SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE : 1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM

A. Feudal Socialism_rnrnrnOwing to their historical position, it became the vocation of thernaristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modernrnbourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830, and in thernEnglish reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to thernhateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political contest wasrnaltogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remainedrnpossible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of thernrestoration period had become impossible.rnrnIn order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to losernsight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate theirrnindictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploitedrnworking class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their revenge by singingrnlampoons on their new master, and whispering in his ears sinisterrnprophecies of coming catastrophe.rnrnIn this way arose Feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon;rnhalf echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by itsrnbitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to thernvery heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through totalrnincapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.rnrnThe aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved thernproletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often asrnit joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms,rnand deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.rnrnOne section of the French Legitimists and “Young England” exhibitedrnthis spectacle.rnrnIn pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to thatrnof the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited underrncircumstances and conditions that were quite different, and that arernnow antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modernrnproletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie isrnthe necessary offspring of their own form of society.rnrnFor the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character ofrntheir criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeoisiernamounts to this, that under the bourgeois _regime_ a class is beingrndeveloped, which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order ofrnsociety.rnrnWhat they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates arnproletariat, as that it creates a _revolutionary_ proletariat.rnrnIn political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measuresrnagainst the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their highrnfalutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped fromrnthe tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour for trafficrnin wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.rnrnAs the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so hasrnClerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.rnrnNothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge.rnHas not Christianity declaimed against private property, againstrnmarriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these,rncharity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monasticrnlife and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water withrnwhich the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.rnrn_B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism_rnrnrnThe feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by thernbourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined andrnperished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The mediaevalrnburgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of thernmodern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed,rnindustrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side byrnside with the rising bourgeoisie.rnrnIn countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, arnnew class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating betweenrnproletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as a supplementaryrnpart of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class,rnhowever, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by thernaction of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even seernthe moment approaching when they will completely disappear as anrnindependent section of modern society, to be replaced, in manufactures,rnagriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.rnrnIn countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more thanrnhalf of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with thernproletariat against the bourgeoisie, should use, in their criticism ofrnthe bourgeois _regime_, the standard of the peasant and pettyrnbourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes shouldrntake up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeoisrnSocialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France butrnalso in England.rnrnThis school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness therncontradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare thernhypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, therndisastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; thernconcentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction andrncrises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois andrnpeasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, therncrying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial warrnof extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds,rnof the old family relations, of the old nationalities.rnrnIn its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either tornrestoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with themrnthe old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping thernmodern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of thernold property relations that have been, and were bound to be, explodedrnby those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.rnrnIts last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchalrnrelations in agriculture.rnrnUltimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed allrnintoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended inrna miserable fit of the blues.rnrn_C. German, or “True,” Socialism_rnrnrnThe Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature thatrnoriginated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that wasrnthe expression of the struggle against this power, was introduced intornGermany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begunrnits contest with feudal absolutism.rnrnGerman philosophers, would-be philosophers, and _beaux esprits_,rneagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when thesernwritings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditionsrnhad not immigrated along with them. In contact with German socialrnconditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practicalrnsignificance, and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the Germanrnphilosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the first FrenchrnRevolution were nothing more than the demands of “Practical Reason” inrngeneral, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary Frenchrnbourgeoisie signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will as itrnwas bound to be, of true human Will generally.rnrnThe world of the German _literati_ consisted solely in bringing the newrnFrench ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience,rnor rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their ownrnphilosophic point of view.rnrnThis annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign languagernis appropriated, namely, by translation.rnrnIt is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saintsrn_over_ the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancientrnheathendom had been written. The German _literati_ reversed thisrnprocess with the profane French literature. They wrote theirrnphilosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance,rnbeneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, theyrnwrote “Alienation of Humanity,” and beneath the French criticism of thernbourgeois State they wrote “dethronement of the Category of thernGeneral,” and so forth.rnrnThe introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of thernFrench historical criticisms they dubbed “Philosophy of Action,” “TruernSocialism,” “German Science of Socialism,” “Philosophical Foundation ofrnSocialism,” and so on.rnrnThe French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completelyrnemasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to expressrnthe struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of havingrnovercome “French one-sidedness” and of representing, not truernrequirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of thernproletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, whornbelongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realmrnof philosophical fantasy.rnrnThis German Socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously andrnsolemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebankrnfashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.rnrnThe fight of the German, and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie,rnagainst feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, thernliberal movement, became more earnest.rnrnBy this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to “True”rnSocialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialistrndemands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism,rnagainst representative government, against bourgeois competition,rnbourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeoisrnliberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they hadrnnothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement.rnGerman Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the Frenchrncriticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modernrnbourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions ofrnexistence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the veryrnthings whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle inrnGermany.rnrnTo the absolute governments, with their following of parsons,rnprofessors, country squires and officials, it served as a welcomernscarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.rnrnIt was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and bulletsrnwith which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the Germanrnworking-class risings.rnrnWhile this “True” Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon forrnfighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directlyrnrepresented a reactionary interest, the interest of the GermanrnPhilistines. In Germany the _petty bourgeois_ class, a _relique_ of thernsixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again underrnvarious forms, is the real social basis of the existing state ofrnthings.rnrnTo preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things inrnGermany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisiernthreatens it with certain destruction; on the one hand, from thernconcentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of arnrevolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these twornbirds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.rnrnThe robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric,rnsteeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe inrnwhich the German Socialists wrapped their sorry “eternal truths,” allrnskin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goodsrnamongst such a public. And on its part, German Socialism recognised,rnmore and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of thernpetty-bourgeois Philistine.rnrnIt proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the Germanrnpetty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness ofrnthis model man it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation,rnthe exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme lengthrnof directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism,rnand of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all classrnstruggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist andrnCommunist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong tornthe domain of this foul and enervating literature.