On the Mental Intercourse: The Communication Theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels 9811685940, 9789811685941

Citation preview

Lidan Chen

On the Mental Intercourse The Communication Theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

On the Mental Intercourse

Lidan Chen

On the Mental Intercourse The Communication Theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Lidan Chen College of Literature and Journalism Sichuan University, Chengdu, China School of Journalism and Communication Renmin University Beijing, China Translated by Wendy Ashleigh Teo Soochow University Suzhou, China

Jingwei Wu Tsinghua University Beijing, China

Jinying Liao Sichuan International Studies University Chongqing, China

Supported by fund for building world-class universities (disciplines) of Renmin University of China ISBN 978-981-16-8594-1 ISBN 978-981-16-8595-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8 Jointly published with China Renmin University Press The print edition is not for sale in China (Mainland). Customers from China (Mainland) please order the print book from: CITIC Press Corporation. Translation from the Chinese language edition: Theory of Spiritual Communication: Marx Gus’s View of Communication by Lidan Chen, et al., © China Renmin University Press 2016. Published by China Renmin University Press. All Rights Reserved. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publishers, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are recognized as thinkers who have had a major impact on the modern world in many different aspects, and their ideas are part of Western culture. Despite many books being written on the academic research of Marx’s thought by various schools of thought such as the Frankfurters, the political economists, and the culturalists, people like Habermas who wrote “Communicative Action Theory” rarely shared Marx’s views on language, religion, propaganda, public opinion, literature and art, news, newspapers, and intercourse psychology. In fact, many of them criticized the control of the media and the vulgarity of the media premised on the economic theories mentioned in Das Kapital and its manuscripts. Even Wilbur Schram, the author of the pamphlet “Four Theories in Newspapers”, said that “Marx almost never talked about the issue of public intercoursal tools.” Only Japanese scholars noticed Marx’s use of the “Verkehr” concept. This book discusses Marx and Engels’s views on intercourse on the basis of all their discourses concerning human intercourse. In addition to studying the use of their macroscopic “Verkehr” and “Weltverkehr” concepts, this book also discusses in detail their use of language, writing, communication revolution, religion, public opinion, propaganda, literature and art, news, newspapers, intercourse policies, workers and their political parties. Specific expositions on intercourse and intercourse psychology, fully demonstrate their views on the subject. The beginning of intercourse in China sparked my interest in this topic. On October 11, 1978, the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences held an opening ceremony. As one of the pioneer batch of graduate students from the Department of Journalism, I joined the ranks of research journalism. On October 16, Prof. Uchikawa Yoshimi, the President of Journalism Society of Japan, visited our department. This was the first Chinese journalist from the Western world after the Cultural Revolution (even though Japan is in the east of China). He spoke in Japanese at first, but the Japanese translator arranged by the Chinese side could not translate the academic terms he used, which was very embarrassing. Then, an English major asked if he could speak in English instead, which he did. However, some of my English classmates also had difficulty translating from English because

v

vi

Preface

China had been isolated from the world and kept away from the common language for too long. In such an awkward situation where the translators were unable to do the job well, in addition to explaining in English, Uchikawa wrote on the blackboard a few English words or phrases that Chinese classmates had never known. Among them, “Mass communication” resonated strongly with me because I had been told since I was a child that the role of newspapers and radio (TV was not popular at the time) was to propagate the Party’s policies and that it was a tool for class struggles and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, these were still being tested in the entrance exams not so long ago. Some people now say that they are part of mass media. My knowledge of newspapers and broadcasting quickly returned to daily life. I belong to the major of Marxist journalism and thought in my department. After reading the Chinese version of “The Complete Works of Marx and Engels”, I found that their discourse on intercourse is very rich, contrary to the mainstream focus, which was on their political thoughts. In the relatively open environment at the time, I distanced myself from mainstream Marxist political theories and studied their intercourse ideas. The purpose of this book is to present Marx and Engels’ views on all aspects of intercourse as objectively and systematically as possible and to reproduce the environment in which they lived. However, at the time I had almost no frame of reference, so everything started from reading their works. Hence, I spent five years reading the Chinese version of all their works, made a lot of notes (there was no computer, all manual work), checked the original text of important concepts, and started writing in 1988. Because of the events that shocked the world in Beijing the following year, my original intention of portraying China’s reality became dangerous, so I gave up the 170,000-character manuscript originally written in Chinese. In 1991, I confined myself to the study of their dissemination of ideas and started writing again. By 1993, I had completed my work. Marx and Engels’ thoughts were so rich and extensive that after that, I was inspired to engage in works of many other fields of humanities and social sciences. It is the purpose of this book to try to use Marx and Engels’ own expositions as the basis to fully demonstrate their views on intercourse and to avoid the interference of transcendental opinions as much as possible. Three editions of this book were published respectively in 1993, 2008, and 2016. The content has not changed except for a section on the textual research of a certain concept. In 2012 and 2013, this book won the two highest awards in humanities and social sciences in China-the first prize of Wu Yuzhang Humanities and Social Sciences, and the first prize of Outstanding Achievements in Scientific Research of Higher Education Institutions of the Ministry of Education of China. The Chinese version of this book is 450,000 words. The original manuscript has been reduced to about 300,000 words for the publication of the English version. However, the basic structure of the book has not changed.

Preface

vii

The core concept of intercourse between Marx and Engels was the German “Verkehr”. The corresponding English used by them was “intercourse” and the corresponding French was “commerce”. It is worth noting that although this book is translated in the twenty-first century, its primary subject revolves around a nineteenthcentury theory. Due to the changes of the times, the meaning of the vocabulary is different. The connotation of the English term “intercourse” used in the translation is premised on the nineteenth-century context during which Marx and Engels lived. Readers are requested to return to the situation at that time as much as possible to understand Marx and Engels. Beijing, China July 2017

Lidan Chen

The original online version of this Front Matter was revised: The “Introduction” page has been included.

Introduction: “Our Intercourse”

In London, there is a small square—the Printing House Square—where the editorial and Printing House of the nineteenth-century-well-known newspaper “The Times” is located. About 3000 years ago, the Ancient Greek blind poet Homer wandered from one tribe to another, singing about Zeus and his gods; one of them is Ossa, the goddess of rumors. In the Trojan War, Ossa was in charge of blowing the horn and speedily transmitting messages to the hero Akelius. In ancient Roman mythology, Ossa is known as Fama, which, in numerous variants of Latin languages, means “rumor”. Although there is a huge temporal and spatial gap between the newspaper “The Times” and the goddess of rumors, Marx connects them. He asks: “Myths disappear when reality dominates. What becomes of Fama when she encounters the Printing House?” (vol. 28, p. 47) “Can the Iliad possibly coexist with the printing press and printing machines? When the birth of the printing press replaces the preconditions for oration of epic poetry, doesn’t this inevitably spell the end of all the songs, recitals, and muses?” (vol. 28, p. 47) Marx’s intention was to explain the impact that manufacturing forces exert on the production of the human spirit. However, the comparison between the virtues of rumors and modern press, as well as between Homer’s epic and modern typography, clearly expresses a self-evident concept: The intercourse of the evolution of the human spirit has been a long process and this is paralleled by the development of ancient songs, legends, epic, and other forms of spiritual interaction into the present mode of modern information exchange. In that case, how did the ancient spiritual intercourse evolve from its initial state of mystery into this current modern state, and what is the motivation behind this evolution? How do the different types of spiritual intercourse work? Marx and Engels have approached these questions historically and materially. However, with both of these approaches dispersed among other ideas in the entire canon of their works, how can we begin to identify them? One way is to obtain clues from their first work on historical materialism – “German ideology”. One word that recurs constantly in this book and their later writings (including notes and letters) is the German word “Verkehr” (intercourse). In 1846, Marx wrote a letter in French, in which he specially elaborated on the meaning of this word: ix

x

Introduction: “Our Intercourse”

“here I use the word ‘commerce’ in its widest sense—as we would say Verkehr in German.” (vol. 38, p. 97) Both Marx and Engels use intercourse in English as a correspondence to Verkehr . For instance, universal intercourse appears in Marx’s English article “British Rule in India” in the newspaper “New York Daily Tribune”, and Engels uses the word “Verkehr”, namely intercourse, in the dedication “To the Working-Classes of Great Britain” of his English book “The Condition of the Working Class in England”. This word, regardless in German, English, or French, conveys identical meaning, which indicates not only the material sense of the commercial trade, transportation, but also the spiritual sense of informational transmission, as well as the sexual relationship between man and woman. The notion of “intercourse”, as used by Marx and Engels, encompasses the full meaning of “Verkehr”, which includes the individual, social groups, ethnic, inter-state material exchanges, and spiritual communication. Thus, this is a macro-social concept. Engels said in his later years: “und das mit unsern Verkehrsmitteln, mit den Eisenbahnen, den Telegraphen, den industriellen Riesenstädten, der Presse, den organisierten Volksversammlungen” (Marx, Engels,1977a) (“And that with our means of communication-railways, telegraph, giant industrial cities, the press, organized people’s assemblies.” ( vol. 27, p. 458)). “Das Verkehrsmittel”, according to him, denotes “intercourse” and consists of the five components mentioned above. After analyzing the ways in which “intercourse” is used by Marx and Engels, it becomes evident that their treatment of the term involves not only the materialistic aspects of the word but also the spiritual aspect on a macro level, as well as the relationship between these types of intercourse and commercial activities, specifically the exchange of commodities, the transportation of goods, as well as all kinds of changes in the natural environment. Nevertheless, there is one point that has been neglected. For instance, when appropriating commercial language, they said: “commerce, Verkehr, échange, exchange, Austausch, etc., all of which are used both for commercial relations and for characteristic features and mutual relations of individuals as such.” (vol. 5, p. 231) Here, it becomes difficult to separate material and spiritual intercourse because they are related. There is a sense of profundity and historicity when we appropriate Marx and Engel’s concept of intercourse in understanding all kinds of phenomena related to human spiritual communication. The former Soviet Union social psychologist Galina M. Andreyeva A. Leon Festival, . Andreyeva and others also noted the use of Marx’s concept of Verkehr but argued that Marx never used the word communication. Some of the works published in China also supported this claim. Andreyeva wrote: “It is not coincidental that Marx used the German term Verkehr in describing the phenomenon of intercourse without using the English word communication. His emphasis is on the relationship between intercourse and human social relations, and the word Verkehr is more suitable than communication in demonstrating this point.” (Opisyva fenomen obweni, Marks upotrebll nemecki termin “verkehr”, a ne angliskoe slovo “communication”. to ne bylo sluqanost. Marks hotel podqerknut svz obweni s otnoxenimi v qeloveqeskom obwestve, qto v gorazdo bolxe stepeni shvatyvaets slovom “verkehr”, qem slovom “communication”). (Andreeva, 1980) Indeed, Marx and Engels did emphasize on the broader

Introduction: “Our Intercourse”

xi

social significance of communication; however, they both employed basic modern concepts of communication (die Kommunikation in German) in doing so. This is how the earlier Soviet scholars, who neglected the original texts, misinterpreted the meaning.In the works of Marx and Engels, the meaning of the word Kommunikation is identical to Verkehr and both terms are often used interchangeably in a single passage. The only difference is that Kommunikation, as compared to Verkehr, refers to a specific kind of material and spiritual interaction. For instance, Kommunication appears several times in Communist Manifesto. Or, in Volume 2 of Marx’s Capital: “Among these, only the communications industry (die Kommunikationsindustrie), whether engaged in transportation proper, of goods and passengers, or in the mere transmission of communications, letters, telegrams, etc., is economically important.” (vol. 36, p. 61) In this volume, there are numerous compound words formed out of Transport and Kommunikation, such as Kommunikation-und Transportmittele, Transport-und Kommunikationsmittele (Marx, Engels, 1977b), where Kommunikation refers mainly to the transmission of information, rather similar to the modern usage of the word. This analysis argues that way before the establishment of modern communication studies, Marx and Engels have already studied various phenomena of human material and spiritual communication from a macro perspective. As such, their arguments on spiritual intercourse (geistiger Verkehr) ought to be included as part of the pioneering research in the field of communication. Marx and Engels discussed the social effect of communication in the following respects: first, communication produces a certain degree of social cohesion, which, in itself, acts as the adhesive of a tribe or ethnic existence; this is most evident in the lifestyles of primitive mankind. Second, the interaction between different social forms shortens the progress of society and revitalizes it. Social conflicts that usually take decades or even centuries to emerge may become quickly exposed as communication breaks the isolation. Consequently, people develop a need for reformation. Lastly, communication breaks resistance and produces a universal form of communication that maintains the interaction among various ethnic groups on the same level. Thus, Marx and Engel’s interpretation of “communication” enriches the understanding of the social progression and offers a more sublime perspective from which to examine the various phenomena of human spiritual intercourse, including that of media and communication. Nevertheless, Wilbur Schramm, an early scholar of American communication studies, demonstrated an unawareness of the Marxist phenomenon of communication. In Four theories of the Press, Schramm argues that “Marx almost never addressed himself to the problem of mass communication” (Siebert, Peterson & Schramm, 1956). Whereas on the other hand, Japanese scholars seemed to be more acquainted with this Marxist concept, having mentioned in several works such as “Modern Mass Communication Criticism” (現代マスコミ論批判—精神的交通 論ノート)(秋元, 1981) in 1981, the idea of Marxist spiritual intercourse and its relationship with theories of modern mass communication. Marx attaches great importance to the overall study of social interaction. He once praised the French for “having shown up the contradictions and unnaturalness

xii

Introduction: “Our Intercourse”

of modern life not only in the relationships of particular classes but in all circles and forms of modern intercourse”, especially in “the critical writings of Owen and Fourier” on intercourse (Verkehr) (vol. 4, p. 597). In 1868, after studying two German words, he told Engels excitedly: “here are the logical categories coming damn well out of ‘our intercourse’ after all.” (vol. 42, p. 558) This work studies Marx and Engel’s conceptualization of communication from the Marxist perspective of “our intercourse”, and premises its analysis on approaches from macro and micro, from abstract to concrete, and from historical to realistic, in order to elucidate the various forms of spiritual communication (public opinion, religion, literature, propaganda, news, etc.) and media (language, text, newspapers, etc.).

Reference 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

Andreeva, G.M. (1980). Cocialna psihologi. Moskva: Moskovskogo universiteta. c.17. Marx, K., Engels, F. (1977 a). Karl Marx • Frederick Engels: Werke, Band 22, Berlin: Dietz Verlag. S.461. Marx, K., Engels, F. (1977 b). Karl Marx • Frederick Engels: Werke, Band 24, “Das Kapital”, Bd. II, 2. Abschnitt, Dietz Verlag, Berlin/DDR,1963, S.252. Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. p.110. 秋元 春朝 (1981) 現代マスコミ論批判—精神的交通論ノート. 京都:世界思想ゼミナー ル.

Contents

1

The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Mental Intercourse and Material Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Intercourse in the “Parallelogram of Forces” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 “System of Needs” and Mental Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 The Continuity of Intercoursal Content and Forms of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The Thought and Spiritual Intercourses of the Ruling Class . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4 7 10 13 16

2

From National to World Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 National Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 World Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 23 28

3

Human Nature and Mental Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The Essence of Human Nature and Mental Intercourse . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Nature of Human Society and Mental Intercourse . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Man’s Complete Possession of Their Own Natures . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 The Human Nature of Need and Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29 29 31 38 42 48

4

Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Production of Verbal Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Common Trajectory of Language and Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Language as a Mark of Mankind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 The Differentiation and Fusion of Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 The Formation of Modern Civilized Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49 49 52 55 57 61 64

5

Communication Media—Written Text and Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The History of the Written Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Evolution of Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 The Significance of the Invention of Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 65 68 70 xiii

xiv

Contents

5.4 The Limitations of Textual Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72 74

6

Intercourse Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 The Process of Intercourse Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Spread of Intercourse Revolution and Civilization . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Annihilating Space with Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Foreseeing the Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75 75 77 81 84

7

Religion as a Form of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Characteristics of Religious Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Conditions for the Spread of Artificial Religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Religious Propaganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87 87 93 97 99

8

Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Characteristics of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 The Unbalanced Relationship Between the Development of Material and Literary Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Creative Methods and Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 World Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101 101 108 115 119 120

Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 The Evolution of Public Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Characteristics of Modern Public Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 The Power of Public Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Social Control Over Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Newspapers and Public Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121 122 124 131 135 140 145

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 The Theoretical “Pillars” and Social Foundations of Socialist Propaganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Propagators and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Object of Propaganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Methods and Effects of Propaganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147 150 155 160 165

11 News as a Form of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Facts and the Generation of News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 The Newspaper as a Carrier of News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 The Social Role of News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 The Timeliness of News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 The Organic Newspaper Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171 172 176 179 182 186

9

Contents

xv

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 The Types and Basic Functions of Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 The Social Status and Role of Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Newspapers and Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Proletarian Newspapers and Workers’ Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 Common Fairness and Objective Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 Newspaper and Periodical Supervision Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 The Business of Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8 In Regard to “Internal Laws of Newspapers and Periodicals” . . .

193 193 198 203 209 214 222 228 233

13 The Policy of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 Book Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Knowledge Tax and Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 The Expression of Freedom and Market Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 On the History of Freedom of Expression in the 19th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 The Freedom of Expression and Workers’ Movement . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 Communication Policy and Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7 A Few Specific Communication Laws and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

237 237 242 245

14 The Psychology of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 The Relationship Between External Environment and Intercourse Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 The Psychology of Identification in Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 Psychological Barriers to Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 The Formation of “Attention” in Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5 Gossips or Rumours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

249 254 257 265 272 273 273 278 284 288 294

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 Large Industries and the Mental Development of Workers . . . . . . 15.2 The Historical Form and Characteristics of Workers’ Mental Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Newspapers as the Essential Living Materials of Workers . . . . . . 15.4 The Spirit of the Paris Commune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 The Mental Intercourse of Marxist Workers’ Party . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

299 299 303 310 313 317 327

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 The Dependency Form of People Engaged in Intercourse . . . . . . . 16.1.1 Primitive Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.2 Ancient Greek-Roman Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.3 Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.4 Asiatic Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 The Dependency Form of Objects in Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.1 The Civilized Role of Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.2 Alienation in Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

329 329 330 331 332 334 336 337 339

xvi

Contents

16.3 Forms of Comprehensive Development of People in Intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Chapter 1

The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

Activities that promote mental intercourse are a part of production and daily life, forming an integral section of man’s existence. Expounding on the various signs of mental intercourse, Marx and Engels believed that theories that claim that materiality determines spirituality, or that existence determines consciousness, do nothing other than to reduce the relationship between each pair into an overly simplistic and interdependent one, but in fact, there is so much more to think about. Approaching from a perspective beyond the relationship between materiality and mentality, they also take into consideration the balance in societal power, the “system of needs”, the historical legacy of materialism and spirituality, as well as human nature, in their discussion of mental intercourse. In addition, Marx and Engels based their investigation of mental intercoursal activities on the notion of world intercourse and used this to determine the historical importance and function of such activities.

1.1 Mental Intercourse and Material Activities The earliest Marxist theory on the relationship between mental intercourse and material activities of man was attributed to an argument between Marx and Engels. In 1845, the German philosopher, Marx Stirner, raised an imperative point in his book “Der Einziger und Sein Eigentum” that at the beginning of each thought, speech, and song, the thinker, the speaker, and the singer must first and foremost fashion themselves out of nothingness. In response, Marx and Engels pointed out that “[f]ar from it being true that ‘out of nothing’ I make myself, for example, a ‘speaker’, the nothing which forms the basis here is a very manifold something, the real individual, his speech organs, a definite stage of physical development, an existing language and dialects, ears capable of hearing and a human environment from which it is possible to hear something, etc. (vol. 5, p. 150).” The processes of thinking, speaking, and singing are common acts of intercourse among people, which, to all the parties involved in such acts, are similarly restricted to, and by, the bodily capabilities of © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_1

1

2

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

human beings, the direction of development in that specific method of intercourse, as well as the limitations imposed by the environment. The evolution of human beings, the changing socio-environmental factors in different periods, and the advancement of intercoursal methods—these “manifold something”—form the material basis on which mental intercourse occurs. This is the concept of mental intercourse based on historical materialism. People often quote Marx with regards to this concept, “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness (vol. 29, p. 263).” Marx and Engels’ discourse on the relationship between mental intercourse and material activities is not simply based on economic determinism; instead, it is premised on the study of changes that occur among all things and the ensuing effects that arise out of these changes. While it is indeed easy to claim that “materialism determines spirituality” in the abundance of materiality in this society, it is an inadequate statement to describe or address the issue. Rather, we should investigate the influences that different historical environments exert on mental intercourse and the effectual relationship among these historical environments, materialism, and spirituality. Marx pointed out that “[i]n order to examine the connection between intellectual [IX-409] production and material production it is above all necessary to grasp the latter itself not as a general category but in definite historical form. Thus for example different kinds of intellectual production correspond to the capitalist mode of production and to the mode of production of the Middle Ages. If material production itself is not conceived in its specific historical form, it is impossible to understand what is specific in the intellectual production corresponding to it and the reciprocal influence of one on the other. Otherwise one cannot get beyond inanities (vol. 31, p. 182).” Here, there are two important factors involved: Firstly, there must be a specific mode of spiritual production that corresponds to a specific kind of materialism, such that “[t]hus these ideas, these categories, are as little eternal as the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. There is a continual movement of growth in productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of formation in ideas (vol. 6, p. 166). This created a variety in the contents and mediums of mental intercourses of different periods. Secondly, rather than to sum up the relationship between materialism and spirituality as simply “materialism determines mentality”, it is more befitting to think of the relationship between them as an interdependent one as each affects and is, in turn, affected by the other. As Engels put it, “When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first, we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away (vol. 25, p. 21). In his later years, Engels claimed that because people in the nineteenth century advocated historical materialism by emphasizing the concepts opposed by those who fought against it, these concepts crystallized to become the force that shaped how future generations understood and interpreted historical materialism. “If some younger writers attribute more importance to the economic aspect than is its due, Marx and I are to some extent to blame (vol. 49, p. 36).” Regarding this wrong, “[a]s

1.1 Mental Intercourse and Material Activities

3

I have said, I, too, have done this, never realising my mistake until after the event (vol. 50, p. 165).” At the same time, he said, “But it was a different matter when it came to the depiction of a section of history, i.e. to the application of the theory in practice, and here there was no possibility of error (vol. 49, p. 36).” In fact, Marx and Engels were not mistaken in this aspect. Rather, those who cited them in this regard applied the concept too literally. Take for example the following: The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men—the language of real life. (vol. 5, p. 36)

As the above quote emphasizes the production of mental intercourse by material activity, which befits the claim that “materialism determines mentality”, this is often misappropriated by people who misunderstand the relationship between mental intercourse and material activity to be one of simply production. However, if one pays more attention to the term “at first” that is within the quote, this misbelief can be clarified. The relationship between material activity and material intercourse that the quotation mentions is not a mere reference to the production that arises out of one and which creates the other, instead, it characterizes a unique trait found in the mental intercourse among man during primitive times. In the beginning, there was no awareness of any type of pure mental intercourse among people. During a period when production and life took up most of the people’s consciousness, the mental intercourse among them was shrouded in mystery and directly reflected people’s (fearful or idolatry) attitudes towards Nature, which mainly stemmed from their lack of understanding of Nature. However, they were not conscious of this, and thus, the mental and the material often intersected with, or were interdependent on, each other. This led to an undistinguishable overlapping of both, which is a phenomenon elucidated by Marx and Engels. In addition, there is another common type of intersection between mental intercourse and material activity that is manifested as an inevitable encompassing of mental intercourse by material activity, such as the type of labor mentioned by Marx. This is because “[a] single man cannot operate upon Nature without calling his own muscles into play under the control of his own brain (vol. 35, p. 509).” while group labor is the “mere social contact begets in most industries an emulation and a stimulation of the animal spirits that heighten the efficiency of each individual workman (vol. 35, p. 331).” The former is a form of self-propaganda while the latter is a form of societal propaganda. Under such circumstances, both forms of propaganda become interdependent collaborators and it is almost impossible—and rather pedantic—to consider one above the other. It wasn’t until the separation of material and mental activities that mental intercourse ceased being seen as a product of material labor and people began to construct other types of mental intercourse that are independent of materialism. This is as Marx and Engels wrote, “From this moment onwards consciousness can really flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice, that it really represents something without representing something real (vol. 5, p. 45).”

4

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

The independence of mental labor thus signifies the extrication of mental intercourse as a sole thread out of the fabric woven by material labor. This gain in independence of mental labor masks its relationship with material labor, out of which arises a variety of knowledge regarding the mental and the material, and which causes conflicts among different perspectives.

1.2 Intercourse in the “Parallelogram of Forces” Once the primitive relationship between mental intercourse and material labor is broken and each achieves independence, the society inclines towards what Marx and Engels termed triple-factor contradiction. As one factor of the aforementioned (consciousness) triple-factor, mental intercourse develops and functions under the combined sustenance of productive forces and the state of society. The relationship of these three factors are as illustrated:

Consciousness

State of society

Producve forces According to Marx and Engels, “out of all this trash we get only the one inference that these three moments, the productive forces, the state of society and consciousness, can and must come into contradiction with one another, because the division of labor implies the possibility, nay the fact, that intellectual and material activity, that enjoyment and labour, production and consumption, devolve on different individuals, and that the only possibility of their not coming into contradiction lies in negating in its turn the division of labour (vol. 5, p. 45).” At that point in time, society was still a distance away from the abolishment of the division of labor. In fact, one primary factor for the backwardness of certain regions is the lack of such division of labor; which is why mental intercourse that is derived out of the abolishment of the division of labor must temporarily be neglected. Although the productive forces are naturally considered to be the foundation of this triple-factor relationship, the state of society and its consciousness both develop into restraining factors of these productive forces. If any of these three factors experiences a change, the other two would logically be affected; if any of these three factors experience

1.2 Intercourse in the “parallelogram of Forces”

5

a change in a particular region, all three factors in this area, as well as the regional performance, would be drastically transformed. For example, if we were to compare the productive forces within a contemporary timeframe in ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and ancient China, we would discover that the ensuing mental intercourses of these three regions reflect vast differences. In regard to this phenomenon, Marx said that “[t]his does not prevent the same economic basis—the same from the standpoint of its main conditions—due to innumerable different empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial relations, external historical influences, etc., from showing infinite variations and gradations in appearance, which can be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances (vol. 37, p. 778).” In all of the ancient civilized regions, the forms and contents of mental intercourse are not entirely decided by the productive forces, but also by the history and actual state of the individual region. Even within the same state, the actual environment and the policies that govern the intercourse will also greatly affect the quality of mental intercourse. Take, for instance, Russia in the late nineteenth century. Engels said to Geopgi Balentipoviq Plexanov, “As for the rest, in a country such as yours, where largescale modern industry is grafted onto the primitive peasant commune, and where all the intermediary stages of civilization are represented simultaneously, in a country which, in addition, is surrounded more or less effectively by an intellectual wall of china erected by despotism, it is scarcely surprising if the most bizarre and impossible combinations of ideas are produced. Take the poor devil Flerovsky, who imagines that tables and beds thinks, but have no memory. It is a phase the country must pass through (vol. 50, p. 450).” To even imagine that a table can think is indicative of a primitive mindset; one that reflects the obstacles in the intercourse between society and man, and which causes flpovcki, the author of the book “Poloenie paboqego klacca v Poccii” and whom Marx and Engels greatly admired, to be regarded as a “loser” on this matter. Each time a conflict occurs in this modern society, people are inevitably influenced by the immediate conditions of their lives, aside from factors that arise out of class and party. This is because “on the one hand, on the material available for its development and, on the other hand, on the degree and manner in which the other qualities are suppressed (vol. 5, p. 263).” Marx and Engels once conducted a study on scholars in Berlin during the 1940s. At that time, although Berlin was the capital of Germany, it was not a commercial city. This was because, in the face of a changing world, Berlin had become a provincial state and those living there “whose world extends from Moabit to Köpenick and ends behind the Hamburger Tor, whose relations to this world are reduced to a minimum by his pitiful position in life, when such an individual experiences the need to think, it is indeed inevitable that his thought becomes just as abstract as he himself and his life (vol. 5, p. 263).” It is precisely this isolated existence and the backwardness of its society that causes those who live there to criticize the English and French newspapers for an excessive focus on trade and politics and to think of these papers as a subscription to some kind of illusion. Marx and Engels mockingly termed these people “Jacques le bonhomme (vol. 5, p. 161).”

6

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

Differences in academic beliefs are in actuality a realistic reflection of one’s state of society. The establishment of the English production mode created room for the birth of Adam Smith’s and David Ricardo’s economic theory, which was criticized by people in both Europe and China. In response to the production society that arose out of such criticism, Engels wrote, “Indeed, most of Ricardo’s continental critics even take as their starting-point conditions in which the capitalist mode of production, adequate or inadequate, does not as yet exist at all. It is as if a guild-master wanted, lock, stock and barrel, to apply Adam Smith’s laws—which presuppose free competition—to his guild economy (vol. 31, p. 459). A Pomeranian landowner, therefore, with his head full of, ancestral land boundaries, economic centers and boards of agriculture, etc., may well be amazed by Ricardo’s “unhistorical” view of the development of conditions in agriculture (vol. 31, p. 459). The Pomeranian, on the other hand, judges the developed relations from a historically lower and as yet inadequate form (vol. 31, p. 459).” In very much the same way, people who live in the heart of centralized areas where global intercourse occurs are unable to penetrate into those isolated societies and thus, would not be able to understand the perspectives of those who live in such isolated places. Universal intercourse is the only way to bridge the distance between the perspectives of both groups. Regarding this, Marx and Engels attach great importance to “the forces of intercourse” and consider such forces to be the activator that “finally puts world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones (vol. 5, p. 49).” Meanwhile, the condition for the universal development of intercourse is the universal development of productive forces, about which they wrote, “because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established (vol. 5, p. 49).” In this manner, mental intercourse developed itself under the influence of the state of society and the productive forces while at the same time, guided the development of the state of society and the productive forces. When intercourse is confined within a boundary that does not permit interaction with the outside world, all manifestations of mental intercourse will usually become the foundation that stabilizes the contemporary state of society. During the time of the European Industrial Revolution, Switzerland was extremely backward mainly because it was isolated from the rest of the world. Regarding this, Engels wrote, “They won their victory over the civilisation of the time, and as a punishment they were excluded from all further civilisation (vol. 6, p. 369).” Until the 1980s, some parts of Germany remained isolated from the rest of the world, causing a certain generation of Germans who lived in those isolated regions to develop inconsistently in perspectives and level of intercourse, as compared with the rest of the country and the world. Engels wrote about this about his home country, “Germany is a truly infamous country for people without much willpower. The narrowness and pettiness of prevailing conditions, both civil and political, the provincial character of even the cities, the petty but cumulative harassment in the running battle with police and bureaucracy—all this enervates instead of stimulating resistance, and in this way many of those in the ‘great nursery’ grow childish themselves. Petty conditions

1.2 Intercourse in the “parallelogram of Forces”

7

engender a petty outlook, so that a great deal of intelligence and vigour is called for if anyone living in Germany is to look beyond the immediate future, to keep his eyes fixed on the wider context of world events and not succumb to that complacent ‘objectivity’ that cannot see beyond its own nose and is therefore the most blinkered subjectivity, even though it be shared by a thousand other such fellow-subjects (vol. 46, p. 187).” Looking at the overall development of the world, the spread of intercourse will eventually transform the environment of human beings. Take, for instance, the shift in eras from primitive times to ancient times was mainly a consequence of intercourse. Marx claimed that “this development, which necessarily arises from intercourse with foreigners, from slaves, from the desire to exchange the surplus product, etc., destroys the mode of production on which the community rests, and with it the objective individual—i.e. the individual Greek, Roman, etc. Exchange has the same effect, and so has indebtedness, etc. (vol. 28, pp. 418–419).” When a primitive communal “objective individual” engaged in intercourse outside of his community and became an individual entrenched within social communication, it was considered a social contribution made by the power of intercourse. It is the same in current times. The Communist Manifesto claims that “[t]he bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation (vol. 6, p. 488).” The aforementioned communication refers to both mental and material intercourses. However, this claim holds true even if we refer only to mental intercourse. As Marx pointed out, “[c]onsidered notionally, the dissolution of a definite form of consciousness would be sufficient to destroy an entire epoch (vol. 28, p. 464).” Despite the fact that social development is very much the result of productive forces, many other factors also collaborate and interact to play vital roles in the advancement of society. Engels described this phenomenon as “an infinite number of parallelograms of forces (vol. 49, p. 35)” and “a common resultant (vol. 49, p. 36).” Every factor, such as the state of society and consciousness (which includes spiritual intercourse), contributes in its own way to the collective collaboration of all the forces. Looking at the tripartite of productive forces, state of society, and consciousness, any one of the three factors can at once be held accountable for the change in society and yet, cannot be isolated from its relationship to the other two. When social functions become incongruent, the reason for this transformation is the cyclic nature of these three factors.

1.3 “System of Needs” and Mental Intercourse It is imperative for historical materialism to inspect mental intercourse from the perspective of society. Marx classified needs into two main categories: needs that are historically produced and social needs. The former and the latter are respectively described as “[t]he more the needs which are themselves historically produced, the needs produced by production itself, the social needs which are themselves the

8

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

offspring of social production and intercourse—the more these needs are posited as necessary, the higher the development of real wealth (vol. 28, p. 451).” Social needs determine the extent, quality, and contents of the types of mental intercourse that people engage in, while at the same time being restricted by the detailed structure of social production. The mental intercourse of people living in a stable social structure appears to be organized in an orderly manner. Some of them enjoy the most advanced techniques of intercourse available in contemporary society while others would rather rely on more primitive methods of intercourse. Additionally, the intercourse between the ruling class and the ruled class is carried out by a fixed go-between or agent. Marx uses Hegel’s “system of needs” to prove the relationship between social needs and the structure of social production. He raises an example as such, a worker buys potatoes while a woman buys lace (both are activities of material exchange and acts of simple interpersonal mental intercourse). While each of these acts is random and dependent on the needs of the individual, the motivation behind both acts boils down to a specific structure of social production. Under the same structure, it is safe to assume that a factory owner will not normally purchase potatoes for dinner whereas a man will not be interested in lace. Social classes and gender are but two factors that determine the difference in types of need and the mode of expression of this need amongst individuals. This situation is also apparent within a clan society. A typical social organization in that period consisted of wicca, rituals, totems, myths, song, and dance, etc., each of which existed for the sake of satisfying people’s need for mental intercourse and simultaneously functioned as a form of restriction for each and any other. This ensured the stability of society. Based on this analysis, Marx pointed out, “[i]s the entire system of needs founded on estimation or on the whole organisation of production? Most often, needs arise directly from production or from a state of affairs based on production. World trade turns almost entirely round the needs, not of individual consumption, but of production (vol. 6, p. 119).” The “needs” mentioned here focus on material intercourse. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels further pointed out that “[a]nd as in material, so also in intellectual production (vol. 6, p. 488).” To illustrate this principle, Marx and Engels performed an analysis of the Italian Renaissance painter, Raffaello Santi, whose creations they considered to be largely constrained by the production structure of Rome, which was under the influence of Florence at that point in time. They wrote, “Raphael as much as any other artist was determined by the technical advances in art made before him, by the organisation of society and the division of labour in his locality, and, finally, by the division of labour in all the countries with which his locality had intercourse. Whether an individual like Raphael succeeds in developing his talent depends wholly on demand, which in turn depends on the division of labour and the conditions of human culture resulting from it (vol. 5, p. 393).”

1.3 “System of Needs” and Mental Intercourse

9

Of course, once the need for a certain kind of mental intercourse becomes ubiquitous, this very same need will serve to promote the systematic development of such mental intercourse. They go on to elaborate that “[i]n Paris, the great demand for vaudevilles and novels brought about the organization of work for their production (vol. 5, p. 394).” The use of modern communication media, along with the use and dissemination of various inventions, are directly driven by social needs. As Marx and Engels pointed out, “Actually, the balloon came first and then the railways. […] when hackney carriages and carts no longer sufficed for the growing requirements of communication, when, inter alia, the centralisation of production due to large-scale industry necessitated new methods to accelerate and expand the transport of its mass of products, the locomotive was invented and thus the use of railways for transport on a large scale. […] the possibility, indeed the absolute necessity, of the invention lay in the empirical conditions (vol. 5, p. 303).” The appearance of Free Press during the Prussian authoritarian system answered the social needs for it. Marx repeated emphasized that “[i]f, therefore, a freer press became essential owing to the specific state of distress of the Mosel region, if it there became an urgent, because actual, need, it is obvious that no exceptional obstacles to the press were required to create such a need, but that, on the contrary, an exceptional freedom of the press was required to satisfy the existing need (vol. 1, p. 349).” After the invention of the telegraph, it remained unpopular for a length of time. In fact, the widespread use of the telegraph in England only began in January 1854. At that point in time, Marx reported that “The electric telegraph has been used to mitigate the inconvenience of commercial documents intercepted by snow drifts, and to prevent the noting of bills for unexplained non-payment (vol. 12, p. 578).” Clearly, the motivation pushing for the use of telegraph is still a social need, whereas the use of railways, newspapers, and telegrams has greatly promoted the socialization of mental intercourse. In this sense, Marx agreed with the words of the early British economist, Thomas Hodgskin, that “[n]ecessity is the mother of invention (vol. 30, p. 163).” Social needs are a kind of intrinsic motivation that plays a crucial role in the evolution of mental intercourse. For instance, language. As Marx and Engels said, “language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men (vol. 5, p. 44).” As a form of intercourse (this includes both material and mental intercourses), mankind’s primitive political community was also born out of a need. In regard to this, Marx quotes from Plato’s Utopia that “The polis … comes into existence … once each of us is no longer self-sufficient, but has need of many.” [IV-162] “It” [the polis] “is founded by our needs (vol. 30, p. 282).” In that case, once the political existence becomes a reality, new intercourses need to be created. Regarding this, Engels raised Serbia as an example: “But, as in Moldavia and Wallachia, political existence has brought on new wants, and forced upon Serbia an increased intercourse with Western Europe. Civilization began to take root, trade extended, new ideas sprang up (vol. 12, p. 11).” In the above situation, society needs to call upon the people’s vision of intercourse. Therefore, Marx termed this as human being’s “second nature (vol. 37, p. 845).” In

10

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

other circumstances, man’s intercourse also promotes the expansion of needs and creates the conditions required for large-scale intercourses to occur. Take for example the modern global intercoursal system, which is formed through the interdependent relationship between needs and intercourse, whereby needs propel intercourse while intercourse expands and develops needs. About this, Marx wrote, “Wars, voyages of discovery, etc., all historical events whereby nations are brought into contact, are all so many conditions of expanding demand, of the formation of the world market (vol. 6, p. 574).” As an individual, in many different circumstances, it is difficult to clearly distinguish between a need for mental intercourse and a need for material intercourse. In fact, the means of intercourse are often both mental and material in nature. Pertaining to this, Engels said, “Rather it requires preoccupation with the outside world, means to satisfy his needs, that is to say, food, an individual of the opposite sex, books, conversation, argument, activity, objects to use and work (vol. 26, p. 379).” In terms of mental intercourse, the mental needs of people from a certain historical era and the development of means to meet this need are mutually influential and restrictive; and these means are themselves determined by the structure of production and the production within society. In this sense, Marx said, “but also the producers, who transform themselves in that they evolve new qualities from within themselves, develop through production new powers and new ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs, and new speech (vol. 28, p. 418).” To sum it up, social needs are an intrinsic motivation for the development of society that can also be regarded as an intermediary force. On the one hand, it is constrained by production itself and the structure of this production; on the other hand, it creates new content for, and new forms of, intercourse.

1.4 The Continuity of Intercoursal Content and Forms of Intercourse If we were to simply claim that “material decides mentality”, there will be many problems that cannot be explained. For instance, as Engels mentioned, the content of modern mental intercourse contains a large portion of prehistory in that “[i]n so far as these various false conceptions of nature, of the nature of man, of spirits, magic forces, etc., are economically based, it is only a negative sense; […] it would be pedantic to seek economic causes for all this primitive rubbish (vol. 49, pp. 61– 62).” The prehistoric issues aforementioned are compatible with the early stage of production development, which is why Marx and Engels stressed that “this applies also to the elements handed down by an earlier age—is a form of intercourse which corresponded to a definite stage of development of the productive forces (vol. 5, pp. 81–82).” Why does the content and form of intercourse persist and play a role in the later era? This is the exact continuity issue of intercoursal content and form that is sought to be explained by the mental intercourse arising from historical materialism.

1.4 The Continuity of Intercoursal Content and Forms of Intercourse

11

According to Marx and Engels, the content and form of mental intercourse are different from common material activities in that the moment a tradition is formed, it will continue to exist for a very long time without any economic foundation. This is because “the development of an individual is determined by the development of all the others with whom he is directly or indirectly associated, and that the different generations of individuals entering into relation with one another are connected with one another, that the physical existence of the later generations is determined by that of their predecessors, and that these later generations inherit the productive forces and forms of intercourse accumulated by their predecessors, their own mutual relations being determined thereby (vol. 5, p. 438).” Clearly, the notion of continuity is not a departure from materialism but rather, a more profound illumination of historical materialism. In their elaboration on this matter, Marx and Engels raised three points: firstly, continuity is a spontaneous occurrence that is independent of an individual or a group; it is difficult to deliberately eliminate the content and form of a certain type of intercourse. For example, when Napolean abolished serfdom in Germany in the early nineteenth century, it was in itself a measure of social progress; however, it was met with resistance by the peasants. Engels wrote, “[f]irstly, the peasantry, the most stupid set of people in existence, who, clinging to feudal prejudices, burst forth in masses, ready to die rather than cease to obey those whom they, their fathers and grandfathers, had called their masters; and submitted to be trampled on and horsewhipped by (vol. 6, p. 20)” and “the peasants petitioned the king asking to be left in servitude (vol. 25, p. 92).” Secondly, the replacement of content and form of mental intercourse takes place very slowly, thus accounting for the occurrence of continuity. In all the battles throughout centuries, the interests of a certain class sometimes appeared to be overcome on the surface but in actuality, they had merely succumbed to the victors. Concepts and forms of intercourse that are linked to these types of interest will potentially remain in existence for a long time, lying in wait till an appropriate time for them to next resurface. This is the reason why “history seems to occur twice”. Here, ethnic groups and characteristics, lifestyles and habits, thought processes and emotions, structures and standards of knowledge, concepts of ethics and personality, genetics and creativity, etc., are all influencing factors of the continuity of intercoursal form and content. In regard to these factors, Marx questioned, “That at the same time old memories, personal enmities, fears and hopes, prejudices and illusions, sympathies and antipathies, convictions, articles of faith and principles bound them to one or the other royal house, who is there that denies this? (vol. 11, p. 128)” According to both of the above explanations, Marx and Engels concluded that after the old forms of intercourse had been completely replaced by the new forms, the old forms of intercourse would “remain for a long time afterwards in possession of a traditional power in the illusory community (state, law), which has won an existence independent of the individuals; a power which in the last resort can only be broken by a revolution. This explains why, with reference to individual points [62] which allow of a more general summing up, consciousness can sometimes appear further advanced than the contemporary empirical conditions, so that in the struggles of a later epoch

12

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

one can refer to earlier theoreticians as authorities (vol. 5, p. 83).” A typical example of this would be the French Revolution. As Marx pointed out, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past […] they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle-cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honoured disguise and this borrowed language […] And in the classically austere traditions of the Roman Republic its gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions that they needed in order to conceal from themselves the bourgeois limitations of the content of their struggles and to maintain their passion on the high plane of great historical tragedy (vol. 11, pp. 103–105).” From an opposite perspective, Marx and Engels also examined why there were not many problems with the continuity of mental intercourse in America. This is because there is a lack of traditional factors in that “[s]uch countries have no other natural premises than the individuals who have settled there and were led to do so because the forms of intercourse of the old countries did not correspond to their requirements. […] whereas in its home it was still encumbered with interests and relations left over from earlier periods, here it can and must be established completely and without hindrance (vol. 5, p. 83).” This provides the key as to why countries that are on par in terms of development in mental intercoursal industries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, or Japan, can differ in terms of contents and forms of intercourse. As the United States is not burdened with any kind of traditional notions, it exhibits a spirit of freedom that other countries do not. Meanwhile, the British intercourses exude an air of aristocracy while the Japanese intercourses come across as ethically oriental. The continuance of the forms and contents of intercourse will certainly decline over time, albeit slowly. The root cause of this declination depends on the development of material activities. When the development of material activities becomes a threat to the older forms and contents of intercourse, it will elicit a sense of vigor and vitality in older things, despite the fact that it has become unrealistic. Just as Marx and Engels wrote, “and the more do the old traditional ideas of these relations of intercourse, in which actual private interests, etc., etc., are expressed as universal interests, descend to the level of mere dealizing phrases, conscious illusion, deliberate hypocrisy. But the more their falsity is exposed by life, and the less meaning they have for consciousness itself, the more resolutely are they asserted, the more hypocritical, moral and holy becomes the language of this normal society (vol. 5, p. 293).” Some people mistakenly believed that the declination of the old forms and contents of intercourse is due to the power of mental criticism. As Marx once said, “The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force (vol. 3, p. 182).” While this is directed at material strength, it is different for mental strength in that mental criticism cannot destroy it. Like Marx and Engels pointed out, “all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism (vol. 5, p. 54).” The resilience of mental

1.4 The Continuity of Intercoursal Content and Forms of Intercourse

13

strength far surpasses that of material strength such that only the natural development of material activities can weaken it. In fact, the ‘Great Critique Open Road” during the cultural revolution in China was a manifestation of a superstition that was occupied with spiritual criticism. Its façade of success was only due to a criticism of the weapon behind the “Great Critique”. Even if we were to omit taking into account perspectives of productivity and social conditions, and to only approach from the perspective of the development of the human mind, the issue of continuity remains clearly visible. Marx once quoted Morgan in his notes on anthropology, “We have the same brain, perpetuated by reproduction, which worked in the skulls of barbarians and savages in by -gone ages; and it has come down to us ladened and saturated with the thoughts, aspirations and passions, with which it was busied through the intermediate periods. It is the same brain grown older and larger with the experience of the age (Morgan 1877, p. 59). Clearly, the continuity of the form and content of mental intercourse is a product of history that is non transferrable by the will of people. In fact, to a certain extent, this continuity compels people to adapt to it. From this perspective, continuity also acts as a constraint on the form and content of modern intercourse. It reflects not only the class struggles that are inherent in society but also the power of tradition. The content, form, and motivation of personal emotions, personality, desire, subconscious, cultural psychology, etc. are all also affected.

1.5 The Thought and Spiritual Intercourses of the Ruling Class Between 1856 and 1846, Marx and Engels famously asserted that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it (vol. 5, p. 59).” This argument examines the basis of ideological changes in historical changes from a macro perspective. At the same time, Marx and Engels also carried out a series of concrete arguments that proved their assertion. If we forget or do not know these arguments, simply applying this macro argument to help explain the various phenomena of mental intercourse between history and reality will cause us to arrive at ridiculous conclusions. Marx and Engels first pointed out that due to the division of labor between mental activities and material labor, a class will be divided into two different parts, one of which will specialize wholly in, or specialize more, in mental activities, “so that inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the formation of the illusions of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood) (vol. 5, p. 60)” whereas the other will appear to be relatively

14

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

negative. “Within this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and hostility between the two parts (vol. 5, p. 60).” On one occasion, when Marx was analyzing the British elections, he went so far as to compare the relationship between these two types of people as master and slave. He claimed, “The masters were the grand dignitaries of the ruling classes, or sections of classes, the servants formed the mass of these same classes, the privileged electors encircled by the mass of the non-electors (vol. 11, pp. 344–345).” At times, he even termed these two types of people as “the class that rule officially and the class that rule non-officially (vol. 14, p. 59).” This situation clearly shows how the mental intercourses of an era reflect the fierce dissent within the ruling class far more than within other classes. This is because the manifestation of class struggles occurs only at intervals while the peaceful period lasts far longer. At this point in time, due to various reasons, part of the ruling class who are shortsighted will destroy the means of mental intercourse that represents their mentality and reject the ideological representatives, thus forming a situation that opposes the macro arguments of Marx and Engels. Much like France during 1850–1851, Marx wrote that “the extra-parliamentary mass of the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, by its servility towards the President, by its vilification of parliament, by its brutal maltreatment of its own press, invited Bonaparte to suppress and annihilate its speaking and writing section, its politicians and its literati, its platform and its press, in order that it might then be able to pursue its private affairs with full confidence in the protection of a strong and unrestricted government (vol. 11, pp. 172–173). And this extra-parliamentary bourgeoisie, which had already rebelled against the purely parliamentary and literary struggle for the rule of its own class and betrayed the leaders of this struggle (vol. 11, p. 173).” It is precise because of the comprehensive use of historical materialism that allows Marx to make such an argument. The relationship between the mindset and mental intercourses of the ruling class reveals its own complexity. Secondly, when Marx and Engels discuss the dominance of the ruling class ideology, they do not deny the existence of social class thoughts. Instead, they raise an example, “The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class (vol. 5, p. 60).” For this reason, there is intercourse between the ideologies of the ruling and the non-ruling classes, which sometimes manifests itself as an ideological struggle while at other times, manifests itself as a sort of compromise. In Marx’s discussion on the relationship between the British workers’ movement and the ruling class in 1870, he mentioned that “The great results we have already achieved in this respect are attested to by the most intelligent and influential of the newspapers of the ruling classes, as, e.g. The Pall Mall Gazette, Saturday Review, The Spectator and The Fortnightly Review, to say nothing of the so-called radicals in the COMMONS and the LORDS who, a little while ago, still exerted a great influence on the leaders of the English workers (vol. 21, p. 87).” Here, the working class without mental means of production is not only affiliated with the ruling class, but on the contrary, the media of mental intercourse of the ruling class achieved a compromise with the working class. A certain extent of disparity between the class powers caused this phenomenon.

