Address to the Communist League (1850) By Karl Marx
We are indebted to the Editor of the Labour Monthly for permission to print Marx’s Address to the Communist League (1850) 1, published in the Labour Monthly, London, September, 1922. The footnotes also are taken from the Labour Monthly, “M. B.” being Max Beer.
The Address is an important historical document. The international association for which it was written—the Communist League—was formed in 1847, out of an earlier body, the Federation of the Just. Marx and Engels assisted in the work of the newly-formed League and were commissioned late in 1847 to prepare the Communist Manifesto, which was completed on the eve .of the revolutionary movements which shook Europe early in 1848. Whereas the Communist Manifesto was drafted by Marx and Engels under the influence of these revolutionary upheavals, the rumblings of which were already to be heard while it was being written, the Address to the Communist League was written by Marx two years later, when the revolutionary movements were over and most of the prominent members of the League were exiles in London.
The Address contains many instructive passages, among which may be mentioned the recommendation that the independent working class party should put up independent working class candidates at elections, even where there was no chance of their being elected. “They must not allow themselves to be diverted from this work by the stock argument that to split the vote of the democrats means assisting the reactionary parties.” It will be observed that Marx’s view on this question in 1850 coincides with that of the S.P.G.B., and is in striking contrast with that of the Communist Party of Great Britain, which for many years supported avowed anti-Socialists at elections.
Also it will be noticed that Marx considered the attitude of the workers towards the “petty bourgeois democracy” (i.e., the Capitalist Liberals) during each of three periods. During the first period (the period “in which the petty bourgeois democracy is also oppressed”) he advised the working class party to retain its independence, and to consent to no more than a temporary understanding for joint resistance to the common enemy. During this period armed resistance was to be one of the methods used by the workers.
During the second period (the period of revolutionary struggles) the working class should try to organise and arm themselves as a means of protection against their temporary allies.
For the third period (the period when the “petty bourgeois democrats” have conquered power from the defeated aristocracy, with the assistance of the workers) Marx says nothing about armed resistance. On the contrary, he turns his attention to the need for making full and proper use of the franchise.
It will be observed that here, as on other occasions, Marx greatly over-estimated the ease with which the workers could gain political power, and assumed, quite wrongly, that their victory over the Capitalists would be speedy. The tactics he advocated in the last few paragraphs were based on this wrong assumption. In this connection we must, of course, bear in mind the early period of his life at which the address was written, and its pioneer character.
1 Text taken from Max Beer’s forthcoming Inquiry into Dictatorship.
Ed. COMM.
Brethren,—During the last two years of revolution (1848-49) the League doubly justified its existence. First, by the vigorous activity of our members; in all places and movements where they happened to be at that time they were foremost in the Press, on the barricades, and on the battlefields of the proletariat, the only revolutionary class in society. Secondly, through the League’s conception of the whole upheaval, as enunciated in the circular letter of the Congresses and the Central Executive in 1847 2, and particularly in the Communist Manifesto. This conception has been verified by the actual happenings of the last two years. Moreover, the views of the present-day social conditions, which we in former years used to propagate m secret meetings and writings, are now public property and are preached in the market-places and in the street corners.
On the other hand, the former rigid organisation of the League has considerably loosened, a great number of members who directly participated in the revolution have come to the conclusion that the time for secret organisation was passed, and that public propaganda alone would be sufficient. Various districts and communities lost contact with the Central Authority and have not resumed it. While the Democratic Party, the party of the petty bourgeoisie, enlarged and strengthened their organisation, the working-class Party lost its cohesion, or formed local organisations for local purposes, and therefore was dragged into the democratic movement and so came under the sway of the petty bourgeoisie. This state of things must be put an end to; the independence of the working class must be restored. The Central Authority, as far back as the winter of 1848-49, saw the necessity for reorganisation and sent the missionary, Joseph Moll 3, but this mission had no lasting result. After the defeat of the revolutionary movement in Germany and France in June, 1849, nearly all the members of the Central Authority reunited in London, supplemented by new revolutionary forces, and took the work of the reorganisation seriously in hand.
This reorganisation can only be accomplished by a special missionary, and the Central Authority thinks it most important that the missionary should start on his journey at this moment when a new upheaval is imminent; when therefore the working-class Party should be thoroughly organised and act unanimously and independently, if it does not wish again to be exploited and taken in tow by the bourgeoisie, as in 1848.
