by Andreas Peglau

 

Download the entire text as a PDF file.

Individual scope

For those who, in the second half of the 19th century, still mostly worked more than 10 hours a day for little money, there was indeed little energy and opportunity left to rise above their circumstances. For this reason alone, and because of the power imbalance, the responsibility of an individual proletarian for the capitalist economic system was minimal.
But throughout history, people have broken out of their circumstances. In 73 BCE, for example, the slaves who liberated themselves in the Spartacus uprising did so – an example that Marx was familiar with.[1] Since then, countless people have committed themselves to other people, to a wide variety of goals and ideas, even when they knew that they were putting their physical integrity or their very existence at risk. During the lifetimes of Marx and Engels, this was already happening in the struggle for liberation from capitalist oppression, as in the Paris Commune uprising of 1871. During its suppression, up to 35,000 people were massacred and thousands more were later deported.[2]

In the same year, Marx commemorated the „self-sacrificing pioneers of a new and better society“ in his work The Civil War in France.[3] Had these pioneers not cast off their „character masks“?

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels mentioned „bourgeois ideologists who have worked their way up to a theoretical understanding of the whole historical movement“:[4] presumably a self-portrayal. Did they thereby claim the exception of being able to take off their masks? Or did Marx believe that, since he was neither a proletarian nor an entrepreneur, this question did not apply to him? And how did he see it with Engels?

 

Successful capitalist, leading socialist

Engels‘ father, a respected textile entrepreneur, demanded that Friedrich follow in his footsteps, forbade him from completing his secondary education and forced him into a commercial apprenticeship. The son tried to make the best of it in his own way. In August 1840, he reported to his sister Marie about a „significant improvement“ in his office. Since it had always been „very boring“ to „rush to the desk right after lunch when you’re so terribly lazy,“ „to remedy this evil,“ two „very nice hammocks“ had been set up in the attic, in which we […] sometimes took a little nap. […] I stole away from the office, took cigars and matches with me, ordered beer; […] and lay down in the hammock and rocked myself very gently.“[5] From 1839 onwards, when he was 19 years old, he expressed his rapidly growing aversion to the political and economic system[6] in newspaper articles published under the pseudonym Friedrich Oswald.

In 1841, Engels succeeded in escaping his father’s direct influence. He developed an intense interest in philosophy, politics and – even before Marx – economics. In 1844, he got to know Marx better. The book Die heilige Familie,[7] which he wrote together with Marx in 1845, also bore Engels‘ name. Soon afterwards, he fought against the existing order with words and deeds, and in 1849 also with a sword in his hand in the „Palatinate Uprising“.[8] He was wanted by the authorities and had to flee, changing countries several times.

At the age of thirty, Engels returned to the company, became an authorised signatory, then a partner in his father’s Manchester business, not least in order to support Marx financially. This was particularly necessary because Marx was not good with money but attached importance to „the outward appearance of bourgeois respectability“ – and put earning money for his scientific interests on the back burner.[9] Without Engels‘ help, without benefiting from his profits, Marx’s work would not have existed.
In 1867, shortly before Marx published Capital, Engels revealed to him: „I long for nothing more than deliverance from this dogged commerce, which completely demoralises me with its waste of time. As long as I am in it, I am incapable of anything […].“[10] The latter statement was inaccurate: Engels never allowed himself to be permanently dissuaded from political engagement. As Thomas Kuczynski reports, he

„led a double life for over 20 years, on the one hand as a bachelor in the ’shit trade‘ with a suitable flat, and on the other as the partner of Mary Burns, an Irish proletarian who, since their first encounter in 1843/44, had familiarised him with the slums of Manchester and the Irish way of life. The two lived together in flats that he rented under various names and where he was also able to pursue his studies and write articles at night.“[11]

As soon as possible, the now 49-year-old Engels quit his hated job and became a wealthy rentier,[12] who continued to provide for Marx’s family. In 1870, he moved to London with his new partner Lizzy Burns – whose sister had died in 1863 – and „threw himself back into work,“ including in the „General Council of the International Workingmen’s Association“ and as a publicist for the socialist press.[13]
In 1883, he wrote in a letter that it was possible to