1.5 The Thought and Spiritual Intercourses of the Ruling Class

15

Thirdly, even as the ideological producers in the ruling class are subject to the constraints of class opposition, they still retain their unique personalities. Marx and Engels wrote, “[t]he individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of a historical epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age (vol. 5, p. 59).” It is clear from this situation that the mindsets of the ruling class themselves also exhibit different characteristics and styles. In other words, mental intercourse is not monolithic but rather, rich and diverse. Regarding this point, Marx wrote that, “[u]pon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of different and distinctly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life. The entire class creates and forms them out of its material foundations and out of the corresponding social relations (vol. 11, p. 128).” He emphasized the decisive role that material conditions and social relations play in the formation of one’s mentality and pointed out the various types of mentalities such that the concept of “the ruling class’s mentality” is no longer so abstract. Fourthly, during the period of its rise, the dominant ideology has a side that represents the general demands of the masses. According to Marx and Engels, this is because “[t]he class making a revolution comes forward from the very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society, as the whole mass of society confronting the one ruling class (vol. 5, p. 60).” This situation brought about a fairly broad consensus about mental intercourse within society. “For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality (vol. 5, p. 60).” In addition, ideas and opinions will themselves inform and lead “interests” as they exhibit a wide range of communication characteristics. In regard to this, Marx claimed that “[o]n the other hand, it is easy to understand that every mass-type “interest” that asserts itself historically goes far beyond its real limits in the “idea” or “imagination” when it first comes on the scene and is confused with human interest in general (vol. 4, p. 81).” Similarly, this situation added richness and variety to the way in which the ruling class viewed forms of intercourse. Fifthly, the proposition of “the mentality of the ruling class” is macroscopic and does not rule out that members of the non-ruling class can be representatives of the ruling class. Or, conversely, members of the ruling class can also become representatives of the non-ruling class. For example, the Frenchman Pierre-Jessph Proudhon, who was once a shepherd, a hotel apprentice, a typewriter, and who lived like a nomad, trying to make a living. He was a typical member of the non-ruling class, but Marx labeled him as a representative of the “bourgeois Socialism (vol. 6, p. 513).” On the other hand, in his letter to American President Lincoln, who was a typical representative of the ruling class, Marx addressed him as “the single-minded son of the working class (vol. 20, p. 20).” This phenomenon of interchangeability across classes is very common within mental intercourse. Therefore, it is imperative to

16

1 The Mental Intercourse of Historical Materialism

refrain from making simple categorizations or judgments such as “the class of an individual determines his actions and speech”. Sixthly, the concept of “the mentality of the ruling class” was established based on a general reflection of the current mentality of the masses (which includes most of the members within the ruling class who do not make any decisions). In this sense, Engels said that “as the people unwittingly rules everywhere, and the government in every state is but another expression for the level of education of the people (vol. 3, p. 498).” Lastly, due to the continuity of the content and form of intercourse, each new form of mentality that the new ruling class comes up with must inherit a part of the original ideology belonging to the old ruling class. Thus, the mental intercourse of any new ruling class will never be completely different from its predecessor, at least its lineage will be obvious in terms of cultural traditions and national sentiments. In this sense, “the mentality of the ruling class” is not an isolated menta phenomenon but rather, a spiritual link connecting the past and the future.

Reference Morgan LH (1877) Ancient society or researches and the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago

Chapter 2

From National to World Intercourse

In 1845–1846, during the process of conceptualizing Historical Materialism, Marx and Engels analyzed the critical influence that universalizing communication among the different nations in the world exerted on the history of mankind. They believed that one such influence is reflected in the widening of both material and spiritual interactions occurring in the world. Global interaction will gradually replace exchanges within ethnic groups to become the mainstream mode of modern communication; whereas interactions within national boundaries will inevitably break through previous restrictions to become part of global interaction. This argument informs and shapes the development of human spirituality from a macro perspective.

2.1 National Intercourse To examine the correlation between the structure of a nation and the relations among the groups of people inhabiting it, Marx and Engels proposed three influencing factors, namely, the development of productive forces, the division of labor, and the extent of internal intercourse. They contended: The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse. This proposition is generally recognised. But not only the relation of one nation to others, but also the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the stage of development reached by its production and its internal and external intercourse. (vol. 5, p. 32)

from the above, it is clear that the division of labor directly affects the development of productive forces. This division of labor is manifested between the two sexes (men and women), between commerce and agriculture, between urban and rural areas, between manual and spiritual labor, and lastly, among the various production departments that make up the entire production line. At every stage of the division of labor, there is a variety of material and spiritual exchanges among the people that results in a progressively increasing demand for information in society. Meanwhile, © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_2

17

18

2 From National to World Intercourse

the quality of communication paradoxically restricts and promotes the development of productivity and the division of labor. Marx and Engels used the early division of labor and its relationship with intercourse to demonstrate this point. They wrote: “the slavery latent in the family only develops gradually with the increase of population, the growth of wants, and with the extension of external intercourse, both of war and of barter.” (vol. 5, p. 33) Although people’s impression of wars is never good, due to the constraints that the early civilizations faced, the most common type of material or spiritual communication or intercourse often takes the form of warfare. Marx and Engels wrote that “war develops [certain features] earlier than peace” (vol. 28, p. 45); “with the conquering barbarian people war itself is still, as indicated above, a regular form of intercourse” (vol. 5, p. 84). Subsequently, the history of the evolution of civilization represents, to a certain degree, the intercourse among nations as a result achieved through warfare. According to these three principles of ethnic interaction, regardless of who wins the war, the nation with a lower level of productive forces will generally be integrated into the nation with a higher level of productive forces. Marx believes that this is a historical regularity, “the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects” (vol. 12, p. 218). Intercourse is the adhesive force holding the fabric of different nations together. In fact, Marx and Engels point out that the reason such powerful historical significance is attached to events like the great migration and the Crusade war is because of the ability of such events to broaden the scope of human interaction and integration, regardless of intentional or not. “This, too, explains the fact, which people profess to have noticed everywhere in the period following the migration of the peoples, namely that the servant was master, and that the conquerors very soon took over language, culture and manners from the conquered” (vol. 5, p. 85). For instance, Francia of medieval Europe was established by Salian Franks, whose level of productivity was lower than that of the Romans. As such, even though Francia was built upon the territory of the ancient Roman Empire, the people had to inherit the Roman culture. Engels expounded on this issue: “Romans, that is, Romanised Gauls, who quickly became indispensable to him owing to their knowledge of writing, their education and familiarity with the Romance vernacular and literary Latin as well as with the laws of the land” (vol. 26, p. 252). The situation was similar across the globe in China, as demonstrated by the integration of the Northern Wei (AD386–534), the Yuan (AD1271–1368) and the Qing (AD1636–1912) dynasties. This extends to include the development of mankind, as these international exchanges result in the progress of human beings. In a comparative study of the Germans, the Americans, the French and the British, Marx and Engels commended the last three nations and criticized Germany. Personal energy of the individuals of various nations—Germans and Americans—energy even as a result of miscegenation—hence the cretinism of the Germans; in France, England, etc., foreign peoples transplanted to an already developed soil, in America to an entirely new soil; in Germany the indigenous population quietly stayed where it was. (vol. 5, p. 86)

2.1 National Intercourse

19

The extent of a nation’s evolution depends on not only its communication with the external world but also on the quality of intercourse that it inherits from its history. In general, a nation’s legacy of intercourse can be restrictive where modernization of communication is concerned. According to Engels, this is because “Tradition is a great retarding force, is the vis inertiae of history” (vol 27, p. 300). On the other hand, in regions that are not bounded by historical traditions, immigrants are able to integrate easily into the nation to foster social intercourse of a higher quality; for example, North America. Marx and Engels believe that “they begin with the most advanced individuals of the old countries, and, therefore, with the correspondingly most advanced form of intercourse, even before this form of intercourse has been able to establish itself in the old countries” (vol. 5, p. 83). As examples, they cite the Carthaginian state, which was established by the Phenicia immigrants in North Africa in the ninth century BC, a series of colonies established by the Greeks in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea coast in the eighth century BC, the Norwegian territory of Iceland established by the Irish and Norwegian immigrants in the eleventh and twelfth century, all of where the quality of material and spiritual intercourses was much higher than the rest of their contemporaries. Since the quality of communication is closely related to the progression of a nation, a nation that is restricted by its traditions is still able to overcome this constrain as long as it makes a conscious effort to strengthen its interaction with the external world, keep its communication opened, as well as assimilate the best. This way, these nations are able to make considerable progress in terms of national intercourses within and without. In this regard, Marx and Engels praised the French, North American, and British and criticized the Germans: Great nations—the French, North Americans, English—are constantly comparing themselves with one another both in practice and theory, in competition and in science. Petty shopkeepers and philistines, like the Germans, who are afraid of comparison and competition, hide behind the shield of incomparability supplied them by their manufacturer of philosophical labels. (vol. 5, p. 441)

On the other hand, Marx also criticized nineteenth century China because, at that point in time, China was carrying a heavy historical burden that he labeled “the antiquated world”. Marx wrote: …that a giant empire, containing almost one-third of the human race, vegetating to the teeth of time, insulated by the forced exclusion of general intercourse, and thus contriving to dupe itself with delusions of Celestial perfection—that such an empire should at last be overtaken by the fate on occasion of a deadly duel... (vol. 16, p. 16)

Clearly, from the perspective of a nation’s survival, China ought to open itself up to the external world so that it can be included in the system of worldwide communication. In actuality, the improvement in the quality of national communication is dependent on the internal conflicts of its society, as well as the influence of other nations that are of higher communicative quality. This argument resonates with Engels’s findings in 1888 when he traveled to North America where he analyzed the development of the Canadian interaction. He wrote:

20

2 From National to World Intercourse In ten years this sleepy Canada will be ripe for annexation—by which time the farmers in Manitoba, etc., will be demanding it themselves. In any case this country has already been half annexed from the social point of view—hotels, newspapers, advertisements, etc., all conform to the American pattern. And however much they may struggle and resist, the economic need for an infusion of Yankee blood will assert itself and abolish this ludicrous boundary line. (vol. 48, p. 213)

Although Engels’s prediction on Canada’s merger with the United States was not completely accurate, his analysis of Canada’s internal conflicts, particularly on the material and spiritual impact of the United States on Canada’s own standard of intercourse, is still considered to be accurate presently. The facilitation of modern national intercourse is different from ancient times: today, the more developed countries are importing cultural and material products to the less developed countries. Therefore, Marx and Engels emphasize the influencing power that external forces exert on a country’s social interaction. According to them, countries that are more powerful shape the development of weaker countries by reducing the conflicted development that plague such weaker nations, so that the latter are able to progress and integrate themselves more quickly into the global system of intercourse. Marx and Engels argue that “the competition with industrially more advanced countries, brought about by the expansion of international intercourse, is sufficient to produce a similar contradiction in countries with a less advanced industry” (vol. 5, p. 75) so that they can transit into modernity. The matter of how to interpret the intercourse between countries that are more developed and those that are less developed (including wars as a form of intercourse) is a never-ending debate. As such, critiques who disagree with Marx and Engels’ views deliberately avoid or severely criticize their works. For instance, the Marxist Leninism Institution of the former Soviet Union disagreed with Engels’s argument in the introduction of the Russian version of “Marx and Engels Complete Works” (2nd edition of Volume 6). (v ctatx ngelca codepatc nekotopye oxiboqnye poloeni ob ictopiqeckix cydbax tix napodov.) (Institut marksizma-leninizma pri CK KPSS. (1957)) On the other hand, Chinese researchers might be afraid of being labeled “colonialist” and so, there has been almost no mention of Marx and Engels’ views on this issue. Nonetheless, Marx and Engels argue that the conquest of less developed countries by more developed countries (regions) is objectively a historical step forward in the progression of global intercourse, although this comes at a heavy price. Hence, even as they ruthlessly expose and severely criticize the cruelty of such conquests, they simultaneously affirm the historical value of these conquests in the transmission of cultures. Adopting a scientific attitude towards seeking truths, Marx and Engels concurrently advocate the liberation of all nationalities and confirm the important role that the high-productivity-conqueror plays in history. These two movements are not contradictory as the logic behind both is consistent. In Marx and Engel’s opinion, the independence of a nation is premised necessarily on a historical environment that sustains and nurtures independence, as well as dependent on corresponding political and industrial conditions. A nation without these conditions has no vitality; as such, its disappearance amidst the competing international exchanges deserves no pity.

2.1 National Intercourse

21

In this regard, Engels received the most criticism. According to him, the global industrialization movement carried out by imperial forces in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially the British imperialist power, managed to civilize the world. The value of such movements should therefore be affirmed. Engels writes, “Well, who has spread civilization in America, Asia, Africa, and Australia, but England?” (vol. 6, p. 399) When talking about the British invasion of India, he believes that: the Indians nevertheless went on living in the same way for centuries, i.e., they ate and drank and vegetated, and the grandson worked the land just as his grandfather had done, except that a number of revolutions took place, which, however, were nothing but a struggle of various peoples for domination. Since the English came and spread their manufactures, the livelihood of the Indians was torn from their hands and the consequence was that they abandoned their stable condition. The workers are already emigrating from there and through mixing with other nations they become accessible for the first time to civilisation. (vol. 6, p. 628)

Regarding the effects of the Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars, Engels analyzed: “later we have seen how China, a country which for more than a thousand years has defied development and all history, has now been turned upside down and drawn into civilisation by the English, by machinery” (vol. 6, p. 628). With respect to the French conquest of Algeria, Engels wrote: though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blameable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation.……And the conquest of Algeria has already forced the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli, and even the Emperor of Morocco, to enter upon the road of civilisation. (vol. 6, p. 471)

Writing on the history of the German expansion of the Slavic tribes,1 Engels believes that “this conquest was to the advantage of civilisation” (vol. 8, p. 369), and that this process is “by immigration and by the influence of the more developed nation on the undeveloped. German industry, German trade and German culture by themselves served to introduce the German language into the country” (vol. 8, p. 370). With regards to the annexation of the United States on Mexican territory, Engels professes his support: In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is also an advance when a country which has hitherto been exclusively wrapped up in its own affairs, perpetually rent with civil wars, and completely hindered in its development, a country whose best prospect had been to become industrially subject to Britain—when such a country is forcibly drawn into the historical process. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will in future be placed under the tutelage of the United States. (vol. 6, p. 527)

He asks: splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the Californian gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and 1

The districts in Berlin and Leipzig nowadays.

22

2 From National to World Intercourse extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilisation, and for the third time in history give world trade a new direction? (vol. 8, p. 365)

In Engel’s old age, the British invaded Egypt. At that time, the French workers’ party gathered to pay tribute to the National Party, whom they thought worthy of great respect due to the worthiness of the cause they had fought for. Meanwhile, Engels pointed out that “you take the so-called National Party rather too much under your wing” (vol. 46, p. 301), “we can …against the brutality of the English without, for all that, espousing the cause of those who are currently their military opponents” (vol. 46, p. 302), contending that the National Party failed to embody progress in history. In the process of international intercourse, whether a nation is conquered or culturally assimilated, or whether it gains independence through interaction with another civilization, its final status is nevertheless the result of great suffering. Regarding this, Marx and Engels expressed deep sympathy; however, as they approach problems from the perspective of global progress and development, they re-appropriate the “evilness” in conquests of nations by pointing out the necessity of this “evil” in the progress of the history of civilization. Engels analyzed the French invasion of Germany at the beginning of the nineteenth century and argued that “the French yoke, at least, was a modern one; at all events, it forced the disgraceful German Princes to do away with the most crying infamies of their former political system” (vol. 27, p. 27). In his discussion of the French conquest of Algeria, Engels concludes that “after all, the modern bourgeois, with civilisation, industry, order, and at least relative enlightenment following him, is preferable to the feudal lord or to the marauding robber, with the barbarian state of society to which they belong” (vol. 6, p. 472). Marx elaborated on his and Engels’s opinion about the British invasion of India: Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. (vol. 12, p. 132) The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution. (vol. 12, p. 132)

The moral purists of national intercourse relations were ridiculous in Marx and Engels’s eyes. In fact, when it comes to the Western invasion of China, Marx professes that he actually supports the “evil” side. While the semi-barbarian stood on the principle of morality, the civilized opposed the principle of pelf. … in which the representative of the antiquated world appears prompted by ethical motives, while the representative of overwhelming modern society fights for the privilege of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest markets—this, indeed, is a sort of tragical couplet, stranger than any poet would ever have dared to fancy. (vol. 16, p. 16)

2.1 National Intercourse

23

When the Russian anarchist Bakunin criticized the German expansion of the Slavic tribes from the perspective of pan-moralism, Engels said contemptuously: “in some places ‘justice’ and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter compared to such facts of world-historic significance?” (vol. 8, pp. 365–366). In his later years, to explain his perspective on world issues, Marx quoted a German editor: “let us take a little look at things from a higher historical perspective” (vol. 46, p. 243). From this higher perspective, his and Engels’s views on modern national intercourse might come across as unacceptable to the less developed nations. From a historical point of departure, it is evident that the focus on the interests of the modern bourgeoise spells disaster for the entire nation in terms of the destruction of national historical and cultural heritage; from a global macro-historical perspective, this modern age of digital information and global intercourse, both important contributions towards the formation of a “world village”, would be impossible without the former conquests of the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the Western and Southern expansions of the United States, or even the Western conquest of traditional China. The beginning phase of this worldwide phenomenon material and spiritual exchange was capitalized on by Marx and Engels, who used it as a point of departure in the study of world intercourse.

2.2 World Intercourse In his fourteenth century work De Monarchia, the first new-age poet, Dante Alighieri, mentions a “world” concept, on which he elaborates: my country is the world. This interpretation of the “world” becomes a trademark on which modern understanding of the “world” is premised. Starting from the eighteenth century, a truly modern understanding of the “world” was derived out of the French encyclopedia and Carl von Linné’s classification of animal and plant species. By the nineteenth century, the conceptual scope of the "world" has reached an extensive breadth and depth. An interesting characteristic of this era is the dissolution of existing divisions between different human societies and a growing awareness of the various manners in which all nations interact with, and relate to, one another. This provides the context for Marx and Engels’ theory of historical materialism. They point out the development of histories into world history and expound on this notion: The further the separate spheres, which act on one another, extend in the course of this development and the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the advanced mode of production, by intercourse and by the natural division of labour between various nations arising as a result, the more history becomes world history. (vol. 5, pp. 50–51)

In ancient times, the isolation of individual country means that virtually every invention must be re-originated in each place due to the lack of interaction. This is evident from the fact that the invasion and conquest of a weaker nation demands an equally complete transformation of the conqueror’s society even as the weaker society

24

2 From National to World Intercourse

assimilates its conqueror’s language and culture; the reason being the necessary destruction of the conqueror’s existing productivity, which must be reorganized to subsume and revitalize the productivity of its conquest. Marx and Engels, who lived in the era of modern industrial revolution, emphasized the expansion of intercourse because they are aware that it is time to end the destructive impact that history exerts on productive forces. They are of the opinion that “only when intercourse has become world intercourse and has as its basis large-scale industry, when all nations are drawn into the competitive struggle, is the permanence of the acquired productive forces assured” (vol. 5, p. 67). Based on this interpretation, they proposed a concept of “world intercourse”, which is both a basic understanding of the extent and characteristics of nineteenth century material and spirit exchanges, as well as the highest form of perspective from which to observe the phenomenon of spiritual intercourse. Although the “world” was much smaller back then than it is now in terms of accessibility, water routes between Europe and other continents, as well as the use of telegraphs, mitigated this restriction. These conditions were sufficient for Marx and Engels to notice the emergence of world intercourse and to establish it as a new standard for which to evaluate a person’s real spiritual wealth. According to them: The extent to which these qualities develop on the universal or local scale, the extent to which they transcend local narrow-mindedness or remain within its confines, depends not on Stirner, but on the development of world intercourse and on the part which he and the locality where he lives play in it. (vol. 5, p. 264) Owing to division of labour and the separation of town and countryside, he will have the "peculiarity" of being a purely local animal cut off from all world intercourse and, consequently, from all culture. (vol. 5, p. 401) Then the liberation of each single individual will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes wholly transformed into world history. From the above it is clear that the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections. Only this will liberate the separate individuals from the various national and local barriers, bring them into practical connection with the production (including intellectual production) of the whole world and make it possible for them to acquire the capacity to enjoy this all-sided production of the whole earth (the creations of man). (vol. 5, p. 51)

In other words, only when people are able to access worldwide information and then transmit this information to the rest of the world can the distance among countries be filled by communication technology; only then, can people accumulate true spiritual wealth and experience complete spiritual liberation. The concept of “world intercourse” also contributes greatly to Marx and Engels’s idea of communism. They believe that communism “presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with them” (vol. 5, p. 49). An individual’s freedom to develop comprehensively and freely is the prerequisite for all man’s freedom of development. This is the basic characteristic of communism, for which only world intercourse is able to provide the necessary conditions that “finally puts world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones” (vol. 5, p. 49). The great industry that emerged out of world intercourse has established a global market that closely connects people of all nations, especially

2.2 World Intercourse

25

those in developed countries so that every nation is affected by the changes of another. As such, communism is a worldwide movement. Under such circumstances, Marx and Engels point out that “communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples ‘all at once’ and simultaneously” (vol. 5, p. 49). Although this deduction remains unproven in practice, it is not incorrect to claim that the prerequisite of communism is premised on the universal development of world intercourse. Subsequently, Lenin believed that the socialist revolution could govern a country. In their work on communism, Marx and Engels take note of this belief and label it as a form of “regional communism”, pointing out as well, that “each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism” (vol. 5, p. 49). If this type of communism fails to expand on the internal–external intercourse, “they would have remained home-bred ‘conditions’ surrounded by superstition” (vol. 5, p. 49); similarly, if this form of communism does not develop its productivity, “want is merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old filthy business would necessarily be restored” (vol. 5, p. 49). Clearly, Marx and Engels’s prediction in this regard is rather accurate. Socialist countries that have succeeded in this respect ought to demonstrate loyalty to Marx and Engels’s communist doctrine by expanding their material and spiritual intercourse with the outside world to situate themselves within the system of global intercourse, so as to eliminate "regional communism". Pertaining to this, Marx and Engels’s study of world intercourse and communism plays a very significant role in reality. Marx believes that it is the mission of the bourgeoisie to “on the one hand universal intercourse founded upon the mutual dependency of mankind, and the means of that intercourse” (vol. 12, p. 222). In this respect, he and Engels praised the bourgeoisie for the "extreme revolutionary" effect that they generated, including the submission of villages to cities, which in turn provides for the villagers a way out of their state of ignorance. This way, all of the people become civilized so that national intercourse transforms into global intercourse. Spiritually, Marx and Engels introduced the concept of “world literature” and suggested that: And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world. (vol. 6, p. 488)

Here, the term “literature” (German: Literatur) is a general term that includes all spiritual products. Evidently, in their analysis of intercourse from a narrow to broad spectrum, or from the national to the global, the criteria for acceptance or rejection that they adopt is not a simple categorization of people into "exploited class", "oppressed class" and so on, but rather, is an evaluation of whether such categorization proves helpful in the facilitation of world intercourse. Before the concept of the "world" was modernized, the most advanced methods of spiritual intercourse were exclusive to only a selected group. Marx famously declared that: Together with the thoroughness of the historical action, the size of the mass whose action it is will therefore increase. In Critical history, according to which in historical actions it

26

2 From National to World Intercourse is not a matter of the acting masses, of empirical action, or of the empirical interest of this action, but instead is only “a matter of an idea in them”, things must naturally take a different course. (vol. 12, p. 222)

Although the above passage is often used to illustrate the role of the mass in history, it actually means something else. In fact, Marx is trying to convey the relationship between human activities (incl. spiritual intercourse) and social development. In ancient societies, only free citizens are able to participate in historical activities; in medieval times, the group expanded to include every individual who had personal freedom and was independent of a landlord; it is only until modern times that every member of the society is included in historical activities, producing social equality and human rights. Pertaining to the emergence of spiritual intercourse, Marx writes that “all previous forms of property condemn the greater part of mankind, the slaves, to be mere instruments of labour. Historical development, political development, art, science, etc., are located in the higher spheres above them.” (vol. 28, p. 509) Similarly, Engels expounds: Simply because in all earlier stages of development of mankind production was so little developed that historical development could proceed only in this antagonistic form, that historical progress on the whole was assigned to the activity of a small privileged minority. (vol. 24, p. 193)

Marx and Engels have always adopted a historical perspective on the development of intercourse. They prioritize the influence that advanced methods of intercourse exert on the shaping of history and neglect the painful price that comes attached to it. They criticize the division of labor because this causes the alienation of labor. However, they also point out that “any increase of the productive forces, extension of trade, development of the state and of law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means of a greater of labour” (vol. 25, p. 168). “It was slavery that first made it possible for the division of large-scaled labour between agriculture and industry, and thereby also Hellenism, the flowering of the ancient world.” (vol. 25, p. 168) Marx has a high opinion of Spartacus, the leader of the ancient Roman slave revolution, however, this did not prevent him from professing this about the history of that era: “in ancient Rome the class struggle took place only within a privileged minority, between the free rich and the free poor, while the great productive mass of the population, the slaves, formed the purely passive pedestal for these combatants” (vol. 21, p. 57). The progression of human spiritual intercourse to its current level comes at a cost of keeping slaves and serfs in a state of ignorance for thousands of years. To a certain extent, this division of labor between the upper and lower classes is responsible for the creation of spiritual products in history. The formation of modern world intercourse provides the necessary conditions to end the exclusivity of advanced spiritual intercourse. The highly developed production forces transform modern physical means of spiritual intercourse (telegraphy, railways, etc.) into embodiments of mental intel-

2.2 World Intercourse

27

lectuality. Survival depends on one’s participation in world intercourse, thus, a new situation arises, as Marx rightly observes: “The non-labour of a few has ceased to be the condition for the development of the general powers of the human mind.” (vol. 29, p. 91) Thanks to the fundamental evolution of the social division of labor, the modern working class produced by the great industry differ from the slaves and serfs of historical times in that they instinctively and actively participate in the most advanced spiritual intercourse. The moment intellectual enlightenment takes over the current working class, who has hitherto never been part of the representative group, they would rise up to become a third type of warriors, after the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie, to become the main representatives of the masses in terms of world intercourse. The nineteenth century is the age of global intercourse. Marx and Engels have foreseen the significant impact of world intercourse on the shaping of human spiritual intercourse. The historical records of a century have proven their prediction. Now, Shakespeare’s plays, Balzac’s novels, Beethoven’s music, Picasso’s paintings, Einstein’s theory of relativity, The Times and The New York Times, the world’s four major news agencies, and so on, no longer belong to merely one country or a class; instead, all of these commodities have become a common cultural wealth that belongs to all residents of the globe. In fact, since the inception of Internet, all the various forms of online communication belong to the world rather than any specific country. The two tragic world wars in the twentieth century create amidst the people a keen awareness of a connection among the whole world. In fact, the consequence of these two world wars completed the process of linking up the world. As such, people began to learn how to live in a world and to dissolve boundaries caused by ethnic differences. A universal identity surpasses and replaces the special ethnic identity of a people within the nation-state. Correspondingly, the super-national culture is replacing the national culture to become the dominant cultural form. The debate between the new order of worldwide information and international communication appears to contradict Marx and Engels’s views on the spread of civilization, which is actually a new problem emerging out of world intercourse. To remove the metaphoric sword and fire of modern capitalism would be to problematize the integration of a nation into the world system so that the demand of developing countries to enter into discourse with developed countries on an equal footing would become an unfulfilled modern consciousness. This controversy is founded on the concept of one “world”. Today, people are clearly aware that: We could no longer avoid each other. A combination of increased mobility, modern communication technology, and an awareness of common worldwide problems, seemed to reduce radically the time-space relationships between different cultures. (Samovar et al. 1981, p. 5) Potentially, poor communication or a lack of understanding could mean the end of the world as we know it. Needless to say, these doomsday prophecies seemed to motivate people where simple words could not. (Samovar et al. 1981, p. 6)

28

2 From National to World Intercourse

References Институт марксизма-ленинизма при ЦК КПСС. (1957). ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ. К.Маркс и Ф.Энгельс.Сочинения,т. VI. Издание второе. Москва: ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ. p. XII–XIII Samovar LA, Porter RE, Jain NC (1981) Understanding intercultural communication. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA

Chapter 3

Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

The theory of historical materialism is based on the interrelationship between social existence and social consciousness, but it is often only understood as an objective and simple conclusion of existentialism. In the spring of 1845, Marx wrote in his notebook the famous text “About Feuerbach”, in which the opening line emphasizes the understanding of the relationship between people and the world around them from the perspectives of both a subjective and the subject’s actions. He pointed out that “[t]he chief defect of all previous materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that things [Gegenstand], reality, sensuousness are conceived only in the form of the object, or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively (vol. 5, p. 3).” Clearly, historical materialism is not rigid but instead, is rich and vivid. There are at least three approaches to the issue of historical materialism, namely, (1) explaining the natural process of social development; (2) explaining the developing process of human beings as a whole; and (3) explaining the developing process of the human personality. This resulted in many assertions and an entire series of conceptual approaches originating from multiple perspectives. The essence of human beings is one of the most important theories of Marxism that is brought about by the second and third approaches. It illustrates the intrinsic motivation of the people who develop mental intercourse, as well as the actual development of mental intercourse.

3.1 The Essence of Human Nature and Mental Intercourse Marx and Engels have discussed the difference between human beings and animals from different angles to illustrate the natural nature of human beings. Animals, just like human beings, are able to communicate information, which is a behavioral aspect observed by Engels in trained dogs, horses, and parrots; people can build shelters while animals can also build very delicate nests, just like how Marx noticed in the activities of bees, beavers, and ants. Along the same line, just like how people change © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_3

29

30

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

the surrounding environment, animals also affect their environment, according to Engels’s observation of the impact of wolves and goats on their surrounding environment. At the same time, people have the ability to engage in planned actions, as do animals. Engels noticed when he was hunting a fox how it was able to use its rich knowledge of the terrains to avoid the hunter. Even plant species (such as carnivorous plants) demonstrate an ability to engage in planned actions. Clearly, in aspects such as the transmission of information that directly arises out of physical needs, the building of habitat or shelter, the impact on the surrounding environment, and the engagement in planned actions, there is no remarkable difference between human beings and animals. The most direct difference between humans and animals lies in their conscious engagement in spiritual activities and intercourse. Regarding this difference, Engels pointed out that “all the planned action of all animals has never succeeded in impressing the stamp of their will upon the earth. That was left for man (vol. 25, p. 460).” Marx also emphasized that when it comes to the difference in life activities between human beings and animals, “[t]he animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life activity. Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity (vol. 3, p. 276).” Here, they distinguish between the natural nature and the direct physical needs of human beings. Although it is essential that people satisfy the physical needs of eating, wearing, living, sexual behavior, etc., the spiritual needs and mental intercourse of human beings often go beyond the direct needs of the body, as well as transgress the immediate gratification of the psychological surface. Marx and Engels’s discussion of the difference between man and animal indicates the significance of spiritual activities and mental intercourse on human ontology. Without these exquisite, complex, and intricate spiritual activities and mental intercourse (which are both manifestations of consciousness), people would no longer be human beings; instead, they would become closely associated with animals. This is why Marx wrote “Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But taken abstractly, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions (vol. 3, p. 275).” In this sense, spiritual activities and mental intercourse are the main constituents of the existence of human life, as well as the unfolding part of it. In the unfolding process, the subject constantly perceives the external world and completes his psychological structure, thus constituting the existence of the subject’s life. If the value of the spirit can only be explained as a form of service and mediation of one’s physical needs, such as literature and art being merely an image interpretation of a certain theme or news only boiling down to the propaganda of the ruling party’s policies, then this understanding of the spirit will only nudge people closer to the animal kingdom. In medieval Europe, the mental restrictions of human beings surpassed even the physical restrictions of the human body, causing Marx to claim that “[t]he Middle Ages are the animal history of human society, its zoology (vol. 3, p. 81).” In view of the fact that people are both mentally and physically controlled by the power of dissidents, and are therefore unable to fully express the characteristics of human freedom and conscious activity, Marx and Engels regarded the current

3.1 The Essence of Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

31

human history (in an overall sense of human development) as a prehistoric period of real human history. In lieu of this, they proposed that the objective of future struggles be “[I]f man draws all his knowledge, sensation, etc., from the world of the senses and the experience gained in it, then what has to be done is to arrange the empirical world in such a way that man experiences and becomes accustomed to what is truly human in it and that he becomes aware of himself as man. …If man is unfree in the materialistic sense, i.e., is free not through the negative power to avoid this or that, but through the positive power to assert his true individuality, … and each man must be given social scope for the vital manifestation of his being (vol. 4, pp. 130–131).” This is the reason why Marx and Engels proposed the mental liberation of people politically from the perspective of human nature. Man is the emotional unity of the physical and the mental, such that “[I]n this context it is evident that individuals undoubtedly make one another, physically and mentally, but do not make themselves, either in the nonsense of Saint Bruno, or in the sense of the “unique”, of the “made” man (vol. 5, p. 52).” Therefore, spiritual activities and mental intercourse serve not only the existence and development of the physical body but also the existence and development of the spiritual self. In this sense, the individual’s spiritual activities and mental intercourse are considered rich. As Marx pointed out, “for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created (vol. 3, p. 277). […] Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object (vol. 3, p. 337).” Under such circumstances, the spiritual activities and mental intercourse of people would not only include the transmission of information in general but also their ability to think creatively and abstractly, as well as the continuity in activities pertaining to artistic aesthetics and emotional awareness; thus, becoming diversified. It is clearly shown through spiritual activities and mental intercourse that human beings are a multi-dimensional composition of the material and the spiritual, the rational and the irrational, the conscious and the subconscious, as well as the civilized and the primitive. Even if the spirit is ultimately caught up in the material activities, the spirit begins to take on independence when the individual begins to consider himself as a human being rather than as an animal. From this perspective, Marx regarded the forms of mental intercourse, for instance, politics, art, language, literature (in general), etc., as “history in its abstract-general character (vol. 3, p. 302)” as these have already acquired “productive forces (vol. 24, p. 508)”. Engels, on the other hand, viewed the human spirit as “the motion of the highest product of organic matter (vol. 25, p. 474)” and the thinking spirit as the “highest creation (vol. 25, p. 335)”.

3.2 The Nature of Human Society and Mental Intercourse According to Engels, human nature can be rather abstract, because of “a new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged man, namely, society (vol. 25, p. 456).” He introduced human nature into the category of social essence.

32

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

Modern people are always people in society. The social essence and the natural essence of human beings are a combination of sensibilities, but society is much more complicated than human nature. Many people are accustomed to the type of interactions that occur in their everyday life and through these, seek to prove that they are the same and that the way in which they understand their relationship with each other is the same. This is a means of identification that can extend from the individual into a group, an ethnicity, or even a nationality. In the relationship among people, the social nature of human beings is simply and clearly presented. Therefore, Engels wrote that “two persons are more human than one (vol. 5, p. 12).” Meanwhile, Marx observed numerous times the intercoursal relationship between two people when they were together. He thus wrote, “man first sees and recognises himself in other men. Peter only establishes his own identity as a man by first comparing himself with Paul as being of like kind (vol. 35, p. 63). […] Indeed, his own sense-perception first exists as human sensuousness for himself through the other man (vol. 3, p. 304).” This is because both parties are in the society and are in a complex relationship that has been established by a certain prototype. People are constantly in communication, in observation of something new, in a quest for assurance and guidance on their own relationship with their surroundings. At the same time, people are constantly seeking to confirm their own sameness with others, as well as demonstrate their own understanding of this relationship with others. Even in a situation with only two people, these two people must first establish their relationship with each other in order to live on. This relationship may take the form of identification or/and recognition. A perfect epitome of such a relationship that takes both forms is that of Robinson and Friday on the deserted island, as Engels pointed out in Anti-Duhring. Although both men appear to be removed from society, the shadow of society can still be found through the ways in which Robinson teaches and instructs Friday on his behavior. Of course, this simple relationship is premised on the interaction between both parties, through which the extent of an individual’s understanding of himself both determines, and is determined by, the extent of his understanding of the other person. This is how each person situates himself within an equal relationship with the other person. This is a mutual perception of intercourse or interaction. In Marx’s discussion on “the ability to convey the spirit”, he pointed out the premise of this intercourse as such, “What I cannot be for others, I am not and cannot be for myself. If I am not allowed to be a spiritual force for others, then I have no right to be a spiritual force for myself (vol. 1, p. 177)”. Real life is much more complex than the relationship between two people. Because of lineage, culture, economic and political reasons, people must participate in social interactions. Otherwise, people are merely natural bodies that happen to exist in isolation. In regard to this, Marx wrote, “Both of them must breathe; for both of them the air exists as the atmosphere; but this does not bring them into any social contact. As individuals who must breathe, they are related to one another not as persons but only as natural bodies (vol. 28, p. 174).” For example, the process of interaction due to the exchange of goods, Marx pointed that that “each confronts the other as possessor of the object of the other’s/need, shows that as a human being each

3.2 The Nature of Human Society and Mental Intercourse

33

transcends his own particular needs, etc., that they are behaving towards each other as men, that their common species being is known by all. This is unique. Elephants do not produce for tigers, or animals for other animals (vol. 28, pp. 174–175).” Another example is the interaction or/and recognition that arise out of political and social reasons. About this, Marx wrote, “To be a slave and to be a CITIZEN are social determinations, relations between human beings A and B. Human being A as such is not a slave; he is a slave in and through society (vol. 28, p. 195). […] For instance, one man is king only because other men stand in the relation of subjects to him. They, on the contrary, imagine that they are subjects because he is king (vol. 35, p. 67).” Society is like a shadow of the material and mental intercourses of people. In relation to this, Marx and Engels pointed out, “on the other hand, it is man’s consciousness of the necessity of associating with the individuals around him, the beginning of the consciousness that he is living in society at all (vol. 5, p. 44).”, which Engels went on to elaborate that “[w]ithout society, just as without a collective force, there is no relation between men, no intercourse (vol. 11, p. 553). From the perspective of human history, according to Engels, “I should regard the social instinct as one of the most essential factors in the evolution of humans from apes (vol. 45, p. 109).” When the herd consciousness of apes develops into a natural instinct, they become human beings and enter society. Human society, in itself is a consequence of intercourse. About this, Marx explained, “What is society, irrespective of its form? The product of man’s interaction upon man (vol. 38, p. 96). […] Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of the relationships and conditions in which these individuals stand to one another (vol. 28, p. 195).” Although expressed differently, these arguments mean the same thing, that is, society is an organization of organic networks formed through the intercourse of people. In order to live a fulfilling and effective life, people must not only be in contact with the natural world, but they must also engage in social interactions of a certain variety (such as within families, tribes, and groups, etc.) so that they can adjust their lifestyles accordingly to make room for survival and development. Human life is a process of continuous efforts. All kinds of setbacks, pains, loneliness, and fear, often hinder the progress of an individual, at which times, one needs the encouragement, hope, friendship, and tranquility that can only be obtained through social interactions with others. For instance, Engels elucidated the role of social forces in the creation of tranquility in life as required by an individual. He wrote, “For evolution out of the animal stage, for the accomplishment of the greatest advance known to nature, an additional element was needed: the replacement of the individual’s inadequate power of defence by the united strength and joint effort of the horde (vol. 26, p. 145).” This is a collaborative force derived out of the synergy of a group effort, in which the individual does not need to exert any extra strength but rather, gains enough strength to develop himself. As such, Marx and Engels concluded, “[h]uman beings, by no means wanting to form a society, have, nevertheless, only achieved the development of society, because they/have always wanted to develop only as isolated individuals and therefore achieved their own development only in and through society (vol. 5, pp. 214–215).”

34

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

Over a long period of history, the essence of people’s social interactions is concealed by ideological contents of lineage, economy, politics, culture, etc., especially since people are accustomed to talking about the way things are. It was only until modern society, through the Renaissance, the Religious Reformation, the Enlightenment, and in the context of world intercourse, that people realized the most fundamental social relationship of man is that we are man. From this, Marx concluded that “[a]ssume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one (vol. 3, p. 326).” The relationship among people is the foundation of all social relations and one that is higher than any other form of social relations. In this regard, Marx put forth an argument using the uprising of German weavers in 1844 as an example. He saw the uprising not only as a form of political struggle but also as an expression of the weavers’ desire to interact with others. They had been isolated from society for an extremely long time, during which they had been working like animals and dying like animals. However, they could not sustain this physical and mental isolation for an extensive period. As Marx wrote, “[t]he community from which the worker is isolated by his own labour is life itself, physical and mental life, human morality, human activity, human enjoyment, human nature. Human nature is the true community of men. The disastrous isolation from this essential nature is incomparably more universal, more intolerable, more dreadful, and more contradictory, than isolation from the political community. Hence, too, the abolition of this isolation—and even a partial reaction to it, an uprising against it—is just as much more infinite as man is more infinite than the citizen, and human life more infinite than political life (vol. 3, p. 205).” According to Marx’s argument, if the life of the political community is overwhelming, people will find themselves in political shackles for a long time, during which on the surface, they appear to be not alone, but in fact, their hearts are in isolation. Marx realized the importance of intercourse with other human beings in his dealings with the workers. From the German workers working in Paris, he saw that the lack of basic interaction with people made the forms of interaction much more important than the political propaganda itself, as people talked mainly for the conversation rather than the content.1 Thus, it can be seen that human relations are far more important than political ones. Mental intercourse is first and foremost the interaction among people and then followed by the political interaction, economic

1

When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need—the need for society— and what appears as a means becomes an end. In this practical process the most splendid results are to be observed whenever French socialist workers are seen together. Such things as smoking, drinking, eating, etc., are no longer means of contact or means that bring them together. Association, society and conversation, which again has association as its end, are enough for them; 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 (vol. 3, p. 313).

3.2 The Nature of Human Society and Mental Intercourse

35

interaction, cultural interaction, lineage, and so on. Approaching the problem from different angles reveals human interaction to be both the most basic and the most superior forms of intercourse. It is both the starting point and foothold of social relations. From 1853 to 1881, Marx mentioned the famous saying of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle seven times: people are born to be citizens of the city (political animals). Marx interpreted this to be “man is by nature a town-citizen (vol. 35, p. 331).” He believed that this definition of man reflects the narrowness of the free man in ancient times. In modern times, however, “man is, if not as Aristotle contends, a political, at all events a social animal (vol. 35, p. 331).” This shows that with the evolution of society, the notion of the free man has expanded from a limited number to include the whole and that the modern man can only survive within certain social connections. This is “the function of man (vol. 7, p. 264)” Meanwhile, Marx’s interpretation of this saying can also mean that man “is not only a social animal, but an animal that can isolate itself only within society (vol. 28, p. 18).” From mass communication to the application of various platforms and technology of popular media and the internet, all these forms of interaction are evidence that human beings have turned into “social animals”. Similarly, based on the fact that men are “social animals”, Marx extended the criteria of intercourse that conforms to the social nature of human beings. He said, “[I]f man is social by nature, he will develop his true nature only in society, and the power of his nature must be measured not by the power of the separate individual but by the power of society (vol. 4, p. 131).” It is from this perspective that he laid to rest the book inspection system which was killing off the spiritual development of man as this system determined the right of the human spirit to exist, simply based on the opinions of a few selected individuals. He resorted to public opinion and the spirit of the era, which are benchmarks of pursuit of social power. Regarding the inextricable link between man and society, Marx concluded that “[s]ince human nature is the true community of men, by manifesting their nature men create, produce, the human community, the social entity (vol. 3, p. 217).” This sentence illustrates the most important internal motivation for the generation and development of human mental intercourse. His contemporary, Charles Robert Darwin, also mentioned the same point, “Every one will admit that man is a social being. We see this in his dislike of solitude, and in his wish for society beyond that of his own family. Solitary confinement is one of the severest punishments which can be inflicted.”2 People form their own social essences by actively establishing social relations. This means that the severance of man from his society through the prohibition of intercourse will cause him extreme agony. This scenario that is illustrated by Darwin has also been discussed many times by Marx and Engels. Marx himself has noticed the pain of his daughters, who lacked intercourse outside of the domestic setting. He told Engels, “It’s absolutely essential for my girls to have a ‘human being’ in the house again for once. The poor children have been too early tormented by domestic misery (vol. 40, p. 548).” 2

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html.

36

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

Man’s social relation begins its earliest stage within the family, with his parents, and then gradually expands to include the whole society as he ages. This development of social connection is irreversible. From the 1940s to the 1980s, Marx and Engels condemned the cruelty of the system of solitary confinement a total of seven times, as they consider it defiance of man’s social nature. Marx pointed out, “In the debates on solitary confinement in the Chamber of Deputies this year, even the official supporters of that system had to acknowledge that it leads sooner or later to insanity in the criminal (vol. 4, p. 186).” Engels also pointed out that “in addition, English penal law knows two forms of punishment of particularly choice barbarity—transportation, or debasement through association, and solitary confinement, or debasement through isolation. Neither could be more cruelly or more vilely chosen to ruin systematically and consistently the victims of the law physically, intellectually, and morally and to reduce them to below the level of beasts.…The prisoner in solitary confinement is driven insane; the model gaol in London, after only three months of existence, had already three lunatics to transfer to Bedlam (vol. 3, pp. 509–510),” The other side of this situation reveals that man has a natural instinct to actively participate in social interaction, and to kill this instinct by force is to destroy the individual. Furthermore, to isolate an entire society from the world through obstruction will cause several generations of this society to fall into mental depression and ignorance. Some people might cite Robinson as an example of man being able to live in isolation. However, Marx responded to that by saying, “Production by an isolated individual outside society—something rare, which might occur when a civilised person already dynamically in possession of the social forces is accidentally cast into the wilderness—is just as preposterous as the development of language without individuals who live together and speak to one another (vol. 28, p. 18).” Except in cases of rare occasions, this example illustrates, from another perspective, the way in which man’s social nature paves the way for himself. It is only after a civilised man, who has great determination, has obtained social power that he is able to live on tenaciously in an isolated environment. In regard to this, the ancient Greek philosopher Zenon of Citium had already noticed in the fourth century BC. Marx and Engels quoted him, “but neither will the worthy man live in solitude, for he is social by nature and active in practice (vol. 5, p. 140).” Till now, Marx’s famous saying “the essence of man …In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations (vol. 5, p. 4).” seems to be rather lasting. From the perspective of mental intercourse and human nature, this viewpoint can be expressed in a contemporary manner as: man is the hologram of society. If we were to think of the whole of social relations as a huge piece of glass, the image of a person will be reflected in it. In fact, regardless of how many pieces the glass fragments into, each shard of glass will still reflect the entire image of one person. Every person is both himself and an embodiment of all kinds of relationships within a society. His mental intercourse, regardless of which form, takes on social nature. This is as Marx said, “But also when I am active scientifically, etc.—an activity which I can seldom perform in direct community with others—then my activity is social because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence

3.2 The Nature of Human Society and Mental Intercourse

37

is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being (vol. 3, p. 298).” In other forms of mental intercourse, such as literature, news, religion, and so on, people are the embodiment of social holography, just that they do not realize it. The forms of human interaction within the context of social relations are always positive; however, this interaction is at the same time inevitably controlled by these social relations. In the first chapter of Capital, Marx mentioned an example of a farmer buying and selling goods in the market. This material intercourse occurs alongside the mental intercourse of bargaining. On the surface, this seems like an ordinary type of intercourse. However, it is at the same time a manifestation of a type of social relationships within a commodified society, one that has been predicated by an intangible social force. Man’s concept of intercourse reflects the social consciousness of an era. Processes of mental intercourse act as the blood vessels and meridians of the entire society, running through a network of social relationships. Regarding this, Marx and Engels have pointed out that “[t]he ideas and thoughts of people were, of course, ideas and thoughts about themselves and their relationships, their consciousness of themselves and of people in general—for it was the consciousness not merely of a single individual but of the individual in his interconnection with the whole of society and about the whole of the society in which they lived. The conditions, independent of them, in which they produced their life, the necessary forms of intercourse connected herewith, and the personal and social relations thereby given (vol. 5, p. 183).” On the other hand, from an opposite point of view, pure social relations do not exist if we were to leave out specific forms of material and mental intercourse. In this sense, the existence of intercourse creates social relations. In other words, man creates social relationships through engagement in positive experiences of intercourse. In his discussion on higher forms of mental intercourse such as thinking, Marx said, “social relations only exist among human beings to the extent that they think, and possess this power of abstraction from sensuous individuality and contingency (vol. 30, p. 232).” Here, the act of thinking is the premise of social relations. Social relations in real life are mainly constructed through the direct and indirect (such as via the Internet) interpersonal relationships among people. Hence, Marx and Engels regarded the intercourse between individuals as the premise of an actual relationship. They wrote, “and since this intercourse, in its turn, determined production and needs, it was, therefore, precisely the personal, individual behavior of individuals, their behavior to one another as individuals, that created the existing relations and daily reproduces them anew (vol. 5, p. 437).” As an embodiment of the whole of social relations, the notion of Man is rather broad in its definition. The social nature of man does not only refer to people’s lives within a certain economic and political sense but also refers to the interdependence on one another and the common activities shared by everybody. The kind of mental intercourse that an individual engages in within his society is not solely determined by his status and class in production. Mental intercourse is in itself a vehicle of human culture, which helps to illuminate, to a certain limited extent, the organization behind man’s mental intercourse, spiritual activities, emotional well-being, and personality.

