continues to do so for some further hours. The new value which he produces during this extra time, and which exceeds in consequence the amount of his wage, constitutes surplus value.

Throughout his analysis, Marx argues that the development of capitalism is accompanied by increasing contradictions. For example, the introduction of machinery is profitable to the individual capitalist because it enables him to produce more goods at a lower cost, but new techniques are soon taken up by his competitors. The outlay for machinery grows faster than the outlay for wages. Since only labour can produce the surplus value from which profit is derived, this means that the capitalist's rate of profit on his total outlay tends to decline. Along with the declining rate of profit goes an increase in unemployment. Thus, the equilibrium of the system is precarious, subject as it is to the internal pressures resulting from its own development. Crises shake it at regular intervals, preludes to the general crisis that will sweep it away. This instability is increased by the formation of a reserve army of workers, both factory workers and peasants, whose pauperization keeps increasing. "Capitalist production develops the technique and the combination of the process of social production only by exhausting at the same time the two sources from which all wealth springs: the earth and the worker." According to the Marxist dialectic, these fundamental contradictions can only be resolved by a change from capitalism to a new system.

3.1.4 Class struggle.

Marx inherited the ideas of class and class struggle from Utopian socialism and the theories of Saint-Simon. These had been given substance by the writings of French historians such as Adolphe Thiers and François Guizot on the French Revolution of 1789. But unlike the French historians, Marx made class struggle the central fact of social evolution. "The history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggles."

In Marx's view, the dialectical nature of history is expressed in class struggle. With the development of capitalism, the class struggle takes an acute form. Two basic classes, around which other less important classes are grouped, oppose each other in the capitalist system: the owners of the means of production, or bourgeoisie, and the workers, or proletariat. "The bourgeoisie produces its own grave-diggers. The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable" (The Communist Manifesto) because

the bourgeois relations of production are the last contradictory form of the process of social production, contradictory not in the sense of an individual contradiction, but of a contradiction that is born of the conditions of social existence of individuals; however, the forces of production which develop in the midst of bourgeois society create at the same time the material conditions for resolving this contradiction. With this social development the prehistory of human society ends.

When man has become aware of his loss, of his alienation, as a universal nonhuman situation, it will be possible for him to proceed to a radical transformation of his situation by a revolution. This revolution will be the prelude to the establishment of communism and the reign of liberty reconquered. "In the place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and its class antagonisms, there will be an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

But for Marx there are two views of revolution. One is that of a final conflagration, "a violent suppression of the old conditions of production," which occurs when the opposition between bourgeoisie and proletariat has been carried to its extreme point. This conception is set forth in a manner inspired by the Hegelian dialectic of the master and the slave, in The Holy Family. The other conception is that of a permanent revolution involving a provisional coalition between the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie rebelling against a capitalism that is only superficially united. Once a majority has been won to the coalition, an unofficial proletarian authority constitutes itself alongside the revolutionary bourgeois authority. Its mission is the political and revolutionary education of the proletariat, gradually assuring the transfer of legal power from the revolutionary bourgeoisie to the revolutionary proletariat.

If one reads The Communist Manifesto carefully one discovers inconsistencies that indicate that Marx had not reconciled the concepts of catastrophic and of permanent revolution. Moreover, Marx never analyzed classes as specific groups of men opposing other groups of men. Depending on the writings and the periods, the number of classes varies; and unfortunately the pen fell from Marx's hand at the moment when, in Das Kapital (vol. 3), he was about to take up the question. Reading Das Kapital, one is furthermore left with an ambiguous impression with regard to the destruction of capitalism: will it be the result of the "general crisis" that Marx expects, or of the action of the conscious proletariat, or of both at once?

3.1.5 The contributions of Engels.

Engels became a communist in 1842 and discovered the proletariat of England when he took over the management of the Manchester factory belonging to his father's cotton firm. In 1844, the year he began his close association and friendship with Marx, Engels was finishing his "Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie" ("Outline of a Critique of Political Economy")--a critique of Smith, Ricardo, Mill, and J.B. Say. This remarkable study contained in seminal form the critique that Marx was to make of bourgeois political economy in Das Kapital. During the first years of his stay in Manchester, Engels observed carefully the life of the workers of that great industrial centre and described it in Die Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in England (The Condition of the Working Class in England), published in 1845 in Leipzig. This work was an analysis of the evolution of industrial capitalism and its social consequences. He collaborated with Marx in the writing of The Holy Family, The German Ideology, and The Communist Manifesto. The correspondence between them is of fundamental importance for the student of Das Kapital, for it shows how Engels contributed by furnishing Marx with a great amount of technical and economic data and by criticizing the successive drafts. This collaboration lasted until Marx's death and was carried on posthumously with the publication of the manuscripts left by Marx, which Engels edited, forming volumes 2 and 3 of Das Kapital. He also wrote various articles on Marx's work.

In response to criticism of Marx's ideas by a socialist named Eugen Dühring, Engels published several articles that were collected under the title Herr Eugen Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft, which appeared in 1878 (Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science [Anti-Dühring]), and an unfinished work, Dialektik und Natur (1927; Dialectics of Nature), which he had begun around 1875-76. The importance of these writings to the subsequent development of Marxism can be seen from Lenin's observation that Engels "developed, in a clear and often polemical style, the most general scientific questions and the different phenomena of the past and present according to the materialist understanding of history and the economic theory of Karl Marx." But Engels was driven to simplify problems with a view to being pedagogical; he tended to schematize and systematize things as if the fundamental questions were settled. The connections that he thus established between some of Marx's governing ideas and some of the scientific ideas of his age gave rise to the notion that there is a complete Marxist philosophy. The idea was to play a significant role in the transition of Marxism from a "critique of daily life" to an integrated doctrine in which philosophy, history, and the sciences are fused.

Anti-Dühring is of fundamental importance for it constitutes the link between Marx and certain forms of modern Marxism. It contains three parts: Philosophy, Political Economy, and Socialism. In the first, Engels attempts to establish that the natural sciences and even mathematics are dialectical, in the sense that observable reality is dialectical: the dialectical method of analysis and thought is imposed on men by the material forces with which they deal. It is thus rightly applied to the study of history and human society. "Motion, in effect, is the mode of existence of matter," Engels writes. In using materialistic dialectic to make a critique of Dühring's thesis, according to which political forces prevail over all the rest in the molding of history, Engels provides a good illustration of the materialistic idea of history, which puts the stress on the prime role of economic factors as driving forces in history. The other chapters of the section Political Economy form a very readable introduction to the principal economic ideas of Marx: value (simple and complex), labour, capital, and surplus value. The section Socialism starts by formulating anew the critique of the capitalist system as it was made in Das Kapital. At the end of the chapters devoted to production, distribution, the state, the family, and education, Engels outlines what the socialist society will be like, a society in which the notion of value has no longer anything to do with the distribution of the goods produced because all labour "becomes at once and directly social labour," and the amount of social labour that every product contains no longer needs to be ascertained by "a detour." A production plan will coordinate the economy. The division of labour and the separation of town and country will disappear with the "suppression of the capitalist character of modern industry." Thanks to the plan, industry will be located throughout the country in the collective interest, and thus the opposition between town and country will disappear--to the profit of both industry and agriculture. Finally, after the liberation of man from the condition of servitude in which the capitalist mode of production holds him, the state will also be abolished and religion will disappear by "natural death."

One of the most remarkable features of Anti-Dühring is the insistence with which Engels refuses to base socialism on absolute values. He admits only relative values, linked to historical, economic, and social conditions. Socialism cannot possibly be based on ethical principles: each epoch can only successfully carry out that of which it is capable. Marx had written this in his preface of 1859.

Karl Marx and Marxism

3.2 GERMAN MARXISM AFTER ENGELS

 

3.2.1 The work of Kautsky and Bernstein.

The theoretical leadership after Engels was taken by Karl Kautsky, editor of the official organ of the German Social Democratic Party, Die Neue Zeit. He wrote Karl Marx' ökonomische Lehren (1887; The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx), in which the work of Marx is presented as essentially an economic theory. Kautsky reduced the ideas of Marx and Marxist historical dialectic to a kind of evolutionism. He laid stress on the increasing pauperization of the working class and on the increasing degree of capitalist concentration. While opposing all compromise with the bourgeois state, he accepted the contention that the socialist movement should support laws benefiting the workers provided that they did not reinforce the power of the state. Rejecting the idea of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, he believed that the overthrow of the capitalist state and the acquisition of political power by the working class could be realized in a peaceful way, without upsetting the existing structures. As an internationalist he supported peace, rejecting war and violence. For him, war was a product of capitalism. Such were the main features of "orthodox" German Marxism at the time when the "revisionist" theories of Eduard Bernstein appeared.

Bernstein created a great controversy with articles that he wrote in 1896 for Die Neue Zeit, arguing that Marxism needed to be revised. His divergence widened with the publication in 1899 of Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie ( Evolutionary Socialism), to which rejoinders were made by Kautsky in Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm: Eine Antikritik (1899; "Bernstein and the Social Democratic Program") and the Polish-born Marxist Rosa Luxemburg in Sozialreform oder Revolution ( Reform or Revolution), both in 1899. Bernstein focused first of all upon the labour theory of value. Along with the economists of his time he considered it outdated, both in the form expounded by British classical economists and as set forth in Das Kapital. He argued, moreover, that class struggle was becoming less rather than more intense, for concentration was not accelerating in industry as Marx had forecast, and in agriculture it was not increasing at all. Bernstein demonstrated this on the basis of German, Dutch, and English statistical data. He also argued that cartels and business syndicates were smoothing the evolution of capitalism, a fact that cast doubt on the validity of Marx's theory of capitalistic crises. Arguing that quite a few of Marx's theories were not scientifically based, Bernstein blamed the Hegelian and Ricardian structure of Marx's work for his failure to take sufficient account of observable reality. (see also Index: value)

To this, Kautsky replied that, with the development of capitalism, agriculture was becoming a sector more and more dependent on industry, and that in addition an industrialization of agriculture was taking place. Luxemburg took the position that the contradictions of capitalism did not cease to grow with the progress of finance capitalism and the exploitation of the colonies, and that these contradictions were leading to a war that would give the proletariat its opportunity to assume power by revolutionary means.

3.2.2 The radicals.

One of the most divisive questions was that of war and peace. This was brought to the fore at the outbreak of World War I, when Social Democratic deputies in the German Reichstag voted for the financing of the war. Among German Marxists who opposed the war were Karl Liebknecht and Luxemburg. Liebknecht was imprisoned in 1916 for agitating against the war. On his release in 1918 he took the leadership of the Spartacist movement, which was later to become the Communist Party of Germany. Luxemburg had also been arrested for her antimilitary activities. In addition to her articles, signed Junius, in which she debated with Lenin on the subject of World War I and the attitude of the Marxists toward it (published in 1916 as Die Krise der Sozialdemokratie [The Crisis in the German Social-Democracy]), she is known for her book Die Akkumulation des Kapitals (1913; The Accumulation of Capital). In this work she returned to Marx's economic analysis of capitalism, in particular the accumulation of capital as expounded in volume 2 of Das Kapital. There she found a contradiction that had until then been unnoticed: Marx's scheme seems to imply that the development of capitalism can be indefinite, though elsewhere he sees the contradictions of the system as bringing about increasingly violent economic crises that will inevitably sweep capitalism away. Luxemburg concluded that Marx's scheme is oversimplified and assumes a universe made up entirely of capitalists and workers. If increases in productivity are taken into account, she asserted, balance between the two sectors becomes impossible; in order to keep expanding, capitalists must find new markets in noncapitalist spheres, either among peasants and artisans or in colonies and underdeveloped countries. Capitalism will collapse only when exploitation of the world outside it (the peasantry, colonies, etc.) has reached a limit. This conclusion has been the subject of passionate controversies. (see also Index: "Crisis in the German Social- Democracy, The," )

3.2.3 The Austrians.

The Austrian school came into being when Austrian socialists started publishing their works independently of the Germans; it can be dated from either 1904 (beginning of the Marx-Studien collection) or 1907 (publication of the magazine Der Kampf ). The most important members of the school were Max Adler, Karl Renner, Rudolf Hilferding, Gustav Eckstein, Friedrich Adler, and Otto Bauer. The most eminent was Bauer, a brilliant theoretician whose Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie (1906; "The Nationalities Question and the Social Democracy") was critically reviewed by Lenin. In this work he dealt with the problem of nationalities in the light of the experience of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He favoured the self-determination of peoples and emphasized the cultural elements in the concept of nationhood. Hilferding was finance minister of the German Republic after World War I in the Cabinets of the Social Democrats Gustav Stresemann (1923) and Hermann Müller (1928). He is known especially for his work Das Finanzkapital (1910), in which he maintained that capitalism had come under the control of banks and industrial monopolies. The growth of national competition and tariff barriers, he believed, had led to economic warfare abroad. Hilferding's ideas strongly influenced Lenin, who analyzed them in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916).