We have told you, brethren, as far back as in 1848, that German Liberalism would soon come to power and would at once use it against the working-class. You have seen how this has been fulfilled. It was the bourgeoisie who, after the victorious movement of March, 1848, took the reins of government, and the first use they made of their power was to force back the working man, their allies in the fight against absolutism, to their former oppressed condition. They could not achieve their purpose without the assistance of the defeated aristocracy, to whom they even transferred governmental power, securing, however, for themselves the ultimate control of the Government through the budget. . . .
The part, which the Liberals played in 1848, this treacherous role will at the next revolution be played by the democratic petty bourgeoisie, who, among the parties opposing the Government, are now occupying the same position which the Liberals occupied prior to the March revolution. This democratic party, which is more dangerous to the working men than the Liberal Party was, consists of the following three elements : —
(i) The more progressive members of the upper bourgeoisie, whose object it is to sweep away all remnants of feudalism and absolutism;
(ii) The democratic-constitutional petty bourgeoisie, whose main object it is to establish a democratic federation of the Germanic States;
(iii) The republican petty bourgeoisie, whose ideal it is to turn Germany into a sort of Swiss republic. These republicans are calling themselves “reds” and “social democrats” because they have the pious wish to remove the pressure of large capital upon the smaller one, and of the big bourgeoisie upon the petty bourgeoisie.
All these parties, after the defeat they have suffered, are calling themselves republicans or reds, just as in France the republican petty bourgeoisie are calling themselves Socialists. Where, however, they have the opportunity of pursuing their aims by constitutional methods they are using their old phraseology and are showing by deed that they have not changed at all. It is a matter of course that the changed name of that party does not alter their attitude towards the working class; it merely proves that in their struggle against the united forces of absolutism and large capitalists they require the support of the proletariat.
The petty bourgeois democratic party in Germany is very powerful. It embraces not only the great majority of the town population, the small traders and craftsmen, but also the peasantry and the agricultural labourers, in so far as the latter have not yet come into contact with the proletariat of the towns. This revolutionary working class acts in agreement with that party as long as it is a question of fighting and overthrowing the Aristocratic-Liberal coalition; in all other things the revolutionary working class must act independently.
The democratic petty bourgeoisie, far from desiring to revolutionise the whole society, are aiming only at such changes of the social conditions as would make their life in existing society more comfortable and profitable. They desire above all a reduction of national expenditure through a decrease of bureaucracy, and the imposition of the main burden of taxation on the landowners and capitalists. They demand, likewise, the establishment of State banks and laws against usury, so as to ease the pressure of the big capitalist upon the small traders and to get from the State cheap credit. They demand also the full mobilisation of the land, so as to do away with all remnants of manorial rights. For these purposes they need a democratic constitution which would give them the majority in Parliament, municipality, and parish.
With a view to checking the power and the growth of big capital the democratic party demand a reform of the laws of inheritance and legacies, likewise the transfer of the public services and as many industrial undertakings as possible to the State and municipal authorities. As to the working man—well, they should remain wage workers : for whom, however, the democratic party would procure higher wages, better labour conditions, and a secure existence. The democrats hope to achieve that partly through State and municipal management and through welfare institutions. In short, they hope to bribe the working class into quiescence, and thus to weaken their revolutionary spirit by momentary concessions and comforts.
The democratic demands can never satisfy the party of the proletariat. While the democratic petty bourgeoisie would like to bring the revolution to a close as soon as their demands are more or less complied with, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, to keep it going until all the ruling and possessing classes are deprived of power, the governmental machinery occupied by the proletariat, and the organisation of the working classes of all lands is so far advanced that all rivalry and competition among themselves has ceased; until the more important forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians. With us it is not a matter of reforming private property, but of abolishing it; not of hushing up the class antagonism, but of abolishing the classes; not of ameliorating the existing society, but of establishing a new one. There is no doubt that, with the further development of the revolution, the petty bourgeois democracy may for a time become the most influential party in Germany. The question is, therefore, what should be the attitude of the proletariat, and particularly of the League, towards it: —
(i) During the continuation of the present conditions in which the petty bourgeois democracy is also oppressed?
(ii) In the ensuing revolutionary struggles which would give them momentary ascendancy?
(iii) After those struggles, during the time of their ascendancy over the defeated classes and the proletariat?
2 These circular letters are lost.
3 Joseph Moll, a German watchmaker, had been in London since 1840. As a Communist he also took part in the Chartist movement, in the Physical Force Wing, and had some heated discussions with Thomas Cooper, after the latter had turned a Moral Force man. Moll joined the German revolution in 1848-49, and fell in battle on July 19th, 1849, at Baden.—M.B.