„perfectly well be a stockbroker and a socialist at the same time, and therefore hate and despise the class of stockbrokers. Will it ever occur to me to apologise for having once been an associate [partner] in a factory? Anyone who wanted to reproach me for that would have a hard time. And if I were sure that I could make a million on the stock exchange tomorrow and thus provide the party […] with substantial funds, I would go to the stock exchange immediately.“[14]

After Marx’s death, Engels became a „one-man correspondence office“ and „the de facto leader of the European socialist movement“;[15] until the end of his life, he was involved in various publications and political activities.
But did Engels, at least as a partner in his father’s company, function as an „economic character mask“? Only to a limited extent.

Engels took care of the business with unexpected zeal, sometimes finding himself forced to dismiss employees, for example for „immorality.“ But in his company, the proletarians found „better working conditions“ than elsewhere. In „few factories,“ Engels biographer Tristram Hunt quotes, „the workers were so profitably and regularly employed.“[16]

He used a large part of his surplus to enjoy life and, until his death, to „regularly send more than half of his annual income to the Marx family.“ In today’s terms, that amounted to a total of up to £400,000 in the 19 years he worked for the company alone.[17]
Engels was not only personally committed to the fight against capitalism, he also financed Marx’s anti-capitalist work and continuously provided him with indispensable insider information from the world of work.[18]

In order to spare his mother stressful inheritance disputes, Engels renounced his shares in the German branch of his father’s company in 1860 in what was for him a „highly unfavourable arrangement“.[19] He also agreed to an unfavourable agreement in order to be able to withdraw completely from the company in 1869. Marx’s daughter Eleanor reports: „I will never forget the triumphant ‚for the last time‘ he exclaimed“ when he went to the shop on the day of his departure. Hours later, he returned from there, waving „his cane in the air and singing and laughing with his whole face. Then we feasted and drank champagne and were happy.“[20]

I could not find out whether Engels, despite his constant gifts to Marx, was able to „continually expand his capital in order to preserve it“ – which, according to Marx, he would have been forced to do. I doubt that capital expansion was a priority for Engels.

In any case, it seems grotesque to me to label Engels as „personified“ capital and to try to capture the essence of his personality with the term „capital soul“. His activities as a revolutionary, socialist publicist and politician, as sponsor, editor and executor of Marx’s work, as founder of „Marxism“ were incomparably more effective than his involvement in „dogged commerce“: he was a capitalist who weakened capitalism far more than he strengthened it. His rising above circumstances was more characteristic of him than his actions in his „character mask“.

Marx and Engels also had quite precise knowledge of a capitalist who completely discarded this mask.

 

Entrepreneur, philanthropist and communist

Born in 1771, Robert Owen was a prime example of what Engels meant when he said that „the human heart […] is unselfish and sacrificial in its egoism“.[21] Coming from an indebted family of craftsmen, Owen developed early on into a „self-made man“.[22] At the age of 28, he took over the management of a cotton mill in New Lanark, Scotland, which soon employed over 2,000 people, many of whom „had ceased to be human beings through drunkenness and sexual debauchery, through theft and laziness, through brutality and ignorance“.[23] Owen said he had two options for dealing with them. One would have been to „constantly reprimand“ them, to „prosecute many of them as thieves, to imprison them, to expel them, even to have them sentenced to death, for at that time theft, to the extent that I discovered it, was punishable by death. This was the practice of society up to that time“. Or, he continued, he could regard them as what they were: „creatures of foolish and harmful circumstances, for which society alone was responsible.“[24]