3.3 RUSSIAN AND SOVIET MARXISM

Das Kapital was translated into Russian in 1872. Marx kept up more or less steady relations with the Russian socialists and took an interest in the economic and social conditions of the tsarist empire. The man who originally introduced Marxism into Russia was Georgi Plekhanov, but the man who adapted Marxism to Russian conditions was Lenin. (see also Index: Leninism)

3.3.1 Lenin.

Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, or Lenin, was born in 1870 at Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk). He entered the University of Kazan to study law but was expelled the same year for participating in student agitation. In 1893 he settled in St. Petersburg and became actively involved with the revolutionary workers. With his pamphlet What Is To Be Done? (1902), he specified the theoretical principles and organization of a Marxist party as he thought it should be constituted. He took part in the second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party, which was held in Brussels and London (1903), and induced the majority of the Congress members to adopt his views. Two factions formed at the Congress: the Bolshevik (from the Russian word for "larger") with Lenin as the leader and the Menshevik (from the Russian word for "smaller") with Julius Martov at the head. The former wanted a restricted party of militants and advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat. The latter wanted a wide-open proletarian party, collaboration with the liberals, and a democratic constitution for Russia. In his pamphlet One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (1904), Lenin compared the organizational principles of the Bolsheviks to those of the Mensheviks. After the failure of the 1905 Russian revolution, he drew positive lessons for the future in Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution. He fiercely attacked the influence of Kantian philosophy on German and Russian Marxism in Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1908). In 1912 at the Prague Conference the Bolsheviks constituted themselves as an independent party. During World War I Lenin resided in Switzerland, where he studied Hegel's Science of Logic and the development of capitalism and carried on debates with Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg on the meaning of the war and the right of nations to self-determination. In 1915 at Zimmerwald, and in 1916 at Kiental, he organized two international socialist conferences to fight against the war. Immediately after the February 1917 revolution he returned to Russia, and in October the Bolshevik coup brought him to power.

The situation of Russia and the Russian revolutionary movement at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th led Lenin to diverge, in the course of his development and his analyses, from the positions both of "orthodox Marxism" and of "revisionism." He rediscovered the original thought of Marx by a careful study of his works, in particular Das Kapital and The Holy Family. He saw Marxism as a practical affair and tried to go beyond the accepted formulas to plan political action that would come to grips with the surrounding world.

As early as 1894, in his populist study The Friends of the People, Lenin took up Marx's distinction between the "material social relations" of men and their "ideological social relations." In Lenin's eyes the importance of Das Kapital was that "while explaining the structure and the development of the social formation seen exclusively in terms of its relations of production, (Marx) has nevertheless everywhere and always analyzed the superstructure which corresponds to these relations of production." In The Development of Russian Capitalism (1897-99) Lenin sought to apply Marx's analysis by showing the growing role of capital, in particular commercial capital, in the exploitation of the workers in the factories and the large-scale expropriation of the peasants. It was thus possible to apply to Russia the models developed by Marx for western Europe. At the same time Lenin did not lose sight of the importance of the peasant in Russian society. Although a disciple of Marx, he did not believe that he had only to repeat Marx's conclusions. He wrote:

We do not consider the theory of Marx to be a complete, immutable whole. We think on the contrary that this theory has only laid the cornerstone of the science, a science which socialists must further develop in all directions if they do not want to let themselves be overtaken by life. We think that, for the Russian socialists, an independent elaboration of the theory is particularly necessary.

Lenin laid great stress upon the dialectical method. In his early writings he defined the dialectic as "nothing more nor less than the method of sociology, which sees society as a living organism, in perpetual development (and not as something mechanically assembled and thus allowing all sorts of arbitrary combinations of the various social elements) . . . " (The Friends of the People, 1894). After having studied Hegel toward the end of 1914, he took a more activist view. Dialectic is not only evolution; it is praxis, leading from activity to reflection and from reflection to action.

3.3.2 The dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin also put much emphasis on the leading role of the party. As early as 1902 he was concerned with the need for a cohesive party with a correct doctrine, adapted to the exigencies of the period, which would be a motive force among the masses, helping to bring them to an awareness of their real situation. In What Is To Be Done? he called for a party of professional revolutionaries, disciplined and directed, capable of defeating the police; its aim should be to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. In order to do this, he wrote in Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, it was necessary "to subject the insurrection of the proletarian and non-proletarian masses to our influence, to our direction, to use it in our best interests." But this was not possible without a doctrine: "Without revolutionary theory, no revolutionary movement." On the eve of the revolution of October 1917, in The State and Revolution he set forth the conditions for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the suppression of the capitalist state.

Lenin assigned major importance to the peasantry in formulating his program. It would be a serious error, he held, for the Russian revolutionary workers' movement to neglect the peasants. Even though it was clear that the industrial proletariat constituted the vanguard of the revolution, the discontent of the peasantry could be oriented in a direction favourable to the revolution by placing among the goals of the party the seizure of privately owned land. As early as 1903, at the third congress of the party, he secured a resolution to this effect. Thereafter, the dictatorship of the proletariat became the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. In 1917 he encouraged the peasants to seize land long before the approval of agrarian reform by the Constituent Assembly.

Among Lenin's legacies to Soviet Marxism was one that proved to be injurious to the party. This was the decision taken at his behest by the 10th congress of the party in the spring of 1921, while the sailors were rebelling at Kronstadt and the peasants were growing restless in the countryside, to forbid all factions, all factional activity, and all opposition political platforms within the party. This decision had grave consequences in later years when Stalin used it against his opponents. (see also Index: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, )

3.3.3 Stalin.

It is Joseph Stalin who codified the body of ideas that, under the name of Marxism-Leninism, has constituted the official doctrine of the Soviet and eastern European communist parties. Stalin was a man of action in a slightly different sense than was Lenin. Gradually taking over power after Lenin's death in 1924, he pursued the development of the Soviet Union with great vigour. By practicing Marxism, he assimilated it, at the same time simplifying it. Stalin's Marxism-Leninism rests on the dialectic of Hegel, as set forth in A Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1938), and on a materialism that can be considered roughly identical to that of Feuerbach. His work Problems of Leninism, which appeared in 11 editions during his lifetime, sets forth an ideology of power and activism that rides roughshod over the more nuanced approach of Lenin. (see also Index: Stalinism)

Soviet dialectical materialism can be reduced to four laws: (1) History is a dialectical development. It proceeds by successive phases that supersede one another. These phases are not separate, any more than birth, growth, and death are separate. Though it is true that phase B necessarily negates phase A, it remains that phase B was already contained in phase A and was initiated by it. The dialectic does not regard nature as an accidental accumulation of objects, of isolated and independent phenomena, but as a unified, coherent whole. Furthermore, nature is perpetually in movement, in a state of unceasing renewal and development, in which there is always something being born and developing and something disintegrating and disappearing. (2) Evolution takes place in leaps, not gradually. (3) Contradictions must be made manifest. All phenomena contain in themselves contradictory elements. "Dialectic starts from the point of view that objects and natural phenomena imply internal contradictions, because they all have a positive and a negative side." These contradictory elements are in perpetual struggle: it is this struggle that is the "internal content of the process of development," according to Stalin. (4) The law of this development is economic. All other contradictions are rooted in the basic economic relationship. A given epoch is entirely determined by the relations of production existing among men. They are social relations; relations of collaboration or mutual aid, relations of domination or submission; and finally, transitory relations that characterize a period of passage from one system to another. "The history of the development of society is, above all, the history of the development of production, the history of the modes of production which succeed one another through the centuries." (see also Index: social evolution)

From these principles may be drawn the following inferences, essential for penetrating the workings of Marxist-Leninist thought and its application. No natural phenomenon, no historical or social situation, no political fact, can be considered independently of the other facts or phenomena that surround it; it is set within a whole. Since movement is the essential fact, one must distinguish between what is beginning to decay and what is being born and developing. Since the process of development takes place by leaps, one passes suddenly from a succession of slow quantitative changes to a radical qualitative change. In the social or political realm, these sudden qualitative changes are revolutions, carried out by the oppressed classes. One must follow a frankly proletarian-class policy that exposes the contradictions of the capitalist system. A reformist policy makes no sense. Consequently (1) nothing can be judged from the point of view of "eternal justice" or any other preconceived notion and (2) no social system is immutable. To be effective, one must not base one's action on social strata that are no longer developing, even if they represent for the moment the dominant force, but on those that are developing.

Stalin's materialist and historical dialectic differs sharply from the perspective of Karl Marx. In The Communist Manifesto Marx applied the materialist dialectic to the social and political life of his time. In the chapter entitled "Bourgeois and Proletarians," he studied the process of the growth of the revolutionary bourgeoisie within feudal society, then the genesis and the growth of the proletariat within capitalism, placing the emphasis on the struggle between antagonistic classes. To be sure, he connected social evolution with the development of the forces of production. What counted for him, however, was not only the struggle but also the birth of consciousness among the proletariat. "As to the final victory of the propositions put forth in the Manifesto, Marx expected it to come primarily from the intellectual development of the working class, necessarily the result of common action and discussion" (Engels, preface to the republication of The Communist Manifesto, May 1, 1890).

The result of Stalin's dialectic, however, was what he called revolution from above, a dictatorial policy to increase industrialization and collectivize agriculture based upon ruthless repression and a strong centralization of power. For Stalin what counted was the immediate goal, the practical result. The move was from a dialectic that emphasized both the objective and the subjective to one purely objective, or more exactly, objectivist. Human actions are to be judged not by taking account of the intentions of the actor and their place in a given historical web but only in terms of what they signify objectively at the end of the period considered.

3.3.4 Trotskyism.

Alongside Marxism-Leninism as expounded in the former Soviet Union, there arose another point of view expressed by Stalin's opponent Leon Trotsky and his followers. Trotsky played a leading role in both the Russian Revolution of 1905 and that of 1917. After Lenin's death he fell out with Stalin. Their conflict turned largely upon questions of policy, both domestic and foreign. In the realm of ideas, Trotsky held that a revolution in a backward, rural country could be carried out only by the proletariat. Once in power the proletariat must carry out agrarian reform and undertake the accelerated development of the economy. The revolution must be a socialist one, involving the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, or else it will fail. But the revolution cannot be carried out in isolation, as Stalin maintained it could. The capitalist countries will try to destroy it; moreover, to succeed the revolution must be able to draw upon the industrial techniques of the developed countries. For these reasons the revolution must be worldwide and permanent, directed against the liberal and nationalist bourgeoisie of all countries and using local victories to advance the international struggle.

Tactically, Trotsky emphasized the necessity of finding or creating a revolutionary situation, of educating the working class in order to revolutionize it, of seeing that the party remained open to the various revolutionary tendencies and avoided becoming bureaucratized, and finally, when the time for insurrection comes, of organizing it according to a detailed plan.

3.4 VARIANTS OF MARXISM

 

3.4.1 Maoism.

When the Chinese Communists took power in 1948, they brought with them a new kind of Marxism that came to be called Maoism after their leader Mao Zedong. The thought of Mao must always be seen against the changing revolutionary reality of China from 1930 onward. His thought was complex, a Marxist type of analysis combined with the permanent fundamentals of Chinese thought and culture.

One of its central elements has to do with the nature and role of contradictions in socialist society. For Mao, every society, including socialist (communist) society, contained "two different types of contradictions": (1) antagonistic contradictions--contradictions between us (the people) and our enemies (the Chinese bourgeoisie faithful), between the imperialist camp and the socialist camp, and so forth--which are resolved by revolution, and (2) nonantagonistic contradictions--between the government and the people under a socialist regime, between two groups within the Communist Party, between one section of the people and another under a communist regime, and so forth--which are resolved by vigorous fraternal criticism and self-criticism.