38

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

Cultural traditions, knowledge standards, moral values, religious beliefs, and so on, exert a subtle influence on spiritual activities and mental intercourse at different levels and depths. In this sense, Marx pointed out that “[a]bove all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual (vol. 3, p. 299).” In order to refute their critiques, Marx and Engels shifted their focus mainly to the emphasis on economic relations and class relations. Nevertheless, they still paid attention to the issue of individual activities. For example, when it is mentioned that man is a member of social class, they added that they “do not mean it to be understood from this that, for example, the rentier, the capitalist, etc., cease to be persons (vol. 5, p. 78);” In the first volume of Das Capital, Marx analyzed the exchange of commodities in a highly abstract manner. However, when it came to the exchange of commodities in life, he gave numerous warnings that man’s “difficulty may perhaps have arisen from treating the actors as personifications instead of as individuals (vol. 35, p. 173).”

3.3 Man’s Complete Possession of Their Own Natures Marx believed that man possesses the entire external world with his senses and feelings. Examining the process of mental intercourse from this perspective is one of the most profound aspects of Marxism. In fact, to approach intercourse from this viewpoint is to doubly affirm oneself and others at the same time, while fully realizing one’s own nature. Marx broke down the process into four important points: (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

3

I have transformed my personality traits into spiritual products (here, sound and language are considered material products) and in the process of transforming such products into other forms, I am able to directly feel the existence of my personality and the pleasure in spreading it around. Therefore, I express or perform my life through such activities. When you accept or enjoy my spiritual products, I can feel my personal activities or labor meeting the needs of others (here, I mean people) in a way that my social nature is recognized or materialized. This way, I have become an intermediary for you to connect with society. This is because the social connection among people is mainly established through the formation of interpersonal relationships among people. In that sense, you will realize that I am, in fact, a supplement to your own nature, while I obtained affirmation of myself through your acceptance or enjoyment of my products. My personal expression of life creates yours, while my personal activities realize my social nature.3 In summary, “activity in direct association with others, etc., has become an organ for expressing my own life, and a mode of appropriating human life (vol. 3, p. 301).”

In the individual expression of my life I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realised my true nature, my human nature, my communal nature (vol. 3, p. 228).

3.3 Man’s Complete Possession of Their Own Natures

39

In the process of intercourse, the point of departure for everyone is “I”, while “society” is merely an abstract concept that stands in opposition to the “I”. As Marx took “I” as the starting point for his analysis of social intercourse, his analysis stayed close to life. As long as each person who engages in spiritual activities recalls in detail the processes of his mental intercourse and production, it will not be difficult to relate to the aforementioned four points. This is because “the meaning of an object for me goes only so far as my sense goes (has only a meaning for a sense corresponding to that object) (vol. 3, p. 301).” In order to have a comprehensive set of intercourse like the one mentioned above, one must first know himself and others in a comprehensive manner. As Marx wrote, “Man appropriates his comprehensive essence in a comprehensive manner, that is to say, as a whole man. Each of his human relations to the world—seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking,/observing, experiencing, wanting, acting, loving—in short, all the organs of his individual being, like those organs which are directly social in their form, are in their objective orientation, or in their orientation to the object, the appropriation of the object, the appropriation of human reality (vol. 3, pp. 299–300).” In other words, Marx regarded the essence of man as a comprehensive embodiment of all of his social connections with the external world. Through his own intercourse with the external world, man transfers the power of his internal social essence onto the partner of his intercourse. That way, he identifies himself in his partner and elicits a sense of recognition or identification from his partner (i.e., possession). For example, love is only powerful when the loved one accepts the love. In this discussion, Marx covered all forms and organs of human mental intercourse. He also pointed out that “[t]hus man is affirmed in the objective world not only in the act of thinking, but with all his senses (vol. 3, p. 301).” The “senses” mentioned here include not only all of the sensory abilities, but also all of the sensory properties (the act of sensing, as well as the subconscious). Marx likened the diversity of human mental existence to a drop of dew sparkling all sorts of rainbow colors under the sunlight. In response to those arguments that recognize only a single form of expression as the truth, he retorted, “Truth is as little modest as light (vol. 1, p. 112) […] The essence of the spirit is always truth itself , but what do you make its essence? Modesty (vol. 1, p. 112)” Instead of restricting his study of man’s intercourse with the external world to merely acts of reading, listening, or watching, Marx premised his study on the whole of man’s senses. This is why Marx was able to understand man’s mental intercourse much better than the rest of his counterparts. However, it is uncommon to find Marx’s comprehensive set of mental intercourse within the actual manifestations of mental intercourse itself. This is because there is a prerequisite for this comprehensive mental intercourse to occur, which is the expression of freedom of life. If this kind of intercourse is compelled by external needs rather than motivated by a person’s inner nature, then the four points of mental intercourse will each be distorted to varying degrees. For example, products of literature or the press that have been produced for making money or political gains, or being forced into a position of dilemma by strong external compulsions, will inadvertently cause man to take up an opposite position and negate the complete nature

40

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

of human being. As such, both Marx and Engels cherished the natural nature of man tremendously. In fact, Marx questioned, “But is the press true to its character, does it act in accordance with the nobility of its nature, is the press free which degrades itself to the level of a trade? (vol. 1, p. 174)” When people are asked to reach a consensus about a particular issue, Engels pointed out that “[I]t is however thoroughly inhuman and to such an extent contrary to human nature (vol. 3, p. 508)” Marx used more or less the same words thrice when he discussed the motivation behind John Milton’s Paradise Lost. He said, “Milton produced Paradise Lost for the same reason as a silkworm produces silk. It was an expression of his own nature (vol. 34, p. 136).” They paid special attention to the original sense of spiritual activities and mental intercourse because the meaning in man’s activities is deeper and broader than that in political and economic life. Man can obtain full possession of his own nature when his brain mobilizes all his sensory organs to interact with the external world. The formation and development of man’s brain and senses constitute the history of how his mental intercourse develops. Engels believed that the development of the human brain is closely associated with the development of his sensory organs. It is precise because of the brain’s collaboration with the sensory organs that man becomes so much more than mere animals in contact with the external world. He explained, “Just as the gradual development of speech is inevitably accompanied by a corresponding refinement of the organ of hearing, so the development of the brain as a whole is accompanied by a refinement of all the senses. The eagle sees much farther than man, but the human eye discerns considerably more in things than does the eye of the eagle. The dog has a far keener sense of smell than man but it does not distinguish a hundredth part of the odours that for man are definite signs denoting different things (vol. 25, pp. 455–456).” In addition, Engels also discussed the formation and development of man’s tactile senses along with his abstract and reasoning abilities. Man has unsurpassed superiority over animals mainly because man’s relationship with nature gradually transforms from passive into active, from unawareness into awareness. Man’s initial senses rely heavily on the energy transmitted by the object in real life, which generally constitutes the instinctive perceptual experience of human beings in the biological sense. As human society gradually develops, man’s sensory instincts advance onto thinking and alongside these senses, develops its own essence in a comprehensive manner. “The forming of the five senses is a labour of the entire history of the world down to the present (vol. 3, p. 302).” Marx’s statement sums up succinctly the question of the origins of human senses. It might not be a deliberate act, but whenever Marx discussed the sensory organs, he would prioritize the eyes, as is the case in Manuscript of 1844, The German Ideology, and Das Capital. He said, “But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye (vol. 35, p. 83).” The eyes gather and accept information the fastest and have a holographic nature. As such, most of the information obtained by man is through vision. Marx understood this and had numerous times made the comparison that “[t]he free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself (vol. 1, p. 164),” Next is the ear. The development of the ear

3.3 Man’s Complete Possession of Their Own Natures

41

is closely related to pronunciation and sound, which makes the ear one of the most important sensory organs for a higher level of mental enjoyment and intercourse. For instance, the enjoyment of music, as Marx said, “the service a singer performs for me satisfies my aesthetic needs, …I enjoy the activity itself—its /REVERBERATION in my ear (vol. 34, pp. 139–140).” He quoted the British philosopher Hobbes, “intelligence comes through the ears (vol. 14, p. 247)”. No matter which kind of sense, it is nonetheless a manifestation of man’s essential power. Due to the different nature of the object in contact, the receiving method of the sensor changes. “To the eye an object comes to be other than it is to the ear, and the object of the eye is another object than the object of the ear (vol. 3, p. 301).” In actuality, the intercourse between man and the external world is a comprehensive application of various senses and feelings. The manifestations of human feelings are not restricted to only the senses and the body, but also can be manifested in the comprehensive thinking of knowledge, feelings, meanings, imaginations, inspirations, and illusions that are infinitely enriched by reality. Through such a comprehensive operation, the diversity and richness of man’s possession of the self can be seen. Even if it is a self-propagating process, it still requires full exercise of the human senses and feelings. In his explanation of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus’s view that “all senses are true reporters”, Marx wrote on the process of “reporting” that “[t]hese forms of the things stream constantly forth from them and penetrate into the senses and in precisely this way allow the objects to appear. Thus in hearing nature hears itself, in smelling it smells itself, in seeing it sees itself. Human sensuousness is therefore the medium in which natural processes are reflected as in a focus and ignited into the light of appearance (vol. 1, p. 65).” In other words, self-propagation is unthinkable if an activity comprises only of thoughts and no sense. Man is social animal with emotions and fantasies, which complicate the manifestations of mental intercourse. For example, when people are in love, their mode of intercourse becomes abnormal; the more incoherent they are, the more accurately they are able to express themselves. Marx wrote, “That passionate unclarity and erratic confusion of style, therefore, flatter the heart of the beloved, since the reflected, general, and therefore untrustworthy nature of the language has assumed a directly individual, sensuously powerful, and hence absolutely trustworthy, character (vol. 3, p. 207).” What works here is not the incoherent words of declarations but rather, the emotions that fill the person to the brim. In literary creations, similarly, the creator will not employ words in a way that directly reflects nature, unlike how an average person will. For example, in Marx’s discussion of the characteristics of verses, he wrote “and even say poetically that the iron works in the furnace, or works under the blows of the hammer (vol. 32, p. 364).” What is employed here is not a direct reflection of nature but rather, an artistic interpretation and expression of the whimsical. A lot of feelings regarding the external world must be contemplated before expressing, for example, the sun, as Marx observed how the ancient Roman speaker Cicero wrote, “The sun seems large to Democritus, because he is a man of science well versed in geometry; to Epicurus it seems to be about two feet large,

42

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

for he pronounces it to be as large as it seems (vol. 1, p. 40).” Clearly, man’s senses must cooperate with his thought processes in order for him to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. According to Marx’s distinction, there are four main categories of theoretical, artistic, religious, and practical spirits (such as love and will) that can be obtained through man’s senses and feelings of the external world (also known as intercourse). Man’s mental intercourse is not merely a unicellular form of information transmission, it is also filled with charisma and life, breathing freedom and conscious initiative in its process. As Marx wrote, “variatio delectate (vol. 31, p. 166).” The same can be said of the diversity of intercourse, that it makes people feel the energy and power of their own natures. It is precisely the continuous use of people’s ability to engage in intercourse that makes their senses more sensitive and alive, which in turn, further strengthens their experiences of their own essential power and nature. Marx summed up this viewpoint in the following paragraph, “Only through the objectively unfolded richness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility (a musical ear, an eye for beauty of form—in short, senses capable of human gratification, senses affirming themselves as essential powers of man) either cultivated or brought into being (vol. 3, p. 301).” This reminds people of similar words spoken by Wiener, the founder of contemporary cybernetics.4 During Marx and Engels’s era, there was no radio, no movies, no television; instead, the main mediums of communication were gatherings, newspapers, dramas, news agencies, telegraphs, and so on. However, they envisaged many possible and comprehensive ways in which man’s sensory organs (such as eyes and ears) could be used as well as ways in which man’s senses could be combined with his thinking process, and thus employed these notions into their theory of man’s possession of nature. This provides a profound philosophy worthy of recollection for the modern broadcasting theory of television and radio.

3.4 The Human Nature of Need and Intercourse Marx further studied the problem of “the human nature of need (vol. 3, p. 296),” and intercourse, thus enriching and deepening the foundation of “the entire system of needs (vol. 6, p. 119).” The human production is comprehensive. In the process of creating products that meet the physical needs of people, man also created products that are not subject to the physical needs of people. This kind of production and the mental intercourse that it brings are signs that human beings are more superior to animals. If we were to approach the need for man’s mental intercourse from the perspective of human nature, then we would find out that it is not a one-time constant. Instead, this kind of diversity, 4

Variety and possibility are inherent in the human sensorium-and are indeed the key to man’s most noble flights-because variety and possibility belong to the very structure of the human organism (Wiener, 1989, p. 52).

3.4 The Human Nature of Need and Intercourse

43

openness, and self-transcendence, makes this need different from animal desires, rather, manifesting itself as an organic series with infinite room for development and innovation. The difference between human needs and social needs is that human needs are an individual need that “begins from oneself”. The social connection of each person is directly established on this need even as he needs a specific society as the background. Therefore, Marx pointed out that “which is no abstract universal power opposed to the single individual but is the essential nature of each individual, his own activity, his own life, his own spirit, his own wealth. Hence this true community does not come into being through reflection, it appears owing to the need and egoism of individuals, i.e., it is produced directly by their life activity itself (vol. 3, p. 217).” Here, egoism is not a derogatory concept, instead, it is neutral. In their study of the human needs, Marx and Engels further pointed out, “and since their needs, consequently their nature, and the method of satisfying their needs, connected them with one another (relations between the sexes, exchange, division of labour), they had to enter into relations with one another. […] therefore, precisely the personal, individual behaviour of individuals, their behaviour to one another as individuals, that created the existing relations and daily reproduces them anew. They entered/into intercourse with one another as what they were, they proceeded “from themselves”, as they were, irrespective of their “outlook on life” (vol. 5, pp. 437– 438).” Marx also discussed repeatedly that “ man as a social being must proceed to exchange (vol. 3, p. 212)” and “the need of companionship (vol. 3, p. 308)” of man. Similarly, Engels pointed out that “in general from the very start, as soon as they came into existence, men needed one another and could only develop their needs and abilities, etc., by entering into intercourse with other men (vol. 5, p. 11).” Perhaps the parties involved in the intercourse are unaware that the intercourse among people is not for the sake of embellishment but instead, is a requirement of life that empowers man to continue his pursuit. Marx elaborated on the three different levels of need within mental intercourse. Mental intercourse of a lower level takes the form of a natural psychological satisfaction on the surface level. To illustrate this, he quoted the words of the British seventeenth-century economist Balben, “Desire implies want; it is the appetite of the mind, and as natural as hunger to the body (vol. 35, p. 45)” Whereas mental intercourse of a higher level is as Marx said, “man is affirmed in the objective world not only in the act of thinking, but with all his senses (vol. 3, p. 301),” and thus, should turn his life activities into his own will and make it the subject of his consciousness. This involves the substantive issues of man’s mental intercourse, that is, people have self-consciousness and they transform their need for the development and existence of the self into a need for affirmation. The mental intercourse of people from the upper class is usually, to a certain extent, more concerned with obtaining information that aids in the process of selfaffirmation. This is in order to maintain the psychological balance of the self and to feel happy and satisfied. This is why a wonderful piece of painting, a brilliant piece of music, or a piece of good news, often leads to a kind of satisfaction. Man’s need for information, although expressed as a kind of response, is as Marx said, “a kind of self-enjoyment of man (vol. 3, p. 300).” It manifests itself as man’s internal,

44

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

psychological, and mental needs; something that transcends the direct needs of the physical body, and that sometimes, even transcends the direct satisfaction of the psychological surface to culminate in pursuit of man as a whole. This is because, in addition to the satisfaction of the natural psychological surface, man also needs courage and resilience, peace, comfort, confidence, friendship, and appreciation, in his mental intercourse. Of course, the benefits of different types of information are different; they may be knowledge, recognition, or reflection, or even a moment of excitement, whereas comprehensive information of the aesthetic sort, as Engels wrote, is “surrendering to the divine spirit of bliss and enjoyment of life, the innermost kernel of which is enjoyment of art. (vol. 2, pp. 274–275).” On a higher level, people can even obtain information of the self-affirmative sort by appropriating themselves in certain reflective aspects of their partner’s world. In his discussion on people’s understanding of the phenomenon of alienation, Marx pointed out this situation: “The man who has recognised that he is leading an alienated life in law, politics, etc., is leading his true human life in this alienated life as such. Self-affirmation, self-confirmation in contradiction with itself—in contradiction with both the knowledge and the essential being of the object—is thus true knowledge and life (vol. 3, p. 339).” This kind of advanced mental intercourse develops in accordance with the extent of human civilisation and knowledge. Regarding this reasoning, Marx quoted the words of the seventeenth-century British writer Barnard Mandeville, “knowledge both enlarges and multiplies our desires, and the fewer things a man wishes for, the more easily his necessities may be supplied (vol. 35, p. 610).” Of course, even during the primitive era, man’s material needs also required mental intercourse to strike a psychological balance. A typical expression of this intercourse is the spread of myth. The nature of myth is as Marx said, “All mythology subdues, dominates and fashions the forces of nature in the imagination and through the imagination (vol. 28, p. 47);” Mythology and witchcraft, primitive religion, etc., all that is related to mythology, deeply reveal the spiritual essence of human beings to contain strong emotional impulses, doubts, and fears about life and death, a desire to dominate and control the world, etc. The primitive man passed on the myths of their own tribes by word of mouth and with great passion and enthusiasm, simply because myths enable them to develop themselves and to obtain gratification through the conquest of their own will. Marx discussed in detail the needs of such a type of mental intercourse in The Abstract of Morgan’s Ancient Society. Regardless of whether man obtains affirmation from thinking or feeling, it will bring him great happiness and satisfaction. In this sense, the satisfaction found in mental intercourse is also a kind of “consumption”, and is a consumption more sublime than that of material intercourse. From this perspective, Marx conducted a more in-depth analysis of the need for mental intercourse. Using music as an example, he pointed out, “If the music is good and if the listener understands music, the consumption of music is more sublime than the consumption of champagne (vol. 31, p. 195),” In the process of appreciating literary and artistic works, if people are able to enter the realm of the creation, he would experience the kind of mental

3.4 The Human Nature of Need and Intercourse

45

intercourse similar to that of a person listening to music in that his heart will transcend the boundary of the pragmatic realm to obtain psychological compensation and emotional sublimation. The above situation shows that in the process of satisfying man’s need for mental intercourse, consumption is not negative as new participants are also being created in this mental intercourse. Still using music as an example, Marx said, “But doesn’t the pianist produce music and satisfy our musical ear; doesn’t he also produce the latter to a certain degree? In fact, he does so; his labour produces something (vol. 28, p. 231).” The rhythm of music is unable to exist without people, so the pianist actually creates the person who appreciates the music. The same can be said of other types of intercourse. Without the recipient or appreciator of the information, there can be no expansion or development of mental intercourse. Marx said, “Just as only music awakens in man the sense of music, and just as the most beautiful music has no sense for the unmusical ear (vol. 3, p. 301).” The evolution and expansion of human mental intercourse can also be said to be the result of constant interaction between consumption and reproduction. The refinement and appreciation of mental products (which are partially inseparable from behavior), or/and the raise in standards of the recipients, continue to progress as this interaction continues. From the perspective of consumption, the situation is as Marx said, “equally evident that consumption posits the object of production ideally, as an internal image, a need, an urge and a purpose (vol. 28, p. 29). […] then it(consumption) is itself, as an urge, mediated by the object. The need felt for the object is created by the perception of the object. An objet d’art—just like any other product—creates a public that has artistic taste and is capable of enjoying beauty (vol. 28, p. 30).” Once this point of view is understood, it becomes easy to see why unique forms of media and communication garner loyal users in a gradual manner. The need for human mental intercourse is much more subtle and complex than the need for material intercourse. Marx is fully aware of this and thus, analyzed the initiative that man takes in meeting his need for mental intercourse. From this point of view, although some mental products have a certain social, class, or partisan background, they can still become a symbol of man’s spiritual life and soul, or an inducer or suggestive force for the recipient’s life experiences and emotions. This is because “he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created (vol. 3, p. 277).” The representative and intuitive self that is mentioned here refers to a form of self-recognition, much like looking at one’s own reflection in a mirror. In the process, the recipient sees something in the mental products that is more or less akin to his own inherent ideas and desires, which causes him to accept these mental products (including those that are inseparable from actions, such as performance, singing, broadcasting, etc.) and in turn, these products awaken his emotions and connect all of his experiences. For example, the “permanent charm” that Marx used to describe ancient Greek mythology is still felt by modern people. It is a kind of heterogeneous affirmation that does not seek a perfect match between life experiences and emotional content; instead, it seeks only a structural similarity between the two. It is precisely because of this reason that many mental products may establish connections with

46

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

recipients of different eras and backgrounds. Heinrich Heine once said, “Every age, when it acquires new ideas, also acquires new eyes, and sees much that is new in the old works of the spirit (Prawer 1976, p. 231)”5 Marx agreed with this view and added that this new interpretation should never be seen as a “distortion”, nor should it be seen as a betrayal of the norm that ensued from the creation of a new theory or work.6 While analyzing man’s need for mental intercourse, both Marx and Engels observed the tenacity of man in his pursuit of higher-level mental intercourse. The moment man becomes man, it becomes rare to explain his behavior as an expression of physical needs. This is why Engels said, “Men became accustomed to explain their actions as arising out of thought instead of their needs (which in any case are reflected and perceived in the mind) (vol. 25, p. 459);” thus, the formation of human pursuits. Meanwhile, the existence and development of the subject’s spirit become trapped within the tension of its various pursuits. Once the need for lower-level mental intercourse has been satisfied, a need for higher-level mental intercourse will arise. Marx regarded this as a regular phenomenon. He pointed out that “it is a law of the development of human nature that once the satisfaction of a certain sphere of needs has been assured new needs are set free, created (vol. 30, p. 199).” On his part, Engels strongly agreed with the Russian writer Peter Razrov (
etp Lavpoviq Lavpov) that

The basest need for mental intercourse is attached to the need for material intercourse. For example, a ravenous person will experience a certain level of psychological satisfaction after eating a full meal. This psychological reaction is as Marx analyzed, “The sense caught up in crude practical need has only a restricted sense. For the starving man, it is not the human form of food that exists, but only its abstract existence as food (vol. 3, p. 302).” Once a man is removed from this circumstance, intercourse immediately becomes a pursuit. Marx wrote, in his observation of the German workers in France in 1844, about the similarity in their situation, “When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need—the need for society—and what appears as a means becomes an end (vol. 3, p. 313). […] Such things as smoking, drinking, eating, etc., are no longer means of contact or 5

Prawer (1976). You have shown that the adoption of the Roman will originally rested on a misconception (and still does, so far as the sagacity of/learned jurists is concerned). But it by no means follows from this that the will in its modern form—no matter with what misconceptions of Roman law modern jurists may construe it—is the misconceived Roman will. If this were so, it might be said that every attainment of an earlier age adopted by a later one is a misunderstanding of the past (vol. 41, pp. 317–318).

6

3.4 The Human Nature of Need and Intercourse

47

means that bring them together. Association, society and conversation, which again has association as its end, are enough for them (vol. 3, p. 313).” In the later development of society, the rise of industrial production gradually introduced the idea of “enjoyment” into the mental intercourse of the workers. In 1857, Marx pointed out “the worker’s participation in higher, including spiritual, pleasures, agitation for his own interests, subscription to newspapers, attending lectures, educating his children, developing his taste, etc., his only share in civilisation, which distinguishes him from the slave, is economically possible only by his extension of the range of his enjoyments in times of good business, that is at the times when saving is possible to a certain degree (vol. 28, p. 216)” 5 years later, he again pointed out that “some degree of variation is possible here, such as, e.g. newspapers, which form part of the necessary means of subsistence of the English urban worker (vol. 34, p. 101).” Clearly, man’s mental intercourse needs to change according to a guided set of principles—when a type of mental intercourse changes from an occasional and unintentional “enjoyment” into a necessity of life, a need for a higher and newer form of mental intercourse will arise. Once a higher form of intercourse becomes a necessity to man’s spiritual life, if external pressure and factors cause it to be temporarily lost, man will insist on expressing himself through lower forms of intercourse in a bid to regain what was lost. The French revolution in February 1848, gave French workers access to higher forms of intercourse such as public clubs and the press. When these forms of intercourse were removed, the situation became as Marx and Engels said, “The secret societies grew in extent and intensity in the same degree that the public clubs became impossible. The workers’ industrial co-operatives, tolerated as purely commercial societies, while of no account economically, became politically so many means of cementing the proletariat (vol. 10, p. 110). […] As to the working-men in the towns, they cannot be entirely excluded from seeing the newspapers, and if cheap periodical publications are stopped, they will make up for that by increasing secret societies, secret debating clubs, etc. (vol. 10, p. 39).” This situation clearly shows that the higher forms of mental intercourse which had already been formed had become a pursuit of needs and that people were no longer satisfied with lower forms of mental intercourse. If the need for higher forms of mental intercourse remains unsatisfied for an extended period, both the psychology of the society and the self will become unbalanced. When people dedicate themselves to the external world, their lives are extended by needs. Other than material production, mental production and mental intercourse are two things that help people to recognize and develop themselves beyond reality. For the greater enjoyment of mental intercourse, people constantly view the world through rose-tinted glasses while tenaciously, and with great difficulty, expressing their inclination to fully develop themselves.

48

3 Human Nature and Mental Intercourse

Reference Prawer SS (1976) Karl Marx and world literature. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 231

Chapter 4

Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

Other than body language, verbal language is the earliest and most basic medium of mental intercourse for human beings. As such, Engels viewed knowledge of verbal language as a crucial mode for people to interact with one another and pointed out that “[h]e wants also to do away with the two levers which in the world as it is today give at least the opportunity of rising above the narrow national standpoint: knowledge of the ancient languages, which opens a wider common horizon at least to those people of various nationalities who have had a classical education; and knowledge of modern languages, through the medium of which alone the people of different nations can make themselves understood by one another and acquaint themselves with what is happening beyond their own borders (vol. 25, p. 305).” In the era of Marx and Engels, the cultural exchanges between the East and the West contributed to the formation of modern comparative linguistics and historical linguistics. As such, since their youth, both men developed a strong interest in the research of verbal language. Marx pointed out the mistakes that several linguistics experts made while Engels, who had a more profound understanding of linguistics, was regarded as “a comparative philologist (vol. 43, p. 226)” by Marx. In their study of verbal language, they drew on the research results of many predecessors and contemporaries, finding numerous unique insights into the oldest and most pragmatic medium of intercourse.

4.1 The Production of Verbal Language From the moment of birth, people have unquestioningly accepted the form of language passed down from the previous generation. As such, Marx pointed out in his discussion of the relationship between human beings and verbal language that “[n]ot only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active) (vol. 3, p. 298)” However, verbal language was definitely not produced after the birth of mankind. In that case, how © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_4

49

50

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

was language first produced? Marx and Engels arrived at a consensus that “language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men (vol. 5, p. 44).” Engels elaborated on the process of language production, “In short, men in the making arrived at the point where they had something to say to each other. Necessity created the organ; the undeveloped larynx of the ape was slowly but surely transformed by modulation to produce constantly more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another. Comparison with animals proves that this explanation of the origin of languages from and in the process of labour is the only correct one (vol. 25, p. 455).” Meanwhile, Marx approached from an opposite perspective in his numerous discussions on the production of language, “[a]n isolated individual could no more have property in land than he could speak (vol. 28, p. 409) Language as the product of an individual is an absurdity (vol. 28, p. 414) is just as preposterous as the development of language without individuals who live together and speak to one another (vol. 28, p. 18).” To sum up the production of language in a more abstract manner, Marx said in the first volume of Das Kapital that it “is just as much a social product as language (vol. 35, p. 85).” “Community”, during ancient times, referred to a restricted context such as family or tribe; as such, Marx also wrote that “[l]anguage itself is just as much the product of a community as in another respect it is the being of the community, its articulate being, as it were (vol. 28, p. 414).” Under natural conditions, animals would not consider their lack of speech capability as a flaw. In this aspect, they are the same as Nature. On the other hand, the content of the human language transcends Nature as it contains characteristics such as emotions and abstractions. With regards to this, Engels conducted a comparative study on animals and human beings that in turn, illustrated the relationship between mental intercourse and the production of verbal language. He examined a variety of domesticated animals such as dogs and horses and discovered that after domestication, these animals gained the ability to express feelings such as attachment and gratitude, which by extension, also made them more sensitive to the human language. This ability, under natural conditions, is impossible to acquire. As Engels wrote, “[a]nyone who has had much to do with such animals will hardly be able to escape the conviction that in many cases they now feel their inability to speak as a defect (vol. 25, p. 455).” In that case, these animals then exhibit a desire to communicate. Take, for instance, a parrot. Although its vocal organ is fundamentally different from that of a human being, Engels cautioned that “[l]et no one object that the parrot does not understand what it says. It is true that for the sheer pleasure of talking and associating with human beings, the parrot will chatter for hours at a stretch, continually repeating its whole vocabulary. But within the limits of its range of concepts it can also learn to understand what it is saying (vol. 25, p. 455).” If this phenomenon is pushed back to the era of mankind’s evolution, it is akin to the precursor of the human language. The only difference would be that the length of time required for the vocal organs to evolve from its original shape into something else cannot be shortened from millions of years into a few.

4.1 The Production of Verbal Language

51

What is the trademark of language? Both Marx and Engels realized that the answer to this question is syllables. A syllable is the most basic unit of language structure and refers to the smallest fragment of speech that can be produced according to the transformation of facial and tongue muscles during pronunciation. Some animals can also make sounds and use them to transmit information. The difference between this kind of sound and language is that the human language can rely on the pitch of the tone to distinguish different syllables, which is why Marx claimed that it is impossible “to ‘designate’ or ‘express’ a thought except by a quantity of syllables (vol. 32, p. 333).” Meanwhile, Engels called the human language “articulate speech (vol. 25, p. 455)” and in this sense, distinguished between human language and animal sounds. How does the human language make things abstract by imposing representative meanings into certain syllables? And how does this process happen? Marx studied this and believed that people complete this abstraction through cycles of repetition carried out by numerous generations. Initially, people, like animals, constantly consumed foreign objects that meet their needs. “At a certain stage of evolution after their needs, and the activities by which they are satisfied, have, in the meanwhile, increased and further developed, they will linguistically christen entire classes of these things which they distinguished by experience from the rest of the outside world. […] But this linguistic label purely and simply expresses as a concept what repeated activity has turned into an experience (vol. 24, p. 539).” Using the term “property” as an example, people might call it differently as words composed of other syllables, but the direct cause of this vocabulary is because of its usefulness to people, which is the reason why people gave it a name. The more abstract vocabulary is also produced in this way. Marx cited the word “value” and explained that “that the general concept “value” stems from the behavior of human beings towards the things found in the outside world which satisfy their needs (vol. 24, p. 539).” Marx also noticed the relationship between the production of certain words and the external sensory stimulation, such as the influence that the color of matter exerts on vocabulary. He wrote, using gold and silver as examples, that “[s]ense of colour, moreover, is the most popular form of aesthetic perception in general. The etymological connection between the names of precious metals and references to colour in various Indo-European languages has been demonstrated by Jakob Grimm (see his Geschichte der deutschen Sprache) (vol. 29, p. 386). […] (For the roots of the words for gold, silver, etc., see Grimm; here nothing but general concepts of lustre and colour are suggested which are soon transferred to the words. Silver is white, gold is yellow. Bronze and gold, bronze and iron interchange their names (vol. 28, p. 115).” If we were to look at the current English and German (both in the West Germanic branch) words for gold (gold) and silver (silver, Silber), we can see that they are both metal nouns and color nouns which, at the same time, give rise to a series of associative words. This phenomenon also occurs in the Chinese language, which is a completely different language from the Indo-European languages. Clearly, no matter from which angle language is produced, it is the product of the relationship between man and the outside world. At this point, Wilbur Schramm’s conclusion, “[a]s language arose from the need to abstract upon events experience

52

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

(Schramm and Porter p. 9)1 ” is consistent with Marx’s. What is more profound about Marx and Engels’s study is that they further pointed out the specific conditions of this “feeling of necessity”. To this end, they specifically analyzed five conditions in which a person can speak and concluded that “his speech organs, a definite stage of physical development, an existing language and dialects, ears capable of hearing and a human environment from which it is possible to hear something, etc. (vol. 5, p. 150).”

4.2 The Common Trajectory of Language and Thoughts In the writings of Marx and Engels, the suggestion that language and thinking share a common trajectory stemmed from a debate. At that time, some German philosophers not only looked upon thoughts as a kind of independent and special kingdom but also regarded certain languages as such. They sought to find a specialized word above all vocabulary; a language that could not be verbally expressed. Marx and Engels wrote, “Language is the immediate actuality of thought. […] This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content […] (vol. 5,p. 446). […] The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life (vol. 5, p. 447). […] We have seen that the whole problem of the transition from thought to reality, hence from language to life, exists only in philosophical illusion (vol. 5, p. 449).” They presented two problems here: first, language is the expression of realistic life; second, thoughts and language share the same trajectory. Regarding the second point, they are more explicit in argument, pointing out that “[t]he ‘mind’ is from the outset afflicted with the/ curse of being “burdened” with matter, which here makes its appearance in the form of agitated layers of air, sounds, in short, of language. Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me (vol. 5, pp. 43– 44).” Here, they not only explained what language is, but also illustrated the unique feature of inseparability between language and thoughts, and consciousness. In fact, people can feel in their daily lives that once they think as human beings, they cannot do without language as a form of expression. Hence, most people accept Marx and Engels’s conclusion that “[t]he production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men—the language of real life. […] The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of the politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people (vol. 5, p. 36).”

1

Schramm and Porter (2007).

4.2 The Common Trajectory of Language and Thoughts

53

The world associated with the existence of human beings is divided into three. The first is the natural world before the existence of mankind which transcends human beings; the second is the objectified world created by human beings and premised on nature; the third is the spiritual world of people which is based on the previous two worlds. Language belongs to the second type of world. Marx not only saw the same trajectory of thinking and language but also further believed that “[t]he element of thought itself—the element of thought’s living expression—language —is of a sensuous nature (vol. 3, p. 304).” This sensual natural world is the objectified world created by man. However, language is different from things in man’s objectified world (such as food, crafts, currency, etc.), and the expression of the human spiritual world must rely on the informational symbols of language. When someone compares the media role of money to language, Marx criticizes this analogy. He said, “[t]o compare money with language is no less incorrect. Ideas are not transformed into language in such a way that their particular attributes are dissolved and their social character exists alongside them in language as do prices alongside commodities. Ideas do not exist apart from language (vol. 28, p. 99).” Once a commodity is used as a currency (such as shells, gold, and silver), its own unique characteristics disappear. Thus, the characteristics and ideas of language as a medium are integrated and inseparable, just as human shadows are inseparable from human beings. Of course, language is not the only form that is represented by materialized information symbols. There are various other forms that share the same representative quality. For instance, Engels included natural science and music in his assessment that “in things that are more or less independent of language is it any different (vol. 23, p. 610).” However, when we consider the types of information symbols, language, which is adept in terms of expressions and compressed in terms of time and space, can easily be used to represent any non-verbal symbols in the expression of information. For example, words can be used to express the emotions that are conveyed in music; however, non-verbal symbols cannot replace language symbols no matter the case. This characteristic of language makes it the most basic means of human spiritual communication. It is therefore appropriate that Marx regarded language as “the element of thought’s living expression (vol. 3, p. 304).” Since ideas cannot exist without language, language becomes a sign of the development of human thoughts. The extent of the development of language is thus a determining factor of the human thought process. Different language forms produce different cultural forms. Conversely, various cultural forms are reflected and circulated through different languages. This is especially true during the pre-literary era as the history of mankind, including the history of man’s mental intercourse, used to exist only in the language that was passed down from generation to generation. In other words, language contains a wealth of historical information, including but not restricted to the characteristics and logic of thoughts contemporary with that time. In order to understand ancient society, Marx and Engels often obtained ancient historical materials through the study of etymology. For example, with regard to the two historical facts about matriarchy and the birth of the state, in addition to studying the ancient histories of ancient Greece and India, Egypt, and Western Europe, Marx also used language as a side form of circumstantial evidence. He wrote, “So far people still

54

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

say: mother tongue {Mutterzunge}, motherland {fatherland}; language still belongs to the mother” (Vol. 45, p. 561). Since the language learned from birth was taught by the mother, this is one of the reasons why in ancient times, the mother was recognized instead of the father. The word mother tongue in German is composed of the words mother (Mutter) and tongue (Zunge). On the other hand, the formation of the state is related to the establishment of patriarchy. Therefore, in English, the word ‘fatherland’ in the political sense consists of ‘the father’ and ‘the land’. The term “motherland” in the sense of hometown in English is not covered here. The words ‘general’ and ‘special’ are seen as very abstract terms in philosophy, which appear to be products of purely mental and sensory derivations that are divorced from reality. However, Marx’s research shows that abstract words are also very concrete products born out of ancient people’s practice and communication. He said, “[b]ut what would OLD Hegel say, were he to learn in the hereafter that the general [das Allgemeine] in German and Nordic means only the communal land, and that the particular, the special [das Sundre, Besondere] means only private property divided off from the communal land? Here are the logical categories coming damn well out of ‘our intercourse’ after all (vol. 42, p. 558).” Clearly, the concepts of ‘general’ and ‘special’ arise from the initial transformation of the original public ownership into private ownership. The abstraction of these concepts is precisely a reflection of life at that time and is also related to the needs of material and mental intercourse of that time. Let’s consider the Latin word ‘familia’ as another example. Through research on it, Marx and Engels explained that the origin of the family is not the warmth, but rather the result of a productive relationship. Marx firmly believed that “[i]n its primary meaning the word family had no relation to the married pair or their children, but to the body of slaves and servants who labored for its maintenance, and were under the power of the pater familias (Morgan, 477).” Engels also pointed out that “[t]he expression was invented by the Romans to describe a new social organism, the head of which had under him wife and children and a number of slaves, under Roman paternal power, with power of life and death over them all (vol. 26, p. 166).” Because of the common trajectory of language and thinking, Marx and Engels often conducted a comprehensive analysis of the language of an era to gain insight into the whole society and intercourse of this era. For example, Marx came up with the characteristics of production before the ancient Latin tribe came to Italy by studying the work of both historians and linguists in this area. He wrote, “[t]he material existence of the people rested in no way upon agriculture. This becomes entirely clear from the small number of primitive words which have reference to agriculture (Morgan, p. 285).” Furthermore, Engels has conducted comprehensive research on the background of initial political terminology using etymological approaches. As the Latin word “law” (lex) as derived from the word “legere” while the Greek word for “law” (υ´oμoς) originated from the phrase “I am grazing on pasture” (υšμω), he pointed out, “and so a certain connection can be established between agricultural and political terms. And this cannot be otherwise. The first social regulations which were put in force, necessarily referred to production and the means of getting the

4.2 The Common Trajectory of Language and Thoughts

55

livelihood. That this is confirmed by the development of the language, rien de plus naturel (vol. 50, p. 275).” People live in an environment build up of language. The diversity of multi-ethnic languages has its long history and reasons for existence. The language of each nation is a unique phenomenon and is a product of interaction with the outside world under historical and realistic conditions. Meanwhile, the history of each nation and the various experiences that respond to its environment is condensed in its own language. Thus, as Jakob Greene said in his book “On the Origin of Language,” our language is our history.2

4.3 Language as a Mark of Mankind The Book of Genesis in the Bible tells us that when man wanted to work together to build a heavenly “Babita,” God became angry as he foresaw a threat to His status. Consequently, He changed the languages of the people so that each human group could not understand the other and would often go to wars and quarrels with one other, and so the construction of the tower was never brought up again. This biblical myth illustrates the characteristics of human language from the side and that is, as Marx put it, “the analogy is not with the language but with its foreignness (vol. 28, p. 99).” Language is formed by groups of people (tribes, families, nations) who are not in contact with each other, which is why there are tens of thousands of different languages in the world. In Marx’s discussion on The Book of Genesis, he observed that differences in language were the premise on which various different groups of ethnicity were formed. He further elaborated that “[l]anguage itself is just as much the product of a community as in another respect it is the being of the community, its articulate being, as it were (vol. 28, p. 414).” Engels, too, noticed this problem. He wrote, “[i]n fact, tribe and dialect are substantially co-extensive (vol. 26, p. 196).” Both of them mentioned a new approach to language: that it is a sign of the existence of a large or small group of people. The more different human groups come into contact with one another, the more similar their languages become; conversely, the more alienated. Marx and Engels often judged the blood ties between human groups according to their languages. In Marx’s study of the North American Indian tribe, he said, “[i]t is a noticeable fact that Indian tribes speaking dialects of the same stock language have usually been found in territorial continuity, however extended their common area. The same has, in the main, been true of all the tribes of mankind linguistically united (Morgan, p. 109).” When Engels examined the relationship between European nations, he found that the same situation was true. He wrote, “the extent of this neutral territory was less where the two tribes were related linguistically, and greater where not. Such neutral ground was the border forest of the Germans, the wasteland which Caesar’s Suebi

2

Grimm (1852).

56

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

created around their territory (vol. 26, p. 196).” Clearly, the study of language is the key to unlocking the history of the formation of nations. Language is a historical system unanimously agreed upon by the entire human race. People in the same human community must speak a language that everyone can understand. This constant communication unconsciously stabilizes grammar, increases vocabulary, and creates culture. The language of different human groups reflects the cultural differences among them, and language is the only common feature of national culture. About this, Marx succinctly summarized the following: “[t]he abstraction of a community whose members have nothing in common but, e.g. language, etc., […] With regard to the individual, for instance, it is evident that he himself relates to his language as his own only as the natural member of a human community (vol. 28, p. 414).” This language is the “mother tongue” (Mutterzunge) that Marx mentioned previously. The language first heard by a person during childhood is the only language that is able to vividly paint pictures of poetic beauty and breathe life into one’s experiences in a nation. This language ignites the first flame of national consciousness and sentiment in one’s heart. Therefore, almost every nation is proud of its own language, while only those who are very clear-headed will realize the concealed part of language being a hindrance to the development of the national spirit. Engels is part of the minority who are clear-headed. He made an impartial analysis of his native language, pointing out that “[t]he awkwardness of German for everyday use, together with its enormous facility in dealing with the most difficult topics is partly the cause cause—or a symptom?—of the fact that, in most disciplines, the Germans have the greatest men, whereas their mass production is unusually awful rubbish. […] The genius of the great ones finds its complement in the unthinking nature of the Educated Mass, thus no name is more spurious than that of the ‘nation of thinkers’ (vol. 23, p. 610).” This is a rare linguistic approach of a study on the characteristics involved in the production of national spirit. In fact, the language of each nation has two sides. On the one hand, it promotes the spiritual activities of the nation, while on the other hand, it limits the spiritual development of this nation in some respects. There are also two sides to the examination of language if we were to approach it from the perspective of human mental intercourse. Language itself is the product of the expansion of intercourse, but once it becomes a sign of the existence of a certain human group, it will hinder the interaction between this human group and the outside world. Language leads to the emergence of more complex cultural behaviors in the human population. In the abstract world of man’s thoughts, the external environment is artificially divided because the same thing is called different names in different languages and this diversity creates divides in the human mind. For example, the words “Deutsch” and “German” have the same meaning but because of the lack of intercourse between people, they look and sound completely different. According to Engels, “[a]s time passed it frequently happened that neighbouring tribes designated a tribe by a name different from that which it itself used, like the case of the Germans, whose first all-embracing historical name—Teutons—was bestowed on

4.3 Language as a Mark of Mankind

57

them by the Celts (vol. 26, p. 196).” Indeed, language divides humans into many different communities and often plays a role in cultural isolation. The language barrier is more pronounced among communities whose languages share little in common. This is as Marx said, “[i]deas which must first be translated from their mother tongue into a foreign language in order to circulate and to become exchangeable would provide a better analogy (vol. 28, p. 99).” Regarding this point, we should recall the distress in the early twentieth century when the Chinese language library failed to find a corresponding vocabulary for new Western concepts. Yan Fu said in his translation of “Evolution and Ethics”( 《天演论》 ) that “deliberating for weeks to establish a single term” (一名既立, 旬月踟蹰) is a profound experience. At that point in time, Chinese translators had to introduce 844 modern Chinese vocabulary terms derived out of Japanese language, which is closely related to Chinese linguistically. Marx was very careful with his words when he said that translation could only portray the gist of the concept, conveying ideas that are “more similar,” but not exactly the same. This is especially true when the two languages are extremely dissimilar in that even if the translated text tries to be faithful to the original, the translation itself fails to become a process of assimilation of foreign words, and that the original information will be somewhat distorted or its exact meaning will be lost in translation. The different languages of the human race have caused cultural isolation, which in turn creates conflicts of interest, which themselves become opportunities to break the isolation of each culture. Marx and Engels believed that the intercourse between human groups with different languages can be classified into two main types: war and trade. Although these two forms of intercourse obviously find it difficult to draw closer relationships between nations with linguistically dissimilar languages, they nevertheless possess the ability to closer ties among nations with linguistically similar languages and sometimes, even integrate them into a bigger community. In this regard, Marx wrote, “[t]ribes speaking dialects of the same stock language ˆre able to communicate orally and thus compose their differences. They also learned, in virtue of their common descent, to depend upon each other as natural allies (Morgan, p. 112).” This is the starting point for the formation of a larger community of people that is the result of a unified language.

4.4 The Differentiation and Fusion of Language Marx and Engels’s study of language sheds light on two points in the development of language. One is the diversification of several primitive languages into numerous sublanguages and dialects over the span of millenniums. The other is the combination of numerous languages and dialects into a small number of world languages that are more universal in nature. This occurred mainly in the last two millenniums. The main condition for the former phenomenon to take place is the proliferation of human beings and the expansion of the scope of human activities; whereas the main condition for the latter is the emergence of a large regional or worldwide intercourse.

58

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

In ancient times, a small region could not support more than a certain number of people and thus, many clans must differentiate into smaller tribes for the survival and reproduction of their species. This is a characteristic of primitive clans and tribes, especially in vast areas where clans differentiate at a faster pace. This presents linguists with a clue to the differentiation and development of human language. Marx agreed with the analysis of this developmental clue made by Morgan in “Ancient Society”, and drew the following conclusion: “A constant tendency to disintegration, which has proved such a hindrance to progress among savage and barbarous tribes, existed in the elements of the gentile organization. It was aggravated by a further tendency/to divergence of speech, which was inseparable from their social state and the large areas of their occupation. A verbal language, although remarkably persistent in its vocables, and still more persistent in its grammatical forms, is incapable of permanence. Separation of the people in area was followed in time by variation in speech; and this, in turn, led to separation in interests and ultimate independence. It was not the work of a brief period, but of centuries of time, aggregating finally into thousands of years. The great number of dialects and stock languages in North and South America, which presumptively were derived, the Eskimo excepted, from one original language, require for their formation the time measured by three ethnical periods (Morgan, pp. 104–105).” These three eras refer to the three periods of obscurity, barbarism, and civilization, which are equivalent to the Paleolithic to Iron Age, which lasted for tens of thousands of years. When the language of the human group has differentiated and developed to a certain extent, the expansion of material and spiritual intercourse gradually presents another factor for the development of human language: the fusion of language. This fusion first occurred in tribes with similar-sounding languages, such as the American Iroquois League in the nineteenth century, and was a phenomenon of preliminary language fusion. One of its most unique features is, as Marx said, the impossibility of it “becoming connected on equal terms with a confederacy excepting through membership in a gens and tribe, and a common speech (Morgan, p. 126).” The development of this initial linguistic fusion is the coalescence of many tribes/clans into a nation. Marx used the formation of the Greek Attica clan as an example to illustrate the second step of language fusion. He wrote, “[a]t the commencement of the historical period, the lonians of Attica were subdivided, as is well known, into four tribes (Geleontes, Hopletes, Aegicores, and Argades), speaking the same dialect, and occupying a common territory. They had coalesced into a nation as distinguished from a confederacy of tribes; but such a/confederacy had probably existed in anterior times (Morgan, pp. 224–225).” Once the nation is formed, a revolutionary change takes place in the language. This is the emergence of the national standard language (also known as literary language, prose language). At the same time, dialects are dying out within the smaller nations. Marx stated, using Greece as an example, “[t]he concentration of such Grecian tribes as had coalesced into a people, in a small area, tended to repress dialectical variation, which a subsequent written language and literature tended still further to arrest (Morgan, p. 248).” Although dialects persist in the larger nation, there is

4.4 The Differentiation and Fusion of Language

59

nevertheless a standard official state language. The formation of the official state language has to go through a long process, filled with twists and turns. However, the official state language is almost never a new language but rather, a language selected out of the numerous dialects pre-existing within the nation, based on a list of comprehensive economic, cultural, political, geographical reasons. In Greece, the official state language, the Attica dialect, was selected much earlier. As Engels pointed out, “and even little Attica had its own dialect, which was later to become dominant as the universal language of prose (vol. 26, p. 209).” The formation of the Greek nation was premised on a fusion of common dialects. Once the problem involves the interaction and integration of different language families and types, the situation becomes extremely complicated. For instance, the invasion of the Romans almost eliminated the national language of Greece. It is as what Engels wrote, “[w]here the Greek language offered no resistance all national languages had had to give way to a corrupt Latin. There were no longer any distinctions of nationality […] all had become Romans (vol. 26, p. 247).” On the other hand, this painful tragedy brought about tremendous advances in people’s mental intercourse in a large region. The upper-class intellectuals in Europe began, over the past 1000 years of European history, to use a common language—Latin—in their intercourse. In the past, the fusion of language that arose out of intercourse between different nationalities was often tainted by some semblance of invasion. Surprisingly, it was more an invasion of the more advanced people by the more backward people. This is because, although the former achieved military victory, its language was often merged with the language of the latter. Marx and Engels had had numerous discussions on this, among which their findings on the migration of nationality is the most classic. They pointed out, “and that the conquerors very soon took over language, culture and manners from the conquered (vol. 5, p. 85).” The same occurred after the Chinese Manchus invaded the Han people: the Manchus learned Chinese and the Manchurian language died. When a more superior nation conquers a less developed nation, the resulting fusion of language depends on the strength of each nation and the vitality of their respective languages. Sometimes, the original languages of both nations interact and merge into a new language, such as the early Indian language. It is as Marx recorded, “[a] civilized people, the Brahmins, coalesced with a barbarous stock, and lost their language in the new vernaculars named, which retain the grammatical structure of the aboriginal speech, to which the Sanskrit gave ninety per cent of its vocables (Morgan, p. 408).” The Brahmin language lost its grammatical structure, the barbaric language lost its vocabulary, and a new language was born. However, this relatively balanced situation is a rare occurrence. Instead, a more common phenomenon is the inclination of language fusion towards the language of the more superior nation. Having said that, if the language of the relatively backward nation has a certain vitality, it will leave traces in the language of the conquering nation after the fusion. Regarding this, Engels raised a relevant example using the Frisian language of the ancient Dutch in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. He explained, “the Frisian language, To the west it was hemmed in or wholly suppressed by Dutch, to the

60

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

east and north by Saxon and Danish, in all cases leaving behind strong traces in the invading language (vol. 26, p. 87). […] Absorbing Frisian elements, words and word forms (vol. 26, p. 88).” Some national languages are too weak, so its demise is inevitable. Such was the fate of a Gaelic language of the mountain dwellers in early nineteenth century Scotland. Once the roads opened to the mountains, it became as Engels stated, “though Gaelic schools were organised for the purpose of maintaining the Gaelic language, yet Gaelic-Celtic customs and speech are rapidly vanishing before the approach of English civilisation (vol. 4, p. 319).” The fusion of language is a major advancement of language. The more different the languages are, the more difficult the fusion process; however, the more meaningful it becomes. Therefore, Marx attached great importance to the significance of the fusion between the different languages. He wrote, “[b]ut although the most highly developed languages have laws and categories in common with the most primitive ones, it is precisely what constitutes their development that distinguishes them from this general and common element (vol. 28, p. 23).” Here, Marx actually expounded on a regular phenomenon in the development of modern language. Modern society is still in the second stage of language development. As the process of language fusion takes a long time, many regional languages still present a complicated mixture of various dialects and sub-languages. For example, when Engels visited the region at the border of Denmark and Germany in 1864, he found that people there mostly spoke a mixed language. He told Marx, “[t]he situation regarding language and nationality is most bizarre. In Flensburg, where the Danes claim that the whole of the northern part is Danish, especially by the harbour, all the children, who were playing down by the harbour there in droves, spoke Low German. […] The peasants in the tavern at Sundewitt, however, spoke Danish, Low German and High/German by turns, and neither there nor in Sonderburg, where I always addressed the people in Danish, was I answered in any language but German (vol. 42, pp. 7–8).” Generally speaking, the difference in languages is an obstacle to intercourse. However, in such a mixed language, language not only expands intercourse but also defies the “Antinomy Law” in intercourse, thus miraculously fusing these languages into one. Eastern Europe, before mid-twentieth century, was also a region where people spoke a mixture of languages as language fusion was occurring at that point in time. Engels studied the language phenomenon in this area and observed that “[t]he linguistic confusion prevailing east of Bohemia and Carinthia to the Black Sea is truly astonishing. The process of de-nationalisation among the Slavs bordering on Germany, the slow but continuous advance of the Germans, the invasion of the Hungarians, which separated the North and South Slavs with a compact mass of 7 million people of Finnish race, the interposition of Turks, Tartars and Wallachians in the midst of the Slavonic tribes, have produced a linguistic Babel. The language varies from village to village, almost from farm to farm (vol. 14, p. 159).” Except for the German language, which was exceptionally strong, the various languages of this region were evenly matched. Therefore, it was not until the middle of the twentieth century that Eastern Europe completed the process of language fusion, albeit only in small regions, with the establishment of nation-states.