In order to eliminate the „sources of evil“, he reduced the working hours, which at that time were up to 16 hours, to 10.5 hours, banned night work, and ordered 30 minutes for breakfast and 60 minutes for lunch. The factory rooms were made „bright and airy“, living conditions were improved, gardens were laid out, a library, a lecture hall and a dance hall were built, insurance was introduced „for sick and elderly workers“, and various occupational safety measures were implemented that would not become standard practice in Great Britain until 50 years later. To reduce the workers‘ debt, Owen had a shop set up that sold goods „without profit“.[25] After continuing to pay full wages for four months in 1806, even though the factory was at a standstill due to a shortage of raw materials, he finally had the employees on his side.[26]

Owen paid particular attention to children. Whereas five-year-olds had previously been used for production in New Lanark, he raised the age limit to 10. He contacted renowned educators such as Heinrich Pestalozzi and set up a predominantly free school for children aged five and above in „large, airy and well-tempered rooms“, which included „writing, arithmetic, reading, natural history, geography and modern history“, „gymnastics, dancing and music“.

His aim was to „build character“ and „encourage independent thinking“.[27] The teachers he selected „were to be friends and companions to their pupils,“ refraining from threats, punishments, and even corporal punishment, as well as praise: „It was not severity but kindness that guided the pupils, principles that Owen also followed in the upbringing of his own seven children.“[28]

In order to run New Lanark according to „philanthropic“ standards, he founded a society in 1813 whose entire net profit was to be „used for the education of the children and the general welfare of the workers after deduction of interest on capital.“[29]

Both Engels and Marx referred to Owen several times since 1843.[30] Engels acknowledged that his fellow manufacturer had transformed a population „composed largely of demoralised elements […] into a model colony“: „Simply by placing people in more humane circumstances and, in particular, by carefully educating the younger generation.“[31]
There was therefore no question of unconditional profit maximisation at the expense of the workers, as Marx considered absolutely necessary. Did this drive Owen to ruin, did he suffer the „punishment of ruin“?[32] No: his factory „produced fine yarn, and with great success. […] Despite the large expenditures Owen made in the interests of his workers, New Lanark yielded a considerable net profit.“[33] Markus Elsässer, who has researched the company’s financial circumstances in more detail, attests to its unusually high profitability, which lasted for over 20 years until Owen’s departure.[34]

Was Owen opposed by the establishment because of his social commitment? Engels reports: „As long as he appeared as a mere philanthropist, he reaped nothing but wealth, applause, honour and fame. He was the most popular man in Europe. Not only his peers,[35] but also statesmen and princes listened to him with approval.“[36] Owen biographer Helene Simon adds: „For twenty years, New Lanark was the delight of thousands of visitors. Among them were kings and envoys of kings, high ecclesiastical dignitaries, city deputies, parliamentarians and scholars.“[37]

But despite all this, according to Engels, „Owen was not satisfied. The existence he had created for his workers was, in his eyes, […] still far from allowing for a comprehensive and rational development of character and intellect, let alone a free life.“ Since the working class created social wealth, it was entitled to „also belong to it. The new, powerful productive forces […] provided Owen with the basis for a new social order and were destined, as the common property of all, to work only for the common welfare of all.“[38]

Since Owen now argued with communist theses, attacking private property, religion and the then form of marriage, he reaped different reactions. Engels writes: „He knew what lay ahead of him if he attacked them: general ostracism by official society, the loss of his entire social position. But he did not allow himself to be deterred from attacking them ruthlessly, and what he had foreseen came to pass.“ When Engels then goes on to say that Owen was henceforth „banished“ from „official society, ignored by the press, impoverished by failed communist experiments in America, in which he sacrificed his entire fortune,“[39] he paints a false picture.[40]
Owen withdrew from the active management of New Lanark in 1824 and bought the 20,000-acre settlement of New Harmony in Indiana, USA. Here, for three years, he gathered what he initially considered to be positive and, overall, very valuable experience in his attempt to develop a self-governing community. This project included, among other things, a free comprehensive school for children aged three to 16 and the equality of women, including the right to vote. Despite its ultimate failure, New Harmony became „the birthplace of the women’s movement, American socialism and cooperatives“.[41]