The notion of contradiction is specific to Mao's thought in that it differs from the conceptions of Marx or Lenin. For Mao, in effect, contradictions were at the same time universal and particular. In their universality, one must seek and discover what constitutes their particularity: every contradiction displays a particular character, depending on the nature of things and phenomena. Contradictions have alternating aspects--sometimes strongly marked, sometimes blurred. Some of these aspects are primary, others secondary. It is important to define them well, for if one fails to do so, the analysis of the social reality and the actions that follow from it will be mistaken. This is quite far from Stalinism and dogmatic Marxism-Leninism.

Another essential element of Mao's thought, which must be seen in the context of revolutionary China, is the notion of permanent revolution. It is an old idea advocated in different contexts by Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky but lacking, in Mao's formulation, the international dimension espoused by his predecessors. For Mao it followed from his ideas about the struggle of man against nature (held from 1938, at least); the campaigns for the rectification of thought (1942, 1951, 1952); and the necessity of struggling against bureaucracy, wastage, and corruption in a country of 600,000,000 to 700,000,000 inhabitants, where very old civilizations and cultures still permeated both the bourgeois classes and the peasantry, where bureaucracy was thoroughly entrenched, and where the previous society was extremely corrupt. It arose from Mao's conviction that the rhythm of the revolution must be accelerated. This conviction appeared in 1957 in his speeches and became manifest in 1958 in the "Great Leap Forward," followed in 1966 by the Cultural Revolution.

Mao's concept of permanent revolution rests upon the existence of nonantagonistic contradictions in the China of today and of tomorrow. Men must be mobilized into a permanent movement in order to carry forward the revolution and to prevent the ruling group from turning bourgeois (as he perceived it had in the Soviet Union). It is necessary to shape among the masses a new vision of the world by tearing them from their passivity and their century-old habits. This is the background of the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966, following previous campaigns but differing from them in its magnitude and, it would seem, in the mobilization of youth against the cadres of the party. In these campaigns Mao drew upon his past as a revolutionary Marxist peasant leader, from his life in the red military and peasant bases and among the Red Guards of Yen-an, seeking in his past experience ways to mobilize the whole Chinese population against the dangers--internal and external--that confronted it in the present.

The distinguishing characteristic of Maoism is that it represents a peasant type of Marxism, with a principally rural and military outlook. While basing himself on Marxism-Leninism, adapted to Chinese requirements, Mao was rooted in the peasant life from which he himself came, in the revolts against the warlords and the bureaucrats that have filled the history of China. By integrating this experience into a universal vision of history, Mao gave it a significance that flows beyond the provincial limits of China.

In his effort to remain close to the Chinese peasant masses, Mao drew upon an idea of nature and a symbolism found in popular Chinese Taoism, though transformed by his Marxism. It can be seen in his many poems, which were written in the classical Chinese style. This idea of nature is accompanied in his written political works by the Promethean idea of man struggling in a war against nature, a conception in his thought that goes back at least to 1938 and became more important after 1955 as the rhythm of the revolution accelerated.

3.4.2 Marxism in Cuba.

The Marxism of Fidel Castro expresses itself as a rejection of injustice in any form--political, economic, or social. In this sense it is related to the liberal democracy and Pan-Americanism of Simón Bolívar in Latin America during the 19th century. In its liberalism, Castro's early socialism resembled the various French socialisms of the first half of the 19th century. Only gradually did Castroism come to identify itself with Marxism-Leninism, although from the very beginning of the Cuban revolution Castro revealed his attachment to certain of Marx's ideas. Castro's Marxism rejects some of the tenets and practices of official Marxism-Leninism: it is outspoken against dogmatism, bureaucracy, and sectarianism. In one sense, Castroism is a Marxist-Leninist "heresy." It exalts the ethos of guerrilla revolution over party politics. At the same time it aims to apply a purer Marxism to the conditions of Cuba: alleged American imperialism, a single-crop economy, a low initial level of political and economic development. One may call it an attempt to realize a synthesis of Marxist ideas and the ideas of Bolívar.

In the ideological and political conflicts that divide the communist world, Castroism takes a more or less unengaged position. Castro is above all a nationalist and only after that a Marxist.

3.4.3 Marxism in the Third World.

The development of Marxist variants in the Third World has been primarily influenced by the undeveloped industrial state and the former colonial status of the nations in question. In the traditional Marxist view the growth of capitalism is seen as a step necessary for the breakup of precapitalist peasant society and for the rise of the revolutionary proletariat class. Some theorists believe, however, that capitalism introduced by imperialist rather than indigenous powers sustains rather than destroys the feudal structure of peasant society and promotes underdevelopment because resources and surplus are usurped by the colonial powers. Furthermore, the revolutionary socialist movement becomes subordinate to that of national liberation, which violates Marx's theory of class struggle by uniting all indigenous classes in the common cause of anti-imperialism. For these reasons, many Third World countries have chosen to follow the Maoist model, with its emphasis on agrarian revolution against feudalism and imperialism, rather than the old Soviet one. Another alternative, one specific to the Third World, also exists. This policy bypasses capitalism and depends upon the established strength of other communist countries for support against imperialism.

3.4.4 Marxism in the West.

There are two main forms of Marxism in the West: that of the traditional communist parties and the more diffuse "New Left" form, which has come to be known as "Western Marxism." In general, the success of western European communist parties had been hindered by their perceived allegiance to the old Soviet authority rather than their own countries; the secretive, bureaucratic form of organization they inherited from Lenin; the ease with which they became integrated into capitalist society; and their consequent fear of compromising their principles by sharing power with bourgeois parties. The Western parties basically adhered to the policies of Soviet Marxism until the 1970s, when they began to advocate Eurocommunism, a moderate version of communism that they felt would broaden their base of appeal beyond the working class and thus improve their chances for political success. As described by Enrico Berlinguer, Georges Marchais, and Santiago Carrillo, the leaders of the Italian, French, and Spanish communist parties, respectively, Eurocommunism favoured a peaceful, democratic approach to achieving socialism, encouraged making alliances with other political parties, guaranteed civil liberties, and renounced the central authority of the Soviet party. By the 1980s Eurocommunism had largely been abandoned as unsuccessful, and communist parties in advanced capitalist nations returned to orthodox Marxism-Leninism despite the concomitant problems.

Western Marxism, however, can be seen as a repudiation of Marxism-Leninism, although, when it was first formulated in the 1920s, its proponents believed they were loyal to the dominant Soviet Communist Party. Prominent figures in the evolution of Western Marxism include the central Europeans György Lukács, Karl Korsch, and Lucien Goldmann; Antonio Gramsci of Italy; the German theorists who constituted the Frankfurt school, especially Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Jürgen Habermas; and Henri Lefebvre, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty of France.

Western Marxism has been shaped primarily by the failure of the socialist revolution in the Western world. Western Marxists were concerned less with the actual political or economic practice of Marxism than with its philosophical interpretation, especially in relation to cultural and historical studies. In order to explain the inarguable success of capitalist society, they felt they needed to explore and understand non-Marxist approaches and all aspects of bourgeois culture. Eventually, they came to believe that traditional Marxism was not relevant to the reality of modern Western society.

Marx had predicted that revolution would succeed in Europe first, but, in fact, the Third World has proved more responsive. Orthodox Marxism also championed the technological achievements associated with capitalism, viewing them as essential to the progress of socialism. Experience showed the Western Marxists, however, that technology did not necessarily produce the crises Marx described and did not lead inevitably to revolution. In particular they disagreed with the idea, originally emphasized by Engels, that Marxism is an integrated, scientific doctrine that can be applied universally to nature; they viewed it as a critique of human life, not an objective, general science. Disillusioned by the terrorism of the Stalin era and the bureaucracy of the Communist Party system, they advocated the idea of government by workers' councils, which they believed would eliminate professional politicians and would more truly represent the interests of the working class. Later, when the working class appeared to them to be too well integrated into the capitalist system, the Western Marxists supported more anarchistic tactics. In general, their views are more in accord with those found in Marx's early, humanist writings rather than with his later, dogmatic interpretations.

Western Marxism has found support primarily among intellectuals rather than the working class, and orthodox Marxists have judged it impractical. Nevertheless, the Western Marxists' emphasis on Marx's social theory and their critical assessment of Marxist methodology and ideas have coloured the way even non-Marxists view the world.

(H.C./ D.T.McL./Ed.)

마르크스 (Karl (Heinrich) Marx). 1818. 5. 5 프로이센 라인 트리어~1883. 3. 14 런던. 독일의 사회학자·경제학자·정치이론가. 

마르크스

'마르크스주의'(공산주의)의 창시자로서 프리드리히 엥겔스와 함께 〈공산당선언 Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei〉(1848)·〈자본론 Das Kapital〉(1867, 1885, 1894)을 집필했다.

초기생애

카를 하인리히 마르크스는 1818년 5월 5일 프로이센의 라인 주 트리어 시에서 7남매 중 첫째로 태어났다. 명망있는 변호사였던 아버지는 칸트와 볼테르의 계몽주의 사상에 심취해 있었고 아명이 헨리에타 프레스부르크였던 어머니는 네덜란드 출신이었다. 양친 모두 유대 혈통이었으나 아버지는 카를이 태어나기 1년 전쯤(아마도 현실적인 필요에서) 복음주의 국교회의 세례를 받았고, 카를 역시 6세가 되던 해에 세례를 받았다. 유대인이 감당해야 하는 사회적 편견과 차별은 어린 마르크스에게 종교의 역할에 대한 의구심과 사회개혁의 열망을 불러일으켰다.

1830년 카를 마르크스는 트리어 김나지움에 입학했다. 학교는 자유주의 교사와 학생들의 은신처가 되었고, 경찰의 감시가 끊이지 않았다. 청년 마르크스의 글 속에는 그리스도교적 봉사와 자기희생의 의지가 역력히 드러나 있었다. 1835년 10월 카를은 본대학교로부터 입학통지를 받았다. 그가 수강한 과목들은 그리스어와 로마 신화, 미술사와 같은 오로지 인문주의적인 것들이었다. 마르크스는 통상적인 학생활동에 참가했고 결투를 벌였으며 술에 취해 소란을 일으켜 감방에서 하루를 보낸 적도 있었다. 그의 생애를 통틀어 단 한번의 감금이었다. 마르크스는 술집모임을 주관했고 직접행동주의자들이 포함된 시인 클럽에 출입하기도 했다. 실로 반동적인 대학문화가 본 생활의 주류를 이루고 있었다. 국민의회(프랑크푸르트)를 거부했던 학생들이 검거되고 그 가운데 일부는 마르크스의 전생애 동안 추방당해 있었다. 1년 후 카를은 법률과 철학을 공부하기 위해 베를린으로 떠났다.

카를 마르크스가 베를린대학교를 휩쓸고 있던 헤겔철학과 만나 청년 헤겔 학파를 추종하게 된 사실은 매우 중대한 의미를 갖는다. 처음에 카를은 G.W. F. 헤겔에 대해 적대감을 느꼈으며, 그무렵 몸져 눕게 된 얼마간의 이유는 아버지에게 썼듯이 "혐오해온 견해를 숭배해야 하는 데서 오는 혼란스러움" 때문이었다. 그러나 베를린 혁명문화에서 헤겔이 차지하는 비중은 압도적인 것이었고 카를은 새로운 문예·철학 운동을 전개하고 있던 '박사 클럽'에 가입했다. 클럽의 중심인물은 젊은 신학강사 브루노 바우어였는데, 복음서는 실제역사의 기록이 아니라 감성적 필요에 기인하는 환상의 기록이며 예수 또한 역사상의 실존인물이 아니라는 획기적인 가설을 전개시키고 있었다. 카를 마르크스는 예언자 이사야에 대한 바우어의 강좌에 등록했다. 브루노 바우어는 새로운 사회적 파국, 즉 예수의 재림시에 닥칠 시련보다 더욱 무시무시한 파국이 다가오고 있다고 설파했다. 청년 헤겔 학파는 급속도로 무신론에 가까워지고 어렴풋이 정치적 행동들도 거론되기 시작했다.

청년 헤겔 학파에 잠재되어 있는 정부전복 분위기에 공포를 느낀 프로이센 정부는 이들에 대한 색출작업에 착수했고 1839년 브루노 바우어는 강사직을 박탈당했다. 이 시절 가장 절친한 친구로서 투옥생활을 하기도 했던 저널리스트 아돌프 루텐베르크는 마르크스에게 보다 능동적인 사회참여를 권유했다. 그 사이 그의 연구는 지체되고 있었고, 마르크스는 친구들의 재촉에 못이겨 예나대학교에 박사논문을 제출했다. 마르크스의 논문은 학문적인 면에서 별로 우수하지 않았던 것으로 알려졌으나 1841년 4월 박사학위를 취득하는 데 성공했다. 논문은 헤겔주의자의 관점에서 데모크리토스에피쿠로스자연철학의 차이점을 분석한 것이었지만, 분명한 것은 프로메테우스적인 도전의 소리를 내고 있었다는 점이다.