4.4 The Differentiation and Fusion of Language

61

In addition to war, modern trade and regular postal services are also major factors in promoting the fusion of languages. English became the world language in this way. German was once one of the world’s languages for exactly the same reason. Engels’s discussion on this explicitly states, “German world trade language through the colonies and the Jews in Eastern Europe (details of these) and through Hamburg posts in Scandinavia. The fact that in trade, outside Romance Europe and at most the Levant, German goes further than French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, in short all languages except English. Now rapid expansion of German colonies—cf. the fear of the English in London itself (vol. 23, p. 607).” In recent centuries, due to various political, economic, and cultural factors, the fusion of languages encountered a powerful movement similar to a renaissance of national languages. In many cases, the fusion of languages cannot be equated to a fair exchange of linguistic elements to form new languages. Some weaker national languages may disappear. However, when he approached problems from the perspective of world language and global intercourse, Engels resolutely opposed the revival of languages that are actually not accessible in some regions. Instead, he advocated the use of more universal languages. For example, in the Flanders region (the border between France and Belgium), history focuses mainly on the Flemish language and its decline due to the prosperity of trade exchanges, which popularized French in its stead. When some Germans wanted to restore Flemish, Engels rebuked it as “the Buddhist monk’s Buddha’s movement”, claiming that “[i]t is TIME the Flemish finally had one language instead of 2, and that can only be French (vol. 23, p. 609).” Modern global intercourse is filling the gaps caused by history, geography, and psychology, weaving the world into a huge network of information. The language boundary line of 35 degrees north latitude is being broken, and people will be accustomed to approaching problems from a global perspective. Therefore, Engels’ insistence on the direction of language fusion and development is beyond reproach.

4.5 The Formation of Modern Civilized Language The formation of global intercourse is directly related to the formation of modern civilized national languages. Engels pointed out the language conditions of this transformation when he spoke about the transition from medieval Europe to modern society. He wrote, “[i]nstead of the contrast between the Greeks, or Romans, and the barbarians, there were now six civilized people with civilized languages, not counting the Scandinavian, etc., all of whom had developed to such an extent that they could participate in the mighty rise of literature in the fourteenth century, and guaranteed a far more diversified culture than that of the Greek and Latin languages, which were already in decay and dying out at the end of ancient times (vol. 25, p. 471).” The six civilized languages mentioned here are Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English. The formation of civilized language is the result of

62

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

centuries of language fusion. It marks the birth of several new civilizations within a larger scope and creates the conditions for the formation of global intercourse. In Italy, Latin has been the main language medium used in upper-level intellectual intercourse for nearly a millennium. However, it is not commonly used in everyday life. At the beginning of the Italian Renaissance, the limitations of Latin works became more and more obvious, hindering the spread of culture, and so, a group of Renaissance writers such as Dante, Petrac, Boccaccio, Boyado, Arikstowe, Machiavelli Lee, etc., began using vernacular language in their works. As most of them used Tuscan dialect, this dialect became the basis of the Italian state language. Factors such as politics, culture, and religion, played important roles in the unification of Italy, but of course, language also played a significant part in it. The historian Jacob Burckhardt wrote on the significance of the Italian state language: “but what is more important is the general and undisputed respect for pure language and pronunciation as something precious and sacred. One part of the country after another came to adopt the classical dialect officially. Venice, Milan, and Naples did so at the noontime of Italian literature, and partly through its influences. It was not till the present century that Piedmont become of its own free will a genuine Italian province by sharing in this chief treasure of the people-pure speech “(Burckhardt 2011: 196). Germany remained a loosely divided "state" for 800 years. The fact that it gained recognition as a unified nation relied considerably on the formation of the official German state language after the sixteenth century. Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible and his hymn "Our Lord is a Strong Fortress" used the vernacular language of the commoners and it spread widely, thus providing an official standard for the German language. Engels was full of praise for this, claiming that “Luther not only cleaned the Augean stable of the Church but also that of the German language; he created modern German prose (vol. 25, p. 319).” After the unified form of Italian replaced Latin as the means of cultural communication, the establishment of this standard language gave rise to the birth of two ethnic groups: the Spanish and the Portuguese. The Spanish drama and two novels of that era (“Lazari and its misfortunes from the Tormes River” and “Don Quixote”) were written in the Castilian language. The rise of literature made this dialect the official language of Spain. On its part, the Portuguese epic “The Song of Luz” became the basis of this national language. When Engels talked about the significance of language to these two ethnic groups, he wrote, “[o]n the Iberian peninsula two of the Romance language peoples there united to form the Kingdom of Spain, and the Provencal-speaking Aragonese empire submitted to standard Castilian3; the third people joined its linguistic area (with the exception of Galicia) with the Kingdom of Portugal (vol. 26, p. 564).” In France, the French in the north conquered the French in the south and established a unified nation-state in the fifteenth century. The language of northern French thus became the new standard language. The French writer F. Rabelai (author of The Giant Biography) provided a model for the new standard language. Regarding this piece of history, Engels wrote, “[i]n the Middle Ages, the Southern French, commonly called Provencals, achieved not only a “remarkable development”, they even led European development. They were the first modern nation to have a literary

4.5 The Formation of Modern Civilized Language

63

language. … but historical development was inexorable. After a struggle lasting three centuries, their beautiful language was reduced to a patois and they themselves were turned into Frenchmen (vol. 7, p. 372).” English was formed during the coalescence of the English and Normans. It began to take shape in the fourteenth century and is a much younger language than many others. Chaucer and Shakespeare’s literary works provide the standard for the English language. The formation of modern state languages is usually accompanied by a literary movement. Such literary movements in history are often an opportunity for the standardization and popularization of national languages. As such, even linguists treat the concepts of standard language and literary language as one and the same. Marx and Engels believed that whether a nation is accompanied by a literary movement at the time of its formation is crucial to the establishment of a national (or state) language. This is especially true for the weaker minorities, as the literary movement has a greater significance in the consolidation and popularization of their national languages. In Marx’s discussion on the role of Romania’s eighteenth century literary movement in consolidating its own language, he mentioned that at that time, the Grand Dukes once again placed the Romanian language which was despised by the beautiful speakers of Fanal in a glorious position. The literary movement began in the eighteenth century. That is to say, when Romanian was banned in the two principalities [referring to the Principality of Wallachia and the Principality of Moldova], the Romanians in Transylvania faithfully preserved the language of their ancestors. On the contrary, the lack of such a literary movement will cause the weaker national language to die out or to become a folks’ language. The same is true of Engels’s discussion on more than a dozen small ethnic groups speaking the Slavic language in Central Europe. He wrote, “owing to the total neglect of all literature and the lack of culture of the majority of these peoples, have become a sheer patois, and with few/exceptions have always had above them an alien, non-Slav language as the written language (vol. 8, pp. 233–234).” Regarding the formation of modern civilized language, Marx and Engels pointed out in their conclusion that “[i]ncidentally, in every modern developed language, partly as a result of the historical development of the language from pre-existing material, as in the Romance and Germanic languages, partly owing to the crossing and mixing of nations, as in the English language, and partly as a result of the concentration of the dialects within a single nation brought about by economic and political concentration, the spontaneously evolved speech has been turned into a national language (vol. 5, p. 426).” Despite the complexity of the formation and development of the six major civilized languages in Europe, this conclusion has organized and refined the main factors involved. As Italian and German are longestablished languages, the formation of a standardized national language was mainly premised on the roots of the original language form. On the other hand, the youngest state language, English, is a classic example of the most successful fusion language. Meanwhile, French, Spanish and Portuguese are mainly products of political and economical concentration. No matter what kind of language, its formation has gone

64

4 Medium of Intercourse—Verbal Language

through hundreds of years of national unity, and to varying degrees, each has seized the opportunity that the European Renaissance provided. In the past few centuries, the language medium used by the world for intercoursal purposes has greatly reduced from 12,000 types to less than 6000. The expanding use of certain languages continues to be a trend that plays a major role in the exchange of information and materials. Additionally, most global intercourse makes use of only one or two languages. The one-sidedness and limitations in intercourse caused by the older national languages are being constantly overcome. Language, as a mental product of all nations, is quickly becoming public property, as Marx and Engels had foreseen in their work Communist Manifesto. This situation strongly influences the language ability and choice of a new generation, in addition to influencing their mentality and behavior. The emergence of the computer programming language is a further revolutionary change in the history of human language. Even if there is a God, man no longer needs to fear that the Lord will mix up their language. After all, mankind has experienced a long and complicated process of language differentiation and integration. After this process, it is possible to discuss again the construction of Babita, because people are now able to speak a common language—the computer programming language.

References Burckhardt J (2011) The civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Peking University Press, Peking Grimm J (1852) Über den Ursprung der Sprache. F. Dümmler, Berlin, S 46 Schramm W, Porter W (2007) Men, women, messages, and media: understanding human communication, 2nd edn. Peking University Press

Chapter 5

Communication Media—Written Text and Print

After language, text is the second milestone in human mental intercourse. Marx quoted the words of the French economist Viry Milapo, who contended that textual writing is the first major invention that gave great significance to the political society. Adam Smith cites with some irony the Marquis de Mirabeau’s hyperbolical statement: “There have been since the world began three great inventions…. The first is the invention of writing…. The second is the invention” (!) “of money…. The third is the economical table, the result of the other two, which completes them both” (ed. Garnier, t. III, 1. IV, ch. IX, p. 540) [Vol. III, pp. 147–48] (vol. 31, p. 239). Marx and Engels both agreed with the way in which Morgan situated the text in history. Engels summed up his point of view as such, human civilization “[b]egins with the smelting of iron ore and passes into civilisation through the invention of alphabetic script and its utilisation for literary records (vol. 26, p. 138).” The “alphabetic script” mentioned here refers to the more mature forms of phonetic texts. Prior to these, the text had undergone millenniums of evolution. Marx, Engels, and the German Social Democratic Party attached great importance to the historical study of writing. In 1872, the leader of the party Karl Liebknecht sent Engels a book “Die Entstehung der Schrift die vershiedenen Schriftsysteme und das Schrifttum der nicht alphabetisch schreibenden Völker” which was published by the German scholar Henry Wuttke (1872:482). The first volume of the book was immediately taken away by Marx, who did not return it for a very long time. Engels then passed several comments on the technicalities of translation and the issues of publication of the English translation of the book. Marx and Engels’s discussion of the written text and the subsequent printing techniques are of great significance for the founding of research in this field.

5.1 The History of the Written Text As a symbolic symbol, the creation and evolution of the written text are closely related to specific conditions of communication, especially that of writing tools. As © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_5

65

66

5 Communication Media—Written Text and Print

such, when Marx discussed the production of words, he paid special attention first and foremost to the environmental conditions that produce it. He wrote, “a symbol, if it is not arbitrary, requires certain conditions as regards the material in which it is presented. Thus, e.g. the signs for words possess a history; alphabetic script, etc. (vol. 28, p. 83).” During the long period when there was only language but no written text, the content of mental intercourse could only be passed on verbally and its faithfulness relied solely on the human memory. Man had been on an extended quest for a breakthrough in the means of intercourse fraught with temporal and spatial limitations. The written text is the product eventually produced after generations grappling with these issues. Marx divided the history of writing into five stages: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Gesture Language, or the language of personal symbols; Picture Writing, or idiographic symbols; Hieroglyphs, or conventional symbols; Hieroglyphs of phonetic power, or phonetic symbols used in a syllabus; and A Phonetic Alphabet, or written sounds. (Morgan, p. 539).1

Although the development conditions of the various countries in the world were very different then, the early stages of the production of writing experienced by these nations were nevertheless generally similar, especially in the first three stages. The fourth stage is the differentiation of types of words, which saw the development of Chinese characters in China taking another direction. Meanwhile, the fifth stage was experienced by most ethnic groups outside of China. 1.

1

“Gesture Language, or the language of personal symbols.” This is the preparation stage of the written text. At this point in time, there was no tangible text yet. Instead, there was a simple means of transforming the spoken language into a certain form of non-textual logos, such as a personal symbolic language like the knot notes used by ancient Chinese people. “When there is an important matter, tie a big knot to remind yourself. When there is a relatively unimportant matter, tie a smaller knot to remind yourself. The size and number of knots correspond to the importance and number of matters. “有约誓之事, 事大大其绳, 事小小 其绳, 结之多少, 随物众寡, 各执以相考”。(Written in Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan, 《春秋左传集解》 ) Marx also raised the notes of the American Indian Iroquois’s beads as an example of the same nature. In his account of the tribal chief’s negotiations, he wrote, “‘This belt preserves my words’ was a common remark of an Iroquois chief in the council. He then delivered the belt as evidence of what he had said. Several such belts would be given in the course of a negotiation to the opposite party. In the reply of the latter, a belt would be returned for each proposition accepted (Morgan, p. 142). The different sizes of knots or beads on the belt represented different content, which only folks who were specially trained in such language (usually the shaman or sorcerer) would be able to pass it on verbally to the next generation. In such cases, the knotted rope or

Morgan (1877).

5.1 The History of the Written Text

2.

3.

4.

5.

67

the beaded belt could only serve as a form of memory aid for the mental intercourse that occurred between people and could not be used independently for communication. “Picture Writing, or idiographic symbols.” This is the most primitive form of text. For example, engraved symbols or drawings left on the walls in caves, pottery, and so on. The deciphering of such images is extremely tough. Marx believed that the words on the Idoquois chief’s tomb are ideographic symbols. Meanwhile, Central American Aztecs used a kind of pictorial text which was “used chiefly to indicate the tribute in kind each subjugated village was to pay (Morgan, p. 202).” “Hieroglyphs, or conventional symbols.” From pictorial texts to hieroglyphs, the symbols used by people to communicate gradually became more and more abstract. Although there was still a form of “pictogram” in it, the recognition nature of the content already contained a certain type of “consensus” that all the parties involved had arrived at. This was when the written text began to take shape. The ancient Chinese text of the Shang Dynasty is an example of writing at this stage. Marx regarded the text on the Mayan monument as a type of symbol that had been agreed on that showed “that the American aborigines, who practiced the first three forms, were proceeding independently in the direction of a phonetic alphabet. (Morgan, p. 539).” “Hieroglyphs of phonetic power, or phonetic symbols used in a syllabus.” At this stage, the world’s writing began to develop in two different directions. Hieroglyphs which were mainly based on the meanings of words went on to develop into Chinese characters. Meanwhile, hieroglyphs which were mainly composed of phonics developed into phonetic characters. In his study of texts, Marx did not venture into Chinese characters. This discussion pertains to the development stages of the Indo-European written texts. “A Phonetic Alphabet, or written sounds”. At this stage, the formation of the pinyin characters had an impact on the Indo-European cultures that utilized phonics in their languages. The separation of sounds from images makes it easier for phonetic alphabets to express abstract thoughts into coherent theories. This has, to a certain extent, caused differences in mentalities and forms of intercourse to occur between people who communicate through phonetic texts and people who communicate through hieroglyphic texts.

Marx called these five stages in the history of writing “the series of connected inventions” (Morgan, pp. 538–539). This series of inventions had gone through several millenniums and is considered a revolution in human mental intercourse. In fact, it has created a whole class of workers who deal with writing jobs, expanded the depth and scope of communication, and eliminated the communication rift caused by differences in dialects. Since dialects are no longer obstacles in communication, the primitive clans which utilized dialects as the symbols of humanity ceased to exist and the whole society entered the era of human civilization. In regards to this, Marx used the birth of Greek writing as an example for argument. He wrote, “Because of the written language,

68

5 Communication Media—Written Text and Print

differences in dialects can no longer be an isolation factor (that is, mutual ignorance); on the other hand, migration, navigation, and various business-related personnel movements—all of these cannot be tolerated by clan-based societies anymore” (vol. 45, p. 521). Here, Marx already touched upon the interaction and dependence of the early material and mental exchanges in Europe. In marine civilization, the culture of different places was integrated through maritime communication, which required that the hieroglyphics in all places must develop into phonetic characters. This was because people did not share a common perceptual knowledge of the pictograms in different regions, leading to a great disparity in their understanding of the same pictogram. For intercourse/communication to take place, expressing meanings through sounds naturally became the direction of textual development. Along the same vein, the expansion of intercourse propelled the original hieroglyphics of the marine civilization to take on the form of phonetic characters. The Chinese Yellow River Civilization was mainly built on a series of inland areas, which kept the activity regions of the ancient Chinese civilization contained within certain boundaries. The similarity in living and activity environments created Chinese characters imbued with a common set of meanings. Chinese characters are spatial words that are fashioned after tangible things that exist and take up space and are usually shaped like a reflection of Nature. Meanwhile, the phonetic text is a time-based text, which uses sound to represent the customary nature of things. When Marx analyzed the words of the Athenians in the ancient Greek Solon era, he clearly pointed out the relationship between their phonetic characters and maritime activities. He wrote, “In the time of Solon, Athens had already produced able men; the useful arts had attained a very considerable development; commerce on the sea had become a national interest; agriculture and manufactures were well advanced; and written composition in verse had commenced. They were in fact a civilized people, and had been for two centuries (Morgan, p. 277).” Maritime trade was the center of all the material activities of the Athenians. This particular activity determined the characteristics of its text to a considerable extent.

5.2 The Evolution of Text The evolution of the original phonetic transcription into modern writing has taken close to 2000 years. The primitive form of writing (letters), spelling, and grammar had gone through a drastic transformation before it became what we are used to now. During the transformation process, some words were lost in development while some languages adopted another means of expressing them. The evolution of the text is premised on the changes in writing conditions and the needs of its application. According to archaeological findings, Engels analyzed the evolution of the Lun script used by the ancient Germans, thus explaining evolutionary conditions of the phonetic characters.

5.2 The Evolution of Text

69

In the third century AD, the Germans in northern Europe created the original text of the nation, the Lun script, by interacting with the sea and land of Rome and basing the text on the Latin and Greek letters of Rome. This kind of text was popularized within the nation. Engels wrote, “Finally, we now find runic writing widely spread and generally used. The Taschberg find has a sword sheath and a shieldboss which are ornamented with runes. The same runes are found on a gold ring found in Walachia, on buckles from Bavaria and Burgundy, and lastly, on the oldest runic stones in Scandinavia (vol. 26, p. 43).” However, this type of text has disappeared along with the expansion of intercourse and widening of textual application. The reason for this is as Engels said, “It was, incidentally, an extremely clumsy system of writing, consisting of Roman and Greek letters so changed that they were easily scratched [eingeritzt = writan] on stone, metal and especially on wooden staves. The rounded forms had to give way to angular shapes; only vertical or inclined strokes were possible, not horizontal ones on account of the wood grain; this way, however, it became a very clumsy writing for parchment or paper. And indeed, as far as we can see, it has only served for religious and magic purposes and for inscriptions, perhaps also for other brief communications; as soon as the need for real literary writing was felt, as among the Goths and later the Anglo-Saxons, it was discarded and a new adaptation of the Greek or Roman alphabet made which preserved only individual runic characters (vol. 26, p. 43).” The change in letter form is restricted by writing conditions, which is a situation shared by other languages as well. The cuneiform text of the earlier Babylonian region was formed gradually over time to fit the bricks, stones, and mud plates, of that time. The strokes were prismatic, like nail heads or arrows. In the later expansion of communication, it failed to adapt to the new convenient conditions of writing and thus, the scope of its application became narrower and narrower, until it was completely eliminated. Engels later discussed the elimination of Lun writing, mainly focusing on its narrow application. In this respect, Sanskrit in India is somewhat similar to Lun writing in that it remains a non-secular language used in religion but not in daily life. As such, even though it continues to exist, it has long lost its role in mass communication. The original text was created based on spoken language. As such, in the evolution process of text, the interdependence and influence that the written text and spoken language exhibit and exert on each other stabilized both aspects on the one hand, while on the other, promoted the development of each. The text exerts a great influence on the standardization of pronunciation while this enhancement of the language promotes the development of the text. When Engels studied ancient Germanic and Scandinavian songs, he declared with great sentiments that “in Scandinavia, the alliterations of the oldest songs show how much the language altered between the time when they were composed and when they were written down (vol. 26, p. 57).” By that time, the Lun text has apparently already lost its effect. From the historical analysis that Engels performed on Lun writing, it can be concluded that the evolution of the text tends towards easy-to-write and easy-toapply, while at the same time regulating the spoken language. In order for any type

70

5 Communication Media—Written Text and Print

of text to maintain its vitality, it must constantly make adjustments in these areas so as to keep up with the changing conditions.

5.3 The Significance of the Invention of Print The invention of the text made it possible for history to be recorded. At the same time, man’s mental intercourse took a drastic leap forward because of this. However, such textual recording required intensive manual labor, which meant that a minority group of people could then monopolize such means of textual communication. In contrast, the richness of the spirit is likened to the boundless sea while the handwritten text that carries it is like a finite bowl. This analogy demonstrates the limitation of the text in that it is unable to fully capture the spirits in the inheritance of mankind’s legacy. Around 1450, John Gutenberg, a German Mainz, invented the first metal printing press in Europe by altering the fruit squeezer used in wine-making. As his invention made its debut in an era when global intercourse was swiftly developing, the printing press quickly rose to fame as it became synchronous with the need for communication. On the other hand, the Chinese type of typography, which was invented in the eleventh century, only became known to the world after the popularity of Gutenberg’s European printing. As such, the printing techniques mentioned by Marx and Engels refer to Gutenberg’s European printing press and there is no evidence that they were aware of the printing technique invented in China. In their work, they mentioned Gutenberg and his printing techniques, as well as the printing machines that were later developed, more than 30 times. This fully affirmed the epoch-making significance of the invention of the print. In fact, according to Marx, the print is “the greatest invention (vol. 33, p. 442)” Engels participated in the publication of German Brunswick Gutenberg Commemorative Book, which was published in 1840, in which he wrote on the Bremen printing workers celebrating ‘Gutenberg Festival’. Additionally, in his compilation of the Spanish scholar Man Quintana’s work, there is a vivid personification of the print in one of the poems The Invention of Yong Printing: And were you not a God, you who once found (vol. 2, p. 55) Body for Thought, for Word, Fixing in signs the life of speech that would Have otherwise flown off, by no ties bound? Without you, Time had gone, Still self-consuming, sinking, dying, down, Buried forever in oblivion. (vol.2, p.56) Much less can Man’s gifts of the Spirit be Unfolded in a single volume’s pages! What lacks? The art of flight? But when bold Nature

5.3 The Significance of the Invention of Print

71

Created in one image countless beings, Now, after hers, there comes my own Invention! (vol. 2, p. 56)

Prior to the invention of print, the main form of intercourse was still verbal communication while textual communication was limited to a small extent. The print has quickly destroyed the tradition of verbal communication to the point whereby Marx compared the likes of printing equipment such as movable dial plates and printing presses to oral epics, and thus declared the death of a society dominated by oral traditions. He questioned, “And is the Iliad possible at all when the printing press and even printing machines exist? Does not the press bar inevitably spell the end of singing and reciting and the muses, that is, do not the conditions necessary for epic poetry disappear? (vol. 28, p. 47) Meanwhile, Engels made the following observation on the significance of the print in the popularization of culture, “[b]ook-printing and the claims of growing commerce robbed it of its monopoly not only in reading and writing, but also in higher education. The division of labour also made inroads into the intellectual realm. The newly rising juridical estate drove the clergy from a number of the most influential offices (vol. 10, p. 404).” The encounters of the monks (clergy) mentioned here actually imply at the collapse of the medieval feudal system. Therefore, the invention of the print was not only significant in the sense of cultural exchanges, but also in a more important revolutionary sense. According to Marx, “[f]eudal society, for its part, was destroyed by urban industry, trade and modern agriculture. (Even by some inventions, e.g. gun powder and the printing press.) (vol. 28, p. 464)” Similarly, in Engels’s discussion on the unification of France in the fifteenth-sixteenth century, he expressed the same idea, “[t]he spread of book printing, the revival of the study of classical literature, the entire cultural movement which had been gathering strength and becoming more widespread ever since 1450—all these factors aided the bourgeoisie and the monarchy in their fight against feudalism (vol. 26, p. 564).” The revolutionary movements were also widely publicized with the aid of print, which accelerated the collapse of the medieval feudal system. Engels used poetry to describe the European evolution brought about by the print: He spoke. And there was Print. And lo! all Europe, Astounded, moved, forthwith herself bestirs With thund’rous sound. As if by storm winds fanned, Swift-rushing onward roars (vol. 2, p. 56)

As a “scientific fact”, the print itself was also productivity that drove Europe out of the darkness of the Middle Ages. In this sense, Engels regarded the invention of the print as one of the four main factors which propelled the European scientific renaissance.2 This invention was also of great significance to the handicraft industry and commerce of that time. As Engels wrote, “A succession of more or less important 2

In addition they produced a mass of scientific facts, although as yet unsystematised, such as antiquity never had: the magnetic needle, printing, type, flax (used by the Arabs and Spanish Jews since the twelfth century, cotton paper gradually making its appearance since the tenth century, and already more widespread in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, papyrus quite obsolete in Egypt

72

5 Communication Media—Written Text and Print

discoveries, the most prominent of which were the invention of gunpowder and printing, had contributed substantially to the development of the crafts. Commerce kept pace with industry (vol. 10, p. 400).” After the advent of large-scale printing presses, it formed a joint force together with the enormous productivity brought about by other industrial revolutions to stage a show of the power of mankind, as well as resolutely prevented the retrogression of history. In this regard, Engels stated, “whoever knows how to appreciate the eminently revolutionary character of the present age, when steam and wind, electricity and the printing press, artillery and gold discoveries cooperate to produce more changes and revolutions in a year than were ever before brought about in a century (vol. 12, p. 34). […] And what is more, it is simply impossible to turn back the clock of history in this way. The steam engines, the mechanical spinning and weaving looms, the steam-ploughs and threshing machines, the railways and electric telegraphs and the steam-presses of the present day do not permit such an absurd backward step (vol. 20, p. 70).” The print has directly created the historical premise of the development of the modern spirit. From then on, the amount of information exchanged in the world is increasing in geometrical proportions as compared to the past. Consequently, Marx referred to the “Printing House Square (vol. 28, p. 47)” in London as a symbol of spiritual exchange during the era of the Industrial Revolution. He presented a comprehensive explanation on the significance of the print, pointing out that “the printing press was the instrument of Protestantism and the regeneration of science in general; the most powerful lever for creating the intellectual prerequisites (vol. 33, p. 403).” When Archimedes discovered the principle of leverage, he declared with confidence that if he were given a fulcrum, he would be able to lift the earth. At that point in time, this could only be interpreted as a kind of personal self-transcendence, whereas Gutenberg’s printing technique, when appropriated as such a metaphoric lever, was lucky enough to meet the fulcrum of modern productivity, thus enabling it to raise the coordinates of the globe woven with a fabric of printed symbols, after the discovery of geographic earth.

5.4 The Limitations of Textual Intercourse In the nineteenth century, people struggled to fight for the right to freedom of speech and publication and hence, had little to no patience to consider the limitless limitations of textual communication. The focus of Marx and Engels was also on the former. However, thanks to their astuteness as great thinkers, they had already sensed the inconvenience of text as a medium of communication on numerous random occasions. It is part of human nature for people to demand that they be in full possession since the Arabs), gunpowder, spectacles, mechanical clocks, great progress both of chronology and of mechanics (vol. 25, p. 472).

5.4 The Limitations of Textual Intercourse

73

of their intercoursal partners so that they can validate themselves through every bit of their feelings. However, texts restrict such activities of intercourse to the visual and rely heavily on the thinking process, called the “mind’s eyes”, to participate in intercourse with the abstract partners on paper. Once, after Engels participated in a mass rally, he felt a keen sense of peculiarity which he conveyed to Marx, “[I]ncidentally, standing up in front of real, live people and holding forth to them directly and straightforwardly, so that they see and hear you is something quite different from engaging in this devilishly abstract quillpushing with an abstract audience in one’s ‘mind’s eye’ (vol. 38, p. 23).” He clearly expected a much more vivid kind of interaction in which the senses are fully functional. It is precise because Marx realized this that he then proposed, “To the eye an object comes to be other than it is to the ear, and the object of the eye is another object than the object of the ear (vol. 3, p. 301). […] Thus man is affirmed in the objective world not only in the act of thinking, ||VIII| but with all his senses (vol. 3, p. 301).” However, at that point in time, such a type of intercourse was not available. In his later years, Engels began using the telephone. Once he used it, he immediately asked Marx’s daughter, Laura, to dictate a piece of essay from where she was in France. On the eve of the day he installed the telephone, he sent a letter to Laura’s husband, Lafarge, in which he wrote, “[g]ive her a hug in my behalf and tell her that as soon as the telephone has been properly installed, I will use it to have a cask of Pilsner sent to her (vol. 49, p. 424).” Of course, it was impossible for Engels to teleport a cask of Pilsner over the telephone line to Laura. However, such an expression clearly indicates a wish for the medium of communication to offer a comprehensive form of intercourse to the user. Most face-to-face interactions can only occur in a contained space and limited period. It utilizes facial expressions, gestures, tones, choice of words, and bodily changes, to fully disseminate and receive information. Text and the printing press allow communication to travel through infinite space in almost no time. However, the progression of such communication medium comes at a price. The holographic approach to communication has transformed into a boring text of printed symbols and thus, a considerable amount of non-textual information is lost along the way. A small consolation is that Marx’s initial desire for a comprehensive possession of the intercoursal partner from all sensory aspects is realized in the contemporary era. The internet is one media that allows the transmission of almost every sensory aspect of information (such as the language, voice, text, and image) to all the people engaging in communication. The human mental intercourse is evolving from the most basic face-to-face interaction into a new and enhanced form of “face-to-face” interaction with the help of textual media. Indeed, history is advancing.

74

5 Communication Media—Written Text and Print

References Morgan LH (1877) Ancient society or researches in the lines of human progress from savagery to civilization. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago, p 1877 Wuttke H (1872) Geschichte der Schrift und des Schrifttums von den rohen Anfängen des Schreibens in der Tatuierung bis zur Legung elektromagnetischer Drähte. Erster Band. Die Entstehung der Schrift die verschiedenen Schriftsysteme und das Schrifttum der nicht alphabetisch schreibenden Völker, Leipzig

Chapter 6

Intercourse Revolution

In the nineteenth century, a worldwide revolution in transportation and communication occurred. This enabled the mass media and other various information industries to develop by leaps and bounds; following which, the world truly entered an era of intensive social interaction. Marx and Engels called this ‘intercourse revolution’. This revolution was the main driving force behind the process of material and spiritual intercourse at that time. In 1859, Marx published a writing outline for this, in which he wrote, “[i]nfluence of the means of communication. World history did not exist always; history as world history is a result (vol. 28, p. 46).” Although they did not publish specifically on this topic after that, Marx and Engels still managed to leave a legacy of writing on the revolution of intercourse, some of which contained their foresight on the future of an interactive society. Their thoughts on this aspect have been ignored by people for a long time. It was not until recent years that they have attracted attention in this regard.

6.1 The Process of Intercourse Revolution The intercourse revolution referred to by Marx and Engels first occurred in the United Kingdom in the early nineteenth century, and gradually expanded to various industrialized countries and British colonies. Engels described the main performance of this revolution in his later years as such: The last fifty years have brought about a revolution in this field, comparable only with the industrial revolution of the latter half of the 18th century. On land the macadamised road has been displaced by the railway, on sea the slow and irregular sailing vessel has been pushed into the background by the rapid and regular steamboat line, and the entire globe is being girdled by telegraph wires. The Suez Canal has fully opened East Asia and Australia to steamer traffic (vol. 37, p. 75).

According to Marx and Engels’s descriptions in other writings, the consequent products of intercourse revolution included inland ships, inland canals, highways, © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_6

75

76

6 Intercourse Revolution

modern newspapers, a penny post office, and a huge industrial city itself. These large-scale means of communication laid the foundation for the rapid expansion of material and spiritual intercourse in the nineteenth century. Marx pointed out that “The expansion and improvement of the means of communication naturally have an effect on the PRODUCTIVE POWER OF LABOUR: … and they create that INTERCOURSE which is required for intellectual and commercial development (vol. 34, p. 44).” The process of intercourse revolution is divided into two phases. The first phase is marked by the use of steam power for transportation. According to Engels, “it had transformed the means of communication by land, so did the introduction of steam revolutionise travel by sea (vol. 4, p. 324).” This mainly refers to the invention and popularization of railways and ships. These new steam-powered vehicles connected Europe and North America, making them the world’s industrial regions. Pertaining to this, Engels wrote, “[s]team forced its way through the Alps and the Bohemian forests, steam robbed the Danube of its role (vol. 6, p. 534).” At this stage, the intercourse revolution focused on breaking through barriers to a wide range of material intercourse, while introducing new forms and content of spiritual intercourse. In the mid-nineteenth century, the use of telegraphs and the laying of submarine cables marked the beginning of the second phase of the revolution. When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, the telegraph was still in trial application. “Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? (vol. 6, p. 489)” In their writing, descriptions such as “whence the electric telegraph at once flashed it to all parts of Great Britain (vol. 19, p. 89). […] and telegrams of every description pour in (vol. 42, p. 192)” could often be seen. Such phrases revealed their excitement about the use of the telegraph. Meanwhile, the telegraph itself was a new form of spiritual intercourse. It transcended the limits of space and time while cementing the results of the first phase of the revolution in terms of spiritual connection and causing people to contemplate the effects and means of intercourse revolution. In 1855, Marx wrote, “with electric telegraphs transforming the whole of Europe in one single Stock Exchange, and with railways and steamers centuplicating the means of communication and of exchange (vol. 13, p. 586).” This was the initial picture that intercourse revolution painted to the world. In his later years, Engels made this picture even more vivid when he wrote that “[t]he colossal expansion of the means of transportation and communication—ocean liners, railways, electrical telegraphs, the Suez Canal—has made a real world market a fact (vol. 37, p. 488).” Even as Marx regarded Times and the news agency’s telecommunications as symbols of modern spiritual communication, Engels actually regarded them as the result of the intercourse revolution. The revolution in intercourse did not happen out of the blue. In the first volume of Das Kapital, Marx analyzed the relationship between the industrial revolution and the intercourse revolution. He pointed out that after the factory system matured to a

6.1 The Process of Intercourse Revolution

77

certain extent and was generally improved, the exchange transportation industry as a “general condition of the social production process” must be changed in order to adapt to changes in conditions such as the frantic speed of production, the huge scale of production, the large capital, and labor transfers, and the transmission of large amounts of economic and political information. Therefore, “the means of communication and transport became gradually adapted to the modes of production of mechanical industry, by the creation of a system of river steamers, railways, ocean steamers, and telegraphs (vol. 35, p. 387).” Once the momentum of the revolutionary revolution picked up, it vigorously promoted the prosperity of the entire social economy. Many people attributed the unprecedented prosperity of Britain from 1848 to 1860 to the policy of free trade. What Engels saw instead was the result of the exchange revolution that was “ascribed vulgarly to Free Trade alone, but due far more to the colossal development of railways, ocean steamers and means of intercourse generally (vol. 27, p. 299).” On his part, Marx further regarded the intercourse revolution as a tool serving the development of modern production: “in short, as the general conditions requisite for production by the modern industrial system have been established, this mode of production acquires an elasticity, a capacity for sudden extension by leaps and bounds that finds no hindrance except in the supply of raw material and in the disposal of the produce (vol. 35, p. 454).” In other words, the intercourse revolution greatly stimulated the intrinsic potential of capitalism to “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere (vol. 6, p. 487).”

6.2 The Spread of Intercourse Revolution and Civilization If European-style printing is the Gallic Rooster of modern mental development, then the intercourse revolution must be the sun rising in the morning, shining the bright light of civilization into the darkness of medieval times. In Britain, where the intercourse revolution first occurred, the most obvious result brought about was the spread of civilization. Wherever the roads could reach, civilization was brought along. In regards to this, Engels wrote, “[i]t has now been cut through by public roads, and civilisation has thus gained admission even to this savage region (vol. 4, p. 319). […] By these means the remotest localities in the country, which had previously had no contact with the outside world, were now made accessible; in particular the Celtic-speaking areas of Wales, the Scottish Highlands and the south of Ireland were thereby compelled to make acquaintance with the outside world and accept the civilization imposed upon them (vol. 3, p. 484).” The United States was a relatively late member of the rise of the communist revolution. When it first began the revolution in 1850, Marx and Engels already foresaw that it would become the new center of global exchange. They pointed out that “California has created a need for totally new lines of world communication, lines which are bound shortly to exceed all others in importance. The main trade route to the Pacific Ocean, which has only now really been opened up and which is

78

6 Intercourse Revolution

becoming the most important ocean in the world, will henceforth cross the Isthmus of Panama. […] In connection with the communications across the isthmus, the rapid expansion of ocean steam navigation has become equally pressing. […] It is becoming daily more necessary to supplement the steamship services between Europe and Chagres, and the growing traffic between Asia, Australia and America is demanding new, large-scale steamship services from Panama and San Francisco to Canton, Singapore, Sydney, New Zealand and the most important port-of-call in the Pacific Ocean, the Sandwich Islands (vol. 10, p. 505). […] One can really say that the earth has only begun to become round since this world-wide ocean steam navigation has become necessary (vol. 10, p. 506).” In fact, the outline of the development of the intercourse revolution they portrayed was basically realized. They attached such great importance to the center of the new American-Pacific revolution on the grounds that it greatly accelerated the spread of civilization throughout the world. According to them, “for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilisation (vol. 8, p. 365) […] and dragging the most reluctant barbarian nations into world trade, into civilisation (vol. 10, p. 265).” Marx and Engels foresaw that “the Pacific Ocean will have the same role as the Atlantic has now and the Mediterranean had in antiquity and in the Middle Ages— that of the great water highway of world commerce; and the Atlantic will decline to the status of an inland sea, like the Mediterranean nowadays (vol. 10, p. 266)” and that “both coasts of the Pacific Ocean will soon be as populous, as open to trade and as industrialised as the coast from Boston to New Orleans is now (vol. 10, p. 266).” History has gone through a long and tortuous path. After more than 100 years, people began to realize the development of the Pacific Economic Zone. By this time, however, no one would remember Marx and Engels’s foresight. At the beginning of the intercourse revolution in Britain, the European continent was still in a period of silence. The most representative of this continent was Austria, which Engels labeled “Europe’s China”, and where the authoritarian rule of the Habsburg dynasty created an artificial sense of stability. He wrote, “[f]or about thirty years after 1815, this system worked with wonderful success. Austria remained almost unknown to Europe, and Europe was quite as little known in Austria (vol. 11, p. 29). […] And all around the frontier, wherever the Austrian States touched upon a civilized country, a cordon of literary censors was established in connection with the cordon of custom-house officials, preventing any foreign book or newspaper from passing into Austria before its contents had been twice or three times thoroughly sifted, and found pure of even the slightest contamination of the malignant spirit of the age (vol. 11, p. 28).” However, “[t]he mountain ranges which separated the Austrian monarchy from the outside world, Bohemia from Moravia and Austria, Austria from Styria, Styria from Illyria, Illyria from Lombardy, fell before the railways. The granite walls behind which each province had maintained a separate nationality and a limited local existence, ceased to be a barrier. […] the new artery now passes from Trieste to Hamburg, Ostend and Le Havre, far beyond the frontiers of the Empire, through the mountain ranges to the remote coasts of the North Sea and the ocean. Participation in the general interests of the State, in what was happening in the outside world became a necessity.

6.2 The Spread of Intercourse Revolution and Civilization

79

The local barbarism began to disappear, particular interests began to diverge here, to merge there (vol. 6, p. 534).” All the backward countries thus experienced a historical process similar to Austria in the face of the intercourse revolution, whether they are willing or not. Modern means of communication broke through all obstacles and spread civilization across all distances. Taking the railway as an example, Marx wrote this about the basic characteristics of the intercourse revolution in the less developed regions: “On the other hand, the appearance of the railway system in the leading states of capitalism allowed, and even forced, states where capitalism was confined to a few summits of society, to suddenly create and enlarge their capitalistic superstructure in dimensions altogether disproportionate to the bulk of the social body carrying on the great work of production in the traditional modes. There is, therefore, not the least doubt that in those states the railway creation has accelerated the social and political disintegration, as in the more advanced states it hastened the final development, and therefore the final change, of capitalistic production (vol. 45, p. 356).” Clearly, the intercourse revolution adopted such a role in relatively backward countries: it first makes the literate class aware of the consciousness of civilization, disintegrates the old political system, causes domestic conflicts, and then changes the original fundamentals of the country’s economic system through political and economic revolutions. The “superstructure” mentioned here mainly refers to ideology instead of the political systems that correspond to the economy. Of course, the influence of the intercourse revolution that Marx and Engels mentioned might be an agonizing process for the civilization of backward countries as well as great pain for the people who are accustomed to a monotonous and peaceful life for the past millennium. However, before a nation can embrace the new world of modern intercourse, it must go through this purgatory. From this historical point of view, they approached Napoleon’s invasion of his country in 1806– 1814. This invasion disrupted the peaceful lives of the Germans. However, when the Germans blamed Napoleon, they pointed out, “[t]he German citizens, who railed against Napoleon for compelling them to drink chicory and for disturbing their peace with military billeting and recruiting of conscripts, […] yet Napoleon rendered them the greatest services by cleaning out/ Germany’s Augean stables and establishing civilised means of communication (vol. 5, pp. 195–196).” The shock waves following the European intercourse revolution also affected China. However, when Marx and Engels focused on China, they considered China’s changes and claimed, “[n]evertheless, it is a gratifying fact that in eight years the calico bales of the English bourgeoisie have brought the oldest and least perturbable kingdom on earth to the eve of a social upheaval, which, in any event, is bound to have the most significant results for civilisation (vol. 10, p. 267). […] When our European reactionaries, on their presently impending flight through Asia, finally come to the Great Wall of China, to the gates leading to the stronghold of arch-reaction and arch-conservatism, who knows if they may not read the following inscription upon them:

80

6 Intercourse Revolution RÉPUBLIQUE CHINOISE LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ (vol. 10, p. 267)

In 1886, Engels even discussed the impact that building a railway in China had on local civilization. He wrote, “[t]he only prospect of a reactivation of trade— directly where iron, at any rate, is concerned and otherwise indirectly—lies in the possible opening up of China to railway construction and hence the destruction of the only remaining closed and self-sufficient civilisation based on a combination of agriculture and handicrafts (vol. 47, p. 428).” The foresight of Marx and Engels was confirmed by the Chinese Revolution of 1911. Western powers used the fruits of the intercourse revolution to come to China, causing internal conflicts within China that eventually led to the establishment of the Republic of China. One of the direct factors causing the Chinese Revolution of 1911 was the road-moving movement launched for the construction of the Chengdu-Chongqing Railway. The intercourse revolution also played a pivotal role in consolidating the achievements of existing civilizations. India is a typical example of this. No dynasty in the history of India has completely unified the country. The backwardness of the means of communication and the isolation of the rural communities in India caused the country to remain stagnant for a long time. Then came the British, who laid a railway network in India and established a telegraph network on the Indian peninsula. They also introduced modern steamships which connected India to Europe and Southeast Asia. Seeing that the conditions for India to move towards civilization were in place, Marx felt that “[t]he political unity of India, more consolidated, and extending farther than it ever did under the Great Moguls, was the first condition of its regeneration. That unity, imposed by the British sword, will now be strengthened and perpetuated by the electric telegraph. The native army, organized and trained by the British drillsergeant, was the sine qua non of Indian self-emancipation, and of India ceasing to be the prey of the first foreign intruder. The free press, introduced for the first time into Asiatic society, and managed principally by the common offspring of Hindoos and Europeans, is a new and powerful agent of reconstruction (vol. 12, p. 218).” Two of the three conditions can be classified under modern means of communication that emerged after the intercourse revolution: the telegraph politically connected India as a whole; the free press brought ancient India to terms with modern civilization consciousness. Whether the means of intercourse continue to improve and develop is crucial to consolidating the existing civilization. Italy and Germany provide contrasting examples of this. Before the sixteenth century, Italy was the center of Mediterranean trade while Germany was the center of European coastal trade. Both countries had access to the most advanced means of intercourse, such as sailing boats, horse-drawn carriages, regular handwritten news, Gutenberg printing, and so on. Thanks to these means of intercourse, the Italian Renaissance and German religious reforms spread and influenced other countries. However, with the development of world trade after the opening of the new route, the prosperity of this part of the region began to decline due to the update of these means of intercourse.

6.2 The Spread of Intercourse Revolution and Civilization

81

About Italy, Marx wrote that “[w]hen the revolution of the world market, about the end of the fifteenth century, annihilated Northern Italy’s commercial supremacy, a movement in the reverse direction set in. The labourers of the towns were driven en masse into the country (vol. 35, p. 707).” About Germany, Engels wrote, “[t]he world trade route removed from Germany, and/Germany pushed into an isolated corner, whereby the power of the burghers broken, the Reformation ditto (vol. 23, pp. 600–601). […] Literature and language utterly degenerate; theology wooden dogmatism; in other sciences Germany also in a state of degradation (vol. 23, p. 602).” These two countries almost retreated back to the Middle Ages in the middle of one or two centuries, as their modern means of intercourse were lagging far behind Britain. It was not until the second half of the nineteenth century that this historical retreat came to a clash with the intercourse revolution which halted any further deterioration. Regarding the role of intercourse revolution, Engels was full of praise, “The steam-engines, the mechanical spinning and weaving looms, the steam-ploughs and threshing machines, the railways and electric telegraphs and the steam-presses of the present day do not permit such an absurd backward step, on the contrary, they are gradually and remorselessly destroying all the relics of feudal and guild conditions and are reducing all the petty social contradictions surviving from former times to the one contradiction of world-historical significance: that between capital and labour (vol. 20, p. 70).” Fortunately, Chinese farmers in the early 1980s began to yearn for civilization. In “Hometown”, a movie released at that time, the only wish of the terminally ill heroine, Yu Chuntao, was to hear once more the rumble of the mountain train; in the movie “Ahh, Xiang Xue” 《啊, ( 香雪!》 ), the protagonist Xiang Xue and her young girlfriends would rather take a long mountain trek every day just for a glimpse of the Beijing-Yuanping train, which stopped for only one minute at the small station. Although this pursuit of modern intercourse came more than a century late, it is nevertheless a symbol of China’s hope and vitality.