Owen lost four-fifths of his „considerable private fortune“ in the United States,[42] but his optimism remained unbroken. Between 1826 and 1837, he is said to have „given 100 public speeches, […] written 2,000 newspaper articles and made 300 journeys“.[43]

In 1832, he launched a new experiment in England: a bank for the direct exchange of labour and products, as a first step towards an „even more radical transformation of society“.[44] After initially attracting intense interest from numerous customers, this experiment also proved unsustainable in 1834. Owen lost part of his property again, „transferred the rest to his children and kept only enough for himself to live a modest life“.[45]
After a communally managed settlement community also proved impossible to realise, Owen shifted his focus even more towards public relations work. In 1835, at the age of 64, he founded the „Association of All Classes of All Nations“, which he wanted to shape into a „school of humanity for social democracy“. The movement this sparked is said to have had up to 100,000 „declared supporters“ and to have contributed „greatly to the spread of socialism in England“. On trips to promote this idea, Owen was once again „received by kings, ministers and envoys“ in 1837, but this time he received no support.[46]

It was only in his final years that he withdrew more, but he gave up neither his hopes nor his publishing activities. A „far from complete list“ of his publications contains 129 titles, which appeared in up to nine editions, as well as 11 periodicals edited by him.[47]

In 1858, Owen died at the age of 87 in his birthplace of Newtown. He had „rejected spiritual comfort with decisive dignity“ and, when asked provocatively by the pastor whether he „did not regret having wasted his life on fruitless efforts,“ he is said to have replied: „My life was not useless. I brought important truths to the world. And if it did not heed them, it was because it did not understand them. I am ahead of my time.“[48]
Owen, who embodied „the unity of theory and practice“,[49] consistently fulfilled Marx’s claim not only to interpret the world philosophically, but to change it meaningfully[50] before Marx did.

Engels also recognised that Owen had a lasting impact:

„All social movements, all real progress that has been achieved in England in the interests of the workers, is linked to the name of Owen. In 1819, after five years of effort, he pushed through the first law restricting women’s and children’s work in factories. He presided over the first congress at which the trade unions of the whole of England united to form a single large trade union federation. As transitional measures towards the complete communist organisation of society, he introduced, on the one hand, cooperative societies […] and, on the other hand, labour exchanges, institutions for the exchange of products of labour […].“[51]

Marx recapitulated in Capital:

„When Robert Owen, shortly after the first decade of this century, not only advocated the necessity of limiting the working day in theory, but actually introduced the ten-hour day in his factory at New Lanark, it was ridiculed as a communist utopia, just like his ‚combination of productive labour with the education of children‘, just like the workers‘ cooperative businesses he set up. Today, the first utopia is factory law, the second appears as an official phrase in all ‚Factory Acts‘,[52] and the third even serves as a cover for reactionary swindles.“[53]

So let us note: acting in the ‚character mask‘ was, as Marx knew, by no means inevitable. Capitalists, as Engels and Owen showed, could not only act differently within certain limits imposed on them by competition. Like Owen, they could even decide against remaining capitalists. They were not threatened with death, but above all with no longer being so rich, and perhaps even with becoming wage labourers. While the oppressed could only escape their circumstances at great risk, this was not the case for entrepreneurs. Since the latter had more money, time, and usually better health and education, the influence of their interests, views, goals, personality structures, and activities was also much stronger.

In any case, no one is born a capitalist, and no one has to become one. There are therefore always personal motives for becoming, being or remaining a capitalist.[54] This, of course, refers to something that did not fit into Marx’s thinking: individual personality structures.[55]

Since alternative behaviour is possible, there is also significant subjective leeway – and thus something that Marx largely denied entrepreneurs: personal responsibility. While he accused capitalists of the worst crimes in an unjustified sweeping generalisation, he also granted them equally unrealistic incapacity: as instruments of „capital“. But capitalists are generally of legal age and therefore morally and legally responsible for their actions, including their crimes. Marx’s argument is not suitable as a justification for „mitigating circumstances“.
But wasn’t it understandable that someone would want to live a comfortable life with material security as a capitalist? Counter-question: what price had to be paid for this?