"철학은 비밀을 지니지 않는다. 프로메테우스의 '진실로 나는 모든 신들을 싫어한다'는 고백은 바로 철학 자신의 고백이며 모든 신들에 대항하는 철학의 신조이다…… 프로메테우스는 철학의 축일표에 있어서 가장 고귀한 성자이자 순교자이다."

1841년 출간된 루트비히 포이어바흐의 〈그리스도교의 본질 Das Wesen des Christentums〉은 마르크스와 청년 헤겔 학파에 커다란 영향을 미쳤다. 마르크스가 생각하기에 포이어바흐는, 자연에 발을 붙이고 사는 현실 인간으로부터 절대정신을 추출해낸 헤겔의 논리체계를 해부함으로써 그의 관념론적 이상주의를 효과적으로 비판할 수 있었다. 이후 마르크스의 철학적 노력은 모든 사물은 모순적인 국면의 충돌에 따라 지속적인 변화를 겪게 된다는 헤겔의 변증법과 물리적인 조건들을 관념의 상위에 두는 포이어바흐의 유물론을 결합시키는 방향으로 이루어지게 된다.

1842년 1월 마르크스는 쾰른에서 창간된 〈라인 신문 Rheinische Zeitung〉의 기고가가 되었다. 쾰른은 프로이센의 산업 중심지였고 신문사는 상인·은행가·산업가 들이 모여 만든 민주적이고 자유주의적인 기관이었다. 이즈음 언론의 자유에 관한 소논문 하나가 발표되는데, 그때까지만 해도 절대적인 도덕기준과 보편적인 윤리원칙을 당연한 것으로 받아들이고 있던 마르크스는 언론에 대한 당국의 검열을 민중을 염탐하고 비천하고 악의에 찬 속인들에게 신과 같은 권능을 부여하는 죄악으로 단정하고 있다. 1842년 10월 15일 카를 마르크스는 〈라인 신문〉의 주필이 되었고, 베를린 빈민의 주택문제로부터 농민들의 산림벌채와 새로운 공산주의 현상에 이르기까지 경제·사회 문제에 관한 수없이 많은 논설을 집필해야만 했다. 프리드리히 헤겔의 관념론은 이러한 현실과제의 해결에 별다른 도움이 되지 못했고, 카를은 부르주아 계급에 충격을 가하는 것만으로 사회활동이 충분히 이루어졌다고 믿는 헤겔파 동료들로부터 멀어지게 되었다.

법규범의 한계 내에서 점진적인 변혁을 추진하는 실천적 자유주의자들을 가까이했던 마르크스는 〈라인 신문〉의 발행부수를 3배로 늘리고 프로이센의 주요일간지로 부각시키는 데 성공했다. 그러나 솔직하고 자유분방한 논조를 문제삼은 정부당국은 신문을 정간시켰고, 마르크스는 〈독일-프랑스 연보 Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher〉를 발간하자는 자유 헤겔파 아르놀트 루게의 제의를 받아들인 뒤 파리로 향했다.

카를 마르크스는 약혼한 지 7년이 지난 1843년 6월 4세 연상인 예니 폰 베스트팔렌과 결혼했다. 지성과 매력을 겸비한 예니는 뛰어난 군인과 행정관들을 배출해낸 명문가의 딸로서 그녀의 이복형제는 훗날 프로이센의 내무장관에 오르게 된다. 생 시몽의 추종자였던 예니의 아버지는 카를을 좋아하여 가족들의 반대에도 불구하고 결혼을 성사시켰으나, 정작 카를의 아버지 하인리히는 그녀가 악령에 사로잡힌 아들의 제물이 되지나 않을까 걱정스러워했다.

마르크스가 파리로 이주한 것은 결혼 후 4년이 되던 해였다. 당시의 파리는 사회주의 세력과 보다 급진적인 공산주의 혁명운동이 꽃을 피우고 있었다. 혁명가가 된 마르크스는 프랑스·독일 노동자들의 공산주의 조직들과 실제적인 관련을 맺기 시작했다. 그들의 사상은 너무나도 조잡하고 무지한 것이었지만 그들의 인성은 그를 감동시키기에 충분했다. 〈 1844년의 경제학-철학 초고 Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844〉에서 카를 마르크스는 "형제애는 그들에게 있어서 단순한 구호만이 아니고 삶의 진실이다. 노동으로 단련된 그들의 육체는 우리에게 인간의 고귀함을 일깨워준다"라고 쓰고 있다. 〈1844년의 경제학-철학 초고〉는 이후 100년 동안 빛을 발하지 못했지만 마르크스 역사·경제 이론의 바탕을 이루는 휴머니즘이 설명되고 있는 점에서 가치를 잃지 않고 있다.

단명으로 끝난 〈독일-프랑스 연보〉가 해마다 출판을 거듭하는 사이에 마르크스와 기고가였던 프리드리히 엥겔스와의 관계는 급속도로 발전되었다. 〈독일-프랑스연보〉에 실린 〈우익 헤겔파 철학 비판〉에는 "종교는 민중의 아편"이라는 유명한 문구와 함께 철학의 실현을 위한 '프롤레타리아 봉기'가 제창되고 있다. 프로이센 정부는 다시 한번 카를 마르크스의 제재에 나섰고 1845년 2월 카를은 파리를 떠나 브뤼셀로 향했다. 카를은 벨기에에서 엥겔스와 회동한 뒤 프로이센 국적을 포기했다.

브뤼셀 시대

브뤼셀에서의 다음 2년간은 마르크스와 엥겔스의 공동작업이 심화되던 시기였다. 엥겔스는 아버지의 직물공장이 위치해 있던 맨체스터에서 산업혁명의 암울한 현실들을 처음 접했다. 청년 헤겔 학파에 속했던 그는 공산주의 랍비라 불렸던 모제스 헤스의 영향을 받아 공산주의자가 되었으며 영국에서는 로버트 오언의 추종자들과 교류했다. 이제 그들 사이의 공통된 견해를 확인한 마르크스와 엥겔스는 두 사람의 지적 자원을 결합시켜 신학자 브루노 바우어의 헤겔주의적 관념론에 대한 장문의 비평 〈신성가족 Die heilige Familie〉(1845)을 펴냈다. 그들의 다음 저서 〈독일 이데올로기 Die deutsche Ideologie〉는 역사의 각 단계에서 지배계급이 자신의 경제적 이익을 도모하기 위해 사회공동체를 구조화한 방식들을 규명함으로써 역사적 유물론을 처음으로 완전하게 제시하고 있지만, 어떤 출판업자도 선뜻 나서지 않아 두 사람의 일생 내내 빛을 보지 못했다. 마르크스는 주요 노동운동지도자들과의 대결을 통해 자신의 공산주의 사상을 확립시켜나갔다. 1846년 그는 빌헬름 바이틀링의 도덕주의적 태도를 혹평하면서 프롤레타리아트는 부르주아 사회를 뛰어넘어 공산주의 단계로 곧장 비약할 수 없으며, 노동운동은 윤리적 구호가 아니라 과학적인 근거를 필요로 한다고 역설했다.

〈철학의 빈곤 Das Elend der Philosophie〉(1847)은 피에르 조제프 프루동의 〈빈곤의 철학 Philosophie de la misère〉(1846)을 논박한 것이었다. 프루동이 경제체제의 대립개념들로부터 단점을 지양하고 장점을 되살리려 노력했던 반면, 마르크스는 계급투쟁에 상호 충족적 타결점은 있을 수 없으며 사회공동체의 구조는 생산력과 생산관계에 의해 결정되는 역사의 일시적인 현상일 뿐이라고 반박했다. 맷돌은 봉건영주의 지배를, 증기기관은 산업자본가의 지배를 이끌어냈다는 설명이었다. 프루동의 추론양식은 역사의 기본법칙을 파악하는 데 실패한 소부르주아적 사회인식으로 여겨졌다.

사건들의 기이한 전후관계가 〈공산당선언〉을 탄생시켰다. 1847년 6월 독일계 이민 수공업자들로 구성된 '의인동맹'(義人同盟)이 런던에서 회합을 갖고 정치적 강령 채택을 결의했다. 카를 마르크스는 이들로부터 참여의 요청을 받았고 숙고 끝에 동료 엥겔스와 동맹에 가입했다. 의인동맹은 '공산주의자 동맹'으로 명칭을 변경한 뒤 민주적 헌장을 제정했다. 정강 작성을 위임받은 마르크스와 엥겔스는 1847년 12월 중순부터 1848년 1월까지 정강의 초안작업에 몰두했다. 〈공산당선언〉은 "지금까지의 모든 역사는 계급투쟁의 역사이다"라는 명제를 통해 〈독일 이데올로기〉에서 정립된 유물사관을 요약하고 계급사회는 프롤레타리아트의 승리에 따라 역사에서 자취를 감추게 될 것이라고 주장했다. 선언은 '소외'류의 박약한 추론에 근거한 모든 사회주의 형태를 비판하고 유토피아 사회를 지향한 공동체적 실험들을 계급투쟁을 무마시키는 '반동적 분파'로 간주해 단호히 거부했으며 누진과세, 상속의 폐지로부터 아동의 무상교육에 이르기까지 공산주의 사회로 나아가는 첫 단계로서 10개의 즉각적인 조치를 제시했다. 〈공산당선언〉은 "프롤레타리아가 잃을 것은 속박의 사슬밖에는 없다. 그들은 세계를 얻을 것이다. 만국의 노동자여 단결하라"는 말로 끝을 맺는다.

1848년초의 몇 개월 동안 프랑스·이탈리아·오스트리아에서 돌연히 혁명이 촉발되었다. 마르크스는 임시정부의 초청을 받아 파리로 떠났는데 벨기에 당국으로부터 추방령이 내려지기 전의 시기적절한 것이었다. 그러나 독일의 망명자들은 무력으로 조국을 해방시키자는 게오르크 헤르베크의 선동에 반대한 마르크스로부터 멀어져갔다. 오스트리아와 독일에서 혁명이 가열되고 있을 때 카를 마르크스는 라인란트로 되돌아왔다. 쾰른에서 그는 노동자계급이 민주적 부르주아지와 연합을 이루어야 한다고 주장했다. 그는 노동자동맹 지도자들의 프롤레타리아 혁명노선에 제동을 가하고 노동자계급은 프랑크푸르트 의회에 대표를 파견하지 말아야 할 것이라고 역설했다. 마르크스의 견해는 〈공산당선언〉이 유보되어야 하며 공산주의자 동맹은 해체되어야 한다는 프리드리히 엥겔스의 견해와 일치했다. 1849년 6월 카를 마르크스는 새로이 창간된 〈신(新)라인 신문 Neue Rheinische Zeitung〉을 통해 입헌적 민주주의와 러시아와의 개전을 촉구했다. 마르크스는 노동자동맹의 급진파 지도자 안드레아스 고트샬크가 체포되었을 때 그를 대신해 라인란트 민주의회를 창설했으며(1848. 8), 국왕이 베를린의 프로이센 의회를 해산시키자 지하저항운동을 돕기 위해 무기와 병력을 끌어모았다.

자유주의적 부르주아들은 〈신라인 신문〉에 대한 후원을 중단했고 카를 자신은 납세거부의 조장을 비롯한 여러 혐의를 받아 기소되었다. 법정에서 마르크스는 프로이센 왕이 불법적인 반혁명운동에 관여했다는 요지로 자신을 변호했으며 배심원단은 호의를 가지고 만장일치로 그를 방면시켰다. 그러나 최후의 희망 없는 싸움이 바덴과 드레스덴에서 타올랐고, 1849년 5월 16일 카를 마르크스에게 추방령이 내려졌다. 붉게 인쇄된 〈신라인 신문〉의 폐간호는 센세이션을 불러일으켰다.