6.3 Annihilating Space with Time The intercourse revolution can promote the rapid development of production and the spread of civilization. This means that modern means of intercourse could annihilate space with time. In a market economy where frequent material and information exchanges occur, the development of means of intercourse must adapt to the nature of capital expansion so that world exchanges can take place. This is as Marx wrote, “[t]he more production comes to be based on exchange value, and thus on exchange, the more important for production do the physical conditions of exchange become— the means of communication and transport. By its very nature, capital strives to go beyond every spatial limitation. Hence the creation of the physical conditions of exchange—of the means of communication and transport—becomes a necessity for it to an incomparably greater degree: space must be annihilated by time (vol. 28, p. 448).” A few pages later, he concluded, “[t]hus, while capital must strive on the

82

6 Intercourse Revolution

one hand to tear down every local barrier to traffic, i.e. to exchange, and to conquer the whole world as its market, it strives on the other hand to annihilate space by means of time, i.e. to reduce to a minimum the time required for the movement [of products] from one place to another (vol. 28, p. 463).” Clearly, the “exchange” here includes the transmission of news, letters, telegrams, etc., in addition to the exchange of materials. Using time to annihilate space is a revolutionary reality brought about by modern means of intercourse to facilitate modern material and spiritual exchanges. Marx said that “it strives on the other hand to annihilate space by means of time, i.e. to reduce to a minimum the time required for the movement [of products] from one place to another. The more capital has been developed, and the greater therefore the expansion of the market in which it circulates, which constitutes the spatial path of its circulation, the more it goes on to strive for an even greater spatial expansion of the market and for a more complete annihilation of space by means of time (vol. 28, p. 463).” This revolutionary trend broke through the old consciousness of smallscale production and encouraged people to break out of the confinement imposed by the traditional intercoursal cycle to enter global exchanges. With regard to this situation, Marx pointed out that the intercourse revolution never listens to the poet’s kind words: ‘Since blessing is in front of us, why bother to go far?’ One of Kant’s contributions to history is to separate the category of time and space from the spirit of thinking; the intercourse revolution has liberated people from the limits of space. In 1840, when the communist revolution was just launched in Germany, Engels, who was less than 20 years old at that time, wrote, “since Kant eliminated the categories of space and time from the sensory impressions of the thinking mind, mankind has been striving with might and main to emancipate itself from these limitations materially too (vol. 2, p. 129).” After 1857, Marx and Engels demonstrated a series of social changes brought about by the time–space adjustment caused by the communist revolution: • The space movement is accelerating, and the absolute time is shortened and the profit rate is increased in the interaction, “the same progress and the opportunities created by the development of transport and communication facilities make it imperative, conversely, to work for ever more remote markets, in a word—for the world market. (vol.36, p.252).” • “The relative differences may be displaced by the development of the means of transportation and communication in a way that does not correspond to the geographical distances. For instance a railway which leads from a place of production to an inland centre of population may relatively or absolutely lengthen the distance to a nearer inland point not connected by rail, as compared to the one which geographically is more remote. In the same way the same circumstances may alter the relative distance of places of production from the larger markets, which explains the deterioration of old and the rise of new centres of production because of changes in communication and transportation facilities (vol. 36, p. 250).”

6.3 Annihilating Space with Time

83

• “For example, cotton is an illustration of how transport and communications affect the emptying of the reservoirs (vol. 32, p. 420). […] The cotton manufacturer in Manchester and other places stocks his warehouse roughly in accordance with his immediate consumption needs, since the electric telegraph and the railway make the TRANSFER from Liverpool to Manchester possible at a moment’s notice (vol. 32, p. 420).” • Density became more or less relative. “A relatively thinly populated country, with well-developed means of communication, has a denser population than a more numerously populated country, with badly-developed means of communication; and in this sense the Northern States of the American Union, for instance, are more thickly populated than India (vol. 35, p. 358).” • “The uncertainty of fashions does increase necessitous poor. It has two great mischiefs in it. 1st, The journeymen are miserable in winter for want of work, the mercers and master-weavers not daring to lay out their stocks to keep the journeymen employed before the spring comes, and they know what the fashion will then be; 2ndly, In the spring the journeymen are not sufficient, but the masterweavers must draw in many prentices, that they may supply the trade of the kingdom in a quarter or half a year, which robs the plough of hands, drains the country of labourers, and in a great part stocks the city with beggars, and starves some in winter that are ashamed to beg (vol. 35, p. 482).” • “Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years (vol. 6, p. 493).” • “Ever since they are being shipped in steamboats via the Suez Canal this method of fabricating fictitious capital has been deprived of its basis—the long freight voyage. And ever since the telegraph informs the English businessman about the Indian market and the Indian merchant about the English market, on the same day this method has become totally impracticable (vol. 37, p. 407).” • From a macroscopic level, “[t]he two large centres of the crises of 1825–57, America and India, have been brought from 70 to 90% nearer to the European industrial countries by this revolution in transport, and have thereby lost a good deal of their explosive nature (vol. 37, p. 75).” From the new situation brought about by annihilating space with time, the results that can be directly seen are material. However, because of these great changes in material production and intercourse, the development of mental intercourse was greatly stimulated. In order for people to survive in a new environment, they must also annihilate space with time so as to understand the changes that constantly occur

84

6 Intercourse Revolution

in distant lands. The rapid expansion of modern communications and journalism, the occupational habits of rushing to beat the market and getting firsthand news, is actually a direct reflection of the need to annihilate space with time as demanded of material intercourse, and which manifests itself as a form of mental intercourse. From the perspective of the intercourse revolution discussed by Marx and Engels, it can be seen that the use of time to annihilate space presents an infinite development trend. Therefore, the phenomenon of beating the market and getting firsthand news will eventually become redundant over time as the concept of space is gradually overcome. When this prospect is realized, we should not forget the numerous foresight that Marx had had in the past. However, the famous communication scholar Marshall McLuhan believes that Marx only uses machines as the basis of his analysis.1 On the other hand, there are others who have not forgotten Marx. For example, the French scholar is known for his theory on “information society”, Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, who credited his work in his influential Le Défi mondial (The Global Challenge), in the World Challenge, to Saint Simon and Marx.

6.4 Foreseeing the Age of Information What is the essence of modern means of intercourse? When Marx discussed the intercourse revolution, he raised the issue to a more profound level. He pointed out, “Nature does not construct machines, locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, selfacting mules, etc. …… They are organs of the human mind which are created by the human hand, the objectified power of knowledge (vol. 29, p. 92).” In other words, the essence of modern means of intercourse is the power of science and knowledge, the development of human creativity, and the development of human intelligence. Here, Marx actually reveals the source of social prosperity in the era of intercourse revolution. Take this as a point of departure, many of his arguments revolve around the basic characteristics of today’s information age. The basic characteristics of the information age are, first and foremost, changes in the production structure that put the information industry in a dominant position. Marx saw the changing trend of this industrial structure and believed that when the traditional labor mode became modern, “[l]abour no longer appears so much as included in the production process, but rather man relates himself to that process as its overseer and regulator. …He stands beside the production process, rather than being its main agent (vol. 29, p. 91). […] as this development takes place,/immediate labour as such ceases to be the basis of production (vol. 29, pp. 94–95).” The biggest change in the industrial structure of the information age is the liberation of people from direct labor as it gradually became an information industry. Marx has already realized this trend when discussing the revolution of communication. He wrote about the transformation from personnel into telegraph and railway industries, “[i]n this 1

See McLuhan’s Understanding Media, page 73, The Commercial Press, 2000 edition. He obviously lacks a true understanding of Marx.

6.4 Foreseeing the Age of Information

85

context, extension of knowledge is obviously one of the conditions for increasing the auxiliary capital or, what amounts to the same thing, for the conversion of surplus produce or surplus money (foreign trade is important in this connection) into surplus of auxiliary capital. For example, the telegraph opens up a whole new field for the investment of auxiliary capital, so do the railways, etc., and so does the whole gutta-percha and Indian rubber production (vol. 33, p. 362).” The change in the labor structure of the information age is the second basic feature of this era. White-collared workers replaced blue-collared workers as the dominant portion of the labor force, while the proportion of intellectual expenditures in manual labor increased. Marx foreshadowed the emergence of this new type of laborers. He said, “now he interposes the natural process, [VII-3] which he transforms into an industrial one, as an intermediary between himself and inorganic nature, which he makes himself master of (vol. 29, p. 91). […] and that the productive power of the means of labour developed to an automatic process presupposes the subjection of the natural forces to the social intelligence (vol. 29, p. 95).” The “intermediary” mentioned by Marx refers to the automated machine system. At the same time, he explicitly stated that “[w]hat is true of machinery is equally true of the combination of human activities and the development of human intercourse (vol. 29, p. 91).” That is to say, the views expressed by Marx in the past are also fully applicable to the changes in the labor structure of industries specializing in facilitating intercourse. The rise of the Internet industry today confirms this. The third basic characteristic of the information age is the change of the resource structure. Information becomes an extremely important resource for the growth of social wealth, while the production of knowledge becomes a key contributive factor. Marx contended that “[t]he development of fixed capital shows the degree to which society’s general science, knowledge, has become an immediate productive force, and hence the degree to which the conditions of the social life process itself have been brought under the control of the general intellect and remoulded according to it. It shows the degree to which the social productive forces are produced not merely in the form of knowledge but as immediate organs of social praxis, of the actual life process (vol. 29, p. 92).” Marx did not employ the various concepts of current intercourse technology and yet, he accurately predicted the development trend of a hundred years of communication. Isn’t the Internet and space transmission, etc., “the direct organs of the actual life process”? Finally, scientific organization and decision-making take a central stage in society and are other basic features of the information age. From the above several trends, Marx predicted the oncoming of this trend. According to him, the standard for gauging the future of social evolution is “the degree to which the conditions of the social life process itself have been brought under the control of the general intellect and remoulded according to it (vol. 29, p. 92).” The “general intelligence control” mentioned here is a kind of scientific decision control. With the emergence of the intercourse revolution, processes of mental intercourse become denser and information becomes more concentrated. While this is a kind of social progress in itself, it brings forth new conflicts and problems in that the accessibility of some information may be controlled by a central group of organizations or

86

6 Intercourse Revolution

people. Originally, the concept of using time to annihilate space was to enhance and strengthen the mental connection between people. However, if the evolved means of intercourse thus come under an autocratic system, this may instead strengthen the power of the autocratic system by tightening its control over people’s thoughts. During the Crimean War of 1853, it was actually a better option to exercise independent command of the French army on the front line. However, the advanced means of communication caused the army to lose this power of command. Regarding this, Marx wrote, “[u]ntil now, however, the distance between the theatre of war and the Tuileries has provided a kind of guarantee against actual interference by the military dilettantism of Paris. Now submarine telegraph has eliminated the distances, and with the distances the guarantee (vol. 14, p. 211).” Along the same vein of thought, after the failure of the Paris Commune in 1871, newspapers and telecommunications were not in the hands of the working class. As such, Marx was portrayed in the bourgeois press as a monster loaded with millions of dollars. Consequently, journalists and various random people surrounded his home all day long, wanting to catch a glimpse of this monster with their own eyes. In regards to this, Marx wrote, “[u]p till now it has been thought that the emergence of the Christian myths during the Roman Empire was possible only because printing had not yet been invented. Precisely the contrary. The daily press and the telegraph, which in a moment spreads its inventions over the whole earth, fabricate more myths in one day (and the bourgeois cattle believe and propagate them still further), than could have previously been produced in a century (vol. 44, p. 177).” Here, Marx actually pointed out the same problem that exists in today’s information age. That is, the modernization of intercourse methods potentially hides another possibility—to provide a tighter rein of spiritual control for the authoritarian or autocratic system. In the nineteenth century, science and technology had just begun large-scale employment in society. First came steam power, then came electricity; both of which became a symbol of man overcoming nature. Marx and Engels closely observed the latest scientific developments and pondered over the kind of profound changes that science and technology could bring to humanity. From the intercourse revolution of the nineteenth century to the current information revolution, the intervals between the revolutions in the means of human mental intercourse have become shorter and shorter. If it could be said that railways, ships, and telegraphs unified the world, then it could similarly be said that the Internet and space communication effectively prevented the world from returning into an era of self-containment. Marx and Engels failed to imagine the specific forms in which the means of intercourse could develop, but in their writings on the intercourse revolution, they did point out that this was an irreversible historical development trend.

Chapter 7

Religion as a Form of Intercourse

Religion is one of the oldest mental intercourse and cultural phenomena of mankind. It is expressed in various conceptual systems premised on the belief in gods. According to Ludwig Feuerbach, the word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin word ‘religare’, which originally meant ‘to be in contact with’.1 In contemporary times, more than two thirds of the population believe in some kind of religion. As a spiritual force deeply rooted in traditions, religion occupies a considerable proportion of all modern forms of intercourse, thus influencing the direction and results of communication. Marx and Engels demonstrated the spread of various religions, mainly Christianity. In the first political paper written by Marx in 1842, he cited religious newspapers as one of the four major categories of newspapers (the four categories are: political newspapers, philosophical newspapers, religious newspapers, and entertainment newspapers). Later, when he was studying commodity fetishism, he analyzed in depth the characteristics of religious intercourse. Engels, on the other hand, studied a number of religious newspapers in his youth and in his later years, elaborated on the reasons for the widespread faith of early Christianity.

7.1 Characteristics of Religious Intercourse Religion is also a form of social mental intercourse, which has very different characteristics from other forms of mental intercourse. Marx realized this very early and thus pointed out that “[t]hus the instruction wants to protect religion, but it violates the most general principle of all religions, the sanctity and inviolability of the subjective frame of mind (vol. 1, p. 121).” Here, he discussed the three main characteristics of religion, namely: the scope of its activities is in the subjective world; it is sacred

1

Religion is derived from religare and meant originally a bond (vol. 26, p. 375).

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_7

87

88

7 Religion as a Form of Intercourse

in its pursuit of the superhuman, supernatural realm and strength; it exhibits invincibility that remains unaffected by the external world. Based on the above three points, Marx and Engels described religious intercourse as the following: 1.

Intercourse occurs in the imagination and is transcendental. They pointed out, “[I]n religion, people make their empirical world into an entity that is only conceived, imagined, that confronts them as something foreign (vol. 5, p. 159).” This type of foreign entity is merely a phantom and the scenario of its intercourse with people is as Engels stated, “[r]eligion by its very essence drains man and nature of substance, and transfers this substance to the phantom of an otherworldly God, who in turn then graciously permits man and nature to receive some of his superfluity. Now as long as faith in this other-worldly phantom is vigorous and alive, thus long man will acquire in this roundabout way at least some substance (vol. 3, p. 461).” Clearly, then, religious intercourse is a kind of self-interaction, of which its content is merely the results of one’s own thinking. Such intercourse is able to occur only because there is a ‘fantasy of the religious world’ in the human mind. In this regard, Marx wrote, “In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race (vol. 35, p. 83).”

Even if there is no god-like figure as created by man, religious intercourse can still occur in the imagination. It is as Marx stated, “[i]t is the same as if one wished, in the mythology, to assign a superior position to those religions whose deities have not been worked out as visual images, but remain confined to the sphere of concepts, i.e. attain at most a verbal but not an artistic existence (vol. 29, p. 177).” When people are completely governed by such intercourse, there arises a need for religious institutions and clergyman. He continued to write that “If man attributes an independent existence, clothed in a religious form, to his relationship to his own nature, to external nature and to other men so that he is dominated by these notions, then he requires priests and their labour (vol. 32, p. 496).” At this point in time, the target in intercourse has become more specific and Marx thus wrote ironically that “the saints more important than Christ; the priests more important than the saints (vol. 28, p. 257).” 1.

The personification of the target in intercourse. When people are unable to obtain total freedom in the face of natural and social forces, or when people are moved by their magnificence, there is often a desire to personify such forces of nature and society so that a form of intercourse may be carried out with these personifications in the imagination. Engels expounds on the universality of religion from the perspective of primitive man’s desire to personify objects, “To primitive man the forces of nature were something alien, mysterious, superior. At a certain stage, through which all civilized peoples, he assimilates them by means of personification. It was this urge to personify that created gods everywhere, and the consensus gentium, as regards proof of the existence of God, proves after all only the universality of this urge to personify as a necessary transition

7.1 Characteristics of Religious Intercourse

89

stage, and consequently the universality of religion too (vol. 25, p. 605).” Even famous thinkers tend towards such religious intercourse, for instance, Plato. According to Marx, “Indeed, the greatest sage of antiquity, the divine Plato, expresses in more than one passage a profound longing for a higher being, whose appearance would fulfil the unsatisfied striving for truth and light (vol. 1, p. 636).” When Engels was 20 years old, he shared his experiences of personifying and interacting with the magnificent scenery in nature. He said, “[i]f you stand on the Drachenfels or on the Rochusberg at Bingen, and gaze over the vine-fragrant valley of the Rhine, the distant blue mountains merging with the horizon, the green fields and vineyards flooded with golden sunlight, the blue sky reflected in the river—heaven with its brightness descends on to the earth and is mirrored in it, the spirit descends into matter, the word becomes flesh and dwells among us—that is the embodiment of Christianity (vol. 2, p. 95).” 1.

Imbuing emotions into intercourse. Religious intercourse is a special kind of interaction brought about by internal beliefs and external factors. As such, Engels felt that “[i]n this convenient, handy and universally adaptable form, religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the sentimental form of men’s relation to the alien, natural and social, forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the control of these forces (vol. 25, p. 301).” On one occasion, he walked into a church in a German town, Xanten, where he experienced the emotional effects of religious rituals. He exalted, “I entered the church; high mass was just being celebrated. The notes of the organ thundered down from the choir, a jubilant throng of heart-storming warriors, and raced through the echoing nave until they died away in the farthest aisles of the church. You, too, son of the nineteenth century, let your heart be conquered by them—these sounds have enthralled stronger and wilder men than you! (vol. 2, p. 133) […] I went away shaken and asked to be shown the way to an inn, the only one in the little town (vol. 2, p. 134).”

Because of the emotional nature of religious intercourse, whenever people suffer or feel tired or resigned to their destiny, religion becomes a spiritual need. Like Engels wrote, “even here one can see how fortifying and comforting a religion which has truly become a matter of the heart is, even in its saddest extremes (vol. 2, p. 31).” The emotional effect that religion has on people draws it closer to the hearts of those in religious intercourse. In his analysis of the alienated labor in capitalism, Marx wrote, “[g]eneral exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven—an avenue giving the priest access to his heart (vol. 3, p. 307).” In 1874, when Marx was recuperating on Island Wight in England, he told Engels, “I found a similar LIBRARY in the bathhouse, and one can scarcely move an inch without seeing posters advertising pious MEETINGS. And in fact, the PLEBS here is very poor and seems to seek its chief distraction in the church. It would be quite interesting to investigate how what was originally a community of fishermen became reduced IN NO TIME to this state of religious self-abasement (vol. 45, p. 22).” Even

90

7 Religion as a Form of Intercourse

if he became stranded on an island like Robinson, religious intercourse would be his source of comfort. As he wrote in the first volume of Das Kapitel, “[o]f his prayers and the like we take no account, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks upon them as so much recreation (vol. 35, p. 87).” When a society collapses, the anxiety and desperate need for salvation experienced by its people steer them either consciously or unconsciously towards the direction of internal intercourse, which in turn creates the environment for religion, for example, Christianity in the wake of Rome’s demise. As Engels wrote, “[b]ut in all classes there were necessarily a number of people who, despairing of material salvation, sought in its stead a spiritual salvation, a consolation in their consciousness to save them from utter despair (vol. 24, p. 433). […] it had to take on a religious form, (vol. 24, p. 434) […] for this flight from the external world into the internal, (vol. 24, p. 434) […] Secondly, Christianity struck a chord that was bound to echo in countless hearts. To all complaints about the wickedness of the times and the general material and moral misery (vol. 24, p. 434).” 1.

The imaginary intermediary in intercourse. In any form of intercourse, there has to be a communication partner; religious intercourse is no exception to this rule. However, the communication partner in religious intercourse is illusory. Having said that, it does not matter whether the illusory partner is clear or vague if it is a totem or a god. People make use of such illusory intermediaries as a channel of communication to participate in religious intercourse with the gods in their beliefs.

In 1844, Marx once stated, “Religion is precisely the recognition of man in a roundabout way, through an intermediary (vol. 3, p. 152). […] Just as Christ is the intermediary to whom man transfers the burden of all his divinity, all his religious constraint, so the state is the intermediary to whom man transfers all his non-divinity and all his human unconstraint (vol. 3, p. 152).” Since people transfer their wills onto these intermediaries, it is not the people themselves who are in control over the religious intercourse but rather, the illusory intermediaries that are in control. In 1857, Marx analyzed that “[a]n example in the religious sphere is Christ the mediator between God and man—mere instrument of circulation between them— becomes their unity, God-man, and as such becomes more important than God (vol. 28, p. 257).” The Amitolha (inspired by the Buddha) and Muhammad (the Messenger of God in Islam) serve the same intermediary function as Jesus in Christianity. In his study of the origins of Christianity, Engels examined how Jesus became a religious intermediary. Christianity was founded on the basis of two philosophical schools in the East and West, premised on Judaism, circa the era of the birth of Christ. Among them, the concept of ‘logos’ (irresistible destiny and mysterious reasoning) in the School of Stoicism is transformed into an intermediary for future religions. He contended that “the innate sinfulness of man, the Logos, the Word, which is with God and is God and which becomes the mediator between God and Man (vol. 24, p. 429) and because of the existence of Jesus, “the incarnation of the Logos become man in a definite person and his sacrifice on the cross for the redemption of sinful mankind (vol. 24, p. 429).”

7.1 Characteristics of Religious Intercourse

91

The way in which such intermediaries function in religious intercourse can be understood from a religious composition written by Marx at the age of 17 and a poem written by Engels at the age of 16. The young Marx grasped the concept of fraternity through his interaction with Jesus. He wrote, “[t]hus, union with Christ consists in the most intimate, most vital communion with Him, in having Him before our eyes and in our hearts, and being so imbued with the highest love for Him, at the same time we turn our hearts to our brothers whom he has closely bound to us, and for whom also he sacrificed himself (vol. 1, p. 638).” Meanwhile, through his interaction with Jesus, the young Engels experienced a profound sense of well-being. He wrote, Lord Jesus Christ, God’s only son, O step down from Thy heavenly throne And save my soul for me Come down in all Thy blessedness, Light of Thy Father’s holiness, Grant that I may choose Thee. Lovely, splendid, without sorrow is the joy with which we raise, Saviour, unto Thee our praise (vol. 2, p. 555).

1.

2.

The product of religious thinking governs religious intercourse. As people tend to project their entire beings onto religious intermediaries, Marx explained it as “for morality is based on the autonomy of the human mind, religion on its heteronomy (vol. 1, p. 119).” The so-called ‘laws’ refer to one or several holy books or scriptures in various religions. The circulation and reprints (editions) of the Christian Bible rank first in the world, indicating how much it dominates people. In Das Kapital, Marx stated that one of the most common trades in commodities is first the exchange of linen for two pounds and then, the purchase of a Bible for familial usage using these two pounds. This line of trade reflected the extent to which religion dominated the lives of people in reality. As he wrote, “the Bible, which is destined to enter his house as an object of utility and of edification to its inmates. (vol. 35, p. 115).” In regards to this phenomenon of trade, Marx summarized, “[i]n exactly the same way in religiously constrained reasoning, the product of thought not only claims but exercises domination over thought itself (vol. 32, p. 409).” The exclusivity of religious intercourse. The earliest religions existed only within certain ethnic groups (or tribes) and regions, while the emergence of world religions only came about around one thousand years ago. Therefore, this type of intercourse activities still retains a certain sense of ethnicity and regional element, as well as a psychological consciousness that is unique to the self, thereby creating an exclusiveness in such religious intercourse. The isolation and opposition among different religions and sects are sometimes even more intense than those of a political nature. According to Marx, the rationale behind such a phenomenon is “just like a man who believes in a particular religion and

92

3.

7 Religion as a Form of Intercourse

sees it as the religion, and everything outside of it only as false religions (vol. 32, p. 158).” Modern global intercourse is attempting to alleviate such sense of exclusivity, especially Christianity, which “[b]y thus rejecting all national religions and their common ritual and addressing itself to all peoples without distinction, [it] becomes the first potential world religion (vol. 24, p. 434)” that is most widely spread. From the perspective of a religious individual, however, whether religion is exclusive or not depends on the traditional and religious environment in which he lives. The socialization of mass religious intercourse. Religious rituals, dances, music, etc., together with religious psychology and religious emotions, constitute a complete system of faith. In addition to the divine nature of imagination and transcendence, mass religious activities are actually forms of social intercourse that are intertwined with religious art. According to Engels, “[t]he first religious manifestations are festivals at which natural processes, changes of season, etc., are symbolised. The particular natural conditions and products in the midst of which a tribe or a people lives, become part of its religion (vol. 38, p. 76).” Meanwhile, in their study of the religious activities of the American Indian Iroquois tribe, Marx and Engels both noticed the presence of large-scale religious social intercourse.

As Marx recorded, “Accordingly we find among the Iroquois six annual religious festivals, (Maple, Planting. Berry, Green-Corn, Harvest, and New Years Festivals) which were common to all the gentes united in a tribe, and which were observed at stated seasons of the year (Morgan 1877, p. 81).2 Regarding the performance style of such religious festivals, Engels wrote, “[t]he various tribes had their regular festivals with definite forms of worship, particularly, dancing and games. Dances especially were an essential part of all religious ceremonies, each tribe performing its own separately (vol. 26, p. 197).” Such acts of worshiping a common god become the social factor that forms a sense of camaraderie among the clan or tribe which gel the people together. In fact, many large-scale modern artistic folk celebrations have their origins in ancient religious social intercourse and borrow heavily from past religious traditions. In his pamphlet The Festival of the Rhine, Engels vividly describes the Rhine Music Festival and its relationship with ancient religious festivals. He wrote, “Oh, it is a fine festival, the Rhenish music festival! […] There’s pleasure for you! All cares, all business are forgotten; […] Everybody is preparing for the Whitsun holiday, and a festival that derives from the general emanation of the Holy Spirit cannot be more worthily celebrated than by surrendering to the divine spirit of bliss and enjoyment of life (vol. 2, p. 274).” Clearly, the religious nature of such activities had greatly diminished by that time, and instead, its social entertainment and interactive nature became more pronounced.

2

Morgan (1877).

7.2 Conditions for the Spread of Artificial Religions

93

7.2 Conditions for the Spread of Artificial Religions Engels divided religion into two categories: natural religion and artificial religion. He argued that “naturally arising religions, like the fetish worship of the Negroes or the common primitive religion of the Aryans, come into being without deception playing any part (vol. 24, p. 427).” While the world religion that emerged after human beings entered the civilized period (slave society), “arose more or less artificially, particularly Christianity and Islam (vol. 26, p. 376).” Natural religions, be it consciously and unconsciously, spread within tribes or ethnic groups, whereas artificial religions require a considerable degree of intentional dissemination. The spread of religion is closely related to the content and form of its faith, the environment in which it is formed, and the art of evangelizing, all of which in turn affected the historical process of society of the past millennium. Among the various world religions, the most widely spread faith is Christianity. According to Marx, “The development of capitalist production creates an AVERAGE level of bourgeois society and therefore an average level of temperament and disposition amongst the most varied peoples. [It is] as truly cosmopolitan as Christianity (vol. 33, p. 369).” He and Engels (mainly Engels) compared the spread of Christianity with other religions and demonstrated the conditions under which world religions were widely spread. Firstly, the establishment of monotheism promoted the widespread spread of religion. While studying the history of early Christianity, Engels made a comparison of the various religions that existed before, and concurrently with, Christianity. According to him, one of the main reasons why Christianity prevailed at that time was that there was a god in its religious faith. Natural religions are generally polytheistic, which causes the dispersion and complexity of religious forms. Each religion spreads within the restricted scope of the clan and/or tribe, but external expansion is severely limited. As man’s sensory attention can only be focused on one specific direction, his remaining responses towards other things become relatively vague. The thought process of the average person is characteristically linear, while only individuals who are higher educated and more refined in mentality can think outside this linear thread. As such, polytheism is not suitable for people outside the respective clan and/or tribe, as it does not befit the characteristics of their psychological activities. As early Christianity transferred the natural attributes of numerous gods to an omnipotent God, Engels argued that “this [is a] convenient, handy and universally adaptable form (vol. 25, p. 301)” which, in the spirit of monotheism, “Judaism, too, with its new universal god, had made a start towards becoming a world religion (vol. 24, p. 434).” Engels’s arguments are also applicable in the expansion of other successful religions. The primary reason for the establishment and success of Islam in the seventh century was that it managed to overcome the multi-god system and internal struggles of the Eastern religions. To date, the practitioners of the Islamic faith still chants. (There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah). On the other hand, the large-scale dissemination of Chinese Confucianism

94

7 Religion as a Form of Intercourse

(which has a semi-religious nature) is directly related to the “unique Confucianism” in the Han Dynasty. Secondly, the easier it is to understand the content of religion, the more acceptable is its form, and the wider the scope of its spread. What is involved here is the breadth of the content and approach to the spread and adaptation of the faith. In the wake of the collapse of ancient Rome, people generally experienced the depravation of the world. At that time, the Christian doctrine made its presence felt by offering people a way out of the darkness. Such a situation is as Engels explained, “[t]oall complaints about the wickedness of the times and the general material and moral misery, Christian consciousness of sin answered: It is so and it cannot be otherwise; (vol. 24, p. 434) thou art to blame, ye are all to blame for the corruption of the world, thine and your own internal corruption! And where was the man who could deny it? Mea culpa! The admission of each one’s share in the responsibility for the general misfortune was irrefutable and was made now the precondition for the spiritual salvation which Christianity at the same time announced. And this spiritual salvation was so instituted that it could be easily understood by members of every old religious community (vol. 24, p. 435).” In this way, Christianity conquered the hearts of the people. In terms of religious forms, the old religions of the past demanded a large extent of subordination and subservience from its followers, and sometimes even required its followers to make sacrifices for the gods. This elicited quite a lot of fear from people. On the other hand, Christianity was, as Engels claimed, was milder because “at the same time it provided, in the sacrificial death of its founder, a form easily understood everywhere of the universally longed-for internal salvation from the decadent world, the consolation of consciousness; it thus again proved its capacity to become a world religion and, indeed, a religion which suited the world as it then was (vol. 24, p. 435). […] the fires revolutionary basic idea (borrowed from the Philonic school) in Christianity was that by the one great voluntary sacrifice of a mediator the sins of all times and all men were atoned for once and for all in respect of the faithful. Thus the necessity of any further sacrifices was removed and with it the basis for a multitude of religious rites: but freedom from rites that made difficult or forbade intercourse with people of other confessions was the first condition of a world religion (vol. 27, p. 456).” Along the same line of argument, Engels also compared ancient Eastern religions with later Islam and Western religions, arguing that it was the former’s rules and regulations that restricted its spread, and even caused the stagnation of the Eastern society. He said, “[i]n all previous religions ritual had been the main thing. Only by taking part in the sacrifices and processions, and in the Orient by observing the most cumbersome diet and cleanliness regulations, could one show to what religion one belonged. While Rome and Greece were tolerant in the latter respect, there was in the Orient an obsession with religious prohibitions that contributed no little to the final collapse (vol. 24, p. 434). […] Islam itself, on the other hand, by preserving its specifically Oriental ritual, limited the area of its propagation to the Orient and North Africa conquered and populated anew by Arab Bedouins; here it could become the dominant religion, but not in the West (vol. 24, p. 434).”

7.2 Conditions for the Spread of Artificial Religions

95

Thirdly, the greater the degree of openness that religion extends to the outside world, the wider its spread. Exclusivity is one of the characteristics of religious exchanges, as is the case between different Christian sects. However, in terms of accepting pre-believers into the religion, Christianity has the least restrictive conditions as it does not have any special requirements in regards to nationality (or race). In his comparative study of early Christianity and other Eastern religions of that time, Engels found that because of its openness to the external world, Christianity was destined to dominate in the widespread race of religions. He pointed out that “[p]eople of two different religions (Egyptians, Persians, Jews, Chaldeans) could not eat or drink together, perform any everyday act together, or hardly speak to each other. It was largely due to this segregation of man from man that the Orient met its demise. Christianity knows no distinctive rituals, not even the sacrifices and processions of the classical world. By thus rejecting all national religions and their common ritual and addressing itself to all peoples without distinction, it becomes the first potential world religion (vol. 24, p. 434).” From the opposite perspective, Marx criticized the politic-religious Ottoman Empire, which, in accordance with Islamic teachings, implemented a ‘locked’ policy that excluded the West. He warned all Westerners that “[a]s the Koran treats all foreigners as foes, nobody will dare to present himself in a Mussulman country without having taken his precautions (vol. 13, pp. 103–104).” He believes that the excessive hostility of Islamic teachings is its greatest downfall, as it greatly limits the interaction between the Islamic region and the outside world. “The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various people to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels. The Infidel is “harby,” i.e. the enemy. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever (vol. 13, p. 102).” The exclusivity of religion is triggered by an innate consciousness of self-protection, which can easily backfire and creates a confinement for its spread. Fourthly, the more a religion seeks believers from the lower classes, the faster and wider it spreads. The earliest artificial religion, whose activities took place mainly among members of the upper social class, was monopolized by thinkers and monks. For example, believers in Judaism hailed initially from the aristocracy, which in itself limited the spread of that religion. In his analysis of the reasons why Christianity preceded over other religions in the past, Engels believed that an essential reason was its civilian nature. He said, “Christianity itself had to get rid of the notion of the superiority of the Jewish Christians (still dominant in the so-called Revelation of John) before it could really become a world religion (vol. 24, p. 434). […] What kind of people were the first Christians recruited from? Mainly from the “laboring and burdened”, the members of the lowest strata, as becomes a revolutionary element. (vol. 27, p. 460) […] and finally the essential feature that the new religious philosophy reverses the previous world order, seeks its disciples among the poor, the miserable, the slaves and the rejected and despises the rich, the powerful and the privileged, whence the precept to despise all worldly pleasures and to mortify the flesh (vol. 24, p. 429).”

96

7 Religion as a Form of Intercourse

This is also the reason for the rapid spread of Islam. Marx compared the spread of religion in Persia with India and explained the importance that seeking believers from the lower classes plays in the spread of religious faith. He wrote, “Mohammedanism made more rapid progress among the Persians than among the Hindus because there priest class was lowest and most degraded class, whereas in India it was the most powerful political agent in the Commonwealth (Elphinstone; Marx, p. 12).”3 As the most widely spread religion has turned to the lower classes in search of converting pre-believers, Marx said, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world (vol. 3, p. 175).” This characteristic of the spread of religion as discussed by Marx and Engels is quite universal. Engels elaborated quite a lot on the ways the religious forms of the Baptist and the “Mother of the Virgin” in Germany in the sixteenth century massed hundreds of thousands of armed peasants in a short period of time. Similarly, Zhang Jue’s Great Peace Taoism (张角的太平道) during the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty in China, and Hong Xiu Quan’s God-worshiping Society (洪秀全的拜上帝会) of the late Qing Dynasty also amassed millions of believers in a short period of time. The spread of these artificial religions have their own historical and environmental reasons, but their acceptance of people from the lower social strata is the common reason for their success. Fifthly, the quality of the spread of faith displayed by the founders and evangelists of religion also affected the effectiveness and breadth of its spread. After all, the spread of any religion is ultimately done by people. The widespread spread of Christianity is, to a considerable extent, due to the higher literacy of its founders and evangelists. Engels, in his description of Christianity’s founder, mentioned that “[r]eligions are founded by people who feel a need for religion themselves and have a feeling for the religious needs of the masses, and as a rule this is not the case with philosophical schools (vol. 24, p. 429). […] It was in that atmosphere, and, moreover, among a class of people who were more inclined than any other to listen to these supernatural fantasies, that Christianity arose (vol. 27, p. 454).” Christianity makes use of its believers’ hopes and ideals to create a group of dedicated evangelists. Marx expressed respect for their spartan abstinence and dedication to missionary work. He wrote, “if need be, he sacrifices his existence to its existence. He is, in another way, like the preacher of religion who adopts the principle: ‘Obey God rather than man’, including under man himself with his human needs and desires (vol. 1, p. 175).” These evangelists understood very well the special role of martyrdom in the spread of doctrine. It acts as a strong stimulant to believers and future believers, often strengthening the believers’ belief in the religious doctrines and causing a rapid increase in the number of believers. Therefore, the more faithful evangelists often adopt this method, and their behavior is as Engels summed up, “this faith survives only through active propaganda, unrelenting struggle against the internal and external enemy, the proud profession of the revolutionary standpoint before the heathen judges and martyrdom, confident in victory (vol. 27, p. 468).”

3

Marx (1900).

7.2 Conditions for the Spread of Artificial Religions

97

Meanwhile, Marx declared that this type of evanglization “is considered a martyr, and there is no martyr without a halo and without believers (vol. 1, p. 164).” They also pay attention to understanding the art of communication of the evangelists. Marx often watched various street religious propaganda on the streets of London and discussed with Engels the pros and cons of their propaganda methods. On his part, Engels had noticed a special way of spreading Christianity in the early days, that is, preaching in the form of news. He cited the apostle Paul, who went to Athens for evangelizing, as recorded in the New Testament of the Bible. “And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing (vol. 2, p. 259).” Clearly, Christianity at that point in time already knew how to make use of people’s desire for news to spread religious teachings. Just as any new idea will find traces of its origins in history, any kind of religion that spreads widely does so by relying on the historical vitality of its religious and philosophical elements. In this sense, the successful spread of any religion is in actuality a continuation of the spread of its past religious and philosophical vitality. Such an example is provided by Engels, who wrote that “once this intermediary was found, it could become a world religion only in the Greco-Roman world, and that by further development in and merge with the ideas of that world (vol. 27, p. 469).” The conditions for artificially transmitted religion are actually rather comprehensive. As Marx and Engels’s comparative study of early Christianity and other religions is mainly macroscopic, this explains the superiority of Christianity in terms of communicative conditions. However, the later development of Christianity became extremely complicated. Christianity fractured itself into numerous factions, and the ensuing internal struggles were equally cruel. Despite so, when the conditions behind the spread of several world religions are put into perspective, the advantage that Christianity held over other religions, especially in terms of communication, is still reflected in Marx and Engels’s comparative study.

7.3 Religious Propaganda The broad history of human propaganda mostly takes the form of religious propaganda, which is why the term “propaganda”, a modern Western word, has its origins in Roman religion. In their text German Ideology, Marx and Engels referred to the Catholic Specialized Missionary Organization “Promotional Faith Association”— “Congregatio de propaganda fide”, which was founded in 1640. The organization later adopted an abbreviated name “propaganda”, which was used in several Latin languages to refer to ‘external communication’. The spread of artificial religion has a certain degree of interest invested in it, so it is often just a form of propaganda sugarcoated by religion. Engels revealed this when he talked about the medieval civilian uprising. “These risings, like all

98

7 Religion as a Form of Intercourse

mass movement of the Middle Ages, were bound to wear the mask of religion and appeared as the restoration of early Christianity from spreading degeneration; but behind the religious exaltation there were every time extremely tangible worldly interests (vol. 27, p. 448).” The rise of Islam is somewhat different from that of Christianity, although Islamic prophets also claimed to work for the restoration of the original Islamic faith when in actuality, they only sought after the wealth of the rich. This process from propaganda to practice is, as Engels put it, “they unite under a prophet, a Mahdi, to chastise the apostates and restore the observation of the ritual and the true faith and to appropriate in recompense the treasures of the renegades (vol. 27, p. 448).” The sustaining of such forms of religious propaganda through a millennium is primarily due to the constant birth of religions. As Engels wrote, “[i]n this convenient, handy and universally adaptable form, religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the sentimental form of men’s relation to the alien, natural and social, forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the control of these forces (vol. 25, p. 301).” When the lower classes fail to find a way out of their sufferings, they are most vulnerable to religious propaganda. In other words, this is when it is easiest for a religion to woo believers. Secondly, it is easy to find enthusiastic listeners and sincere believers when one participates in religious intercourse. Thus, it is as Engels said, “[t]he sentiments of the masses, fed exclusively on religion, had to have their own interests presented to them in a religious guise in order to create a great turbulence (vol. 26, p. 395).” Due to the power of religious propaganda, both the oppressed and the ruling classes are fully making use of this form of propaganda to achieve their political goals. However, the propaganda psychology on which the two are based is very different. Before the nineteenth century, most members of the oppressed classes emphasized the content of asceticism in religious propaganda. Engels wrote this about the lower stratum of society, “[i]n order to develop its revolutionary energy, to become conscious of its own hostile attitude towards all other elements of society, to concentrate itself as a class, it must begin by stripping itself of everything that could reconcile it with the existing social system; it must renounce the few pleasures that make its wretched existence in the least tolerable for the moment, and of which even the severest oppression could not deprive it. (vol. 10, p. 429).” On the other hand, the religious propaganda of the ruling class stressed the traditional elements of religion. As Engels said, “[w]e see, therefore: religion, once formed, always contains traditional material, just as in all ideological domains tradition constitutes a great conservative force (vol. 26, p. 396).” To the ruling class, “[n]ow, if ever, the people must be kept in order by moral means, and the first and foremost of all moral means of action upon the masses is and remains-religion. Hence the parsons’ majorities on the school board, hence the increasing self-taxation of the bourgeoisie for the support of all sorts of revivalism, from ritualism to the Salvation Army (vol. 27, p. 300).” Early Socialism was very similar to early Christianity. Both suffered from pain and an inability to find a way out of agony. This provided a platform for the spread of the gospel of socialism, be it carried out by sincere folks or con artists. In those

7.3 Religious Propaganda

99

years before the birth of Marxism, as well as in the following decades, many forms of socialism, especially the German and French, took the form of various new religions. Marx and Engels believe that this is an inevitable phenomenon. “To sum up, we have here the infancy of the proletarian movement, just as astrology and alchemy are the infancy of science (vol. 23, p. 107).” By the mid-nineteenth century, socialism in the form of religion became outdated. Engels said, “It stands to reason, however, that this plebeian-proletarian asceticism gradually sheds its revolutionary nature when the development of modern productive forces infinitely multiplies the luxuries, thus rendering Spartan equality superfluous, and when the position of the proletariat in society, and thereby the proletariat itself, become more revolutionary (vol. 10, p. 429).” Clearly, this form of religious propaganda had become harmful to the proletariat. On the other hand, as for those who once declared the abolition of religion in the Great Revolution, Engels wrote that “one by one, the scoffers turned pious in putward behavior, spoke with respect of the Church, its dogmas and rites, and even conformed with the latter as could not be helped (vol. 27, p. 300).” At this time, Marx famously claimed that the role of either socialist religions or ruling class religions could be taken as “the opium of the people (vol.3, p.175).” In light of this situation, in the 1940s and 1980s, Marx and Engels carried out a series of exposés and struggles against various religious propaganda, especially socialist propaganda in religious form. They exposed Hermann Krieger’s “The communist religion of love (vol. 6, p. 46); George Kuhlmann’s “doctrine of the new or the kingdom of the spirit in reality (vol. 27, p. 451)”; and criticized Ludwig Feuerbach’s idealism (vol. 26, p. 375)4 ; and carried out a debate with Mixail Bakynin’s socialist religion “Mohammed without the Koran (vol. 23, p. 107).” After the death of Marx, scientific socialism became the mainstream of the workers’ movement. Meanwhile, Engels continued using the history of socialism to warn the German Social Democrats from time to time in an attempt to prevent the re-creation of the following two religions: the first is the “early Christian communism previously preached by Weitling”, while the second is a kind of communist Islam (vol. 26, p. 326).

References Marx KH (1900) Notes on Indian history (664–1858) (Second Impression). Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow Morgan LH (1877) Ancient society or researches in the lines of human progress from savagery through Barbarism to civilization. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago 4

Feuerbach’s idealism consists here in this: he does not simply accept people’s relations based on reciprocal inclination, such as sex love, friendship, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc., as what they are in themselves—without relating them back to a particular religion which to him, too, belongs to the past; but instead he asserts that they will attain their full value only when consecrated by the name of religion.

Chapter 8

Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

As one of the main forms of mental intercourse, literary arts is as old as human history and is viewed as an inexhaustible source of human mental intercourse. Almost all the famous literary works and artists in European history and contemporary reality have been ‘borrowed’ by Marx and Engels in their work. For instance, famous sayings and classic literary works are often integrated into and become an inseparable part of, many of their works. Compared with religion, public opinion, propaganda, news, and other forms of communication, there is an enviable and sustaining charm in literary and artistic exchanges. Just what is this charm that literary arts possess? What are its communication characteristics? Marx and Engels have posited numerous arguments on this.

8.1 Characteristics of Literature Literary and artistic works or performances are creations of human aesthetics produced in social activities. To this end, it is necessary to study these words of Marx: An animal forms objects only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty (vol. 3, p. 277).

In other words, one of the important signs that distinguish human beings from animals is the human freedom to create according to one’s internal perception of beauty and understanding of aesthetics. This creation is the product of a combination of one’s subjective imagination and his objective environment. Consequently, a form of mental intercourse that is premised on aesthetics takes shape. A strong sense of aesthetics exists not only in the childhood of mankind but also in the modern lifestyle. For example, substances such as gold and silver can be used as either currency or types of aesthetic objects for the purpose of artistic exchanges. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_8

101

102

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

In this regard, Marx specifically pointed out that “but their aesthetic qualities make them the natural material for pomp, ornament, glamour, the requirements of festive occasions (vol. 29, p. 386). […] since all the rays of light in their original composition are reflected by silver, while red alone, the colour of the highest potency, is reflected by gold. Sense of colour, moreover, is the most popular form of aesthetic perception in general (vol. 29, p. 386).” Regarding gold, he added, “[b]y the side of the gross form of a hoard, we find also its aesthetic form in the possession of gold and silver articles (vol. 35, p. 144).” This kind of appreciation of aesthetics is unique to people. It can be said that “beauty” or “aesthetic” is an essential feature of literature and art. As long as man continues the thinking process, forms of mental intercourse that are established on ideas of beauty or aesthetics will continue to exist. After all, literary works are not a lifeless reflection of external things, but rather, a dynamic combination of subjective internal thoughts and objective external environment. In 1857, in his notes on the study of aesthetics, Marx showed his agreement with Schiller’s claim by quoting him, “[b]eauty is simultaneously an object and a subjective state. It is at once form, when we judge it, and life, when we feel it. It is at once our state of being and our creation (Prawer 1976, p.260)1 ”. Having a dynamic imagination is the most important thing to the creators of literature and art. Marx affirmed the role of imagination in literary creation. He believed that even in the basest stage of barbarism, the human imagination was already quite developed. “The imagination, that great faculty which has contributed so largely to the elevation of mankind, was now producing an unwritten literature of myths, legends and traditions, which had already become a powerful stimulus upon the race (Morgan 1877, p.542)2 ”. To the recipients and appreciators of literary arts, arousing emotional responses in people are fundamental in the experience and enjoyment of literary works (performances). Marx regarded literature and art as a combined system of sounds and images, because it not only appeals to people’s intelligence and mind, appeals to abstract feelings, but also causes people to resonate with their sense of hearing, sight, and touch (such as crafts). As such, he wrote, “[j]ust as only music awakens in man the sense of music (vol. 3, p. 301). […]Only through the objectively unfolded richness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility (a musical ear, an eye for beauty of form—in short, senses capable of human gratification, senses affirming themselves as essential powers of man) either cultivated or brought into being (vol. 3, p. 301).” Engels, too, pointed out that “our various senses might gives us impressions differing absolutely as regards quality (vol. 25, p. 513). […] Sight and hearing both perceive wave oscillations. Touch and sight supplement each other to such an extent that from the appearance of an object we can often enough predict its tactile properties (vol. 25, p. 513).” Even a silent printed literary work needs to mobilize a variety of feelings in order to be appreciated. For example, a printed piece of poetry. As Marx once told a publisher, “[s]ee that the poem is carefully printed, with adequate intervals 1 2

Prawer (1976). Morgan (1877).