 

* 

 

Continue reading in Part 4: Condition of the working class, empty heads and human-creating work

Download the entire text as a PDF file.

Sources of the entire text (mostly in German).

German version of part 3.

 

Notes

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus (The German Ideology). After reading a novel about Spartacus, Marx wrote that he appeared to be „the most famous fellow in the whole of ancient history. A great general […], a noble character, a true representative of the ancient proletariat“ (Marx/Engels 1974, p. 160).

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariser_Kommune

[3] Marx 1962b, p. 357. The term „character mask“ or any discussion of it does not appear in this work.

[4] Marx/Engels 1972b, p. 472.

[5] Marx/Engels, 1975, p. 192f.

[6] Hunt 2021, pp. 42–57.

[7] Marx/Engels 1962.

[8] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pf%C3%A4lzischer_Aufstand

[9] Hunt 2021, p. 258f. Similarly presented in Neffe 2017, p. 367–370, 382–386.

[10] Marx/Engels 1965, p. 293.

[11] Kuczynski 2020.

[12] Hunt (2021, p. 16) also describes Engels as a „man who took part in fox hunts, […] a womaniser and champagne-sipping capitalist“. Perhaps Marx (1963, p. 470) had Engels in mind when he emphasised that he did not regard the capitalist „as a capitalist consumer and bon vivant“.

[13] Kuczynski 2020.

[14] Marx/Engels 1967a, p. 444.

[15] Krätke 2020, p. 23.

[16] Hunt 2021, p. 256.

[17] Ibid., p. 258.

[18] Ibid., pp. 268f.

[19] Ibid., pp. 284f.

[20] Quoted ibid., pp. 319f.

[21] Marx/Engels 1975, p. 252.

[22] Zahn 1989, p. 18f.

[23] Quoted from an article about Owen in Schultz 1948, p. 14.

[24] Quoted in Simon 1925, p. 37.

[25] All information and quotations in Schultz 1948, pp. 14–16.

[26] Ibid., p. 15, also Engels 1962a, p. 244.

[27] Schultz 1948, pp. 16–18.

[28] Ibid., p. 18. For details on „Robert Owen as an educator“: Elsässer 1984, pp. 216–238.

[29] Simon 1925, p. 63.

[30] See https://aaap.be/Pages/Transition-de-Robert-Owen.html.

[31] Engels 1962a, p. 244.

[32] Marx 1983a, p. 255.

[33] Schultz 1948, p. 20.

[34] Elsässer 1984, pp. 63–67.

[35] Simon (1925, p. 61f.) also describes resistance from Owen’s shareholders.

[36] Engels 1962a, p. 245.

[37] Simon 1925, p. 66.

[38] Engels 1962a, p. 245.

[39] Ibid.

[40] 80 million square metres (Elsässer 1984, p. 90).

[41] Simon 1925, p. 199.

[42] Elsässer 1984, p. 91.

[43] Schultz 1949, p. 56.

[44] Ibid., p. 52.

[45] Ibid., p. 53.

[46] Ibid., pp. 61f.

[47] Zahn 1989, p. 18.

[48] Schultz 1948, p. 65.

[49] Zahn 1989, p. 59.

[50] „Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it“ (Marx/Engels 1978, p. 7).

[51] Engels 1962a, p. 245f.

[52] Laws passed by the British Parliament to regulate industrial labour.

[53] Marx 2021, p. 317, footnote 191.

[54] A passage in the first volume of Capital (ibid., p. 591) suggests that Marx took a similar view: „The economic character mask of the capitalist is attached to a person only insofar as his money constantly functions as capital.“

[55] Simon (1925) describes these structures in relation to Owen, particularly on pp. 13–52, while references to them in relation to Engels can be found throughout Hunt’s biography (2021). Elsässer (1984, pp. 46–88) has provided a detailed account of the economic conditions that contributed to Owen’s success and his specific business practices.