초기 런던 시대

파리로부터 다시 한번 추방된 마르크스는 1847년 8월 런던으로 향했고 런던은 그의 마지막 정착지가 되었다. 마르크스는 자유주의적 부르주아와 제휴하려는 자신의 계획이 무위로 돌아간 것을 못내 아쉬워하면서 재차 런던의 공산주의자 동맹에 합류했고, 약 1년 동안 보다 대담한 혁명정책을 추진하게 된다. 그는 경제적인 위기가 곧 혁명운동을 소생시키리라고 기대했으나 이러한 기대가 시들어지자 스스로 '혁명의 연금술사'라고 불렀던 사람들, 즉 직접행동을 통해 혁명의 도래를 앞당길 것을 주장했던 아우구스트 폰 빌리히와 같은 공산주의자들과 다시 한번 대치하게 되었다. 마르크스는 1850년 9월 이들이 유물론을 이상주의로 대체했다고 비판하면서 다음과 같이 기술했다.

"그들은 실제적인 조건들을 도외시한 채 순수의지를 혁명의 원동력으로 간주한다. 우리가 노동자들에게 '여러분들은 단순히 여러분들의 여건을 개선시키기 위해서가 아니라 스스로를 변화시키고 정치적 권력을 분담하기 위해 수십 년 간의 내란과 국제전쟁을 겪어야 한다'고 말하는 반면 그들은 이와 대조적으로 '우리는 즉시 권력을 쟁취해야 한다'고 부추기고 있다."

급진주의자들은 마르크스가 노동자 교육동맹의 정치경제학 강사가 되기를 자처했다며 그를 비꼬았고, 마르크스의 공산주의자 모임 출석 횟수는 점차 줄어들었다. 1852년에 카를 마르크스는 쾰른에서 정부전복 혐의로 체포된 11명의 공산주의자들을 변호하는 데 혼신의 힘을 기울였으며 이를 위하여 팜플렛을 작성하 기도 했다. 〈루이 보나파르트의 브뤼메르 18일 Der Achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte〉이 씌어진 것도 이무렵인데 여기서 그는 농민계급의 지지를 바탕으로 관료주의적 절대국가가 형성되는 과정을 날카롭게 분석하고 있다. 이후의 12년간은 마르크스의 표현에 따르자면 두 사람에게 '고립'의 시간이 되었다. 1850~64년 마르크스는 물질적인 궁핍과 정신적인 고통 속에서 살았다. 재원은 고갈되고 단 한번을 빼고는 수입이 있는 직업을 가지지 못했다. 1850년 3월 카를과 예니, 그리고 4명의 자녀들에게 강제퇴거명령이 내려졌고 자산은 압류되었다. 자녀들 중 몇몇은 죽었다. 그중에는 그가 '부르주아 사회의 희생자'라고 이야기한 아들 귀도와 딸 프란치스카가 포함되어 있었다. 예니는 아이들의 관을 살 돈을 마련하려고 거의 미친 듯이 뛰어다녔다. 6년을 대부분 빵과 감자로 연명하며 가족은 소호의 방 2칸에서 삶을 꾸려나갔고, 아이들은 몰려온 채권자들에게 "마르크스 선생님은 2층에 계시지 않아요"라는 거짓말을 해야만 했다. 빚쟁이들을 피해 카를은 맨체스터로 도망해야 했고 아내 예니는 신경쇠약에 시달렸다. 이러한 역경의 시간을 통해 엥겔스는 재정적인 후원을 아끼지 않았다. 처음에는 맨체스터 소재 어먼앤드엥겔스사(社)의 평사무원에 불과했으므로 돈의 액수가 많지 않았지만 1864년 그가 동업자가 되었을 때는 지원금의 규모도 커졌다. 마르크스는 엥겔스와의 우정을 자랑으로 여겼고 그에 대한 어떠한 비판도 용납하지 않았다. 아내의 친지들과 친구 빌헬름 볼프의 유산으로 마르크스의 경제적 고통은 크게 경감되었다.

마르크스는 미국에 비교적 지속적인 수입원을 가지고 있었는데, 푸리에주의에 공감하고 있던 〈뉴욕 트리뷴 The New York Tribune〉의 유럽 통신원이 된 것이었다. 1851~62년 카를은 500편에 가까운 기사와 논설들을 기고하면서(그중 1/4은 엥겔스 제공) 인도와 중국, 영국과 스페인의 사회운동과 소요들을 분석·검토했다. 1859년 마르크스는 경제이론에 관한 최초의 저술인 〈정치경제학 비판 Zur Kritik der politischen Okonomie〉을 완성했다. 〈정치경제학 비판〉의 서문에는 유물사관에 도달하게 된 논리과정이 상세하게 설명되어 있다. "물질적인 생산양식은 삶의 사회적·정치적·정신적 차원들을 결정한다. 인간의 의식이 그들의 존재를 규정짓는 것이 아니라 반대로 그들의 사회적 생활이 의식을 좌우한다."

카를은 대영박물관에서 경제·사회사 연구에 몰두하는 것을 주요일과로 삼았으며 독일의 새로운 노동운동에 동참해달라는 페르디난트 라살의 권유를 거부했다. 라살은 혼자서 '전(全)독일 노동자동맹'의 결성에 착수했다.

제1인터내셔널

1864년 제1인터내셔널(국제노동자협회)의 창설과 더불어 마르크스의 정치적 고립도 끝이 났다. 그는 인터내셔널의 창설자도 회장도 아니었지만 곧 협회의 정신적인 지주가 되었다. 최초의 공식회의는 1864년 9월 28일 런던의 세인트 마틴 홀에서 영국 노동조합의 지도자들과 프랑스 노동자 대표들에 의해 소집되었다. 프랑스의 중개인을 통해 독일 대표 자격으로 초청되었던 마르크스는 침묵을 지키며 연단에 자리하고 있었다. 강령과 헌장을 채택하기 위한 위원회가 설치되고 만족스럽지 못한 많은 초안들이 제출된 후 분과위원회에 몸담고 있던 마르크스는 풍부한 언론계의 경험을 바탕으로 강령과 헌장을 기초했다. 국제노동자협회의 임시규칙은 그의 다른 저술들과는 달리 계급간의 제휴정책과 의회입법의 긍정적인 측면을 강조했다. 영국의 프롤레타리아트는 점진적인 노력을 통해 국가적 차원의 정치권력을 획득하게 될 것이라고 내다보았다. 협회의 활동은 1주일에도 몇 번씩 회합이 이루어지는 등 크게 활성화되었고, 마르크스는 총회의 회원이자 독일 지역의 통신간사로서 다양한 파벌과 경향들의 화합을 이루어내는 보기 드문 자질을 발휘했다. 날로 높아져가는 명성과 함께 1869년 제1인터내셔널의 규모는 약 80만 회원으로 확장되었고 각 지역 노동조합을 위한 분규조정에 관여함으로써 상당한 성공을 거두기도 했다.

파리 코뮌은 카를 마르크스를 국제적인 인물로 만든 사건이었다. 1870년 프랑스-프로이센 전쟁이 발발하자 독일 의회의 사회주의 세력은 전쟁공채안 투표를 거부했다. 처음에 제1인터내셔널 공동이사회는 프랑스-프로이센 전쟁을 독일의 방어전쟁으로 규정했으나 파리가 함락된 후 독일의 배상요구가 지나친 수준에 이르자 분위기는 반전되었다. 파리에서 폭동이 일어나고 코뮌이 선포되었을 때 전폭적인 지지를 표명했던 마르크스는 이듬해 5월 30일 코뮌이 분쇄되자 '프랑스 내전'이라는 제명으로 성명서를 발표한다.

"역사는 이토록 위대한 것에 필적할 만한 사례를 가지고 있지 않다…… 파리 코뮌의 순교자들은 프롤레타리아의 가슴 속에 영원히 살아 있을 것이다."

엥겔스는 파리 코뮌을 인류 최초의 '프롤레타리아 독재'로 평가했으며 마르크스의 이름은 파리 코뮌의 혁명정신과 동의어가 되었다.

파리 코뮌은 국제노동자협회의 내부갈등을 증폭시켜 결국 붕괴를 초래하는 계기로 작용했다. 공동이사회 의장을 지냈던 노동조합주의자 조지 오저는 코뮌에 갈채를 보낸 마르크스의 처신을 불만스러워했고 1867년의 선거법 개정안으로 정치참여의 폭이 넓어진 영국의 노동조합들은 자유당과의 협력을 통해 실질적인 성과를 얻어내기를 희망했다. 노동조합 지도자들은 마르크스의 능변을 거추장스러운 걸림돌로 생각했고 자유주의자들에게 매수되었다는 그의 비난에 대해 분개했다.

제1인터내셔널 내 좌파의 도전은 러시아의 무정부주의자 미하일 알렉산드로비치 바쿠닌의 주도하에 이루어졌다 (→ 색인 : 바쿠닌). 시베리아 유형과 숱한 감옥생활을 경험한 혁명가로서 '노호하는 폭풍우와 사자의 포효'로 비유되는 웅변의 대가이기도 했던 바쿠닌은 뭇사람들을 사로잡을 만한 매력을 가진 인물이었다. 바쿠닌은 마르크스의 지성에 찬사를 보내기는 했으나 마르크스가 자신을 러시아 스파이로 매도했던 사실을 잊을 수는 없었다. 그가 보기에 카를 마르크스는 독일의 권위주의자이자 인터내셔널 총회를 노동자 지배를 위한 개인의 터전으로 탈바꿈시키려는 교만한 유대인이었다. 그는 인터내셔널의 중앙집권화를 비롯한 마르크스의 여러 이론에 반발했고 프롤레타리아트는 기존 의회제도 내에서 하나의 정당으로 기능해야 하며 일단 부르주아 국가가 전복된 다음에 프롤레타리아트 자신의 정권을 수립해야 한다는 신념에도 부정적이었다.

바쿠닌은 혁명가들의 임무는 '파괴'에 있다고 생각했다. 그는 선진산업국가의 나약한 노동자들보다 러시아 농민의 제어하기 힘든 혁명적 본능에 기대를 걸고 있었다. 학생들이 혁명의 중추세력이 되기를 희망했던 그는 이탈리아·스위스·프랑스에서 청년 지성인들의 많은 호응을 얻었고 비밀결사인 '국제사회민주주의동맹'을 조직했다. 사회민주주의동맹은 1869년 스위스 바젤에서 제1차 국제노동자협회가 개최되었을 때 공동이사회의 지배권에 도전장을 냈지만 이들의 가입을 사전 저지시키려는 마르크스의 손이 조금 더 빨랐다. 바쿠닌주의자들에게 파리 코뮌은 혁명적 직접행동의 본보기와 같았고 카를 마르크스의 권위주의적 공산주의를 반박할 수 있는 호기를 제공하기도 했다. 미하일 바쿠닌은 인터내셔널 내부에 자신의 조직을 구축해 마르크스와 공동이사회를 공격하기 시작했고 마르크스의 편에서는 바쿠닌이 협박과 살인을 일삼아온 러시아의 학생 혁명가 세르게이 네차예프와 연루되어 있다는 사실을 공표했다.

별다른 지지 기반도 없이 무정부주의 좌파에 대항해 선 마르크스는 바쿠닌에게 인터내셔널의 주도권을 빼앗기게 되지나 않을까 두려워했다. 한편으로는 자신의 연구로 되돌아가 〈자본론〉의 집필을 마무리하고 싶은 생각도 간절했다. 1872년 네덜란드 헤이그에서 최초로 인터내셔널 전체회의에 참석한 마르크스는 바쿠닌주의자들을 패배시키는 데 성공했으며 엥겔스는 이와 보조를 맞추어 공동이사회를 런던에서 뉴욕으로 이전시키자는 의견을 제시했다. 바쿠닌의 추종자들은 축출되었으나 제1인터내셔널의 영향력은 기울어갔고 1876년 필라델피아에서 마침내 해체되기에 이른다.

제1인터내셔널 이후의 마지막 10년 동안 마르크스의 창작능력은 급격히 감소되었다. 그는 스스로 고백했듯이 만성적인 정신의 침체에 사로잡혔고 내면화된 관심은 가족들에게 향했다. 여전히 독서량이 많았고 러시아어 학습에 착수하기도 했지만 실질적으로 어떠한 작업도 이루어내지 못했다. 마르크스의 정치적 견해는 그 변덕스러움으로 인해 종잡을 수가 없게 되었다. 심지어 그는 소년노동의 폐지를 반대하기까지 했다. 1875년 마르크스주의자들과 독일의 라살파가 독일 사회민주당을 창설하기 위해 고타에서 회동했다. 페르디난트 라살은 사회주의의 이상이 기존체제와의 협력 속에서 달성될 수 있다고 믿었던 인물이었다. 마르크스는 〈고타 강령 비판 Kritik des Gothaer Programms〉을 통해 사회민주당 강령의 지나친 현실타협성을 논박했고 독일 지도자들은 그의 분노를 가라앉히기 위해 열과 성을 다했다.