8.1 Characteristics of Literature

103

between the verses and allowing plenty of space for the whole. A great deal is lost if poems are too closely printed and over-compressed (vol. 39, p. 8).” In general, literature and art are unable to directly stipulate any practical purposes. The acceptance or appreciation of literature and art is a kind of higher-level spiritual enjoyment or leisure. This is the reason why Marx claim that literature and art is “for the development of human abilities and social potentialities (art, etc., science) (vol. 30, p. 190)” while Engels pointed out that “a festival that derives from the general emanation of the Holy Spirit cannot be more worthily celebrated than by surrendering to the divine spirit of bliss and enjoyment of life, the innermost kernel of which/is enjoyment of art (vol. 2, pp. 274–275).” In view of this special intercoursal function of literary arts, Marx paid great attention to the distinction between literary arts and other forms of intercourse. Under normal circumstances, he was against the direct use of literature and art for political, economic, and religious utilitarian purposes, and considered this to be “violation of the laws of art.” He claimed, “what an altogether mistaken idea it is to want to treat theological controversies poetically! Has it ever occurred to a composer to set dogma to music? (vol. 1, p. 371) […] this threat contains the ironic admission that the poet deserts his proper sphere when for him poetry becomes a means. The writer does not at all look on his work as a means. It is an end in itself (vol. 1, p. 175).” In his remarks on John Milton’s work Paradise Lost, he wrote, “Milton produced Paradise Lost for the same reason as a silkworm produces silk. It was an expression of his own nature (vol. 34, p. 136).” Of course, one can also create literary works such as poetry for the purpose of direct utilitarian purposes, but it is only the literary form that is poetic. Marx criticized his friend Sigismund Borkheim, whose message to the Geneva Congress of the International Workers’ Association was masked in the form of a piece of poetry, entitled “Ma perle devant le congrès de Genève”. He commented to Engels “[h]ave you already received Borkheim’s Perle? It appears that professional poesy is simply a mask for the driest sort of prosiness (vol. 42, p. 513).” The essential characteristics of literature and art stipulate that aesthetic qualities and the culmination of sentiments are the basic requirements for the process of literary creation. Marx described his own process of creating poetry, stating that the first step is the build up of emotions, which culminates in inspiration at a certain moment. He wrote: Flames Creator-like once poured Streaming to me from your breast, Clashing up on high they soared, And I nursed them in my breast (vol. 1, p. 535). […] I saw glow and I heard sound, Heavens onward sweeping far, Rising up and sinking down, Sinking but to soar the higher. Then, when inner strife at last was quelled,

104

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

Grief and Joy made music I beheld (vol. 1, p. 535).” This process involves a self-reflection of the author.

Engels described the role of emotion and inspiration in the creation of the German writer Guzkov as such, “[a]longside this intellect there is, however, an equally powerful heat of passion which expresses itself as enthusiasm in his productions and puts his imagination in that state of, I would almost say, erection, in which alone spiritual creation is possible (vol. 2, p. 84).” Under special circumstances, ordinary folks who are not literary poets are also capable of producing poetry. Marx once commented on a set of poems written by people who committed suicide. He wrote, “[d]uring the marvellously cold-blooded moment which follows the decision to die, a kind of infectious enthusiasm is exhaled from these souls and flows on to paper, even among classes which are bereft of all education. While they compose themselves for the sacrifice, whose depth they are pondering, all their strength is concentrated so as to gush out in a warm and characteristic expression (vol. 4, p. 609). […] Some of these poems, which are buried in the archives, are masterpieces (vol. 4, p. 609).” Both Marx and Engels were particularly fond of quoting the words of the ancient Roman poet Juvenalis, “The Angry Poet” (original words are “Poetry of Wrath”) to explain the difference between creations produced out of extraordinary passion or sentiments, and scientific research. Engels elaborated on this, “[t]he wrath which creates the poet is absolutely in place in describing these abuses, and also in attacking those apostles of harmony in the service of the ruling class who either deny or palliate them; but how little it proves in any particular case is evident from the fact that in every epoch of past history there has been no lack of material for such wrath (vol. 25, p. 138).” The acceptance or appreciation of literary arts is born out of the aesthetic needs, or rather, the emotional needs, of people. At the very least, this acceptance or appreciation stems from the need for leisure and thrives in the process of finding and expanding one’s aesthetic sentiments so that a sense of mental satisfaction can be achieved. Regarding this aspect of mankind, Marx pointed out that “[m]an as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being—and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object (vol. 3, p. 337).” Amidst this, the sexual passion between men and women is especially intense. As such, that sexual passion becomes one of the dominant themes of literary creation is inevitable. As Engels said, “[n]ow relations between human beings, based on affection, and especially between the two sexes, have existed as long as mankind. Sex love in particular has undergone a development and won a place during the last eight hundred years which has made it a compulsory pivot of all poetry during this period (vol. 26, p. 375).” Marx enjoyed reading all kinds of novels, regarding which Engels commented, “By the bye I have been reading scarcely anything but Balzac while laid up and enjoyed the grand old fellow thoroughly (vol. 47, p. 71). […] These continue to give me great pleasure and I thank you for them once more (vol. 2, p. 497). […] Then choir practice, enormous enjoyment (vol. 2, p. 475).” The above reflects the characteristics of literary exchanges. After reading LaSalle’s play Franz von Sickingen,

8.1 Characteristics of Literature

105

Marx remarked, “the work excited me very much at the first reading and hence will induce this reaction to an even greater degree in more emotionally inclined readers (vol. 40, p. 419).” Engels, too, stated, “[t]he first and second readings of what is in every sense, both as regards material and treatment, a German national drama, stirred my emotions to the extent that I was compelled to put it aside for a while (vol. 40, p. 441).” In this regard, both Marx and Engels demonstrated the most compelling quality in artistic creations—aesthetic sentiments. The same is can be said of music as a form of intercourse. Marx once wrote, “the service a singer performs for me satisfies my aesthetic needs, but what I enjoy exists only in an action inseparable from the singer himself, and once his work, singing, has come to an end, my enjoyment is also at an end; I enjoy the activity itself—its/REVERBERATION in my ear (vol. 34, pp. 139–140). […] But doesn’t the pianist produce music and satisfy our musical ear (vol. 28, p. 231). […] For example, the pianist stimulates production; partly because he gives a more positive, vital tuning to our individuality, or also in the ordinary sense that he awakens a new need for whose satisfaction more industry is applied in immediate material production (vol. 28, p. 231).” As all mental intercourse that adopts a literary form requires strong aesthetic and emotional sentiments, the work (performance) can only realize itself if it finds a viewer whose aesthetic and emotional sentiments are at a corresponding level. As Marx put it, “If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person (vol. 3, p. 326). […] and just as the most beautiful music has no sense for the unmusical ear (vol. 3, p. 301).” Only when the two adapt to each other can the artistic exchange demonstrate its unique quality. After all, “[I]f the music is good and if the listener understands music, the consumption of music is more sublime than the consumption of champagne (vol. 31, p. 195).” It is only when a considerable number of people are able to exhibit a certain degree of appreciation within a region that it becomes possible to maintain a certain standard of literary form in that region, such as the Bremen music festival in Germany. Marx claimed that “[t]he best thing about Bremen is its music (vol. 2, p. 159). […] Musical taste, moreover, has remained almost quite pure; the German classics, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, of the more modern composers Mendelssohn-Bartholdy and the best song composers, are decidedly preponderant (vol. 2, p. 159).” This is especially true of some operas. Engels once wrote, “I regard as a great merit of König Saul the fact that its beauties are not on the surface, that one must look for them, that after a single reading one may well throw the book contemptuously into a corner (vol. 2, p. 73). […] and so on the stage it would bore even those who can appreciate the beauties of the execution (vol. 2, p. 72).” When the work (performance) is adapted to the taste of the appreciator, this artistic form of intercourse will have a much stronger impact on people than other forms of mental intercourse. In 1893, Engels watched a tragedy at the Lessing Theater in Berlin. Due to the intensity of emotional interaction between the actors and the audience, the play was extremely compelling. He claimed that “[t]he public is of an attention, a devotion, I might say, an enthusiasm sans égale. Not a sign of applause until the curtain falls-then a veritable storm. But in pathetic scenes-torrents of tears.

106

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

No wonder the actors prefer this public to any other (vol. 50, p. 187).” Especially in the art form of music, mutual infection is the key to success. It is as Engels wrote, “[h]ence, drama can no longer serve as the centre for great assemblies, a different art must help, and only music can do that; for it alone admits of the participation of a great multitude and even gains considerably thereby in power of expression; it is the only art where enjoyment coincides with live performance and where the range of effect is as wide as that of ancient drama. And well may the German celebrate and foster music, in which he is king above all nations, for just as he alone succeeded in bringing the highest and holiest, the innermost secret of the human heart, to light out of its hidden depth and in expressing it in sound, so it is given to him alone to respond fully to the power of music, to understand the language of instruments and song through and through (vol. 2, p. 275).” In cases when the appreciator is unable to appreciate the artistic creation, Engels believed that the literary creator should not be responsible. Instead, the appreciator should be responsible for his own inability to appreciate the art form. In 1890, a young writer in the German Social Democratic Party asked Ibsen to be responsible for certain shortcomings of the Nordic women’s movement, to which Engels sarcastically remarked, “all I know is a few of Ibsen’s plays, nor could I possibly say whether, or how far, Ibsen can be held responsible for the more or less hysterical lucubration’s of middle class and lower middle-class female careerists (vol. 48, p. 503).” Both Marx and Engels were aware of the difficulty in matching literary and artistic works with the cultural level of the recipients. Marx was of the sentiments that the Russian fables “Mountain Eagle, Bull Dog, Rooster and Rabbit” was written using simple language and syntax as it was meant for a not so literate audience. “Its childlike simplicity of language and structure must be accounted for as an exigency of the semi-barbarian understanding to which the poet addresses himself (vol. 13, p. 224).” Some forms of art (such as popular painting, music) are more suitable for intercourse with people of low cultural standards. Towards the end of 1848, Engels traveled from France to Switzerland on foot and established friendly relations with many strangers through paintings and folk songs. For example, in a scenario on a farm, as he described, “[v]illages and inns were few and far between; after marching for several hours I eventually came upon a large farm where I was served most hospitably with some refreshments, for which I drew some grotesque faces on a piece of paper for the farmer’s children and declared with all gravity […] The farm-folk stared at these distorted faces in great awe, thanked me in their delight and at once fixed these strikingly life-like portraits on the wall (vol. 7, p. 515).” However, they were against literary artists unconditionally catering to the needs of lower-class appreciators. In his evaluation of Eugene’s novel The Secret of Paris, Marx wrote, “Eugène Sue himself states that in the descriptions mentioned above he was counting “stir la curiosité craintive” of his readers (vol. 4, p. 57).” As for the vulgar criticism that such lower-class readers made about great writers, Marx defended the immortal literary value of their works. He has written 11 poems, simulating the accusation’s tone, such as:

8.1 Characteristics of Literature

107

Goethe can give the ladies a fright, For elderly women he’s not quite right. He understood Nature, but this is the quarrel, He wouldn’t round Nature off with a moral. He should have got Luther’s doctrine off pat And made up his poetry out of that (vol. 1, p. 579). […] Schiller, thinks he, had been less of a bore If only he’d read the Bible more (vol. 1, p. 578).

Here, the accuser made demands of the writers through adopting political-religious utilitarian standards, which revealed their ignorance of literature. As far as the relationship between literary works and recipients is concerned, the dominant party should be the works. This is because, in the process of appreciation and intercourse, they create appreciators who are familiar with themselves. As Marx said, “[a]n objet d’art—just like any other product—creates a public that has artistic taste and is capable of enjoying beauty. Production therefore produces not only an object for the subject, but also a subject for the object (vol. 28, p. 30).” Therefore, improving the quality of the work is a prerequisite for the achievement of a higher standard of literary intercourse. In this sense, Engels asked the writers to learn the art of expressionism from the German writer Jakob Green, because his style is akin to “the art of saying as little as possible with secretive circumlocutions (vol. 43, p. 186).” He also praised the Irish writer William Carleton, whose his style and structure, although not very clever, is nevertheless a demonstration of “know[ing] his subject better than any Levers or Lovers (vol. 45, p. 371).” In order to win and accumulate more appreciators, both Marx and Engels advocate that literary artists display their unique styles in their works. Marx admired the famous words of the French naturalist Georges Louis Leclere de Buffon, who said, “[l]e style c’est l’homme (vol.1, p.112)” and who insisted that “[e]very drop of dew on which the sun shines glistens with an inexhaustible play of colours (vol. 1, p. 112).” On one occasion, he read a French burlesque drama titled Le Plébiscite de Boquillon and was full of praises for it, claiming that it was “fine burlesque” that was in the style of Offenbach. Engels, too, admired Buffon and claimed that his style was not only “le style c’est l’homme”, but also “le style c’est la littérature (vol.2, p.81)” He felt that modern style was “[a]t the same time, the greatest freedom is left to the author’s individuality, so that despite affinity none imitates the other. Heine writes dazzlingly, Wienbarg with cordial warmth and radiance, Gutzkow with a razor-sharp precision over which there sometimes plays a comforting sunlight. Kühne is pleasantly descriptive with rather too much light and too little shade (vol. 2, p. 473).” In 1881, when Marx’s youngest daughter, Elena, participated in a performance of Shakespeare’s play, the only comment that Engels gave was, “if she really wants to make her mark in public she must unquestionably STRIKE OUT A LINE OF HER OWN, and she’ll do that all right (vol. 46, p. 104).”

108

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

8.2 The Unbalanced Relationship Between the Development of Material and Literary Production According to Marx and Engels’ theory of historical materialism, “[p]olitical, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development (vol. 50, p. 265). […] so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc. (vol. 24, p. 467) […] It is clear that so long as human labour was still so little productive that it provided but a small surplus over and above the necessary means of subsistence, any increase of the productive forces, extension of trade, development of the state and of law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means of a greater division of labour (vol. 25, p. 168). […] Whether an individual like Raphael succeeds in developing his talent depends wholly on demand, which in turn depends on the division of labour and the conditions of human culture resulting from it (vol. 5, p. 393).” These are macroscopic understandings that are never used as formulas to tailor the history of specific literary production and intercourse. The production and intercourse of literature and art have its particularity, and its prosperity is not necessarily in sync with the development of material production. A society with unique or complicated social conflicts and rich spiritual life is not necessarily the most developed society for material production but is definitely one of the conditions for the prosperity of literature and art. As Marx wrote, “[a]s regards to art, it is known that certain periods of its florescence by no means correspond to the general development of society, or, therefore, to the material basis, the skeleton as it were of its organisation (vol. 28, p. 46). […] If this is the case with regard to the different arts within the sphere of art itself, it is not so remarkable that this should also be the case with regard to the entire sphere of art in its relation to the general development of society (vol. 28, p. 47).” For example, ancient Greek myths and epics are likened to the childishness that a person displays in childhood. According to Marx, “[t]he difficulty is that they still give us aesthetic pleasure and are in certain respects regarded as a standard and unattainable model (vol. 28, p. 47).” These ancient Greek myths and epics, which could only be produced under the conditions of material development in ancient Greece, became the objects of near eternal appreciation in the world of literature. This is because “[t]he Greeks were normal children. The charm their art has for us does not conflict with the immature stage of the society in which it originated. On the contrary, that charm is a consequence of this and is, rather, inseparably linked with the fact that the immature social conditions which gave rise, and which alone could give rise, to this art can never recur (vol. 28, p. 48). […] Why should not the historical childhood of humanity, where it attained its most beautiful form, exert an eternal charm as a stage that will never recur? (vol. 28, p. 48).” Engels, too, expressed such sentiments in his discussion on ancient folklore. He wrote, “These old popular books with their old-fashioned tone, their misprints and

8.2 The Unbalanced Relationship Between the Development …

109

their poor woodcuts have for me an extraordinary, poetic charm; they transport me from our artificial modern “conditions, confusions and fine distinctions” into a world which is/much closer to nature (vol. 2, pp. 39–40).” Marx also planned on using Shakespeare’s plays as an example to illustrate how this literary treasure, which was produced by an economically underdeveloped Britain in the sixteenth century, became an unattainable model of contemporary literature. Engels’s analysis of the prosperity and value of Norwegian literature in the nineteenth century is consistent with Marx’s point of view. At that time, although Norway was still in the late Middle Ages, it was unlike the Middle Ages in Europe as there were fewer factors that suppressed the development of the human spirit. According to Engels, “[t]he Norwegian peasant was never a serf , so that the whole process takes place against an entirely different background as in Castile. The lower-middleclass Norwegian is the son of a free peasant and, […] a world in which people still have character and initiative and act independently (vol. 48, p. 505)” Just as Marx regarded ancient Greece as the stage of normal childhood of mankind, Engels regarded Norway in 1870–1890 as the stage of normal youth of mankind. Is it not fascinating for a youth that’s developing normally to be enthusiastic about its growth after inspiration from its childhood? Maritime trade opened the door to Norway, and the life of this society subsequently became contradictory and turbulent, thus creating the literary prosperity which is represented in Ibsen’s drama. Like Engels pointed out, “Norway has, during the past 20 years, experienced a literary revival unparallelled in any other country during that period save Russia. Philistine or not, this people has been far more creative than all the rest and is, indeed, putting its stamp on other literature, not least the German (vol. 48, p. 504).” Clearly, Engels also believed that Norwegian literature is a model for later generations. The emergence of the European Renaissance was contextualized against a background of economic and scientific development on the one hand, and a special background for the development of literature and art on the other. The intertwining of various contradictions caused the Renaissance to happen in the transition period of the Middle Ages into modern society instead of during the period of industrial development. According to Engels, the direct cause of the Renaissance was, “[in the manuscripts saved from the fall of Byzantium, in the antique statues dug out of the ruins of Rome, a new world was revealed to the astonished West, that of ancient Greece; the ghosts of the Middle Ages vanished before its shining forms; Italy rose to/an undreamt-of flowering of art (vol. 25, pp. 318–319). […] In Italy, France, and Germany a new literature arose, the first modern literature; shortly afterwards came the classical epochs of English and Spanish literature (vol. 25, p. 319).” Marx, too, agreed, that “[i]n this wild, unquiet time Italy [experienced] the finest flowering of its culture (e.g. Dante, the philosopher Guido Cavalcanti, etc.) (Prawer 1976, p. 365)3 ”. The literary prosperity of Germany in the eighteenth century was caused by a unique kind of social environment. Contextualized against those huge social changes sweeping throughout Europe, the decentralization and occlusion of the German 3

Prawer (1976).

110

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

economy and the excessive political repression forced it to turn its creativity into a spiritual aspect. The development of literature and philosophy saw the emergence of Goethe, Schiller, and Beethoven, who became representatives of classical philosophy. As Engels said, “[t]his period of the utmost humiliation from abroad coincides with the heyday of literature and philosophy and the culmination of music in Beethoven (vol. 23, p. 603).” Engels was particularly fond of Schiller’s words, “[w]hat in immortal song shall live forever/Is doomed to die in life, (vol. 2, p. 33)”, as this illustrates a phenomenon that almost all great literary works are products of a specific and unique social environment, and that such a social environment cannot be completely reproduced. In this sense, the great works of previous life cannot be attained in the future. In Marx’s writings on ancient Greece and Rome, he mentioned that “[a]t no time did arts and letters flourish more, for in that age there lived a very large number of writers from whom as from a fountain-head all peoples drew learning (vol. 1, p. 642).” In the same regard, Engels also exclaimed that never again would Italy’s literary prosperity be achieved as it “evoked the revival of Greek antiquity and with it the highest artistic development of the new age (vol. 25, p. 474).” Due to this unique nature of literary production, Marx pointed out how ridiculous the future generations were, to think that they could recreate such artistic products through mere imitation. Voltaire once wrote a long poem Henriade in imitation of Homer’s epic, but the result was a failure. According to Marx, “[i]f this is left out of account, it opens the way to the illusion of the French in the eighteenth century which has been so beautifully satirised by Lessing. Because we are further ahead than/the ancients in mechanics, etc., why shouldn’t we be able to make an epic too? And the Henriade in place of the Iliad! (vol. 31, pp. 182–183).” In view of this, Marx opposes the simple use of the concept of “progress” to illustrate the development of literature and art from ancient times to the present, because the value of literary and artistic works produced in various historical periods cannot be measured by modern standards of “progress” then. He once planned to contend this and said, “[t]he unequal development of material production and, e.g. art. In general, the concept of progress is not to be taken in the usual abstract form (vol. 28, p. 46).” Although he did not manage to follow through with his contention, his stand in this matter was clear. Due to the imbalance in such development, some outstanding works of art from the past remain almost permanent in artistic nature. They may be used as a substitute or a metaphor, such as the image of Falstaff in Shakespeare’s plays that were often employed by Marx and Engels in their works. These images may take on various meanings according to the interpretations of the appreciator, much like how Engels wrote about the two folk legends, Faust and the eternal Jews (Der ewige Jude), that “[t]hey are inexhaustible; any period can adopt them without altering their essence; and even if the adaptations of the Faust legend after Goethe belong with the Iliads post Homerum, they still always reveal to us new aspects (vol. 2, p. 35).” In addition, excellent works also create symbolic connections with people because they can cause emotional resonance. For example, in Marx’s discussion on the British and French revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, he said this about

8.2 The Unbalanced Relationship Between the Development …

111

France, “in the classically austere traditions of the Roman Republic its gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions that they needed in order to conceal from themselves the bourgeois limitations of the content of their struggles and to maintain their passion on the high plane of great historical/tragedy. Similarly, at another stage of development, a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had borrowed speech, passions and illusions from the Old Testament for their bourgeois revolution (vol. 11, pp. 104–105).” Along the same of thoughts, when Marx saw the support that the British press gave the slaves in the southern United States, he immediately thought of Thackeray’s creation “Yellowplushes (vol. 19, p. 138)”, who was a lowly servile character living in the West End of London. This caused him to label several newspapers “Yellowplushes” and later, when he learned about an inheritance case taking place in Britain, he was again reminded of this character, as the character involved “appeared as the principal actor in a truly Balzacian drama of murder, adultery, legacy hunting and fraud. (vol. 14, p. 31)” On the other hand, Engels described his imagination of many literary works as such: The evening sky grows dimmer With pictures to delight, As, through the clouds, stars glimmer With soft and gentle light. Now they draw near — full well Those forms I seem to know: The Archer, William Tell, Siegfried, the Dragon’s foe; Then Faust, the defiant one, Achilles, striding free, The warrior-knight Bouillon With all his chivalry; Then — please, no laughing, brother — On gallant steed doth ride Don Quixote and none other Across this world so wide. Approaching and receding, They float across the night, Who can arrest their speeding, Or stay them in their flight? Oft may these poetry-weaving Fair images appear, To put an end to grieving As gently they draw near (vol. 2, p. 554).

Here, both Marx and Engels actually expressed the heterogeneous and isomorphic relationship between the appreciator of art and the image presented in the works.

112

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

This kind of intercourse does not seek a perfect fit between experience and emotional content. Rather, it seeks only a similarity in structural features. Therefore, the same work can transcend the times, classes, and nations to establish special intercoursal relationships with the appreciators. This particularity in literary and artistic intercourse is precisely the manifestation of an imbalance between literary and artistic production, and intercourse and material production. Marx once drew a comparison between the capitalist society with the ancient society, coming up with the conclusion that “the old view according to which man always appears in however narrowly national, religious or political a determination as the end of production, seems very exalted when set against the modern world, in which production is the end of man, and wealth the end of production (vol. 28, p. 411).” The production and intercourse of literature and art are born out of mankind’s aesthetic needs. Creation and appreciation are the purposes of such processes. The values of this kind of production and intercourse are similar to that of the ancient society, which is why many excellent literary and artistic works were produced in the period before capitalism and the period of transition into capitalism. The capitalist society is not a fertile ground for literary production as capitalism classifies literature and art into the commodity category. Literary creation and appreciation is a sign of man’s ability to engage freely in mental intercourse. It is as Marx claimed, that “capitalist production is hostile to certain branches of intellectual production, for example, art and poetry (vol. 31, p. 182).” From this, he demonstrated the imbalance between the development of literary and artistic production and material production from another angle. In Marx’s view, literature and art can resist capitalist production through their very own existence, because even under adverse conditions, a literary artist and the work of his labor may still be distinguished from the product of ordinary factory labor. This is because works of art serve as purposes by their very existence. This is as Marx wrote, When Béranger sings: Je ne vis que pour faire des chansons, Si vous m’ôtez ma place Monseigneur, Je ferai des chansons pour vivre (vol.1, p.174) […]. I live only to compose songs. If you dismiss me, Monseigneur, I shall compose songs in order to live.— Ed. this threat contains the ironic admission that the poet deserts his proper sphere when for him poetry becomes a means. (vol.1, p.175).

It is precisely because of the hostile nature that capitalist production and literary production display against each other that many of the literary and artistic works produced in the capitalist era may carry content against this system. As Marx put it, “[i]t is by no means only to the French “socialist” writers proper that one must

8.2 The Unbalanced Relationship Between the Development …

113

look for the critical presentation of social conditions; but to writers in every sphere of literature, and in particular of novels and memoirs (vol. 4, p. 597).” He wrote about English literature that “[t]he present splendid brotherhood of fiction-writers in England, whose graphic and eloquent pages have issued to the world more political and social truths than have been uttered by all the professional politicians, publicists and moralists put together, have described every section of the middle class from the “highly genteel” annuitant and Fundholder who looks upon all sorts of business as vulgar, to the little shopkeeper and lawyer’s clerk (vol. 13, p. 664).” Meanwhile, Engels put it more bluntly in his writing on the confrontation between German literature and society. “Every remarkable work of this time/breathes a spirit of defiance, and rebellion against the whole of German society as it then existed. Goethe wrote Goetz von Berlichingen, a dramatic homage to the memory of a rebel (vol. 6, pp. 17–18).” Some folk poetry expresses hostility towards capitalist production more clearly than their literary counterparts. Marx wrote about the song of the weavers of Silesia, Germany, “that bold call to struggle, in which there is not even a mention of hearth and home, factory or district, but in which the proletariat at once, in a striking, sharp, unrestrained and powerful manner, proclaims its opposition to the society of private property (vol. 3, p. 201).” It is the same in the two poems that Engels repeatedly mentioned “the song about Burgomaster Tschech and the one about the Baroness von Droste-Fischering (vol. 26, p. 471).” As for the influence that a society’s ruling class exert on literature and art, even if the literary and artistic production has its own particularity, the ideas of the ruling class still dominate them. For example, as the bourgeoisie required the workers to practise “abstinence”, they regarded all mental activities other than the basic needs of the workers as a luxury, thus governing artistic creations of a lower standard. In Marx’s words, “it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage (vol. 3, p. 309).” The influence of the thoughts of the ruling class was even reflected in the literary style of the artistic work. When Marx and Engels talked about the British, they claimed, “Carlyle’s style is at one with his ideas. It is a direct violent reaction against the modern bourgeois English Pecksniffery, whose enervated affectedness, circumspect verbosity and vague, sentimentally moral tediousness has spread from the original inventors, the educated Cockneys, to the whole of English literature (vol. 10, p. 302).” Although the influence of excellent literary and artistic works transcends times, the literary and artistic works as a whole still reflect the characteristics of a certain era. Even works that were produced under capitalist conditions and which exhibit hostility towards society are nevertheless regarded as products of their times. Literature and art, as a form of mental intercourse, reflect the characteristics of its social environment. Homer’s epics and the dramas of the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus became one of the main body of material for Marx and Engels to study ancient societies. They had no doubt that great literary works can truly reflect the characteristics of their times and so, the works of great writers such as Scott, Dumas, and Balzac are studied as historical works, even today. In fact, according to Engels, “[a]fter Cervantes Balzac is, or so I think, the greatest novelist of all time, as well as

114

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

the most faithful recorder of French society between 1815 and 1848. I am fond of Balzac in whatever form (vol. 48, p. 180). […] There is the history of France from 1815 to 1848, far more than in all the Vaulabelles, Gapefigues, Louis Blancs and tutti quanti (vol. 47, p. 71).” On the other hand, Marx felt that “He considered Balzac not only as the historian of his time, but as the prophetic creator of characters which were still in the embryo in the days of Louis Philippe and did not fully develop until Napoleon III.” (Lafargue 1890). Due to the differences in the environment of the times, the contents and styles of outstanding literary and artistic works are also very different. Marx realized this very early. When comparing the ancient Roman poet Lucretius and the early Greek poet Homer, he pointed out the influence of the social environment as such, “Lucretius is the genuine Roman epic poet, for he sings the substance of the Roman spirit; in place of Homer’s cheerful, strong, integral characters we have here solid, impenetrable armed heroes possessed of no other qualities, we have the war omnium contra omnes, the rigid shape of the being-for-self, a nature without god and a god aloof from the world (vol. 1, p. 475).” Especially the folk poems circulating among the commoners, the content of which often reflects the local life or sentiments of that time. When talking about the Dalmatians on the Adriatic coast, Marx wrote, “[p]iracy is as much the theme of their popular songs as robbery by land is the theme of the old Teutonic poetry (vol. 15, p. 147).” When Engels wrote about the sentiments of the people under the rule of Louis Bonaparte, he quoted a popular son full of innuendos. He wrote, In Paris the workers are singing a little ditty, having the refrain: Voilà qu’il part, voilà qu’il part, Le petit marchand de moutarde, Voilà qu’il part pour son pays Avec tous ses outils. In order that there should be no doubt about the identity of the petit marchand de moutarde, the police have banned the song (vol. 40, p. 6).”

The influence that a certain environment exerts on writers and literary works is enormous. Even in the same era, specific and different living environments affect the content and style of the works produced. When Engels talked about some writers in Berlin, he pointed out this issue. He was worried about how the social environment would destroy those German poets who were gifted. For example, the port Karl Becker, about whom Engels claimed “the chronic misery surrounding him on all sides has too debilitating an effect for him to be able to rise above it, to be free of it and to laugh at it, without succumbing to it again himself. For the present the only advice we can give to all-German poets who still have a little talent is to emigrate to civilised countries (vol. 6, p. 249).” Even as such a great writer as Goethe, Engels criticized him for having a commoner’s sentiments and felt that this was because of the environment which bred him. In this regard, the basic principle in the determination of social consciousness in social existence has been clearly confirmed.

8.3 Creative Methods and Literary Criticism

115

8.3 Creative Methods and Literary Criticism Marx and Engels were literary appreciators and critics rather than literary creators. Both of them rejected thoughtless literary works of formalism as it is difficult for such works to interact with the appreciators and is all the more useless for propaganda. Marx’s criticism of formalist literary works started from his own. He wrote many poems while he was in university, as well as some novels and plays. After calm consideration, he realized that the shortcoming of these works is that “idealism pervades forced humour (Scorpion and Felix) and an unsuccessful, fantastic drama (Oulanem), until it finally undergoes a complete transformation and becomes mere formal art, mostly without objects that inspire it and without any impassioned train of thought (vol. 1, p. 17).” By that, Marx demonstrated the principle of a literary criticism which he held dear for a lifetime—literary and artistic works should ideally be as similar to reality as possible and should not rely solely on ideals and rhetoric; literary and artistic works should be able to embody a truly artistic feature. This is the principle of criticism to which Marx held all works, regardless of whether the creator is a political opponent or friend. In 1873, he spoke of the French writer Shado Bolión and criticized his work as “strutting about in a romantic disguise and newly minted idioms; the spurious profundity, Byzantine exaggeration, the coquettishness with regard to the feelings, the flamboyant schillerising, WORDPAINTING, theatrical, SUBLIME—in a word it is hotchpotch of lies never before achieved in either form or content (vol. 44, p. 543).” The writer was politically a reactionary. In 1867, he spoke of a political literary work by the German writer Pogham, criticizing that “[h]e is like those savages who imagine that they are enhancing their appearance by tattooing their faces with all possible gaudy colours. Banality and sensationalism always get the better of him. Almost his every phrase instinctively dons cap and bells (vol. 42, p. 441).” This writer was a close friend of Marx. Clearly, Marx’s anger was not about who the author was but rather, about the fact that such literary and artistic works can hardly interact with people as they do nothing besides express the personal vanity of their creators. Both Marx and Engels hoped that literature and art are true creations instead of poor imitations because imitation of art is an abject type of formalism. In regard to that, Marx cited engraving art as an example and wrote that “[n]either must we forget that the time following such catastrophes is an iron time, happy when characterised by titanic struggles, lamentable when it resembles centuries limping in the wake of great periods in art. These centuries set about moulding in wax, plaster and copper what sprang from Carrara marble like Pallas Athena out of the head of Zeus, the father of the gods (vol. 1, p. 492).” Similarly, Engels pointed out that “ineffectual imitative literature (vol. 40, p. 443)” was “achieved in poetry; prose worse than ever (vol. 23, p. 607)” due to its popularity in Germany during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Works that seek purely literary art forms fail to express the true meaning of life because they are too idealized or structured. As such, nor can they have a real impact on the viewer. In 1850, when Marx and Engels criticized the literary works of some

116

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

of the leaders of the French February Revolution, they explained their reasons for disapproving of this method of creation. “Hitherto these personalities have never been depicted as they really were, but only in their official guise, with buskins on their feet and halos around their heads. All verisimilitude is lost in these idealised, Raphaelesque pictures (vol. 10, p. 311).” At the same time, they expressed their desire for the subject. “Nothing is more to be desired than that the people who were at the head of the active party, whether before the revolution in the secret societies or the press, or afterwards in official positions, should at long last be portrayed in the stark colours of a Rembrandt, in the full flush of life (vol. 10, p. 311).” Clearly, the Dutch artist Rembrandt’s realistic painting method represents the creative method they advocate. In 1859, when they commented on LaSalle’s play Franz von Sickingen, Marx called this method of creation “Shakespearean” while Engels called it “realism”; both mean the same thing. Both of them valued the significance of Shakespeare in the history of literary development and advocate learning from his creative experiences. According to their discourse, the characteristics of this method of creation are: use the objective reality as a point of departure, reproduce reality according to its appearance, describe the social life extensively and profoundly, correctly handle the relationship between the character and reality, and adopt the reality in the specific environment. The true description of the relationship reveals some essential aspects of real life and achieves a vividness and richness in the plot. They asked that artists “give expression in far greater measure precisely to the most modern ideas in their most unsophisticated form (vol. 40, p. 420).” This performance should be full of life and reality, which is why they valued Shakespeare. Once, Engels claimed that “the first act of the Merry Wives alone contains more life and reality than all-German literature, and Launce with his dog Crab is alone worth more than all the German comedies put together (vol. 44, p. 548).” If the writer strictly follows the creative method of realism, then the work itself may inevitably surpass the writer’s own tendency and reflect reality more profoundly. Marx pointed this out when commenting on the part of the early life of Fleur de Marie in The Secret of Paris. He wrote, “So far we have seen Fleur de Marie in her original un-Critical form. Eugène Sue has risen above the horizon of his narrow world outlook. He has slapped bourgeois prejudice in the face (vol. 4, p. 170).” Engels also expressed this view in his evaluation of Balzac. He wrote: Well, Balzac was politically a Legitimist; his great work is a constant elegy on the irretrievable decay of good society; his sympathies are all with the class doomed to extinction. But for all that his satire is never keener, his irony never bitterer, than when he sets in motion the very men and women with whom he sympathises most deeply—the nobles. And the only men of whom he always speaks with undisguised admiration, are his bitterest political antagonists, the republican heroes of the Cloître Saint-Méry, the men, who at that time (1830-36) were indeed the representatives of the popular masses. That Balzac thus was compelled to go against his own class sympathies and political prejudices, that he saw the necessity of the downfall of his favourite nobles, and described them as people deserving no better fate; and that he saw the real men of the future where, for the time being, they alone were to be found—that I consider one of the greatest triumphs of Realism, and one of the grandest features in old Balzac (vol. 48, p. 168).

8.3 Creative Methods and Literary Criticism

117

For this reason, Marx opposed the simple evaluation of his work based on the political views of a writer, pointing out that “a writer should distinguish between what an author really gives and what he gives only in his own imagination (vol. 45, p. 452).” Meanwhile, Engels wrote, “Realism, to my mind, implies, beside truth of detail, the truthful reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances (vol. 48, p. 167).” This was his criticism of City Girl, a novel by the British author Margareth Harkness. He found the characters typical but the environment in which these characters are represented atypical. Because of this, the typicality of the characters is reduced. Engels emphasized the combination of typical people and typical environments, using Shakespeare’s character, Falstaff, as an example. Falstaff is a typical example of mercenaries and adventurers. Through this character, who has extensive connections with the lower classes, Shakespeare depicts a picture “of society’s plebeian section (vol. 40, p. 444).” Engels termed this “a Falstaffian backdrop (vol. 40, p. 444)” and believed that the typical environment in which the characters exist in the literary works should truly reflect the real relationship and the characteristics of the times so that the works can retain historical or realistic authenticity. In Marx and Engels’s discourse on the method of creation, they criticized another propaganda-style literary and artistic work for clearly revealing political tendencies and lacking the characteristics of literary and artistic works, thus making the recipients resentful of its propaganda content. Engels had long noticed the political tendency of Germany and the works of literary relics, criticizing that “German literature, too, labored under the influence of the political excitement into which all Europe had been thrown by the events of 1830. A crude constitutionalism, or a still cruder republicanism, were preached by almost all writers of the time. It became more and more the habit, particularly of the inferior sorts of literati, to make up for the want of cleverness in their productions by political allusions which were sure to attract attention. Poetry, novels, reviews, the drama, every literary production teemed with what was called ‘tendency’, that is, with more or less timid exhibitions of an anti-governmental spirit (vol. 11, p. 14).” This is also true of the literary works of “real socialism” in Germany during the 1840s. According to Engels, “Where they cannot avoid it, they content themselves either with philosophical constructions or with producing an arid and boring catalogue of isolated instances of misfortune and social cases. Furthermore, they all lack the necessary talent for narrative, both in prose and poetry, and this is connected with the vagueness of their whole outlook (vol. 6, p. 245).” Marx called this tendency of literary creation “Schillering”, which is “using individuals as mere mouthpieces for the spirit of the times (vol. 40, p. 420)”, whereas Engels contended, “In accordance with my view of the drama, which consists in not allowing the ideal to oust the real, or Schiller to oust Shakespeare (vol.40, p.444).” Schiller was a great writer in Germany during the eighteenth century. His earlier works had an obvious shortcoming—observing the objective reality in a subjective manner and replacing the actual description of real life with abstract ideas. In his shaping of characters, this is expressed as an abstraction, idealization, and conceptualization of the characters. In other words, his characters are often regarded as simple megaphones of his thoughts. His later creations overcame this problem.

118

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

However, Schiller’s early creative tendencies were welcomed by a new generation of German revolutionary youths who were under the oppression of an authoritarian rule and became an epidemic of German socialist literary creation that was difficult to overcome. In 1858, Marx noticed that his friend Arnold Ruge equated the observations of things in literature and art with the philosophical thinking of things. He did not agree with it, saying to Engels, “Asinine Ruge, in a piece for Prutz, has proved that ‘Shakespeare was not a dramatic poet’ because he ‘had no philosophical system’, whereas Schiller, being a Kantian, is a TRULY ‘dramatic poet’ (vol. 40, p. 356).” In 1859, they evaluated LaSalle’s drama Franz von Sickingen, and raised the point that he turned the protagonist into a megaphone for his own opinion. Marx explained to Laselle that this was a “result of your predilection for Schiller (vol. 40, p. 420).” Meanwhile, Engels pointed out that the main characters in the play are representatives of certain classes and tendencies “[b]ut there is one advance that might yet be made in that these motives should emerge more of themselves, in a live, active, as it were spontaneous manner, more through the development of the action (vol. 40, p. 442).” In his later years, Engels repeatedly pointed out this shortcoming to several writers with socialist tendencies. In 1855, he wrote, “I believe that the tendency should spring from the situation and action as such, without its being expressly alluded to, nor is there any need for the writer to present the reader with the future historical solution to the social conflicts he describes (vol. 47, p. 357).” In 1888, he wrote once more that “[t]he more the opinions of the author remain hidden, the better for the work of art (vol. 48, p. 167).” Marx and Engels repeatedly emphasized the creative methods of realism, stressing on the personality traits of typical characters, in order to prevent a Schiller-style tendency to stifle the unique characteristics of intercourse. In that case, how should literary criticism be carried out on the premise of respecting the laws of literature and art? Engels raised two criteria when he commented on Goethe. He wrote, “We criticise him not from a moral or from a party point of view, but at the very most from the aesthetic and historical point of view (vol. 6, p. 259)” The so-called aesthetic point of view is to use the aesthetic value of art as a measure of the value of the work when commenting on it; whereas the so-called historical view is to consider the work under specific historical conditions and to contemplate whether the work reflects the historical truth. The lack of any one of the two scales may cause deviations. In a more specific criticism, Marx and Engels made comparisons and concluded that “Persiani is an incomparable singer precisely because she is a singer and is compared with other singers, and indeed by people who are able to recognise her incomparability through comparison based on normal hearing and musical training (vol. 5, p. 440).” Literary criticism is a regular form of literary intercourse. It requires fairness and candidness, but it also requires a necessary etiquette. In this respect, Engels criticized two bad tendencies, one is the brutalization of criticism and the other is the lack of principled criticism. In 1839, the German writers Gustav Kühne, Ludwig Wihl, and Heine, became caught in a literary debate that consisted of calling one another a “dog”. Engels painfully pointed out that “[t]his dog-fight is the most shameful blot on all modern polemics; if our men of letters start treating each other like beasts and

8.3 Creative Methods and Literary Criticism

119

applying the principles of natural history in practice, German literature will soon be like a menagerie and the long-awaited Messiah of literature will fraternise with Martin and van Amburgh (vol. 2, p. 91).” He also criticized the unprincipled nature of another German writer, Alexander Jung, writing that “he comes to ‘modern’ literature, and now a flood of universal recognition and eulogising is let loose. Here there is no one who has not achieved something to his credit, no one who does not represent something worthy of notice, no one to whom literature does not owe some of its progress (vol. 2, p. 288).”

8.4 World Literature Just as Marx and Engels viewed various forms of human mental intercourse from the perspective of world intercourse, they were also strongly conscious of the fact that literature and art were overcoming the limitations of locality and nationality and becoming globalized. They premised their consideration of literature and art on a broad economic, social, and historical basis. In 1847, they pointed out in Communist Manifesto that “as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature (vol. 6, p. 488).” The “literature” mentioned here has a broader meaning. For this reason, the British scholar Wilbur examined in detail all the words in Manifesto that are rooted in “Literatur (literature).” The starting point of world literature is the starting point of world intercourse, that is, around the discovery of world geography at the end of the fifteenth century. Engels provided a context for it, writing that “on the one hand, production more perfected, more varied and on a larger scale, and, on the other hand, commerce much stronger (vol. 25, p. 472) […] which not only for the first time made possible the importation and diffusion of Greek literature (vol. 25, p. 472).” At the same time, the civilized language of the six nations of Europe has been formed, “all of whom had developed to such an extent that they could participate in the mighty rise of literature in the fourteenth century (vol. 25, p. 471).” This awareness of “world literature” enabled them to examine and study the production of literature and art from a higher standing and to better grasp the characteristics of the forms of intercourse and art as compared to their contemporaries. Marx and Engels’s understanding of the trend of globalizing literature drew heavily from Goethe’s views. In his later years, Goethe realized that the international exchange of materials will bring about corresponding developments in intellectual and mental intercourse. Therefore, he repeatedly mentioned world literature (Weltliteratur). Of course, that did not mean giving up the local characteristics and national characteristics of literature. It merely meant that the local and national literature became the mental wealth of other places and nations while the development of local

120

8 Medium of Intercourse—Literary Arts

and national literature in turn became influenced by the literature of other places. As a result, literary production became extremely rich, and literary intercourse became extremely widespread. Marx and Engels also wrote about world literature in this sense. The Communist Manifesto itself is the product of the convergence of world literature in a broad sense. Menifesto used Goethe’s poem The Apprentice of the Wizard as an example to state how capitalism calls out modern productivity like a wizard. The description of the cash transaction relationship is taken from the work of the British writer Thomas Carlyle. Meanwhile, “The working men have no country (vol. 6, p. 502)” was borrowed from the French Revolutionist Jean-Paul Marat while shadows of the slogan “Working men of all countries, unite! (vol. 6, p. 519)” can be found in Heine’s work. World literature existed in the minds of Marx and Engels. Their works are a treasury of literary experience and memories of many countries across many centuries. More than 600 characters and hundreds of literary artists are alive and active in it. When we revisit Marx and Engels’ thoughts on world literature, the “world literature” they had predicted is already a reality.

References Morgan LH (1877) Ancient society or researches in the lines of human progress from savagery through Barbarism to civilization. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago Prawer SS (1976) Karl Marx and world literature. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Chapter 9

Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

Public opinion is a natural and universal form of intercourse. In Marx and Engels’ work, the concept of “public opinion” appeared more than 300 times. According to different regions, different classes, different industries, and different political tendencies, they categorized public opinions into various types such as European opinion, British opinion, opinion of a certain year, opinion of the ruling class or workers or small citizens, party, military and so on. If there is no clear attributive definition of a public opinion, it usually refers to the generally agreed opinions or tendencies of all classes in a region. Public opinion is not the same as newspapers and magazines. Although newspapers and magazines are called “public opinion circles”, Marx’s definition of this point is clear and strict. In 1862, he described in his article “English Public Opinion” how the opinions of British newspapers and newspapers are completely contrary to public opinion. Even if they were the same, he drew a distinction between them. For example, he wrote that “we can well understand the very serious attention that the English press and public opinion give to the question of invasion (vol. 16, p. 441).” The modern concept of “public opinion” began with Rousseau’s “Social Contract Theory” in 1762. Young Marx and Engels realized the important role of public opinion in social communication. Marx viewed public opinion as “the factual embodiment and obvious manifestation of the above-mentioned general conditions (vol. 1, p. 354)” Meanwhile, Engels wrote that “if world history has been entrusted by the dear Lord God to the Bundestag as its hereditary fief […] if, as we no longer doubt, it lies with public opinion (i. e., here, literary opinion) (vol. 2, p. 465).” Both Marx and Engels did not focus on public opinion but instead, based on their use of this concept and scattered discussion, they provided a basic outline of how they understood public opinion.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_9

121

122

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

9.1 The Evolution of Public Opinion In the long and primitive state of mankind, the approach of ideas and concepts that gradually reached a consensus was first manifested in the public opinion of human groups such as clans and tribes. Marx divided the social spiritual constraints of this period into three types: public opinion, superstition, and spontaneous impulse.1 Engels believed that the role of public opinion is very important. He wrote, “the gentile constitution had grown out of a society that knew no internal antagonisms, and was suited only to such a society. It had no means of coercion except public opinion (vol. 26, p. 268)”. As intercourse occurred in a closed state divided by geographical, political, economic, and other factors, the scope of public opinion at this time was small, and once formed, remained quite stable. Even if the clan system changed, the original public opinion would remain for a long time. For example, at the end of the clan commune, the kinship was canceled at the people’s assembly of the commune, but the actual implementation was delayed by generations. The reason for that was the lag in public opinion. Regarding this, Marx raised as an example that social public opinion was very insistent on maintaining this kinship system as people often found others whose ancestors had already withdrawn participation in the ownership of the commune but who were still allowed to use the land. In addition to traditional factors, public opinion is compatible with certain socioeconomic conditions. In the more closed up and underdeveloped social communities, some concepts that are unacceptable today seemed to be the expression of public opinion at the time. For example, the concept of “equality” in ancient society is very different from that in modern times. As Engels wrote, “In the most ancient, primitive communities, equality of rights could apply at most to members of the community; women, slaves and foreigners were excluded from this equality as a matter of course. Among the Greeks and Romans the inequalities of men were of much greater importance than there equality in any respect. It would necessarily have seemed insanity to the ancients that Greeks/and barbarians, freemen and slaves, citizens and peregrines, Roman citizens and Roman subjects (to use a comprehensive term) should have a claim to equal political status (vol. 25, pp. 95–96).” This was not only the opinion of free people but also the opinion of women and slaves who were without equal status. Engels also wrote on how the public opinion of the enslaved farmers in the Middle Ages stubbornly resisted the liberation of serfs. According to him, “Voluntary entry into servitude was known throughout the Middle Ages (vol. 25, p. 92) […] When serfdom was abolished in Prussia after the defeats of 1806 and 1807, and with it the obligation of the gracious lords to provide for their 1

There is no available record for this section in English. However, the Chinese record refers to the following piece of writing in its in-text citation: “When it obtains over small areas and in small natural groups, the penal sanctions on which it depends are partly opinion, partly superstition, but to a far greater extent an instinct almost as blind and unconscious as that which produces some of the movements of our bodies” (Maine 1914).

9.1 The Evolution of Public Opinion

123

subjects in need, illness and old age, the peasants petitioned the king asking to be left in servitude-for otherwise who would look after them when in distress? (vol. 25, p. 92).” As for the idea of supremacy of kingship, it is a tenacious expression of public opinion. In his writing about sixteenth century France, Engels wrote that “as representing the nation, already so great that only the King was permitted, both legally and by public opinion, to make foreign alliances and engage foreign auxiliaries. The others always rebels and traitors (vol. 23, p. 608).” Clearly, before the formation of world intercourse, the evolution of public opinion was very slow. It was basically a social stabilizer, and it was not a force to advance society as a whole. Since the discovery of World Geography, the evolution of public opinion has accelerated greatly. The speed of its evolution and the role of progress depends on the frequency of people’s interactions, the degree of public participation, and their democratic consciousness in a specific area. When these conditions are not significant, the progress of public opinion is also very small. For example, when Marx talked about French lower society in 1845, he quoted from an article, “Opinion is too much divided by people’s isolation, too ignorant, too corrupt, because each is a stranger to himself and all are strangers to one another (vol. 4, p. 609).” Here, the frequency of intercourse was too low for public opinion to do anything. The increase in the frequency of modern interactions has led to the changes in public opinion of several years to often exceed those of the past several centuries. The most obvious change is the public opinion about morality, like how Engels lamented “[t]he conceptions of good and evil have varied so much from nation to nation and from age to age that they have often been in direct contradiction to each other (vol. 25, p. 86).” This is especially true during the period of primitive accumulation of capital when the change in public opinion contrasted extremely greatly. As Marx criticized, “With the development of capitalist production during the manu-/facturing period, the public opinion of Europe had lost the last remnant of shame and conscience. The nations bragged cynically of every infamy that served them as a means to capitalistic accumulation (vol. 35, pp. 746–747).” Under long-term mental confinement, any external stimulus might give rise to public opinion. Modern public opinion was formed to a considerable extent under such circumstances, regardless of whether it was public opinion about the economic system or political ideas. Engels called this change in public opinion “the instinct of the people.” Taking British workers as an example, he discussed their attitudes towards new modes of production and distribution, writing that “even while this mode of production remains. Normal for society, there is, in general, contentment with the distribution, and if objections to it begin to be raised, these come from within the ruling class itself (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen) and find no/response whatever among the exploited masses (vol. 25, pp. 137–138).” The situation after Napoleon’s invasion of Germany in the early nineteenth century was similar. As his invasion broke the closed state, the situation became as Engels wrote, “Capture of the left bank of the Rhine. Rejoicing of the peasants and the liberal towns could not be dispelled even by odd cases of extortion, or Napoleon’s bloodtaxes (vol. 23, p. 603)”.