점차로 마르크스는 유럽에서 전쟁이 일어나 보수 반동주의의 마지막 보루인 차르 체제를 타도하기를 바랐다. 이 전쟁으로 노동자 계급의 혁명적 에너지가 다시 소생될지도 모른다는 막연한 기대감에서였다. 1881년 차르 알렉산드르 2세가 암살되자 마르크스는 러시아 나로드니키의 사심없는 용기에 깊은 감명을 받았다. 테러는 마르크스에게 '상황적으로 불가피한 수단의 하나'로 여겨졌다. 비록 현실정치에서 한 걸음 물러선 것은 사실이었지만 마르크스는 엥겔스가 말했던 것처럼 사회주의적 노동운동에 대해 여전히 '독특한 영향력'을 행사하고 있었다. 1879년 쥘 게드가 프랑스 사회주의 노동자연맹의 창설에 즈음하여 런던을 방문, 마르크스로부터 강령의 전문과 내용에 관한 자문을 얻어갔다. 1881년에는 〈잉글랜드 포 올 England for All〉지(誌)의 헨리 메이어스 하인드먼이 마르크스와의 대담을 비중있게 다루었지만 그의 이름을 밝히기를 꺼려하여 노여움을 샀다. 말년의 마르크스는 대부분의 시간을 휴양지에서 보냈고 알제리까지 여행을 떠나기도 했다. 카를은 아내(1881.12.2)와 장녀 예니 롱구에트(1883.1.11)의 죽음으로 비탄에 젖어 살다가 1883년 3월 영국의 런던에서 폐종양으로 사망했다.

평가

하이게이트 프라이호프의 장례식에서 엥겔스는 마르크스가 '인류역사 발전의 법칙'과 '자본주의 사회운동의 법칙'을 발견해냈다고 선언했다. "무엇보다 카를 마르크스는 위대한 혁명가였다. 증오의 대상이 되어 극단적인 비방과 모략에 시달렸던 그는 이제 수백만 노동자들의 사랑과 존경, 애도 속에서 눈을 감는다."

마르크스에게는 프로메테우스적인 반항과 무력한 지성이 복합되어 있었다. 마르크스는 주위 사람들에게 지적 교만함의 인상을 전해주었다. 1846년 러시아의 작가 파벨 안넨코프는 토론에 참여한 마르크스를 관찰한 뒤 이렇게 회상했다. "그의 말투는 항상 명령조에 가까웠고 반론을 용인하는 법이 없었다. 그는 마치 환상 속에서나 나타날 수 있는 민주적 독재자와 같았다." 마르크스는 다수의 청중 앞에 나서는 것에 불편함을 느꼈고 파벌논쟁의 분위기를 좋아하지 않았다. 아내 예니 역시 그가 시위에 참여하지 않았으며 공공회의 석상에서 거의 이야기를 하지 않았다고 밝히고 있다. 그는 인터내셔널의 공동이사회나 신문사 간부모임과 같은 소규모 분위기를 가장 편안하게 느꼈다. 그의 성격은 소집단의 동료들에게 강력한 힘을 발휘할 수 있었다. 동시에 마르크스는 대등한 위치에서 경제학과 사회학의 여러 문제들을 논의할 수 있는 명망있는 학자들과의 회합을 기피했다. 자신의 넓은 식견에도 불구하고 마르크스는 영국의 외무장관 파머스턴 경이 러시아 정부의 첩자라는 식의 강박관념에 사로잡혀 있었다. 그는 부르주아 사회가 자신을 '돈 만드는 기계'로 전락시키지 못하게 하겠다고 결심하면서도 엥겔스의 증여와 친척들의 여러 유산에 생계를 의존했다.

마르크스는 예수가 어린이들을 사랑했기 때문에 예수를 찬양한다고 말할 정도로 애정이 넘치는 아버지였지만 자신의 생활이나 건강을 돌보지 않았다. 그는 '투쟁'을 삶과 존재의 법칙으로 간주했으며 언어의 습득조차도 삶의 투쟁에서 새로운 무기를 획득하는 일이라고 생각할 정도였다. 개인적인 습성이나 생활방식에 있어서 마르크스는 영원한 학생이었다. 마르크스는 두 친구와 함께 거리의 가로등을 깨부수고 경찰이 몰려오자 꽁무니를 빼는 어리광스러운 장난을 하기도 했다. 그는 대단한 소설광으로서 특히 월터 스콧 경과 발자크에 탐닉했고 가족은 모두 셰익스피어의 예찬론자들이었다. 마르크스와 예니 사이에는 7명의 자녀가 있었으나 세 딸만 남고 나머지는 유년기에 잃고 말았다. 가장 총애했던 엘레아노르는 신경질적이고 감성적인 성격을 지녔으며 여배우가 되려는 소망으로 인해 그를 근심하게 했다. 또다른 그림자가 마르크스의 가정생활을 어둡게 만들었는데 하녀 헬레네 데무트가 프리드리히라는 사생아를 출산했기 때문이었다. 엥겔스는 자신의 임종시에 마르크스가 프리드리히의 아버지임을 엘레아노르에게 일러주었다.

국제노동자협회의 결의서에 '노동계급의 성서'라고 공식 기술된 바 있는 〈자본론〉은 1867년 베를린에서 출판되었고 1873년 재판되었다. 오직 첫 권만이 생존시에 완성되었고 제2권과 제3권은 엥겔스의 편집에 의해 1885년과 1894년 출간되었으며, 처음 제4권으로 구상되었던 부분은 1905~10년 〈잉여가치학설사〉라는 독립된 형태로 카를 카우츠키에 의해 출간되었다. 카를 마르크스는 데이비드 리카도의 고전 경제학을 부르주아 사회는 모든 사회적 유기체와 마찬가지로 불가피한 발전의 경로를 거쳐야 한다는 유물변증법과 결합시켰다. 마르크스가 〈자본론〉을 준비하면서 수행했던 작업이 얼마나 광범위했는가를 알려면 먼저 많은 양의 유고(遺稿)와 수고(手稿), 방주(傍註), 서신교환 등을 조사해보아야 한다. 그의 분석대상은 자본주의 생산과정의 본질, 자본의 유통과정, 자본의 총과정, 인간과 자연의 물질대사, 이데올로기 비판, 인간상, 잉여가치론과 그 역사에까지 이르렀다. 뿐만 아니라 그는 사회학·기술·공학적 문제들을 연구했고 수학 및 자연과학을 연구했으며 역사적 과정과 농업경제를 분석했는가 하면, 헤겔의 〈논리학 Wissenschaft der Logik〉에 특별히 주목하기도 했다. 마르크스는 자본주의 사회의 법칙성에 관한 연구를 자연사적(自然史的) 과정이라는 성격을 갖는 사회구성체 발전이론으로 총괄했으며 경제적 토대, 이데올로기적 상부구조, 생산력, 생산관계 등 사회구성체의 생산관계를 밝히고 사회구성체의 여러 요소들 사이의 상호관계를 탐구했다.

〈자본론〉은 이윤의 감소율과 같은 자본주의의 내재적 모순들이 현저해짐에 따라 자본주의는 사라지고 더 나은 사회로의 이행이 이루어질 것이라고 예언한다. 기억할 만한 〈자본론〉의 내용 가운데 영국 의회의 청서(靑書)에서 발췌한 것으로 노동계급의 비참한 생활을 서술한 페이지들이 있다. 마르크스는 이 비참함이 증가되고 동시에 자본의 독점이 생산에 대하여 착취로 작용하는 가운데 마침내 부르주아 사유재산의 조종(弔鐘)이 울리게 되고 착취자가 피착취자로 전락하게 되리라고 믿었다. 그는 계급과 계급투쟁의 존재를 자신이 발견한 것이라고 주장하지는 않고 부르주아 역사가들이 자기보다 훨씬 이전에 이 문제들을 다루어왔음을 인정했다. 그러나 그는 생산발전의 각 단계는 이에 상응하는 계급구조와 연관이 있다는 것과 계급투쟁은 필연적으로 프롤레타리아트의 독재를 낳아 무계급 사회의 도래가 실현될 것임을 주장했다. 어떻게 그가 이러한 주제들에 관한 몇몇 단락들을 학문적 표준에 의해 이루어진 핵심적인 증거로 간주하게 되었는가를 이해하기란 쉽지 않은 일이다.

끊임없이 완성되어가는 혁명과정 속에서 마르크스와 엥겔스는 프롤레타리아트의 유능한 지도자와 이론가를 한 세대에 걸쳐 길러냈다. 베벨, 빌헬름 리프크네히트, 라 파르그, 메링, 카우츠키 등이 그러한 인물들이다. 마르크스는 프롤레타리아트에게 그들의 처지와 욕구를 과학적으로 인식할 수 있게 해주었다. 노동자 계급의 역사적 사명을 실현하는 데 협력하는 것, 이것이 그의 진정한 필생의 직무였다. 그의 철학은 결코 자기목적이 아니었고 항상 사회를 인식하고 변혁하는 무기였다. 그것은 경제생활과 정치적 계급투쟁, 과학과 기술의 혁명, 그리고 인민의 문화적·정치적 발전 등과의 결합에서 얻어진 것이었다. 마르크스의 철학은 거의 150년에 걸친 역사 속에서 생명력을 입증했으며 혁명적 노동운동과 실재하는 사회주의 속에서 실현되었다. 그것은 사회주의 사회의 이론적·실천적 문제해결과정 속에 지양되어 있다. 그것은 블라디미르 일리치 레닌에 의해 더욱 발전되었으며 공산당과 노동자당의 정치에 있어서 이론적 토대를 형성했다.

사회학 이론에 있어 마르크스의 가장 지대한 공헌은 그의 일반적 분석양식, 즉 '변증법적인' 양식에 있다. 이 양식은 모든 사회체계가 내재적 모순(불안정)을 발생시키며 이 모순은 새로운 사회의 등장에 의해서만 해결될 수 있다고 간주한다. 카를 마르크스의 분석양식은 토머스 맬서스, 허버트 스펜서, 빌프레도 파레토의 양식과 더불어 사회과학의 대표적인 이론구조의 하나로 정립되었고, 더이상 〈자본론〉의 경제학적 추론을 받아들이지 않는 신마르크스주의자들도 자본주의 사회체제의 분석에 있어서는 마르크스의 분석양식에 의존하고 있다. 그의 사고양식을 거부해온 학자들로는 경험주의 철학 계통의 버트런드 러셀, 존 듀이, 그리고 카를 포퍼가 있다.→ 공산주의

L. S. Feuer 글

 

마르크스주의 (── 主義, Marxism)

19세기 중반 카를 마르크스와 프리드리히 엥겔스가 발전시킨 일단의 학설체계.

인간학, 역사철학, 정치·경제 이론의 3부분이 상호연관을 맺고 있다. 이들을 결합시켜 일관된 논리체계를 형성하려는 마르크스의 노력에도 불구하고 말년, 특히 사후에 내려진 다양한 해석과 소련의 공식 이데올로기로서 채택된(1917) 이후의 정치적 요청으로 말미암아 많은 타협과 절충이 이루어졌다. 오늘날 '마르크스주의'는 공산주의·사회주의 제정당의 이념과 마르크스의 영향을 받은 여러 사상가들의 정치·사회·경제 이론을 포괄하게 되었다.

마르크스주의는 인간의 창조력에서 인간만이 가지는 고유한 특성을 발견한다. 창조력이란 필요의 충족을 위해 자연이라는 대상에 쏟는 인간의 노력과 노동력이며, 여기서 노동은 개인적인 것이 아니라 인류라고 하는 하나의 종(種)을 위한 노력이다. 인간의 통제범위를 벗어나기도 하는 복잡다단한 역사적 사건들로 인해 이와 같은 이상은 아직 실현되지 못하고 있다. 예컨대 자본주의 체제에서는 창조적인 에너지 혹은 노동력을 투여하는 개인군(프롤레타리아트)과 임금을 주고 이 노동의 산물을 도용하는 계급(부르주아지)이 따로 존재하며, 이는 프롤레타리아트에 의해 창조된 세계가 실제로 노동에 참여하지 않은 자본가 계급에 의해 소유되고 있음을 의미한다. 카를 마르크스는 이러한 현실의 모순을 ' 소외'라는 말로 표현했다. 노동자 계급이 노동의 결실을 회복하게 되는 그날이 도래할 때, 소외는 극복되고 모든 계급의 구분들은 사라지게 될 것이다.

계급투쟁과 계급 없는 사회의 이념은 마르크스 이전에 이미 제창되고 있었다. 공동체 내의 경제적 이해관계가 갈등을 유발한다는 착상은 멀리 투키디데스의 저작에까지 소급되며, 기존 경제체제의 비판 위에 계급없는 이상사회를 건설하려는 갖가지 사상들이 19세기의 첫 10년 동안 꽃을 피웠다. 카를 마르크스는 이 2가지 이념을 색다른 방식으로 결합시켰다. 공상적 사회주의자들의 과제는 자신이 생각하는 유토피아가 어떠한 것인가에 있는 것이 아니라 그것에 도달하는 방법을 제시하는 데 있었다. 마르크스는 계급투쟁을 역사의 추진력으로 간주한 뒤 인류의 역사는 계급 없는 사회의 출현으로 정점에 오를 것이라고 내다보았다. "지금까지의 역사는 계급투쟁의 역사이다"라고 시작되는 〈공산당선언 Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei〉의 첫 구절은 마르크스 역사관의 가장 강력한 표현이었다. 마르크스와 엥겔스에게 모든 역사는 착취계급과 피착취계급 사이의 투쟁의 연속으로 비쳤다. 역사는 전쟁·발견·발명·조약·음모 등으로 전개된다는 것이 종전의 견해였다면 마르크스는 이들이 밖으로 드러나는 허상에 불과하다고 단언했다. 마르크스에게 역사의 동인은 인간의 의·식·주 문제를 해결하는 '생산수단'의 발전에 있었다.

인간이 생존하기 위해서는 물질에의 의존이 불가피하다는 것이 마르크스가 제창한 ' 역사적 유물론'의 핵심이었다. 물질적인 생활을 유지하기 위해 인간은 생산수단이라는 일단의 관계를 통해 자연과 교류해야만 한다. 인류는 역사의 매단계마다 독특한 생산수단을 발전시켜왔다. 14세기의 자본가 계급이란 상상할 수 없으며, 20세기의 봉건영주란 존재하지 않는다. 역사는 변증법의 원리에 따라 스스로 진화해간다. 매단계는 상반되는 단계에 의해 계승되며 이러한 2단계의 상호작용이 종합을 이루는 과정에서 새로운 역사단계가 대두한다. 어느 단계에서나 생산수단의 전제가 되는 것은 인간과 자연, 그리고 인간과 인간 사이의 관계인데 인간은 이러한 관계들 속에서 스스로의 인간성을 상실해간다.

자본주의 경제체제는 가장 최근의 역사단계이다. 자본주의의 번영은 생산력 규모의 세계적인 확대와 엄청난 양의 잉여가치 창출에 기초하고 있으며 잉여가치는 고스란히 자본가의 몫으로 된다. 내재적인 모순에 시달리고 있는 자본주의는 그러나 번영을 지속할 수는 없다. 가장 중요한 사실은 자본주의가 모든 인간들을 상품화함으로써 개성을 말살시킨다는 점이다. 이런 식으로 자본주의는 자멸을 초래한다. 자본주의로 말미암아 계급투쟁은 결정적인 국면을 맞이하며, 명백한 착취로 인해 완전히 인간성을 상실하게 된 프롤레타리아트는 마침내 공동목표를 향해 단합할 수 있게 된다. 그리하여 프롤레타리아트의 승리가 임박하고 계급 없는 이상사회가 실현되기에 이른다. 프롤레타리아트의 이익은 전체 인류의 이익이며, 프롤레타리아트의 승리는 노동의 분화가 이루어진 이후 끊임없이 공동체를 괴롭혀온 계급의 분화를 불식시킬 것이다.

1848년 혁명이 실패로 돌아가고 마르크스의 분석틀이 복잡성을 더해가는 사회구조의 해명에 한계를 드러내자, 특히 마르크스 사후에 이론에 대한 수정과 보완작업이 이루어졌다. 엥겔스와 카를 카우츠키등 정통 마르크스주의자들은 특정 상황을 겨냥한 혁명강령으로부터 역사의 진화에 따른 궁극적인 승리라고 하는 평화적인 기대 쪽으로 마르크스주의의 성격을 변화시켰다. 마르크스주의는 블라디미르 일리치 레닌에 의해 보다 심각한 변질을 겪게 되었다. 레닌은 노동자 계급의 자발적인 혁명수행능력을 부인하고 직업혁명가에 의한 체계적인 지도를 역설했으며, 마르크스의 역사이론을 새로이 해석해 전근대사회에서의 혁명 가능성을 받아들였다. '마르크스-레닌주의'란 전통 마르크스주의와 효율적인 당조직의 결합을 의미하는 것이었다. 한편 오토 바우어가 주도하는 오스트리아 학파는 극단적인 계급투쟁을 고수하는 급진 혁명세력의 비윤리성에 반기를 들고 사회적 민주주의 본연의 인간주의적 토대로 되돌아갈 것을 주장했다. 세계 각국 공산주의의 실상은 정통 마르크스주의에서 벗어난 예가 많으며 지식인들은 현대의 기계문명을 비판하는 도구로서 마르크스주의적 시각들을 응용하고 있다. 실존주의 철학에 마르크스의 이론을 융합시킨 사르트르의 〈변증법 비판 Critique de la raison dialectique〉(1960)은 후자의 대표적인 예가 될 수 있다.

 

4 Major Works

MAJOR WORKS Misère de la philosophie (1847; The Poverty of Philosophy, 1900); Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (1848; Manifesto of the Communists, 1883); Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850 (1850; The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, 1924); Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon (1852; The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1898); Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1859; A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1904); and Das Kapital (vol. 1, 1867; vol. 2-3 published by Engels in 1885 and 1894; Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, vol. 1 trans. by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, 1886; vol. 2-3 trans. by Ernest Untermann, 1907 and 1909).

Recommended later translations of these works include Manifesto of the Communist Party, trans. by Samuel Moore (1888, reprinted 1952); The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, with an introduction and explanatory notes by D. Ryazanoff, trans. by Eden Paul and Cedar Paul (1930); and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, trans. by Eden Paul and Cedar Paul (1926). Selections from Marx's writings are available in the following: David McLellan (ed.), Selected Writings (1977); Robert C. Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. (1978); and Jon Elster (ed.), Karl Marx: A Reader (1986).

A major English-language edition, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, trans. by Richard Dixon et al. (1975- ), is in progress. Planned to consist of 50 volumes and to include the correspondence, it is being prepared by an international editorial committee. Forty-one volumes had been published by 1992.

5 Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

5.1 Marx.

The most comprehensive biography of Marx is DAVID McLELLAN, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought (1973, reissued 1987). The classic biography of Marx, somewhat too partisan in his favour, is FRANZ MEHRING, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life (1935, reissued 1981; originally published in German, 1918). Marx's personal life is discussed in SAUL K. PADOVER, Karl Marx, an Intimate Biography (1978). JERROLD SEIGEL, Marx's Fate: The Shape of a Life (1978), is a psychological biography. YVONNE KAPP, Eleanor Marx, 2 vol. (1972-76), contains informative material on Marx's family life. Two good short biographies are ISAIAH BERLIN, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, 4th ed. (1978, reprinted with corrections, 1982); and WERNER BLUMENBERG, Portrait of Marx: An Illustrated Biography (1972; originally published in German, 1962).

For introductory analysis and commentaries of Marx's works, see DAVID McLELLAN, The Thought of Karl Marx, 2nd ed. (1980); BRUCE MAZLISH, The Meaning of Karl Marx (1984); W.A. SUCHTING, Marx, an Introduction (1983), and Marx and Philosophy: Three Studies (1986); and RICHARD SCHMITT, Introduction to Marx and Engels: A Critical Reconstruction (1987). TERRELL CARVER, A Marx Dictionary (1987), provides brief definitions of Marxian concepts without interpretative deviations from the original. For more detailed studies, see ROMAN ROSDOLSKY, The Making of Marx's 'Capital' (1977, reissued 1980; originally published in German, 1968); DEREK SAYER, Marx's Method: Ideology, Science and Critique in Capital, 2nd ed. (1983); ROBERT PAUL WOLFF, Understanding Marx: A Reconstruction and Critique of Capital (1984); HAL DRAPER, Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, 3 vol. (1977-86); D. ROSS GANDY, Marx and History: From Primitive Society to the Communist Future (1979); MURRAY WOLFSON, Marx: Economist, Philosopher, Jew: Steps in the Development of a Doctrine (1982); DANIEL LITTLE, The Scientific Marx (1986); THOMAS SOWELL, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics (1985); and JOHN CUNNINGHAM WOOD (ed.), Karl Marx's Economics: Critical Assessments, 4 vol. (1987). A particularly acute summary of the difficulties in Marx's work is JON ELSTER, Making Sense of Marx (1985). Many monographs explore Marx's political and ideological development: CAROL C. GOULD, Marx's Social Ontology: Individuality and Community in Marx's Theory of Social Reality (1978, reprinted 1980), a study based on Marx's Grundrisse; RICHARD E. OLSEN, Karl Marx (1978); S.S. PRAWER, Karl Marx and World Literature (1976); PAUL THOMAS, Karl Marx and the Anarchists (1980); and ALLEN W. WOOD, Karl Marx (1981).

 

5.2 Marxism.

Good introductions to the study of Marxism include LESZEK KOLAKOWSKI, Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth, and Dissolution, 3 vol. (1978, reprinted 1981; originally published in Polish, 1976-78); GEORGE LICHTHEIM, Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study, 2nd ed. (1964, reprinted 1982); and DAVID McLELLAN, Marxism After Marx (1979, reissued 1981), which contains an extensive bibliography. Some important analyses are assembled in DAVID McLELLAN (ed.), Marxism: Essential Writings (1988). Studies of Marxism as a sociological doctrine may be found in KARL KORSCH, Karl Marx (1938, reissued 1963); HENRI LEFEBVRE, The Sociology of Marx (1968, reprinted 1982; originally published in French, 1966); and SIDNEY HOOK, Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx (1933). Developments in Marxism as a political theory are discussed in ALFRED SCHMIDT, History and Structure: An Essay on Hegelian-Marxist and Structuralist Theories of History (1981; originally published in German, 1971); DAVID RUBINSTEIN, Marx and Wittgenstein: Social Praxis and Social Explanation (1981); TOM ROCKMORE, Fichte, Marx, and the German Philosophical Tradition (1980); S.H. RIGBY, Marxism and History: A Critical Introduction (1987); and PAUL PHILLIPS, Marx and Engels on Law and Laws (1980). Specialized studies include STANLEY MOORE, Marx on the Choice Between Socialism and Communism (1980); JOSÉ PORFIRIO MIRANDA, Marx Against the Marxists: The Christian Humanism of Karl Marx (1980; originally published in Spanish, 1978); RALPH MILIBAND, Marxism and Politics (1977), including a discussion of the applicability of Marxism to contemporary politics in the Third World and communist countries; ROBERT L. HEILBRONER, Marxism, For and Against (1980); ANTHONY GIDDENS, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, 2 vol. (1981-85), an alternative, based on anthropological research, to the Marxist idea that all history has been the history of class struggle; MAURICE GODELIER, Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology (1977; originally published in French, 1973), presenting the contrasting view that classical Marxism may provide a methodology for analysis of empirical data in history and anthropology; and IAN CUMMINS, Marx, Engels, and National Movements (1980).

A. JAMES GREGOR, A Survey of Marxism: Problems in Philosophy and the Theory of History (1965), emphasizes philosophical problems in lieu of political or economic ones. The outstanding work on Marxist ethics is EUGENE KAMENKA, The Ethical Foundations of Marxism, 2nd ed. (1972). See also HUGO MEYNELL, Freud, Marx, and Morals (1981); and GARY NELSON and LAWRENCE GROSSBERG (eds.), Marxism and Interpretation of Culture (1988).