124

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

In the first half of the nineteenth century, Austria was called “the China of Europe.” When railroads and trade forcibly entered this country surrounded by mountains and mountains, Engels wrote about the changes in public opinion there. According to him, “At all events, the growing impossibility of preventing the literary intercourse of Austria with the rest of Germany, and through Germany with the world, contributed much toward the formation of an anti-governmental public opinion, and brought at least some little political information within the reach of part of the Austrian population (vol. 11, p. 30).” Public opinion, which tended to be conservative in the past, had undergone tremendous changes in the new environment for intercourse and had made a significant impact on the development of society. The active public opinion in modern society corresponds to the characteristics of capitalist production. Marx pointed out that “the capitalist production, whose characteristic features are MOBILITY OF CAPITAL AND LABOUR and continual REVOLUTIONS in the modes of production, and therefore in the relations of production and commerce and the way of life, leads to great MOBILITY IN THE HABITS, MODES OF THINKING, etc., of the PEOPLE (vol. 33, p. 365).” It is precisely because of the flexibility in production methods, intercourse methods, and lifestyles brought about by capitalist production that modern public opinion is constantly changing and participating in social affairs more and more frequently. Since the late eighteenth century, public opinion has begun to be valued by people and has become an important code in the balance of socio-political and economic struggle. As Engels famously said about the future development of public opinion, “Once such people appear, they will not care a damn about what we today think they should do. They will establish their own practice and their own public opinion, conforming therewith, on the practice of each individual—and that’s the end of it (vol. 26, p. 189).”

9.2 Characteristics of Modern Public Opinion Open modern public opinion is very different from that in ancient societies and the Middle Ages in closed states. The focus of Marx and Engels’s discourse was always on modern public opinion. From many of their related discussions, the following characteristics of modern public opinion can be summarized as below: Firstly, common interests have increasingly become the basis of public opinion on a larger scale. In ancient societies and the Middle Ages, the communities on which public opinion relied were smaller and less stable. Large-scale public opinion linked by a small number of common interests can easily be broken by other external forces, for instance, Swiss public opinion in the late Middle Ages. Like what Engels said that at the time, “The isolated life which the mass of them lead, deprives them of all sense of their common interest as a nation (vol. 12, p. 91).” When Austria drove 18,000 people from Switzerland’s Canton Derson from northern Italy, “the Swiss make a great outcry about it and collect money for their unfortunate confederates. Now, let Austria hold out, and continue to prohibit the return of these Tessinese, and in a very short time you will see a wonderful change in

9.2 Characteristics of Modern Public Opinion

125

Swiss opinion. They will get tired of collecting money, they will say that the Tessinese always meddled in Italian politics and deserved no better; in fact they are no true Swiss confederates (Keine guten Eidgenossen) (vol. 12, p. 92).” During the Industrial Revolution, the public opinion formed by common interests had never been so weak. Once public opinion arose, it becomes difficult to subside if the problem is not resolved. In 1829, Russia blocked the estuary of the Black Sea, but British public opinion forced Russia to cancel the operation. Marx wrote in his review of the situation that “[t]hese blockades, threatening to injure the British commerce in the Levant, aroused the otherwise dull opinion of the English of that time into vehement declamations against Russia and against the Ministry (vol. 13, p. 260).” In response, Marx cited the emergency report issued by the Russian Minister, Duke Levin, to the country. He said, “Public opinion was always ready to burst forth against Russia. The British Government could not constantly brave it, and it would be dangerous to excite it on questions (of maritime law) that touched so nearly the national prejudices (vol. 13, p. 261).” The common interest of modern capitalism is based on private interests. With the continuous change of social relations, common interests often change. Therefore, the public opinion formed on the basis of common interests is temporarily powerful but unstable. Engels commented on British opinion, claiming that “it is also evident that the public opinion of the ruling class in England—and this alone makes itself heard on the Continent—changes according to fashion and its own interests (vol. 21, p. 167).” Once the interests of the relevant parties are damaged, public opinion that had hitherto been consistent would immediately be replaced by new public opinion that is related to the new interest. This is regardless of how noble or great the public opinion formed in the moral and national sense. For example, when the Crimean War broke out in 1855, a high and consistent national opinion was formed in Britain, but it soon changed. The main motivation behind this change was the interests of the people. As Marx wrote, “when Russia began her aggression upon Turkey, the national hatred broke forth in a blaze, and never, perhaps, was a war as popular as this. The peace party was for a moment interdicted from speaking; even the mass of its own members went along with the popular current. Whoever knew the character of the English must have felt certain that this warlike enthusiasm could be but of short duration, at least so far as the middle class was concerned; as soon as the effects of the war should become taxable upon their pockets, mercantile sense was sure to overcome national pride, and the loss of immediate individual profits was sure to outweigh the certainty of losing, gradually, great national advantages (vol. 14, p. 143).” Secondly, advanced strata and developed regions were gradually becoming ‘thermometers’ of public opinion. In ancient societies and the Middle Ages, there was not much difference in public opinion in various aspects and places, apart from the differences in cultural traditions. Life in modern society is turbulent. The gap in the frequency of intercourse is rapidly widening, and the gap in understanding between public opinion is widening. This “parallax” of public opinion has become one of the driving forces for the evolution of modern public opinion.

126

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

In a country, due to the imbalance in the development of productive forces, public opinion in developed regions often becomes a thermometer of public opinion in the entire country. Marx cited the same historical work twice in his explanation of the French Revolution in 1792, “[t]he Jacobin Club then became the thermometer of public opinion (vol. 3, p. 363).” In 1848, Engels also pointed to this phenomenon when he talked about Germany (then Austria belonged to the German Federation). He said, “as the Austrian people can hardly be said to belong to the civilised world, and, in consequence, submit quietly to their paternal despotism, the state which may be taken as the centre of German modern history, as the barometer of the movements of public opinion, is Prussia (vol. 6, p. 26).” Here, public opinion in advanced ideological groups or developed regions has had a key influence on the course of history. In different scopes and levels, relatively advanced public opinion takes on the role of the “leader” in such groups of opinion. For example, in the military, the opinion of knowledgeable officers has a great influence on public opinion in the military. In 1855, when Engels reported on the Sino-British and French forces in the Crimean War, he wrote, “Though continually postponed, every adjournment was to be for a short time only, and public curiosity was but increased by it. But/now matters begin to take a different turn, and the length of the siege has at last called into existence a sort of public opinion in the camp, based upon the views publicly expressed by officers who know something about these matters, and the gentlemen of the staff are no longer able to whisper about the camp, with all the importance and oracularity inherent to their position, that on such and such a day the assault will take place and the town will be overwhelmed (vol. 14, pp. 81–82).” In underdeveloped areas, the intellectual community in this area naturally became the center of local public opinion. For example, in the French countryside of the 1840s, Engels pointed out that “[t]he history of the last months affords innumerable proofs of this most important fact. Take the circular of Minister d’Hautpoul to the gendarmerie, by which espionage is carried into the very heart of the most obscure village; take the law against the schoolmasters, who, in French villages, are generally the best expression of the public opinion of their localities, and who are now to be placed at the mercy of government, because they now almost all profess social democratic opinions; and many other facts. But one of the most striking proofs is to be found in the election which has just taken place in the department du Gard (vol. 10, p. 22).” Thirdly, external factors are more and more likely to cause changes in public opinion. When the surrounding living environment becomes rigid, public opinion also falls into a state of stagnancy. If external factors do not have sufficient impact, it is difficult to make rigid public opinion situations undergo major changes. Modern intercourse connects everyone’s life with the world. Events in distant places will also affect people’s vital interests. Therefore, the situation is very different, which may cause changes in public opinion, which in turn affect the evolution of the entire society. This change manifested in the eighteenth century when Marx noticed the influence that the European Silesian War (the Austrian War of Succession) exerted on public opinion. He wrote, “Si licet parva componere magnis, OLD Niebuhr (the father of the

9.2 Characteristics of Modern Public Opinion

127

HISTORIAN) relates with what speed the FACTS of the SILESIAN WAR travelled from Europe to Asia IN NO TIME simply through the telegraphy of people’s tongues (vol. 43, p. 42).” At that time, there was no telegram, yet Marx used the telegram to describe the speed of word of mouth information, explaining how the public opinion of the dozen countries and regions involved in the war paid attention to the progress of the war. The first thing that affects a change in public opinion is the change of the latest facts. Once such information collides with the public’s psychological factors, values, historical memories, and material interests, public opinion will change sharply. In 1870, the French emperor Louis Bonaparte waged a war against Prussia. After Prussia’s victorious defense, it went on to invade France, thereby transforming the war into a French Patriotic War. The changes in British public opinion following the course of the war were the result of a combination of factors. After the war turned to France, Marx described the process of change as “[h]ere in England public opinion on the outbreak of war was ultra-Prussian; it has now turned into the opposite. In the cafés chantants, for example, the German singers with their Watch on the Rhine are hissed off while French singers with the Marseillaise are accompanied in choro. Apart from the decided sympathies of the mass of the people with the Republic and the irritation of the RESPECTABILITY about the alliance between Prussia and Russia—now as clear as daylight—and the shameless tone of Prussian diplomacy since the military successes, the way in which the war has been conducted—the requisitioning system, the burning down of/ villages, the shooting of francs-tireurs, the taking of hostages and similar recapitulations of the Thirty Years’ War—all this has aroused universal indignation here (vol. 44, pp. 92–93).” If the external information matches the public’s psychological expectations, even if the source of the information is dubious, it will nevertheless still cause great changes in public opinion. From 1854 to 1855, the British and French forces besieged the Russian fortress, Sevastopol, for a long time. During this period, there were many false reports on the fortification of the fortress reaching London, which actually caused excitement. Marx and Engels reported on this many times, such as at the beginning of October 1854, they wrote, “It is impossible to describe the excitement and suspense of the English during the week. (vol. 13, p. 488) […] still, the news was too good not to be believed, and accordingly it was believed. (vol. 13, p. 489) […] To-day, however, has brought the English public to reason; the miraculous capture of a great fortress without a siege proves to have been a cruel hoax, which will make the papers more cautious in future (vol. 13, p. 489).” On the other occasion, if false information is used to stabilize public opinion, then once the scam is exposed, the public opinion will change rapidly. From 1848 to 1849, the Czechian public opinion experienced such a process of change. At that time, the Czech Republic that was under Austrian rule believed that the authorities would grant the nation equal rights. However, when they discovered that they were deceived, the public opinion immediately changed as described by Engels, who wrote, “The Czechs, on the other hand, the spokesmen of the Austrian Slavs and the ones most insultingly swindled, have already expressed their feelings. Their rage

128

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

knows no bounds. They have been so greatly disappointed that public opinion in Prague has been completely revolutionised (vol. 9, p. 106).” Public opinion is an inorganic way for people to express their opinions. It is very easy to be influenced by social activists in modern society. It is common for these people’s words and deeds to cause public opinion to change. In this regard, Marx wrote about a regular phenomenon, “The public mind, however, is more apt to be struck by the sudden downfall of an individual than to trace the slow decline of an institution. Panic seizes the masses only when danger assumes a gross and palpable form (vol. 15, p. 358).” The subject of public opinion, the public’s own sense, plays a key role here. Marx spoke of this characteristic of public opinion against the frosty Prussian jurors, pointing out that “[w]hat could, for a moment, move the bourgeois conscience of the jury, just as it had deeply disturbed public opinion, was the unmasking of the intrigues of the government, the corruption of the Prussian government that had been laid bare before their eyes (vol. 11, p. 457).” Macro changes in public opinion require an accumulation of facts and the extension of time. In the seventeenth century, the persecution of non-State religions in Britain was confirmed in legislation and supported by public opinion. With the completion of the Industrial Revolution, the struggle between the various denominations was greatly eased, because people realized the need for the spirit of tolerance, so public opinion changed and even affected the changes in legislation. Engels wrote on his observations of 140 years of British public opinion that “the progress of history was not to be halted; the discrepancy between the legislation of 1688 and public opinion as it existed in 1828 was so great that in the latter year even the House of Commons found itself obliged to revoke the most oppressive laws against the dissenters (vol. 3, p. 501).” 140 years is considered quite long in a changing society; whereas for a stagnant society, it may be considered a good thing that public opinion has not changed for more than 100 years. The stagnation of public opinion is one of the obstacles to the modernization of society. Fourthly, political freedom is increasingly becoming a necessary condition for the development of public opinion. In an era when public opinion is not developing, the requirements of public opinion for political freedom are trivial. The turbulent modern social life has developed its own public opinion. The original policies that restricted people’s opinions, such as book inspections, publishing concessions, deposits, etc., have become increasingly intolerable, while various requirements for political freedom become the norm. When Marx and Engels entered the stage of social politics, this was the first thing they experienced. In introducing eighteenthcentury Germany, Engels was of the sentiment that “[n]o education, no means of operating upon the minds of the masses, no free press, no public spirit, not even an extended commerce with other countries (vol. 6, p. 17)” presented two sides of the problem. He believed that since there was no freedom of publication in Germany at that time, there was no real public opinion. When writing on his hometown, Marx felt that “on the contrary, an exceptional freedom of the press was required to satisfy the existing need (vol. 1, p. 349).” Political freedom (general term for freedom of speech, publication, assembly, association, etc.)

9.2 Characteristics of Modern Public Opinion

129

is a legally established right. When people do not have this awareness of rights, public opinion cannot really develop. Or rather, whatever opinion is merely a repetition of the official opinion. In this sense, Engels regarded the public’s access to political awareness and the development of public opinion as to the same issue. When it comes to the development of Prussia’s thought, he came to the conclusion that “[t]he more our political awareness develops and the more freely and loudly the public voice of Prussia makes itself heard, the more we feel at one with the other German races, and the greater the interest with which we view the manifestations of their state life (vol. 2, p. 298).” Fifthly, the adverse reaction of public opinion was getting stronger and stronger. The universal implementation of political freedom ended the history of public opinion in the pre-capitalist era. As the subject of public opinion matured, public opinion became taciturn and the sense of independence strengthened. If the controller of public opinion forcibly suppressed public opinion using traditional methods, he would receive more and more resistance. The frequent occurrence of this phenomenon attracted the full attention of Marx and Engels. Engels believed that suppressing public opinion was a factor in the rapid development of public opinion when the people were already conscious. In 1844, after introducing several facts about King Prussia’s suppression of public opinion, Engels pointed out that “they have had a miraculous effect on the development of public opinion. They have awakened the nation from a state of political lethargy and thrown them into such excitement that even the oldest and most loyal supporters of the “Christian King” begin to entertain fears for the stability of the present order of things (vol. 3, p. 516).” Once public opinion is produced, it tends to develop stubbornly, instead of being transferred according to the wills of the public opinion controllers. In the middle of the nineteenth century, Tsar Alexander II implemented a limited liberal policy, and Russia began to form a public opinion of an educated class. When he felt that these policies threatened his own rule, he adopted a contractionary policy, but the public opinion that had been formed could not be recovered. Instead, public opinion stubbornly developed because of his repressive policies. About this, Engels wrote, “The half-measures of a liberal character which in turn have been accorded, retracted, and again accorded, have given to the educated classes just elbow-room enough to develop a distinct public opinion (vol. 22, p. 282).” In countries with a tradition of political freedom, the adverse reaction of public opinion is stronger, because people are used to expressing their opinions freely. In France, for example, Louis Bonaparte canceled the press after the coup d’état, but in return, the people reacted as how Marx described, “the suppressed freedom of the press suddenly breaks forth from the walls of buildings in insurrectionary placards (vol. 15, p. 135).” This is the forbidden fruit effect, which reminds those in power to face the opinions of the people in the form of negative feedback. Sixth, the spontaneous characteristics of public opinion. Public opinion is a natural state of group opinion. Although the influence of tradition on modern public opinion is less than in the past, it cannot be ignored. Traditions, for example, have considerably impeded British modernization. Engels wrote in his introduction of Britain in 1840,

130

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

“Is there any other country in the world where feudalism retains such enduring power and where it remains immune from attack not only in actual fact, but also in public opinion? (vol. 2, p. 371) […] regulations which allow an honest man to be branded as a criminal for the most innocent behaviour, as long as public opinion and its sense of justice sanctioned it (vol. 2, p. 371).” On the other hand, Marx was aware of the irrational element of some public opinion and did not budge on the question of principle. As he famously said, “Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to the prejudices of so-called public opinion, to which I have never made concessions, now as aforetime the maxim of the great Florentine is mine: ‘Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti’ (vol. 35, p. 11).” In 1879, members of the German Social Democratic Party’s parliament paid too much attention to the public opinion of German citizens in their report. Engels was dissatisfied because he knew that the public opinion of petty citizens was a reaction of the times. In his letter to the party leader Bebel, he questioned, “why such deference to ‘public opinion’ which, in Germany, will always be that of the beer-swilling philistine (vol. 45, p. 419) […] The passages in the report I particularly have in mind are 1. those in which so much emphasis is laid on winning over public opinion—to have this factor against you was to be hamstrung (vol. 45, p. 424) […] on the contrary, there is much that would have been better left unsaid (vol. 45, p. 424).” Since there is irrationality and spontaneity in public opinion, Engels paid more attention to “the progress of public opinion”, because progressive public opinion is the only driving force behind social development. In 1892, when a Russian asked him how to implement social change in his country, Engels told him that it would depend on whether Russian public opinion was susceptible to changes. He said, “You must admit that to even think of carrying out such a change, a tremendous progress has first to be made by the public opinion of your country (vol. 49, p. 443).” When France, after nearly a century of twists and turns, finally established a republic, Engels wrote joyfully that “[t]he great progress in French public opinion is this: that the Republic is recognised as the only possible government, that Monarchy is equivalent to civil war and foreign war. The action of the Opportunists (besides their flagrant corruption) drives public opinion more and more towards the Left, and compels the nomination of more and more radical governments (vol. 48, p. 171).” At the same time, he did not forget to remind people of the other side of French opinion, as he wrote critically, “I begin to understand/French anti-Semitism when I see how these Jews of Polish origin with German names are insinuating themselves everywhere, claiming everything as their own, pushing themselves forward even to the extent of shaping public opinion in the City of Light, a city of which your Parisian simpleton is so proud that he believes it to be the supreme power in the universe (vol. 49, p. 477).”

9.3 The Power of Public Opinion

131

9.3 The Power of Public Opinion Although it is impossible for public opinion to replace actual power, the contrasting strengths in different public opinions will have a significant impact on the socialpolitical situation. Marx and Engels mainly illustrated the power of public opinion in three aspects. First, public opinion is a restraining force on power organizations and political activists. In Marx’s newsletter, there are many examples of power organizations subject to public opinion. For example, the new parliamentary elections in Austria in 1860 and the entry of representatives of some opposition parties and the Hungarian people into parliament were the results of public pressure. Marx reported on this, writing that “the Imperial diploma deceived nobody. While in the German provinces public opinion at once compelled the old municipal councils (appointed by the Emperor after the Revolution) to give way before new men, who are now being chosen by popular election, the Hungarians began to reestablish their old county officers and county assemblies which, before 1849, formed all the local authorities in the country (vol. 17, p. 500).” In the Ottoman Empire, Sudan also had to take public opinion into consideration. In 1853, he accepted a joint note with the four powers of the Armistice in Russia and news spread that protests broke out in the capital Constantinople. According to Marx, “So great was the exasperation which prevailed at Constantinople, that the Sultan did not venture to repair on the following day to the Divan, nor proceed, as usual, amidst the thunder of the cannon, and the hurrahs of the foreign war crew, to the mosque of Tophana; and that Reshid Pasha fled for refuge from his own palace in Stambul to the palace contiguous to the residence of the Sultan. On the following day the public mind was somewhat calmed by a proclamation on the/part of the Sultan, that no stop should be put to the military operations (vol. 12, pp. 576–577).” Clearly, any power organization and individual in modern society is subject to the intangible constraints of public opinion to varying degrees. The restriction of public opinion on the organization of power sometimes brings stormy results, sometimes gradual results. A typical example of the former is the French February Revolution of 1848. Engels had said many times that the direct cause of this revolution was the role of public opinion. At that time, the press, which was represented by Emile de Girardin, reflected a strong dissatisfaction of the French public at all levels against the cabinet of François Guizot, and a large number of materials that revealed the corruption of the cabinet was made public. However, Kizo’s cabinet ignored it. As Engels pointed out in June 1847, “Never, since the revolution of 1830, has there been displayed such bare-faced impudence and contempt of public opinion (vol. 6, p. 61) […] any ministry doing so will be overthrown by the mere weight of public opinion (vol. 6, p. 219).” Sure enough, the Kizo cabinet collapsed with the entire July dynasty eight months later. In more cases, the influence of public opinion on power organizations is gradual. In Germany after the middle of the nineteenth century, although the political power was

132

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

kingship and Juncker landlords, the socio-economics had gradually been dominated by the commodity economy, so the decisions of those in power were actually subject to bourgeois public opinion. In this sense, Engels believes that the bourgeoisie was “indirectly in possession of political power (vol. 4, p. 304).” On the contrary, if the person in power does not have the support of public opinion, its power is very limited. This was the case with the French National Assembly in 1850. According to Marx, “Without the ministry, without the army, without the people, without public opinion, after its Electoral Law of May 31 no longer the representative of the sovereign nation, sans eyes, sans ears, sans teeth, sans everything, the National Assembly had undergone a gradual transformation into an ancient French Parliament that has to leave action to the government and content itself with growling remonstrances post festum (vol. 11, p. 159).” It was this opportunity that led to the easy usurpation of power by Louis Bonaparte a year later. Social activists engaged in the worker’s movement are also subject to public opinion, especially workers’ public opinion. In 1890, Ferdinand Nieuwenhuis, leader of the Dutch Social Democratic Alliance, sought Engels’ advice on his son’s foreclosure of military service. Engels asked him to observe the reaction of workers’ opinions. He said, “What calls for particular consideration, however, is the impression such a course of action on your part might make on your party comrades and, further, on the vast mass of workers who still remain outside the party-whether the matter would be one of indifference to working-class opinion or whether it would stir it up against Social-Democracy (vol. 49, p. 78).” Meanwhile, the early Russian Marxists were used to engaging in secret sectarian activities and despising public opinion. Engels warned them that “it would surely be to the advantage of the Russian movement itself if it ran its course somewhat more openly before the wider public in the West, rather than covertly, in small, isolated circles which, for that very reason, become hotbeds of intrigue and conspiracy (vol. 48, p. 484).” Second, public opinion is a driving force for legislation. As early as 1843, Marx realized that public opinion was “inspired by a genuine feeling of freedom and patriotism (vol. 1, p. 710).” In the first volume of “Das Kapital”, the various British factory legislation he showed were accompanied by the process of public opinion acting on legislation. For example, the British 10-h Work Act, which Marx views as a factory owner’s “cowardly concessions to public opinion (vol. 35, p. 300)”. The earlier apprenticeship law was also passed by the parliament when public opinion strongly responded to the abuse of apprentices. Regarding this, Engels wrote, “As early as 1796, the public objection to this revolting system found such vigorous expression through Dr. Percival and Sir Robert Peel (father of the Cabinet Minister, and himself a cotton manufacturer), that in 1802 Parliament passed an Apprentices’ Bill, by which the most crying evils were removed (vol. 4, p. 442).” Marx envisioned using the power of public opinion to make the government do something practical for the people. This method is “as to whether all this should be put at the disposal of the present dissolute and reactionary government, thus rendering it independent for an eternity, or whether it should be kept short, be rendered submissive to public opinion by the withdrawal of moneys, this our pussy-footing Consistorial Counsellor calls the question of principle! (vol. 6, p. 227).”

9.3 The Power of Public Opinion

133

The New Rhine in 1849 called on the people to refuse to pay taxes, which is the implementation of this idea. In 1853, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer William Ewart Gladstone announced the abolition of tax on newspaper supplements. Only Times had such supplements, which could save £ 40,000 a year. The public outcry forced him to change his plan and benefit all newspapers. Marx pointed out that the only reason was that he had been “intimidated by public opinion, to let all single supplements go free (vol. 12, p. 146).” The influence of public opinion on legislation was also manifested in the denial of certain draft laws and the invalidation of certain old laws. The British Education Act of 1843 was rejected by Parliament under the pressure of public opinion. According to Engels, “The protracted nature of the deliberations gives public opinion time to form an opinion about the proposed measure and if need be to oppose it by means of meetings and petitions, and often— as last year in the case of Sir James Graham’s Education Bill—successfully (vol. 3, p. 500).” The first thing that made young Marx and Engels experience the power of public opinion was that Prussia ceased to implement an extradition agreement with Russia in 1842. They recalled the struggle of the year and wrote that “[i]t is known that already in 1842, public opinion forced the abrogation of the extradition treaty, which was, however, renewed during the reaction of 1844 (vol. 7, p. 53).” This situation had become the norm in Britain, and many old laws had actually become invalid due to opposition from public opinion. For example, the Bank of England Act of 1844 had no effect by 1857. As Marx pointed out, “When the real monetary distress has thus been aggravated by an artificial panic, and in its wake the sufficient number of victims has been immolated, public pressure grows too strong for the Government, and the law is suspended exactly at the period for the weathering of which it was created, and during the course of which it is alone able to produce any effect at all (vol. 15, p. 382).” Third, the universal social supervision achieved by public opinion. Public opinion is a public evaluation of social, political, economic, and cultural activities. With the development of a market economy, public opinion tends to become a universal power of social supervision. This is because under such social conditions, the consciousness of equality and freedom becomes a strong stereotype of the nation, and everyone’s activities will be affected by the evaluation of the majority (the climate of opinion). This is the invisible force of public opinion, which Marx called “the jury of public opinion (vol. 11, p. 401).” The idea that public opinion can achieve social supervision is premised on publicity, and publicity itself makes the parties feel an invisible mental pressure. In 1845, Engels co-founded the monthly magazine “Gesellschaftsspiegel”, which meant that the supervision of public opinion was likened to “the mirror”. He announced that “[w]e shall pitilessly hold up for public censure every single case of oppression of workers and shall be particularly grateful to our correspondents for most accurate reports on this subject giving names, places and dates (vol. 4, p. 672).” This type of public condemnation sometimes encountered resistance from the parties that were involved and because of its exactness, usually failed. Publicity and supervision of public opinion are actually two sides of the same coin. Marx, when

134

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

he was vilified once, borrowed the characteristics of public opinion supervision and tried his best to make the event public. The purpose was as he said, “Should the count I mention be dismissed on formal grounds, its ventilation is, nevertheless, of the utmost importance, at any rate so far as the public is concerned (vol. 41, p. 92).” Interestingly, British media struggled to publicly report and comment on parliamentary activities for a century or two. In Germany, meanwhile, parliamentary activities were publicly put on the agenda in the 1840s. At that time, members of the Prussian Rhine-level Parliament imposed various conditions on this. One member said, “Precisely for that reason we are most of all able to appreciate the value of our words, and do so the more frankly as we allow ourselves to be less subject to external influences, which could only be useful if they came to us in the form of well-meaning counsel, but not in the form of a dogmatic judgment, of praise or blame, seeking to influence our personality through public opinion (vol. 1, p. 149, words in italics written by Marx).” In other words, Marx felt that “the development of parliamentary freedom in the old French sense, independence from public opinion, and the stagnation of the caste spirit, advance most thoroughly through isolation, but to warn against precisely this development cannot be premature (vol. 1, p. 151). […] A truly political assembly flourishes only under the great protection of the public spirit, just as living things flourish only in the open air (vol. 1, p. 151).” Thus, he not only viewed public opinion as a supervisory force but also considered it a “protection” of the parties. There are two forms of public opinion supervision: passive and active. Under normal circumstances, the party always wants public opinion to behave according to its own wishes. Once the public opinion develops in the opposite direction of its wishes, it finds itself passively on trial. The case of the Cologne Communists mentioned by Marx is an example. The case was created by the Prussian authorities in 1852, and it proclaimed “communist conspiracy” throughout Europe. However, public trials always require evidence and so, evidence was created. In the face of a perjury charge, the situation became as Marx presented: How anxious the Prussian Government is to conceal its infamies during the Cologne trial from publicity, you may infer from the fact that the Minister of the Exterior has issued orders for the seizure (Fahndebriefe) of the pamphlet wherever it should appear, but does not even dare to call it by its title. (vol.11, p.537) […] After the 1½-year preliminary investigation the jury needed objective evidence in order to justify itself before public opinion. (vol.11, p.454) […] The Prussian government had put itself in a position in which for decency’s sake the prosecution was simply obliged to produce evidence and the jury to demand it. The jury itself had to face another jury, the jury of public opinion. (vol.11, p.401)

Since Prussia was under an authoritarian system which, despite the authorities’ embarrassment, seemed to have nothing to do with the European public opinion. However, in the British environment, once placed in front of the public hearings, it is not so easy for those involved to escape. An example is the Sir Bullwell incident that Marx analyzed in 1858. The aristocratic poet abused his wife (the novelist Rosina Bulwer-Lytton) and insisted that she was crazy. Because he was one of the leaders of the London cultural circle, newspapers, and even the Prime Minister, remained silent about it. However, once things were made public, the situation became as

9.3 The Power of Public Opinion

135

reported by Marx, “worked into a state of moral excitement, even The London Times may throw off its mask of reserve, and, with a bleeding heart of course, stab the Derby Administration by passing the sentence of “public opinion” on such a literary chieftain even as Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton (vol. 15, p. 597).” Here, the pressure exerted on the parties by the public was no less than that of a real court. Marx and Engels talked more about actively seeking the supervision of public opinion. In other words, as a party, they actively brought up facts and problems to the public and used the power of public opinion to pressurize or restrict the other party involved. In 1850, British authorities allowed Prussian spies to track the exiles in the country. Marx and Engels took full advantage of Britain’s free environment and published material about tracking in newspapers. They wrote, “we think, too, we cannot do better but appeal frankly from the British Government to public opinion (vol. 10, p. 380).” When some newspapers blamed the exiles for no reason, they wrote a “Public Statement to the Editors of the English Press”, hoping that “[w]hen that revelation shall have been made in the course of the present proceedings, public opinion in England will know how to qualify the anonymous/scribes of The Times and Daily News, who constitute themselves the advocates and mouthpieces of the most infamous and subaltern government spies (vol. 11, pp. 378–379).” The disclosure of facts, regardless of public opinion, is generally beneficial to those who disclose it. Appealing to public opinion is also the best way to change one’s role from passive to active. In 1871, Marx’s political opponent, Charles Bradlaugh, said in a speech and in the newspaper that Marx was a Bonaparte and that he was a Prussian police detective. In response, Marx published a private letter previously written by Bledlow, asking him to write for the official Prussian newspaper and to serve the government faithfully. Marx claimed that he did so “in order, not to justify myself, but to expose him. With the low cunning of a solicitor’s clerk he tries to escape this liability by inviting me to a ‘Court of Honour’ (vol. 23, p. 72). […] For the present, I shall ‘betray him’ to the German public by giving the greatest possible circulation to his epistle (vol. 23, p. 62).” In such debates, public opinion naturally was more favorable towards the wellfounded Marx side while Bradlow became notorious.

9.4 Social Control Over Opinion The spontaneity of public opinion makes the strong and weak coexist in the public opinion. It is both a restraining force on various political and economic power organizations, and it may be controlled by them. Analyzing the various controlling actions of the ruling class on public opinion and exposing its ugly behaviors was another reason why Marx and Engels paid attention to public opinion. Under the autocratic system of the old Europe, the control of public opinion by power organizations was strict and simple, that is, a strict book inspection system was implemented, and some also used religious courts to prohibit the publication

136

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

and circulation of all opinions inconsistent with power organizations. Regarding this, Engels commented, “After this description the accused remarks that censorship exercised in this fashion becomes arrogant tutelage, virtual suppression of public opinion, and eventually leads to a highly questionable autocracy of officials, equally dangerous to king and people (vol. 2, p. 308).” However, the old authoritarian system was outdated after all, and Marx and Engels paid more attention to how the modern ruling class controlled public opinion. The development of public opinion is informed by a wide spectrum of possibilities and uncertainties. Power organizations guide public opinion towards a certain direction within the confinement of acceptable possibilities as a form of control. This kind of control is divided into three links. The first is the estimation of its own control ability; the second is the choice of control objectives and methods; and finally, the grasp of the control conditions. All methods of controlling public opinion analyzed by Marx and Engels include these three links. If one of the links goes wrong, the controller will have to submit it to public opinion. The control methods they employed are mainly the following: Firstly, openly confront public opinion. When the controller is confident, different public opinions are often used against one another as a form of suppression. For example, at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Britain, public opinion that continued to improve workers’ working conditions for decades was met with stubborn resistance from capital. This is because capital was powerful at that time. Marx described this historical process as “[i]n conflict with ‘public opinion’, or even with the Officers of Health, capital makes no difficulty about ‘justifying’ the conditions partly dangerous, partly degrading, to which it confines the working and domestic life of the labourer, on the ground that they are necessary for profit (vol. 35, p. 660).” Secondly, fight for public opinion. This method is less effective in controlling the scale of public opinion and is usually administered by the controller who uses words or actions to influence public opinion so that it is on his/her side. In the incident of the Trent cruiser of 1861 that Marx mentioned, the US Lincoln government used this method to win over British public opinion. At that time, the Northern Army detained two special envoys of the Southern Alliance on the British mail ship Trent, and British public opinion was in an uproar. The Lincoln administration was aware of the mistake and quickly released the two men. Marx had foreseen this remedy before the release. He wrote, “The people of the United States having magnanimously submitted to a curtailment of their own liberties in order to save their country, will certainly be no less ready to turn the tide of popular opinion in England by openly avowing, and carefully making up for, an international blunder the vindication of which might realize the boldest hopes of the rebels (vol. 19, p. 100).” Thirdly, make use of public opinion. This is a way to control public opinion when the controller is confident that he is able to achieve his purpose. The most typical example in this regard is the British expulsion of French exiles from Zeyu Island in 1855. Britain has been critical of him since the coup of Louis Bonaparte came to power. With the consolidation of this regime, Britain sought an opportunity to ease the relationship between the two countries, at which time a newspaper from British

9.4 Social Control Over Opinion

137

Zephyr Island published a letter from the French exile to the Queen, criticizing the Queen for her visit to France. The British government used this as a reason to expel a group of French exiles, including the famous writer Hugo. British public opinion clamored and turned against the British government, and the French naturally knew that this was a way the British expressed their stance to France. Marx was very disgusted with such use of public opinion and challenged the reliability of such an act. He wrote, “Incidentally I cannot refrain from observing that the whole refugee question consists of much smoke and little fire. Public opinion has definitely turned against the government, but I also believe that this uproar was allowed for in the government’s calculations. The government responded to Louis Napoleon’s first demands so clumsily, tragi-comically and blusteringly merely to demonstrate the fact to him that further concessions were beyond the power of a British government (vol. 14, p. 582).” Fourthly, formally conform to or appease public opinion. Whether it’s adapting or appeasing, it’s a method of controlling public opinion. The fundamental point is to express or appease public opinion. At the same time, be careful not to allow public opinion to endanger the controller. Regarding formal conformity to public opinion, Marx analyzed the British election as an example. At that time, Britain had property requirements for voters, so most workers did not have the right to vote. In order to calm the workers’ dissatisfaction, a habit of holding a mass meeting to raise their hands to vote was retained. Only a few people could be elected by raising their hands at such a rally. Meanwhile, the losing ruling class candidates were asked to vote. At this point, the majority of workers were excluded from the election. As Marx observed, “The first election, by show of hands, is a show satisfaction allowed, for a moment, to public opinion, in order to convince it, the next moment, the more strikingly of its impotency (vol. 11, p. 336).” Methods of controlling public opinion were termed “safety-valve” by Marx and Engels. In 1855, during the Crimean War, the British army caused a large number of casualties due to bureaucracy. This angered domestic public opinion. As such, the parliament established an investigative committee to make a public report to the parliament, blaming political leaders at large and trivially criticizing those with specific responsibilities. This was done to calm public opinion. In response, Marx and Engels wrote, “On the whole the committee has fulfilled its purpose of acting as a safety-valve for the pressure of public passions (vol. 14, p. 291).” The attention of the public on the object of public opinion is usually concentrated on the leaders of power organizations. It is therefore easy to cause a large conflict between the public and the leaders. Therefore, constantly testing the reflection of public opinion on its policies and throwing out the victims of policy errors when necessary has become a method of soothing public opinion in the form of compensation. King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia is one such controller. As soon as he came to power, he announced false-liberal reforms. As Engels wrote, “the cautious system of taking soundings that he has hitherto practised, by which he first explored public opinion and then always left himself sufficient time to withdraw any too

138

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

obnoxious measure. Hence also the method of putting his ministers into the forefront and disavowing them if they acted too forcefully (vol. 2, p. 366).” As a result, several ministers fell victim to the king’s test of public opinion and consequently, were forced to resign. When various methods of appeasing public opinion failed, it indicated that the controller’s status was somewhat unstable. At this time, power organizations often adopt unscrupulous acts condemned by Marx and Engels to control public opinion and protect their status. In their discourse, the three most condemned are: First, intentionally shift the excitement of public opinion and reduce the pressure exerted by public opinion on the issues of focus. The most common method was to use external contradictions to divert attention from internal issues. In 1886, the Russian democratic movement rose, so the government launched propaganda to conquer Constantinople and liberate the oppressed Slavs. Engels response to that was, “that was not enough, it needed some support in public opinion, it needed to turn minds away from the contemplation of the growing social and political ills at home; finally, what it needed was a little patriotic phantasmagoria (vol. 26, p. 411).” Also, domestic events were sometimes used to divert attention from external events. At the beginning of the Crimean War, the British army was not prepared for war and the government was in danger of being condemned by the public. As a result, the coalition, who have grown notorious for ingenuity displayed in hatching pretexts for not keeping their most solemn promises and reasons for delaying the most urgent reforms, all at once feel themselves bound by overscrupulous adherence to pledges rashly given to complicate this momentous crisis by surprising the country with a new reform bill, deemed inopportune by the most ardent reformers, imposed by no pressure from without, and received on all sides with the utmost indifference and suspicion (vol. 13, p. 30). Sometimes, some people in powerful organizations even deliberately create incidents to divert the attention of the public. In 1893, many leading figures and politicians in France were attacked by public opinion for accepting bribes during the construction of the Panama Canal. As a result, they created a so-called “conspiracy to assassinate the Tsar”, described several Polish diasporas as Russians, fabricated a story of their attempt to assassinate the Tsar, and expelled them. Even the Paris police felt that the matter was too far-fetched. Engels pointed out in his report that one reason why the controllers felt it was necessary to divert the public’s attention from that incident was because “[t]he rules of the opportunist-radical bourgeois republic-the ministers, senators, deputies-are, of all them, mixed up in the Panama scandal, some as bribetakers, others as accomplices and hushers-up. In their view, the public has occupied itself long enough with this side of their grimy existences (vol. 27, p. 354).” Second, brainwash the public and persuade them to obey the controller. There are different methods of confusing public opinion, and one basic method is as Marx said, “to falsify public opinion in regard to events that happened (vol. 19, p. 24)”. The British government used this method to brainwash the public before deciding to participate in the Crimean War in 1854. At the time, the prime minister, John Russell, personally lobbied, thus achieving the purpose of swaying public opinion. In Marx’s account of that incident, he wrote, “Lord John’s stump-oratory, the beating of big

9.4 Social Control Over Opinion

139

drums about English honor, the show of great moral indignation at Russian perfidy, the vision of England’s floating batteries defiling along the walls of Sevastopol and Kronstadt, the tumult of arms and the ostentatious embarkation of troops, all these dramatic incidents quite bewilder the public understanding, and raise a mist before its eyes, which allowed it to see nothing save its own delusions (vol. 13, p. 30).” When the temporary lobbying lost its effect, those in power would then adopt the method of repeated indoctrination. In 1861, when Britain was preparing to participate in the Spanish intervention in Mexico, the domestic public was not interested in it. At the time, Prime Minister Palmerston realized that it would be difficult to plug the plan directly into the public, so he brainwashed the public for a month through newspapers under his control. According to Marx, “The Times and The Morning Post having once given out the cue, John Bull was then handed over to the minor ministerial oracles, systematically belaboring him in the same contradictory style for four weeks, until public opinion had at last become sufficiently trained to the idea of a joint intervention in Mexico, although kept in deliberate ignorance of the aim and purpose of that intervention (vol. 19, p. 73).” Under such repeated indoctrination, people who remained sober were a minority, and most people only realized that they had been fooled afterward. In the economic field, brainwashing the public is also a habitual method of controllers. Engels’s translation of Fourier’s book The Four Movements mentioned many such cases. One such method is “when a favourable opportunity presents itself, bankrupts must close their ranks and post up a column of bankruptcies every day at the Stock Exchange; they must have them succeeding one another so quickly that public opinion is confused and compositions become easy to achieve in consideration of the difficult circumstances (vol. 4, p. 634).” Third, control the real public opinion with an organized one. Marx and Engels found such practices especially intolerable and would speak of them in reproachful and derogatory terms. Holding a specially arranged rally is one way to organize public opinion. In 1855, the Administrative Reform Association, supported by some British lawmakers, held a rally in an attempt to show that it was supported by the public. Marx made the following report: The ‘Administrative Reform Association’ held a large meeting yesterday in the Drury Lane Theatre; not, be it noted, a public meeting but a ticket-meeting, a meeting to which only those favoured with tickets were admitted. The gentlemen were thus completely at their ease, au sein de leur famille. They were avowedly meeting to give ‘public opinion’ an airing. But to shield public opinion from draughts from outside half a company of constables were posted at the doors of the Drury Lane. What a fragile public opinion that only dares to be made public with the protection of constables and tickets of admission! (vol.14, p.274)

Here, Marx’s words reflected his aversion towards this kind of organizational public opinion. Similar incidents of such had also been reported by Engels in the same tone. In 1843, the Anti-Grain Law League also convened a conference in this theater. A reporter said that the opinion of the conference was public opinion, to which Engels angrily pointed out, “Who are admitted to these meetings? Only members of the League or persons to whom the League gives tickets (vol. 3, p. 383). […] The League

140

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

has been organising such meetings, which are afterwards called “public”, for some years past and at them it congratulates itself on its “progress” (vol. 3, p. 383). […] This question can only be answered in the affirmative by such an/empty-headed, frivolous correspondent, for whom Drury Lane is the public and a drummed-up meeting is public opinion (vol. 3, pp. 382–383).” Some petty-bourgeois revolutionaries appreciated the creation of public opinion. They think that public opinion can also be fabricated if there was money involved. Marx responded sarcastically that “[i]t is remarkable into what bizarre byways of thought even melodramatic minds are driven by England’s commercial wind. Since everything here, even public opinion, is organised with the aid of shares, why not float a joint-stock company ‘for the promotion of the revolution’? (vol. 17, p. 314).” Marx had always been resolute in his revelation of those who fabricated public opinion. For example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Palmerston, was a dictator who was good at controlling newspapers and fabricating public opinion. Marx’s response to him was, “As to the ‘public opinion’ spoken of by The Post, it has been justly said that Palmerston manufactures one half of it, and laughs at the other half (vol. 15, p. 238) […] but the English people have no more say in their foreign policy than the man in the moon. The PUBLIC OPINION advanced in The Times, etc., is ‘prescribed’ by the wishes of OLD Pam himself (vol. 41, p. 544).”

9.5 Newspapers and Public Opinion As the Germans say, “They feel not so much irritated at the stammering of these cautious wiseacres as at the general state of public mind which they presuppose to exist. Consequently, in their shortsighted bureaucratic way they beat the donkey in order to hit the bag—I mean the bag of public opinion. The repeated newspaper confiscations, initiating the new régime, say the royalists, are the true answer to the noisy hopes that affect to cling to the Prince (vol. 16, p. 79).” In Marx’s view, the basic relationship between newspapers and public opinion is that the newspapers represent public opinion. From this understanding, he and Engels often relied on evidence from the newspapers to support themselves. On the Italian public opinion, Marx wrote in early 1859 that “, if we are to credit the reports of English, Italian and French journals, the moral condition of Naples is a fac simile of her physical structure, and a torrent of revolutionary lava would occasion no more surprise than would a fresh eruption of old Vesuvius (vol. 16, p. 148).” On the other hand, Engels regarded the newspaper as a microcosm of the outside world. In 1848, he wrote a criticism of the weak German parliament in Frankfurt, claiming that “[t]he ‘world’ was naturally ‘astonished’ when it saw this Constituent National Assembly. One need only read the French, English and Italian newspapers to understand this (vol. 7, p. 236).” If we pay attention to the way Marx and Engels articulate themselves in the above, we would find that they generally used the newspapers and periodicals to discuss public opinion in general. Whenever the issue in question involved regional

9.5 Newspapers and Public Opinion

141

or national interests, the regional and national newspapers may, regardless of their inclination, represent public opinion on a regional or national scale. This is because of the same common interests and cultural traditions shared by a region or nation. Along the same vein, Marx repeatedly called for a representation of regional sentiments by its own local papers. He wrote, “Be honest, do not falsify the expression of public opinion, fulfil the calling of a Rhineland paper, which is to represent the spirit of the Rhineland, disregard personal considerations, in a vital question for the province close your columns to all individual opinions which have the defect of wishing to assert a separate attitude in opposition to the will of the people (vol. 1, p. 269).” In very much the same sense, if we were to take The Times as a national newspaper, Marx and Engels also acknowledged that it did indeed represent British public opinion, although to what degree was questionable. It is as Marx said, “The London Times had attained the position of being the national paper of England, that is to say, of representing the English mind to Foreign nations (vol. 19, p. 22).” Meanwhile, Engels examined London newspapers from the perspective of national newspapers and arrived at the same conclusion. He wrote, “The London daily journals have been divided upon the question whether the Austrian alliance or an open rupture with Austria was the preferable thing. But these journals, which represent the public opinion of a nation priding itself upon being the most businesslike in the world (vol. 13, p. 550).” However, when the specific interests of classes, parties, and social groups, periodicals and newspapers were involved, political newspapers and magazines especially must disseminate their unique views to the public, be it strongly or weakly. This choice in news would be affected by the value of subjective propaganda. In this sense, newspapers and periodicals were representatives of only a certain class, party, or social group. Marx thought that was normal. He believed that “[e]very citizen inspired by a genuine feeling of freedom and patriotism looked with redoubled confidence to the present and the immediate future, in which public opinion with its manifold convictions and deep-seated contradictions has acquired appropriate organs of the press, and by means of ever more thorough development and everrenewed justification of its own content will refine itself until it reaches that purity, clarity and resoluteness by which it offers the richest, surest and most vivifying source of national legislation (vol. 1, p. 710).” In fact, every newspaper faced a contradiction between spreading its own unique point of view and widely representing public opinion. This contradiction forced newspapers and periodicals to represent public opinion to a certain extent. From the perspective of solely influencing public opinion, newspapers and periodicals would not be limited to their own supporters. Instead, they must win over the masses who were not yet their readers. According to Marx, this was what the French financial bourgeoisie wanted: Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the state, had command of all the organized public authorities, dominated public opinion through the actual state of/affairs and through the press (vol. 10, pp. 50–51). In January 1865, when Marx learned that the German workers newspaper Social Democrat were “thinking either of the YANKEE WAR or the Prussian Army Reform,

142

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

as they say their paper is read by more people of standing than any other Berlin paper (vol. 42, p. 67)”, he eagerly asked Engels to write comments on major events to influence the upper classes of society. In this sense, Marx and Engels claimed in 1850 that “[a]s long as the newspaper press was anonymous, it appeared as the organ of a numberless and nameless public opinion (vol. 10, p. 518).” The New Rhine, which they founded, had dealt with the contradictory issues of the newspaper’s political position and representative public opinion. Marx pointed out in the second edition of the newspaper that “[e]very new organ of public opinion is generally expected to show enthusiasm for the party whose principles it supports, unqualified confidence in the strength of this party, and constant readiness either to give the principles the cover of real power, or to cover up real weaknesses with the glamour of principles. We shall not live up to these expectations, We shall not seek to gild defeats with deceptive illusions (vol. 7, p. 27).” It was precisely because of the impartiality adopted by The New Rhine that won over the public, to the extent that even lawmakers who were criticized by it had respect for it. In the discourse of Marx and Engels, newspapers and periodicals represented a dynamic reflection of public opinion. Some newspapers distorted public opinion because of the conflicting interests of classes, parties, and cliques. Sometimes, they were completely on the opposite side of public opinion. However, this situation usually did not last long. During the American Civil War in 1861, most London newspapers clamored to declare war on the Lincoln government because of their own interests. Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations in the UK and local newspapers’ anti-war opinions overwhelmed this kind of war opinion. Marx‘s newsletter Die Meinung der Journale und die Meinung des Volkes described the development of this matter. Public opinion was a restrictive force for distorting public opinion on newspapers and periodicals. As such, newspapers and magazines could only oscillate between reflecting and distorting public opinion. The conservative Times managed to maintain its status as a newspaper because it was good at swinging in favor of the stronger side during the British reform era of the nineteenth century. It is as Marx wrote, “When victory had unmistakably declared on the side of the Reformers, The Times wheeled round, deserted the reactionary camp, and managed to find itself, at the decisive moment, on the winning side. In all these instances, The Times gave not the direction to public opinion, but submitted to it, ungraciously, reluctantly, and after protracted, but frustrated, attempts at rolling back the surging waves of popular progress (vol. 19, p. 21).” Newspapers and periodicals must also observe the inclination of the public before they reported on specific events. In 1852, the Prussian authorities created the Cologne Communists case, and various proletarian newspapers and newspapers apparently stood by the authorities. However, when it was revealed that the evidence presented was forged, public opinion changed quickly in reaction to the press. Marx described this process of change as such: “As the police mysteries were gradually explained, public opinion declared itself increasingly in favour of the defendants. When it became apparent that the original minute-book was a fraud an acquittal was generally expected. The Kölnische Zeitung felt induced to defer to public opinion and to dissociate itself from the/government.