DAVID HOROWITZ (ed.), Marx and Modern Economics (1968), is an excellent collection of essays by leading economic theorists. Other treatments of Marxist economics worth consulting are PAUL M. SWEEZY, The Theory of Capitalist Development: Principles of Marxian Political Economy (1942, reissued 1970); and JOHN STRACHEY, The Nature of Capitalist Crisis (1935). The place of Marxist thought in the intellectual history of the 20th century is assessed in JACK LINDSAY, The Crisis in Marxism (1981); ANTHONY BREWER, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey (1980); PERRY ANDERSON, Considerations on Western Marxism (1976); and WALTER L. ADAMSON, Marx and the Disillusionment of Marxism (1985).

An account of the historical development of Marxism can be found in HENRI CHAMBRE, From Karl Marx to Mao Tse-Tung: A Systematic Survey of Marxism-Leninism (1963; originally published in French, 1959). GEORGE D.H. COLE, A History of Socialist Thought, 5 vol. in 7 (1953-65), presents a detailed study of the Marxist movement rather than the ideas; see especially vol. 2, Socialist Thought: Marxism and Anarchism, 1850-1890. TOM BOTTOMORE (ed.), Interpretations of Marx (1988), is an authoritative collection of essays.

The development and influence of Russian, Soviet, and eastern European Marxist theories is covered in a number of works by both Marxist and non-Marxist authors: HERBERT MARCUSE, Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (1958, reprinted 1985); BERTRAM D. WOLFE, Revolution and Reality: Essays on the Origin and Fate of the Soviet System (1981); BARUCH KNEI- PAZ, The Social and Political Thought of Leon Trotsky (1978); UMBERTO MELOTTI, Marx and the Third World (1977, reprinted 1982; originally published in Italian, 1971); ADAM WESTOBY, Communism Since World War II (1981); and ERNEST MANDEL, Revolutionary Marxism Today (1979). Specialized studies include DONALD C. HODGES, The Bureaucratization of Socialism (1981); ROBERT J. ALEXANDER, The Right Opposition: The Lovestoneites and the International Communist Opposition of the 1930's (1981); ESTHER KINGSTON-MANN, Lenin and the Problem of Marxist Peasant Revolution (1983); BOGDAN SZA JKOWSKI (ed.), Marxist Governments: A World Survey, 3 vol. (1981); V. KUBÁLKOVÁ and A.A. CRUICKSHANK, Marxism-Leninism and Theory of International Relations (1980); HORACE B. DAVIS, Toward a Marxist Theory of Nationalism (1978); ISAAC DEUTSCHER, Marxism in Our Time (1971); JOHN P. BURKE, LAWRENCE CROCKER, and LYMAN H. LEGTERS (eds.), Marxism and the Good Society (1981), on Russia and China; JOHN G. GURLEY, Challengers to Capitalism: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, 3rd ed. (1988); and NICHOLAS ABERCROMBIE, STEPHEN HILL, and BRYAN S. TURNER, The Dominant Ideology Thesis (1980), a critique of current Marxist thought. Two important critical studies are DAVID LANE, The Socialist Industrial State: Towards a Political Sociology of State Socialism (1976); and DONALD WILHELM, Creative Alternatives to Communism: Guidelines for Tomorrow's World (1977, reprinted 1981).

Of special reference interest are JOHN LACHS, Marxist Philosophy: A Bibliographical Guide (1967); HARRY G. SHAFFER, Periodicals on the Socialist Countries and on Marxism: A New Annotated Index of English-Language Publications (1977); J. WILCZYNSKI, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism (1981); and ROBERT A. GORMAN (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of Marxism (1986), and Biographical Dictionary of Neo- Marxism (1985), a compendium providing information on practitioners of Marxism in more than 50 countries. (D.T.McL.)

  • 마르크스
  • 저서
    • 공산당선언(새날고전묶음 2) : K. 마르크스·F. 엥겔스 공저, 김기연 역, 새날, 1991
    • 프랑스혁명사 3부작(소나무총서 1) : K. 마르크스, 임지현·이종훈 공역, 소나무, 1991
    • 독일이데올로기 Ⅰ : 칼 마르크스 F. 엥겔스, 박재희 옮김, 청년사, 1991
    • 맑스엥겔스선집(석탑총서 2) : K. 마르크스·F. 엥겔스 공저, 석탑 편집부 편역, 석탑, 1990
    • 자본론 Ⅰ·Ⅱ·Ⅲ : K. 마르크스, 김수행 역, 비봉출판사, 1989-90
    • 임금·가격·이윤 : K. 마르크스, 남상일 역, 백산서당, 1990
    • 잉여가치학설사(1·2) : K. 마르크스, 백의, 1989
    • 임금노동과 자본 : K. 마르크스, 남상일 역, 백산서당, 1989
    • 당에 대하여 Ⅰ : K. 마르크스·F. 엥겔스 공저, 한철 역, 이성과 현실, 1989
    • 맑스엥겔스선집 Ⅰ·Ⅱ : K. 마르크스·F. 엥겔스 공저, 편집부 역, 백의, 1989
    • 맑스엥겔스선집 : K. 마르크스·F. 엥겔스 공저, 맑스레닌주의연구소 편역, 백의, 1989
    • 프로메테우스(마르크스 전기소설) :, 김석희 역, 공동체, 1989
    • 노동조합론 : K. 마르크스·F. 엥겔스, 전혜원 역, 시린새벽, 1988
    • 정치경제학 비판을 위하여(중원문화신서 41) : K. 마르크스, 김호균 역, 중원문화, 1988
    • 마르크스 엥겔스 저작선 : K. 마르크스·F. 엥겔스 공저, 김재기 편역, 거름, 1988
    • 루이 보나파르뜨의 브뤼메르 18 : K. 마르크스, 태백 편집부 역, 태백, 1987
    • 도이치이데올로기/경제학철학수고 : K. 마르크스, 하기락 역, 형설출판사, 1982
  • 연구서
    • 칼 마르크스의 철학과 신화 : R. 터커, 김학준 한명화 공역, 한길사, 1993
    • 마르크스 산 것과 죽은 것 : J. 엘스터, 박진환 역, 문우사, 1992
    • 베버와 마르크스 : 칼 뢰비트, 이상률 역, 문예출판사, 1992
    • 마르크스의 역사적 유물론과 인간론 : 김창호, 죽산, 1991
    • 칼 마르크스의 제이론에 대한 분석 : 장일조 외, 한국정신문화연구원 정치경제연구실 편, 한국정신문화연구원, 1991
    • 마르크스 : 최장집, 고려대학교 출판부, 1990
    • 마르크스 : 고마키 오사무, 민중사상연구소 역, 참한출판사, 1990
    • 마르크스를 위하여(백의신서 17) : L. 알튀세르, 고길환·이화숙 공역, 백의, 1990
    • 칼 마르크스 전기 Ⅰ, Ⅱ(소나무총서 22·3) : 소련마르크스레닌주의연구소, 김나합 역, 1988-89
    • 마르크스의 세계 : D. 매클레런, 강우란 역, 책세상, 1988
    • 마르크스 사상의 이해 : 권혁면, 이우출판사, 1988
    • 마르크스의 생애와 사상평가 : D. 리언, 박영호 역, 기독교문서선교회, 1987
    • 칼 마르크스 : 소천신삼, 이우석 역, 민중서각, 1986
    • 인간 마르크스-그의 사랑의 생애 : P. 뒤랑, 나혜원 역, 두레, 1984
    • 칼 마르크스의 사회사상과 정치사상 : 쉴로모 아비네리, 이홍구 역, 까치, 1983
    • 마르크스의 인간권(선서 10) : E. 프롬 H. 포핏츠, 김창호 역, 동녘, 1983
    • 청년맑스의 철학(선서 10) : N. 로텐스트라이히, 정승현 역, 한울, 1983
    • 마르크스와 마르크스주의(현대사상선서 9) : P. 워슬리, 진덕규 역, 학문과 사상사, 1983
    • 맑스와 맑스주의자들 : 시드니 후크, 양호민 역, 문명사, 1982
  • 마르크스주의
    • 이탈리아맑스주의와 국가이론 : 카린 프리스터, 윤수종 역, 새길, 1993
    • 현대사회와 마르크스주의 철학(동녘 3) : 한국철학사상연구회 편, 동녘, 1992
    • 마르크스주의 : 유진런 외, 김병익 외 역, 고려원, 1991
    • 자본론을 읽는다 : L. 알튀세르, 김진엽 역, 두레, 1991
    • 마르크스주의와 민주주의 : 한상진 편저, 사회문화연구소 출판부, 1991
    • 일본 마르크스주의사 개설 : 소삼홍건 편, 한상구·조경란 공역, 이론과 실천, 1991
    • 전환기의 세계와 마르크스주의 : 쿠친스키·월러스타인 공저, 조영환 외 편역, 경남대학교 출판부, 1990
    • 마르크스 정치경제학의 변증법적 방법 Ⅰ, Ⅱ(사회과학신서 19-20) : M. M. 로젠탈, 철학사상연구회 역, 이론과 실천, 1989
    • 마르크스주의 정치학 입문 : R. 밀리반드, 정원호 역, 풀빛, 1989
    • 콜라코프스키의 마르크스주의 Ⅰ, Ⅱ : 콜라코프스키, 이상환 외 역, 한겨레, 1989
    • 마르크스주의와 민주주의 정치이론 : 크리스토퍼 피어슨, 어수영 역, 학문과 사상사, 1989
    • 푸코와 마르크스주의-생산양식 대 정보양식(민맥신서 1) : 마크 포스터, 조광제 역, 민맥, 1989
    • 마르크스와 레닌주의의 실천논쟁(거름신서 44) :, 이선일 편역, 거름, 1989
    • 소련의 마르크스주의(명문사상선집 19) : 제임스 P. 스캔런, 강재윤 역, 명문당, 1989
    • 마르크스 레닌주의의 고전입문 : 안넬리제 그리제 외, 윤정윤 편역, 거름, 1988
    • 마르크스사상사전 : T. 보트모아 외, 임석진 편역, 청아출판사, 1988
    • 마르크스주의 정치이론 :, 임지운 편역, 동녘, 1988
    • 마르크시즘 전7 : 학민사 강좌편집위원회 편, 학민사, 1988
    • 계몽사조에서 마르크스주의까지 : 만드레이발리쯔끼 편, 장실 역, 슬라브연구사, 1988
    • 마르크스의 역사이론 : W. 쇼어, 구승희 역, 청하, 1987
    • 마르크스사상과 주변이데올로기-현대사회사상의 이론적 기초(전예원사상신서 19) : 노승우, 전예원, 1987
    • 마르크스에서 소비에트 이데올로기로 : I. 페처, 황태연 역, 중원문화, 1986
    • 마르크스 자본론해설 : K. 카우츠키, 광주 편집부 역, 광주, 1986
    • 마르크스주의 : L. 뒤프레, 권오철 역, 언어문화사, 1986
    • 러시아 맑스주의 : 닐하딩, 이성혁 역, 거름, 1986
    • 현대마르크스주의의 현재와 미래(열린글 시리즈 31) : H. M. 홀쯔, 주정훈 역, 한울, 1985
    • 마르크스 경제사상의 형성과정 : E. 만델, 김택 역, 한겨레, 1985
    • 막시즘, 콤뮤니즘과 서구사회 : C. D. 커링 편, 동아출판사, 1984
    • 마르크시즘의 이해 : 김학준, 정음사, 1984
    • 맑시즘 : 앨빈 굴드너, 김홍명 역, 한벗, 1984
    • 신마르크시즘 : 안드레아스 폰 바이스, 권혁면 역, 한양대학교 출판원, 1984
    • 맑시즘이란 무엇인가 : R. L. 하일브로너, 신정현 장달중 공역, 한울, 1983
    • 마르크스의 인간관(동녘신서 10) : E. 프롬, 김창호 역, 동녘, 1983
    • 마르크스주의 철학의 빈곤 : B. P. 브리쉐슬랍쩨프, 김영국 역, 아세아문화사, 1983
    • 마르크스주의자들 : C. W. 밀즈, 김홍명 역, 한길사, 1982
    • 맑스와 맑스주의자들 : 시드니 후크, 양호민 역, 문명사, 1982
    • 마르크스사후백년(삼성문화문고 33) : 山泉信三, 유근일 역, 상성문화재단, 1973
    • 맑스주의론 : A. G. 마이어, 양호민 역, 을유문화사, 1948

 

   



 
 
 

 게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나?

 
 

Jesusi.com Homepage



This page was last modified 2001/05/30