9.5 Newspapers and Public Opinion

143

Little items favourable to the defendants and casting suspicion on Stieber suddenly found their way into columns that had earlier contained nothing but police insinuations. Even the Prussian government threw in the sponge. Its correspondents in The Times and The Morning Chronicle suddenly began to prepare public opinion abroad for an unfavourable outcome (vol. 11, pp. 452–453).” Evidently, the facts had first shaken the public opinion, and then, the public opinion compelled the press to incline towards the truth. The reason why newspapers could only fluctuate between reflecting and distorting public opinion was that the existence of newspapers and magazines of differing views, the role of public opinion, and the economic and political interests of the newspapers and magazines were all compelling factors that pushed them to express public opinion to a certain extent. As such, when the Prussian authorities distinguished between “good” and “bad” newspapers using a set of arbitrary subjective criteria, Marx proposed an alternative set of objective criteria. He questioned, “Which press then, the “good” or the “bad”, is the “true” press? Which expresses actual reality, and which expresses it as it would like it to be? Which expresses public opinion, and which distorts it? Which, therefore, deserves the confidence of the state? vol. 1, p. 315)” Here, the expression or distortion of public opinion has become an objective distinguishing criterion. Public opinion has an invisible restrictive effect on newspapers and periodicals, but it would be incorrect to assume that newspapers and periodicals are passive, especially political newspapers, whose purpose is to influence public opinion. Marx and Engels publicly stated in their discussion about the New Rhine Review that “it will only fully serve its purpose of exercising an uninterrupted and lasting influence on public opinion, and create new opportunities also from the financial point of view, when the editorial board is in a position to produce issues in more rapid succession (vol. 10, p. 605).” It is the hope of every newspaper that the public opinion will be in accordance with its own. Consequently, the question of “guided public opinion” arises. In addition to the social conditions, the success of this kind of guidance mainly depends on the degree of public opinion expressed by the press. As the founder of The New Rhine, Marx described his task as an intermediary between events and the people. The mission of the press is to introduce the current situation to the public, study the conditions for changes that might occur, discuss ways of improvement, form public opinion, and guide the public towards a ‘proper and right’ direction. Clearly, guiding public opinion is first reflected in the first three tasks (“introducing the current situation, studying the conditions for change, and discussing ways to improve”). These three tasks express public opinion before further guiding public opinion. The analysis of the relationship between newspapers and public opinion is, most fundamentally, a way of understanding how newspapers and periodicals circulate among the public. Marx and Engels compared public opinion to “paper money” and described their relationship as such: “Hitherto the newspapers had circulated as the paper money of public opinion (vol. 10, p. 518).” Marx also compared the spread of ideas to the circulation of money. In 1863, he wrote about the history of socialist propaganda and claimed that “he has already got ‘his’ political economy in hand

144

9 Public Opinion as a Form of Intercourse

and yet everything he has peddled around hitherto has shown him to be a callow schoolboy who trumpets abroad as his very latest discovery, with the most repulsive and impertinent garrulity, theses that we were doling out 20 years ago as small change to our PARTISANS, and ten times better at that (vol. 41, p. 488).” Although this is a metaphor, it doesn’t hurt to look at Marx’s account of how real paper currency circulates: A law peculiar to the circulation of paper money can spring up only from/ the proportion in which that paper money represents gold. Such a law exists; stated simply, it is as follows: the issue of paper money must not exceed in amount the gold (or silver as the case may be) which would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols. (vol.35, pp.137-138)

According to the above description, it can be inferred that the smooth flow of newspapers in public opinion should depend on the degree to which it reflected public opinion, just as paper money must represent a certain amount of gold or silver to circulate in the commodity market. It is the same even if we were to approach this problem from a different perspective. For example, Marx also wrote that “[g]old circulates because it has value, whereas paper has value because it circulates (vol. 29, p. 356).” Newspapers and magazines are the carriers of public opinion. If a newspaper cannot be sold, it cannot be added to the circulation, thus proving that it has no value in itself. In other words, the public opinion it contains is equal to zero or even negative. There was a type of paper currency that was legally prohibited from being exchanged for gold or silver. When everything in the circulation market went well, it played a circulative role. There seemed to be a law that provided it with a circulative force. This kind of paper currency could be circulated not because of the person who made an order, but because it was actually able to represent a certain amount of gold or silver. As soon as the banknotes overflowed and exceeded the actual demand for circulation, it became devalued immediately. This circulation was not facilitated by the privileged status accorded by the law, but rather, the law of its own market value. Marx used Prussian paper money as an example to illustrate this principle. He wrote, “For instance, a Prussian paper thaler, although legally inconvertible, would immediately depreciate if in everyday commerce it were worth less than a silver thaler, that is if it were not convertible in practice (vol. 29, p. 320).” The circulation of newspapers in the public also shares this phenomenon. Even if a certain powerful organization stipulates the special status of a newspaper, once it is given to public opinion, its status can only depend on the degree to which the newspaper represents the public opinion. The increase in circulation by order does not indicate the degree of public opinion’s trust in it. In conclusion, Marx and Engels’ assertion that ‘newspapers are circulated as banknotes of public opinion’ captures the characteristics of the relationship between newspapers and public opinion. Newspapers and periodicals are the product of public opinion. They must express public opinion. Only by expressing public opinion can it form a wider public opinion, achieve its special guidance, or influence public opinion. Public opinion always acts on newspapers and periodicals and virtually forces newspapers and magazines to swing most extremely between reflecting public

9.5 Newspapers and Public Opinion

145

opinion and distorting public opinion. This interaction goes back and forth to infinity. Newspapers and magazines cannot force people to accept any ideas, but they are everywhere and everything. The life manifestation of a newspaper lies in its constant interaction with public opinion.

Reference Maine (1914) Lectures on the early history of institutions, 7th edn. John Murray, London, p 392

Chapter 10

Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

The Latin word “propaganda” means the grafting and transplanting of plants. Its modern definition “Congregatio de propaganda fide”, or “propaganda” for short, was established by the Pope in the seventeenth century and refers to the spread of doctrine by missionaries using various words and language symbols. Marx and Engels mentioned this concept about 400 times in their work. They see conversation, discussion, and intercourse as types of propaganda. For example, when Marx established the Communist Communications Committee in 1846, he regarded regular communication activities, discussing academic issues, and commenting on popular works as propaganda. He wrote, “let us proceed in médias res—jointly with two friends of mine, Frederick Engels and Philippe Gigot (both of whom are in Brussels), I have made arrangements with the German communists and socialists for a constant interchange of letters which will be devoted to discussing scientific questions, and to keeping an eye on popular writings, and the socialist propaganda/that can be carried on in Germany by this means (vol. 38, pp. 38–39).” Certain impactful actions were also considered by them to be a form of publicity or propaganda. For example, Engels regarded the German Social Democrats ‘struggle against the anti-Socialists’ extraordinary law as a means of propaganda, writing that “[e]verywhere the Anti-Socialist Law is involving them in local struggles with the police, to the accompaniment of all manner of jokes and dirty tricks, struggles which usually turn out in our favour and are a source of the best propaganda in the world. Every now and again one or other of the bourgeois papers vents a sigh about the enormous progress made by our people, and they all of them dread the coming elections (vol. 47, p. 114).” On the other hand, as long as facts played a practical role in mobilizing the masses, Marx regarded it as a form of propaganda, even if it was on contrary to the wishes of the parties. In 1850, he commented on Marshal Heinau’s crackdown on the national liberation movement in Austria, “No Socialist in France spread more revolutionary propaganda than Haynau (vol. 10, p. 110).”

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_10

147

148

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

Marx and Engels believed that as long as the bourgeois press reported on the workers’ movement, regardless of position, it objectively became a powerful propaganda tool for workers. In 1872, in their discussion of Marx’s The Civil War in France, they contended that “the International found a very powerful means of propaganda in the bourgeois press and particularly in the leading English newspapers, which the Address forced to engage in the polemic kept going by the General Council’s replies (vol. 23, p. 80).” In 1980, the three-volume book Publication and Dissemination in World History published by the United States listed Marx as a famous propagandist and introduced him in detail but in fact, Marx and Engels had always regarded propaganda as a sacrifice that aided their research work. They described how their inevitable engagement in propaganda as part and parcel of their research work came into conflict with their own beliefs. According to Marx, “The worst thing about agitation of this kind is that one gets very BOTHERED as soon as one becomes involved in it (vol. 42, p. 49) […] It is time-consuming, distracting and, in the end, amounts to very little. Purely learned work is something totally different (vol. 39, p. 367).” After Marx’s death, the German Social Democratic Party invited Engels to move to Germany or Switzerland. However, Engels professed, “England has another great advantage. Since the demise of the International there has been no labour movement whatsoever here, save as an appendage to the bourgeoisie, the radicals and for the pursuit of limited aims within the capitalist system. Thus, only here does one have the peace one needs if one is to go on with one’s theoretical work. Everywhere else one would have had to take part in practical agitation and waste an enormous amount of time. As regards practical agitation, I should have achieved no more than anyone else; as regards theoretical work, I cannot yet see who could take the place of Marx and myself (vol. 47, pp. 16–17).” Scientific research is not the same as propaganda. Marx and Engels emphasized this to prevent the reduction of science to the level of propaganda. When the first volume of Das Kapital was published, Engels distinguished between Das Kapital and LaSalle’s agitation work, writing that “Lassalle was a practical agitator, and it could suffice to oppose him in practical agitation, in the daily press and at meetings. But here we have a systematic scientific theory, and here the daily press cannot help to decide, here only science can speak the last word (vol. 20, p. 215).” When the second volume of Das Kapital was published, Engels claimed that “The 2nd volume will cause great disappointment, being a purely scientific work with little in the way of agitation (vol. 47, p. 296).” It was only when speaking about the dissemination and discussion of scientific writings and activities that Marx understood it as a form of propaganda. For example, when he heard that some of the pamphlets recording his arguments with Proudhon had remained, he wrote to the depositary and said, “Everyday people keep asking me for the Anti-Proudhon. I could carry out some degree of propaganda amongst the best minds in the French emigration were I to have the few copies of my piece against Proudhon you were kind enough to promise me (vol. 44, p. 264).” Also, in his speech on the Russian version of Das Kapital, he saw this as “great propaganda in France—and in Russia,

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

149

where they know what value to place on Bakunin, and where my book on capital is just being published in Russian (vol. 44, p. 256).” Marx and Engels were cautious about turning scientific writing into propaganda pamphlets. The German Social Democrat, Johann Most, wrote a concise brochure for the first volume of Das Kapital, which Marx did not hesitate to spend a lot of effort in revising it sentence by sentence or even rewriting it in sections, before allowing publication. When some friends asked Engels to print the three chapters in The Anti-Durin Theory as a booklet, he asked himself the following questions, “How could what was in the first place a purely scientific work be suitable for that? What changes in form and content were required? (vol. 24, p. 457)” This was, after all, “not originally written for immediate popular propaganda (vol. 24, p. 457).” If you look at the original three chapters of The Anti-Dulin Theory, you will find that many new materials and popular explanations had been added as contents of the brochure. The purpose of propaganda and agitation for the working class, as Marx made it clear, was “to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e. the political power, of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against, and a hostile attitude towards, the policies of the ruling classes. Otherwise/it remains a plaything in their hands, as the September revolution in France showed, and as is also proved to a certain degree by the game that Messrs Gladstone et Co. still succeed in playing in England up to the present time (vol. 44, pp. 258–259).” Meanwhile, Engels believed that the working class had two of the most powerful means of action in the struggle: organization and propaganda. When organizational methods were still immature, propaganda became the only means of action. Like he wrote, “To refrain from fighting our enemies in the political arena would be to abandon one of the most powerful means of action, and particularly of organization and propaganda. Universal suffrage gives us an excellent means of action (vol. 22, p. 278).” In the 1840s, “true socialism” in Germany limited its activities to constitute a system in the study and disdain for propaganda. Marx and Engels criticized them for having “an exoteric literature as well; the very fact that it is concerned with social, exoteric relations means that it must carry on/some form of propaganda (vol. 5, pp. 456–457).” As Marx and Engels engaged in propaganda as theorists, they avoided the inevitable shortcomings of those who specialized in propaganda. This flaw, as Engels said, “would be madness for me to exchange my peaceful retreat here for some place where one would, have to take part in meetings and newspaper battles, which alone would be enough to blur, as it necessarily must, the clarity of one’s vision (vol. 47, p. 17).” Marx and Engels thus discussed the propaganda phenomenon with clear ideas at a relatively macro level so that they would have theoretical value.

150

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

10.1 The Theoretical “Pillars” and Social Foundations of Socialist Propaganda In their discourse on propaganda, Marx and Engels focused on two issues. First, be theoretically prepared for socialist propaganda. Second, consider the success of propaganda in conjunction with changes in certain social material conditions. Only by understanding their views on these two issues can people understand their entire discourse on propaganda. As propaganda requires, to a certain extent, the “sacrifice [of] theoretical interest to practical effectiveness (vol. 38, p. 27)”, the first job of those who are sober-minded in propaganda is to make theoretical preparations for it. This is as what Engels told Marx at the beginning of the German communist propaganda, “I spent three days in Cologne and marvelled at the tremendous propaganda we had put out there. Our people are very active, but the lack of adequate backing is greatly felt. Failing a few publications in which the principles are logically and historically developed out of past ways of thinking and past history, and as their necessary continuation, the whole thing will remain rather hazy and most people will be groping in the dark (vol. 38, p. 3) […] But what we need above all just now are a few larger works to provide an adequate handhold for the many who would like to improve their imperfect knowledge, but are unable to do so unassisted (vol. 38, p. 17).” In order to provide propaganda with a suitable ‘fulcrum’, Marx and Engels devoted a lot of energy to theoretical writing and managed to gain a reputation in the workers’ movement within a few years through extensive oral, letter, and newspaper exchanges. The Second Congress entrusted them with drafting the Communist Manifesto for the Alliance. This kind of theoretical work is extremely important for correct propaganda. Although some unscientific expressions have a certain sensation in propaganda, in the long run, the wider the spread, the greater the harm to the workers’ movement. For example, the concept of a “free people’s state” became a signup of the German Social Democratic Labor Party (Sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei (SDAP)) (Der Volksstaat), but Marx and Engels never used it. In fact, Engels pointed that “[t]his gives the measure of the value of the phrase “a free people’s state”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand (vol. 25, p. 268).” If agitation became a theory, the problem would become more serious. A popular phrase “Reine Reaktionäre Masse” appeared in the draft plan of the German Social Democratic Party in 1891. As Engels immediately pointed out, “By striking a shrill, discordant note, this propagandist phrase utterly destroys the harmony of the concise, rigorously formulated scientific propositions (vol. 49, p. 261) […]. But it should not be included in the programme where it would be utterly false and misleading (vol. 49, p. 262).” The phrase was deleted only because of Engels’ insistence. In the era of Marx and Engels, fanatical but simple propaganda encouraged more agitation than theoretical work of calmness, which is why they especially stressed the significance of scientific demonstration to propaganda. In 1874, the Russian youth

10.1 The Theoretical “Pillars” and Social Foundations …

151

Tkachev (Petp Tkaqev) fanatically staged a revolution by propaganda, going as far as to treat propaganda theory with contempt. Engels warned him that “if one wishes to engage in such propaganda and recruit like-minded comrades, mere rhetoric is no good; one must examine causes, and treat the matter theoretically, i.e., in the final analysis, scientifically (vol. 24, p. 34).” In order to defend the theory of scientific socialism, Marx and Engels did not hesitate to oppose the resolution of the Congress of the German Socialist Workers’ Party (Sozialistischen Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands, SAP). In 1877, the party congress decided to invite several people, who were termed by Marx to be “semi-educated louts and semi-informed literati (vol. 45, p. 242)”, to participate in the work of a periodical that was mainly the propaganda tool of the party. In response to this, Engels wrote, “Congress resolutions, however unexceptionable they may be in the field of practical agitation, count for nothing in that of science, nor do they suffice to establish a periodical’s scientific nature—something that cannot be decreed. A socialist scientific periodical without a quite definite scientific line is an absurdity (vol. 45, p. 249).” Marx fully supported his words, writing that “[y]our reply to the Berliners1 would be seasonable. The fellows must be made to feel that, if one is long-ENDURING, one is also capable of digging one’s heels in (vol. 45, p. 252).” At the time, Germany was under imperial rule and Bismarck’s dictatorship. Marx noticed “where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself (vol. 43, p. 134).” Therefore, the most essential problem that required preventive measure was, as he raised, the working class “should cease to agitate by permission of the high government authorities (vol. 43, p. 115).” Socialist propaganda can never be self-limited to the extent allowed by the government. This is one of the fundamental principles of Marx’s propaganda. Marx was firmly opposed to the vulgarization of scientific socialism in propaganda. In 1863, LaSalle published one of his pamphlets, the Worker Program (Arbeiterprogramm), after which Marx told Engels, “the thing’s no more nor less than a badly done vulgarisation of the Manifesto and of other things we have advocated so often that they have already become commonplace to a certain extent (vol. 41, p. 452).” In 1868, Marx once again criticized Lazar’s agitation, claiming that “like everyone who claims to have in his pocket a panacea for the sufferings of the masses, he [Lazar] gave his agitation, from the very start, a religious, sectarian character (vol. 43, p. 133).” Revolutionaries who had long seen propaganda as a profession often regarded propaganda as a purpose in itself, and indeed, propaganda had become a habit, one that neglected whether the theory of propaganda is correct. For example, the German socialist professional propagandist Jo Beckerwas described by Marx as someone “whose propagandist zeal at times runs away with his head, was pushed forward to the front of the stage (vol. 21, p. 114).” It was only with the constant help of Marx and Engels that he basically grasped the right direction of propaganda. So did Ernest Jones, a professional advocate for the British workers’ movement. As Marx said to Engels, “Jones is moving in quite the right direction and we may well say that, without our doctrine, he would not have taken the right path and would never

152

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

have discovered how, on the one hand, one can not only maintain the only possible basis for the reconstruction of the Chartist party—the instinctive class hatred of the workers for the industrial bourgeoisie—but also enlarge and develop it, so laying the foundations for enlightening propaganda, and how, on the other, one can still be progressive and resist the workers’ reactionary appetites and their prejudices (vol. 39, p. 68).” Taking scientific socialism as the theoretical basis for propaganda and maintaining and developing the class instinct of the working class was the primary mentality of Marx and Engels when they conducted socialist propaganda. However, they refused to acknowledge the power of propaganda and mocked those who believed in the effectiveness of propaganda. In 1886, some British socialists arranged for a group of hooligan proletarians to carry out a propaganda campaign that was accompanied by smashing and robbing. The impact of such a propaganda campaign was extremely bad. This revealed that the problem lay in the thoughts of the leaders, who had naively believed that propaganda could achieve their objectives simply and magically. Engels was extremely critical of such naiveté. He wrote, “To make a revolution— and that à propos de rien, when and where they liked—they thought nothing else was required but the paltry tricks sufficient to ’boss’ an agitation for any vile fad, packing meetings, lying in the press, and then, with five and twenty men seemed to back them up, appealing to the masses to ‘rise’ somehow, as best they might, against nobody in particular and everything in general, and trust to luck for the result (vol. 47, p. 404).” Regarding that, Marx also believed “that neither the declamation of the demagogues, nor the twaddle of the diplomats will drive matters to a crisis, but that there are approaching economical disasters and social convulsions which must be the sure forerunners of European revolution (vol. 12, p. 308).” Meanwhile, Engels pointed out, “whosoever, in short, has had his eyes open to the fact that there was never a demagogic appeal or insurgent proclamation, as revolutionary as the plain and simple records of the history of mankind (vol. 12, p. 34).” That is not to say that propaganda isn’t important. Propaganda is important, but the decisive factor for the success of propaganda is the social change caused by the economic structure. If the propaganda campaign is contrary to the entire social development process, it would be impossible to achieve its purpose even if it is accompanied by weapons. This is like what Engels wrote about the reactionary propaganda of the King of Prussia, “it is absolutely impossible to understand why Frederick William IV after 1848 could not succeed, in spite of his ‘magnificent army’, ingrafting/the mediaeval guilds and other romantic oddities on to the railways, the steam-engines and the large-scale industry which as just then developing in his country (vol. 25, pp. 170–171) […]. We can only ascribe sovereignty to the thought of each of these individuals in so far as we are not aware of any power which would be able to impose any idea forcibly on him, when he is of sound mind and wide awake (vol. 25, p. 80).” This view is embedded in all their discourses on propaganda. Marx and Engels also found that social crises were often opportunities for political propaganda. In 1873, Marx, said of American socialist propaganda, “In the United States our propaganda has been much accelerated by the crisis. It has acted as our

10.1 The Theoretical “Pillars” and Social Foundations …

153

recruiting officer (vol. 44, p. 551).” When people’s lives are relatively stable, the role of political propaganda becomes very small. For example, the promotion of the Grain Preservation Law in Britain in 1850. Marx and Engels said, “In these conditions the protectionists continue to agitate in the farming districts for restoration of the duty on corn, although less explicitly, more covertly than before. It is obvious that their agitation will have no significance at all as long as industrial prosperity and the relatively more tolerable situation of the farm workers last. However as soon as the crisis breaks out and has repercussions on the farming districts, the depression in agriculture will rouse feelings in the countryside to an unusually high degree (vol. 10, p. 503).” The above is a type of propaganda formed by external pressure, and it is also one of the prerequisites for a successful propaganda campaign. From an opposite perspective, Marx drew an example: in 1852, Britain was in a period of prosperity in the cycle of capitalism, and political agitation was not severe. He analyzed the situation as such: “The mass of the people is fully employed and more or less well off—always deducting the paupers inseparable from British prosperity; it is therefore not at present a very malleable material for political agitation (vol. 11, p. 365) […]. It leaves to its politicians ex professo the task of watching the Tories. But the politicians ex professo (compare, for instance, Joseph Hume’s letter to The Hull Advertiser) complain justly that, deprived of pressure from without, they can agitate as little as the human frame could react without the pressure of the atmosphere (vol. 11, p. 365).” Years of propaganda research had enabled Marx and Engels to understand how socialist propaganda operated. They determined the propaganda method according to environmental conditions, grasped the propaganda opportunity, and attached importance to promoting propaganda with facts (events). In 1875, Engels had a discussion on the propaganda method with the Russian democrat Petp Lavpov. He said, “Every one of us is more or less swayed by the intellectual medium in which he predominantly moves. For Russia, where you are better acquainted with your public than I am, and for a propagandist journal which appeals to the sviazujušˇcij affect —the moral sense—your method is probably the better one. For Germany, where false sentimentality has wrought and still wreaks such untold havoc, it would not be suitable, since it would be misunderstood and a sentimental twist put upon it. In our case, hatred is needed rather than love—at any rate to start off with—and, above all, the abandonment of all remnants of German idealism, the placing of material facts in the historical context that is theirs by right (vol. 45, p. 107).” At the same time, Engels also understood other people’s equally well-founded propaganda methods. When someone accused the Austrian workers of propagating Oberwind based on German propaganda methods, Engels defended Austria’s environmental conditions, stating that “in Austria feudalism has only partly been overcome, the masses are still incredibly stupid and conditions are still about the same as those in Germany before 1848, we naturally do not take it amiss that Oberwinder does not immediately demand the moon with the maximum of radical hullaballoo,

154

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

but instead pursues the policies we advocated at the end of the Communist Manifesto as being appropriate for Germany at the time (vol. 44, p. 491).” Propaganda may directly create a situation for its own use. However, it works better if the propagator makes use of existing situations or events and times his campaign. In 1857, Marx criticized British Finance Minister Benjamin Disraeli for his unsuccessful speech. In addition to being boring, an important reason was that Disraeli’s speech did not grasp the timing of propaganda and was completely inconsistent with the environmental conditions. According to Marx, “This curious impartiality of his speech as to the place where, and the time when, and the occasion on which it was delivered, goes far to prove that it fitted neither place, time, nor occasion (vol. 15, p. 310).” Marx was engaged in propaganda and paid great attention to the choice in timing and specific environmental conditions. The French-Prussian War broke out in 1870. Since he had spent many years researching the international situation, Marx immediately realized that it was the perfect time for political propaganda. He said, “The relations which will come in its wake are the best propaganda for our principles (vol. 44, p. 92).” He resolutely put aside his research work and co-authored with Engels two international workers’ association declarations on war. This earned the association a reputation. Marx and Engels attached great importance to the use of facts (events) in the promotion of socialist propaganda. Engels told Adolph Sorge, leader of the American Workers’ Movement, “The movement over there, just like the one in this country and now, too, in the mining districts of Germany, cannot be produced by exhortation alone. It’s the facts themselves that will have to bring all this home to the chaps, after which, however, things will move fast—fastest, of course, where an organised and theoretically educated section of the proletariat already exists, as in Germany (vol. 48, p. 447).” This is because he believed that “it was not sufficient to produce in the reader the incontestable certainty which can only be given by striking, irrefutable facts, and which, especially in an age in which we are obliged by the infinite ‘wisdom of the fathers’ to be skeptical, can never be generated by mere reasoning, no matter how good the authorities (vol. 4, p. 584).” The best propaganda campaign is always based on recent events that are important to the public. Marx grasped this point very well. In 1866, he assisted the International Workers’ Association in a successful propaganda campaign and summarized his experience as such: “The propaganda in London has taken a new start, principally due to the circumstance that the successful strikes of the London tailors and wireworkers were due to our intervention which prevented the import of workingmen from France, Switzerland, Belgium, which had been contemplated by the masters. This proof of its immediate practical importance has struck the practical English mind (vol. 42, pp. 271–272).” Turning persecution as an opportunity for propaganda was a propaganda experience summarized by Engels. When the British Owens carried out socialist propaganda in the 1840s, they took full advantage of every persecution of socialists that happened to carry out a larger-scale propaganda campaign. About this, Engels explained, “the authorities would very much like to attack prominent individuals,

10.1 The Theoretical “Pillars” and Social Foundations …

155

but they know that this would only redound to the advantage of the Socialists by drawing public attention to them, which is what the Socialists want. If they were to become martyrs for their cause (and how many of them would be ready for that at any time), it would give rise to agitation. But agitation is a means of making their cause still more widely known, whereas at present a large part of the nation takes no notice of them, regarding them as a sect like any other. The Whigs knew very well that repressive measures have a stronger effect in favour of a cause than agitation for the cause itself, and hence they gave the Communists an opportunity to exist and take form (vol. 3, p. 388).” As the communications secretary of the International Workers’ Association, Engels is good at turning the persecutions into a new propelling force. In 1871, after learning about the persecution of members of Italian associations, he wrote to a comrade there saying that he was “pleased to hear that you and other friends do not fear the persecutions but welcome them as the best means of propaganda. This is my opinion and it seems we are destined to have an abundance of such persecutions (vol. 44, p. 171).” Modern propaganda, first of all, requires historical opportunities, favorable facts (events), and the general exchanges brought about by the development of productive forces. It also requires the propaganda’s theoretical literacy and propaganda talents, as well as their extensive interaction with the propaganda objects. Marx’s idea of socialist propaganda aligned this thinking, that is, “He fell into Proudhon’s mistake of not seeking the real basis of his agitation in the actual elements of the class movement, but of wishing, instead, to prescribe for that movement a course determined by a certain doctrinaire recipe (vol. 43, p. 133).”

10.2 Propagators and Media The nature of propaganda is persuasion. The quality of the propaganda during the persuasion process has a decisive influence on the effectiveness of the propaganda campaign. Marx and Engels made various demands on propaganda. In 1847, when Engels criticized the activism of German radical political commentator Ka Heinzen, he made four comprehensive demands on his behalf and Marx: Herr Heinzen may have the best will in the world, he may be the most steadfast man in his convictions in the whole of Europe. We also know that he is personally a man of honour and has courage and endurance. But all that does not make him a party writer. To be that, one requires more than convictions, good will and a stentorian voice, to be that, one requires a little more intelligence, a little more lucidity, a better style and more knowledge than Herr Heinzen possesses and, as long experience has proved, than he is capable of acquiring. (vol.6, p.297)

Although one’s beliefs and aspirations are the basis of his propaganda, these alone cannot make the person a propagandist. By criticizing Heinzen, Engels put forward four requirements for propagandists: wisdom, thought, style, and knowledge.

156

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

The propagator is the controller in the propaganda campaign, and the content and method of the propaganda must be adjusted according to the response of the propaganda object. Therefore, propaganda needs wisdom. In this regard, Engels quoted the Bible and wrote, “In the words of our old friend Jesus Christ, we must be innocent as doves and wise as serpents (vol. 42, p. 467).” Whether the propagandist’s thinking is lucid and his judgment is proper also contributes to the quality of his propaganda. Engels criticized Heinzen because his agitation lacked a clear “reasonable” process. The leaflet he wrote called for an immediate uprising, but he couldn’t even figure out why he wanted it, how to do it, and what to do after the uprising. According to Engels, “Herr Heinzen calls for an immediate insurrection. He has leaflets printed to this effect and attempts to distribute them in Germany. We would ask whether blindly lashing out with such senseless propaganda is not injurious in the highest degree to the interests of German democracy. We would ask whether experience has not proved how useless it is. Whether, at a time of far greater unrest, in the thirties, hundreds of thousands of such leaflets, pamphlets, etc., were not distributed in Germany and whether a single one of them had any success whatever. We would ask whether any person who is in his right mind at all can imagine that the people will pay any attention whatever to political sermonising and exhortations of this kind. We would ask whether Herr Heinzen has ever done anything else in his leaflets except exhort and sermonise. We would ask whether it is not positively ridiculous to trumpet calls for revolution out into the world in this way, without sense or understanding, without knowledge or consideration of circumstances (vol. 6, p. 294).” In another situation, the propagandist may ramble on, perhaps without knowing what purpose he wants to achieve. This, too, is a manifestation of a lack of lucidity. For example, the British Prime Minister George Aberdeen was evaluated by Marx in 1853 to be one such unsuccessful propagandist. He wrote, “Borne along by the power of fluency, that fatal gift of third-rate orators, the Democratic lord cannot stop, till he arrives, from the despots of the Continent, to his native monarch, ‘who rules in the hearts of her subjects’ (vol.12, p.272) […]. He made an alternative speech (vol. 12, p. 273).” The propagandist itself is one of the sources that fully reflects the style and characteristics of the propaganda. Like what Marx claimed, “You do not demand that the rose should smell like the violet, but must the greatest riches of all, the spirit, exist in only one variety? (vol. 1, p. 112) […]. Every drop of dew on which the sun shines glistens with an inexhaustible play of colours (vol. 1, p. 112).” The style and characteristics of each propagandist are different. Being good at expressing their own styles is one of the factors that guarantee the success of propaganda. Sacrifice your own style to adapt to another, for any reason, makes it difficult to succeed. In this regard, Marx once criticized the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Disraeli in 1857. According to him, “An orator who, like Mr. Disraeli, excels in handling the dagger rather than in wielding the sword, should have been the last to forget Voltaire’s warning, that ‘Tous les genres sont bons excepté le genre ennuyeux’ (vol. 15, p. 309) […]. For some time, Mr. Disraeli affects an awful solemnity of speech (vol. 15, p. 309).”

10.2 Propagators and Media

157

Expressing your own style is by no means a form of flaunting. In 1868, Marx had severely criticized the British radical politician Bradlow for his self-propaganda, saying that “With regard to Bradlaugh, he had boasted in too Lassallean a manner. At the last Sunday meeting of his congregation in Cleaveland Hall, there was displayed a placard to this effect: FAREWELL TO THE GREAT ICONOCLAST, THE PEOPLES REDEEMER. LONG LlVE TO MR BRADLAUGH, THE DREAD NAUGHT OF ST STEPHEN’S! (vol. 43, p. 162)” Engels called this type of advertising language. Once, a comrade in the party wrote an article calling Engels “the oldest and greatest of the living political economists (vol. 49, p. 626)”, to which Engels responded, “To apply that epithet to me was really very silly. You would be doing a kindness to me and certainly to others as well, if you pointed out to him, at any rate for his future guidance, that he must accustom himself to our less grandiose terminology, failing which you will have to correct his stuff accordingly (vol. 49, p. 416).” In this way, apart from keeping his own dignity intact, Engels also kept intact, to a large extent, the party’s propaganda style and propaganda effect. Propaganda is also not self-appreciation. As such, the expression of style must also take into account the propaganda object. For example, in a speech, if the speaker appreciates himself, he may be mocked by the audience. In 1853, the speech of British MP Dudley Stewart was considered a failure. Marx commented at that time that “Lord Dudley Stuart indulged in one of his habitual goodnatured Democratic declamations, which are certainly more gratifying to the man who spouts them than to anybody else. If you compress inflated balloons or blown up phrases, there remains nothing in your hands, not even the wind that made them appear like something (vol. 12, p. 272).” No matter what form the propagandist uses to propagate, the amount and depth of the knowledge he provides will affect the effectiveness of the propaganda. Common sense errors in propaganda may have adverse effects on the campaign. In 1848, Ritz, a Prussian parliamentarian, delivered an emotional speech in parliament without any knowledge of representativeness, so the entire speech became a joke. His speech became news material for The New Rhine newspaper, which not only published the main content of Ritz’s speech but also made many snide comments. Regarding this, Engels wrote, “What is one to say to this Regierungsrat of sterling worth, to this personification of red tape who has no guile! He is like that provincial character in Cham’s little cartoon who, upon arriving in Paris after the February revolution, sees posters with the inscription “République française” and runs to the Public ProsecutorGeneral to denounce these agitators against the royal Government. That man had slept through the entire period (vol. 7, p. 58).” If a propaganda is regarded as a collective, then the advantages of the propagandist depend on all the members of the organizational system and the degree of consistency in their actions. In general, disorganized systems are not as effective as organized systems whose actions are consistent in terms of publicity and the speed of propagation. In his later years, Engels’s German Social Democratic Party achieved great success in their propaganda campaign because of their unity and efficiency. Engels proudly commented, “Our organisation is perfect—the admiration and despair of/our

158

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

opponents. It has made perfect to the Socialist laws of Bismarck, which were very like your coercion laws for Ireland. Then, again, our military training and discipline is invaluable. The whole of the 240,000 electors of Hamburg received our election addresses and literature in a quarter of an hour. In fact, last year the government of that town appealed to us to help it in sending round instructions as how to deal with cholera (vol. 27, pp. 552–553).” Marx and Engels made various demands of the propagandist but, in fact, they were shaping the propaganda into an intercourse media. They acknowledged that the propagandist himself is the most important media. His image, style, and expression directly affect the effect of the propaganda campaign. Marx’s requirement of the propagandist was “if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people (vol. 3, p. 326).” Such propagandists have the character and firm will to adapt to the propaganda work. He also has a profound way of understanding problems and the ability to solve problems that arise from the actual situation. In 1871, when someone asked Marx and Engels whether John Hales or Mottershead was more suitable as the general secretary of the International Workers’ Association, they responded by taking into consideration the personality requirement of a good propagandist. They said, “We think [Hales], on the whole, preferable to Mottershead whose temper does not perhaps fit him so well for successful agitation among the London masses and that ought to be the principal occupation of the Secretary (vol. 44, p. 147).” Similarly, it doesn’t matter what kind of propaganda medium the propagandist uses to propagate. In the early days of communist propaganda, propaganda and small group activities were united: two or three people gathered together, leaders of various small groups maintained organizational links, carried out some secret activities, caused impact, and so on. Engels termed this as “cliquish agitation (vol. 43, p. 191).” By the time Marx and Engels engaged in scientific socialist propaganda, the workers’ movement had expanded. They advocate the use of open and widely disseminated media wherever possible. In the early days, they mainly used three propaganda methods: oral (interpersonal communication), letters and newspapers. After the workers’ movement expanded into a large organization conducting public activities, the propaganda methods they used became newspapers, assemblies, and parliamentary activities. When socialist propaganda entered a period of organization scale, Engels advocated the abandonment of early primitive media. He wrote, “there was one thing the good soul Becker forgot: that the entire organisation of the International was too big for such methods and purposes (vol. 44, p. 371).” In terms of dissemination of ideas or organizational reputation, the most effective media at the time were newspapers, especially daily newspapers. Engels has repeatedly warned the leaders of the French Workers’ Party that “the comparative weakness (supposing it exists, which I am very much inclined to doubt—the Possibilists did not dare attend the Roanne people’s conférence contradictoire on the two congresses), the comparative weakness where organisations in Paris are concerned would be outweighed two or three times over by journalistic influence (vol. 46, p. 389).”

10.2 Propagators and Media

159

According to the experience of The New Rhine, Engels believed that the daily newspaper is a truly powerful modern propaganda medium. He proudly said after learning that the French Workers’ Party had a daily newspaper, “Our chaps have a very considerable lever in the shape of the daily Égalité and, moreover, are all of them devoted to the cause, something which cannot be said of those intriguers, Malon and Brousse (vol. 46, p. 407).” If the propaganda target was low-educational workers with limited economic income, the direct and effective propaganda medium at that time was street posters. This type of propaganda was widely used in the workers’ movement in the middle of the nineteenth century. Marx had reported the situation of British charter posters. Meanwhile, Engels made the following demonstrations on the propaganda function of the posters: “what is more conducive to keeping alive revolutionary fervour among the workers than posters, which convert every street corner into a huge newspaper in which workers who pass by find the events of the day noted and commented on, the various views described and discussed, and where at the same time they meet people of all classes and opinions with whom they can discuss the contents of the posters; in short, where they have simultaneously a newspaper and a club, and all that without costing them a penny! (vol. 9, p. 326).” The New Rhein had fought stubbornly to defend the right to post and read posters. Engels said, “It was not a matter of glossing over the right of agitation by means of posters, but frankly to champion that right (vol. 9, p. 324).” People with a certain level of education needed more detailed arguments. At that time, the most suitable media was magazine. Engels believed that “that is surely the most effective form of literary propaganda (vol. 24, p. 34).” For larger parties, the party’s activities in parliament became a new and more effective media for propaganda as it could directly affect the ruling party. Engels described the huge role of parliament as a propaganda medium, using the German Social Democratic Labour Party as an example. He wrote, “In Germany, the workers, strongly organised as a political party, have succeeded in sending six deputies to the self-styled national assembly; and the opposition which our friends Bebel and Liebknecht have been also able to put up against the war of conquest has had a more powerful effect on behalf of our international propaganda than years of propaganda by the press and by meetings would have had (vol. 22, p. 278).” In mass gatherings or in parliaments of representative countries, speech is a direct form of propaganda, and both Marx and Engels made full use of it. Marx’s speech on free trade, on labor and capital, and Engels’ speech on communism have so far made people feel a strong sense of on-site agitation. What kind of speech is successful? Marx considered Robert Blum’s speech successful. Blum was a parliamentarian who was martyred in the German Revolution of 1848. According to Marx, “As a speaker, he [Blum] was plausible, rather theatrical, and very popular (vol. 18, p. 82).” Engels, on the other hand, spoke of Joseph Arch, the leader of British agricultural workers. According to Engels, because of Arch’s “initiative and for the quality of his public speaking”, he was “now famous throughout Britain (vol. 24, p. 181).” He went on to profess that “he [Arch] is a real tribune, somewhat unrefined, but powerful in his lack of refinement (vol. 24, p. 181).” Speech, as a propaganda method, does not

160

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

have a uniform and effective standard in expression. It is the propagandist’s problem to find out the style that would attract the attention of the propaganda object. If we were to classify propaganda media into a few basic types, the two basic categories would be nothing more than oral (including images) and written text. When engaged in propaganda work, Marx and Engels paid great attention to using these two types of media according to different situations so as to achieve a better effect of propaganda. Marx wrote that “[o]ne must on no account confuse the speeches as they are presented in the newspapers with the speeches as they are delivered (vol. 13, pp. 605–606).” In Engels’ words, “What is in place and normal on the platform and in verbal debate can look pretty awful in print (vol. 46, p. 447).” What is seen in the text, even if it becomes a speech, is different from the actual speech’s effect on the senses of the propaganda object. The former takes a visual object and transforms it into a kind of mental acceptance or rejection through the audience’s sense of sight; the latter is affected to a certain extent by a direct sensation and is thus accepted or rejected through experiencing its environment. Therefore, the impact of the former is relatively slow and long-lasting, while the impact of the latter may be immediate but unstable. Engels shared his own experience, “Incidentally, standing up in front of real, live people and holding forth to them directly and straightforwardly, so that they see and hear you is something quite different from engaging in this devilishly abstract quillpushing with an abstract audience in one’s ‘mind’s eye’ (vol. 38, p. 23).” In other words, oral media is more effective in terms of the direct effects of propaganda. As Engels once said, “A single speech would be of more help than ten articles or a hundred visits (vol. 38, p. 144) […]. And this was because more can be achieved, and understanding can more easily be reached, in a few hours of oral consultation than by years of correspondence (vol. 8, p. 207).” Under certain conditions, the effect of spreading information through images is more direct than words. When discussing scientific socialist propaganda from a macro perspective, Marx emphasized the use of all possible forms of propaganda media. He once said on behalf of the International Workers’ Association, “it has been doing all in its power to promote its great principles and to unite the workers of all countries (vol. 20, p. 399).” In this sense, the only technical requirement for choosing a propaganda medium can be expressed in one sentence from Voltaire, whom Marx quoted twice, “Tous les genres sont bons excepté le genre ennuyeux (vol. 15, p. 309).”

10.3 Object of Propaganda Understanding and identifying the propaganda object is just as important as choosing the propagandist and the media. It constitutes the other end of the overall propaganda behavior. Marx and Engels set targets for scientific socialist propaganda with an emphasis on those who had not yet become involved in the movement. In 1859, when

10.3 Object of Propaganda

161

a new capitalist economic crisis was forthcoming, Marx carried out socialist propaganda and wrote, “the fermentation process has begun and now it’s up to everyone to do what he can. It is now advisable to infiltrate poison, no matter where. Should we confine ourselves to writing for papers which on the whole share our viewpoint, we’d have to postpone all journalistic activity indefinitely. And should one really allow socalled ‘PUBLIC OPINION’ to have nothing but counter-revolutionary stuff pumped into it? (vol. 40, p. 409).” In 1873, Engels further articulated this propaganda strategy, claiming that “[o]ur view, which we have found confirmed by long practice, is that the correct tactics in propaganda are not to entice away a few individuals and memberships here and there from one’s opponent, but to work on the great mass, which is as yet uninvolved (vol. 44, p. 511).” This propaganda strategy focused the propaganda on the widest possible audience, which is why they paid special attention to studying the propaganda object under various environmental conditions. In 1852, while Marx was preparing to write for the American weekly “Revolution”, he was distressed because he did not understand the propaganda object. He told the editor-in-chief, Joseph Weydemeyer, that”you [Weydemeyer] will realise, mon cher, how difficult it is to contribute to a paper on the other side of the ocean without any knowledge of its readers (vol. 39, p. 41).” Meanwhile, when Engels was about to write a book review of Das Kapital for a newspaper sponsored by Professor Lichter of Austria in 1868, he was also anxious because he did not understand the propaganda object. He told Marx that “[a]part from the Neue Freie Presse and Wiener Tagblatt, I do not know by name any paper in which Richter has a hand; owing to almost complete ignorance of the audience I have no idea where to begin, and this is the most important point. Laura writes that to instruct people is all very well but to pick out the right point is the real difficulty (vol. 42, pp. 525–526).” Although propaganda is mainly a one-way communication, since it is a kind of spiritual communication, there still exists a potential two-way communication between the propagandists and the propaganda objects. The level and level of the propaganda object, the class, and attitude, the interests and characteristics of communication, always affect the propagator as a perceived tangible object. Marx and Engels were clearly aware of this, which explained why they would feel distressed and anxious when they did not understand the propaganda object. Once they became familiar with the audience, they did a great job. They were good at writing articles that suited their purposes and catered to the different tastes of their propaganda objects. For example, when writing to American readers, as Americans have outstanding personality characteristics and a shallow cultural foundation, Engels told Marx that “if you choose to name only Lupus, there’s no longer any moral responsibility, and his Silesian tirades à la Luther, which are very well suited to the German Americans—better than your style, which compels them to think—can be given free rein. In/any case you must make a point of writing as badly and as décousu as possible, otherwise you’d soon be in hot water with your readers (vol. 38, pp. 400–401).” In response, Marx told Engels to “[w]rite a series of articles on Germany, from 1848 onwards, Witty and uninhibited. The gentlemen of the foreign department are exceedingly uppish (vol. 38, p. 425).”

162

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

Now that they understand the propaganda target, Engels wrote The New York Tribune’s first newsletter for Marx. That article caused a sensational reaction. Marx was pleased and declared, “You [Engels] hit just the right note for the Tribune (vol. 38, p. 436).” In much the same way, Marx’s original newsletter on the British budget caused such a sensation that the Tribune editor said, “We have seen nowhere an abler criticism on the budget or on its author, and do not expect to see one (vol. 12, p. 645).” Once he fully understood the propaganda objects and “expounded its ideas before the English-American public (vol. 39, p. 293)”, Marx was tremendously proud of his successful work in propaganda. He proudly declared, “for 8 weeks past, Marx-Engels have virtually constituted the EDITORIAL STAFF of the Tribune (vol. 39, p. 404).” In various German socialism campaigns in the 1840s, there were many empty propaganda campaigns that were not clear as the propagandists did not understand the propaganda audience. As Marx and Engels repeatedly claimed, “we had already been spoilt for the role of preachers in the wilderness; we had studied the Utopians too well for that, nor was it for that we had drafted our programme (vol. 26, p. 122).” This metaphor criticizes this type of propaganda and avoids putting its own propaganda in this situation. For example, the young Hegelian Max Stirner wrote a leaflet in the form of a dialogue between farmers and landlords, in which the farmers spoke about the content of high-level spiritual enjoyment in big cities. They mockingly said, “A real sensation is caused by the surprising discourse of the labourers about literature, the latest art exhibition and the fashionable dancer of the day, surprising even after the unexpected question of the landowner about art and science (vol. 5, p. 387).” Satisfying the interests of a certain range of propaganda objects is one of the conditions for successful propaganda. Before writing for the Austrian “Die Presse”, Marx first understood its readers’ interests and pointed out, “It seems to me that just now there is widespread ignorance, especially about French financial affairs and French economic conditions in general. The question is whether the subject will be of sufficient interest to the Presse, or RATHER, to its readers (vol. 40, p. 269).” In 1894, when Paul Lafargue, the leader of the French Workers ‘Party, wanted to translate Engels’s article on Christianity into French, Engels questioned the readers’ interests and pointed out ways that might interest the French. He asked, “Many thanks for your offer to translate my Urchristentm; but do you really think that theological subject-especially II and III-attractive enough for French readers? I have my very strong misgivings. The I article might perhaps pass: les Internationaux sous l’empire des césars or something like it—however that I leave entirely to you (vol. 50, p. 361).” Generally speaking, to promote the newspaper, the reader must first meet the requirements of receiving the news. The New Rhine, as the tool of German democrats in the 1848 revolution, was fully prepared for this. The first five issues published the same paragraph in bold on the front page every day: Our readers will therefore have to bear with us if during the first days we cannot offer the abundant variety of news and reports that our widespread connections should enable us to do. In a few days we shall be able to satisfy all requirements in this respect too (vol.7, p.15).

For propaganda audiences of a lower class, the effect would be better if examples or visualization are used. In this regard, Engels considered more. In 1845, during

10.3 Object of Propaganda

163

communist propaganda in his hometown, he told Marx, “it would be a good idea if the poetical Ein Handwerker would oblige by sending us material on misère in Paris. Particularly individual cases, exactly what’s needed to prepare the philistine for communism (vol. 38, p. 16).” After the publication of the first volume of Marx’s Das Kapital, the Hungarian writer, Karl Kertbény, proposed to publish Marx’s photos on the German Illustrirte Zeitung, whose main audience was German commoners. Engels told Marx, “Kertbény’s idea of having your portrait in the Leipzig Illustrirte is quite splendid. This sort of advertisement penetrates right into the depths of the philistine’s heart. Give him everything he needs for this (vol. 42, p. 533).” Although this was never carried out, it nevertheless reflected Engels’s understanding and adaptation of the characteristics of the propaganda object. In order to influence the masses, propagandists need to adapt their principles to the target of the propaganda. Under certain conditions, some prejudices of the propaganda object can be catered to accordingly. This situation often occurs, especially in propaganda that is targeted at the general public. In 1846, Marx and Engels affirmed early utopian communism propaganda, stating that “the systems themselves they nearly all appeared in the early days of the communist movement and had at that time propaganda value as popular novels, which corresponded perfectly to the still undeveloped consciousness of the proletarians, who were then just beginning to play an active part (vol. 5, p. 461).” In 1885, Engels also described this situation when reviewing the role of previous revolutionary poetry. He wrote, “if it is to influence the masses, it must reflect the mass prejudices of the day—hence the religious nonsense found even in the Chartists (vol. 47, p. 287).” However, the decision to cater to the object of propaganda must still stick by one’s principles. A participant of the German Revolution in 1848, Gottfried Kinkel, ran a small periodical called Hermann after the failure of the revolution. The periodical conformed too much to the readers’ taste and this was something Engels could not tolerate. He declared critically, “It’s a long time since I’ve read rubbish as insipid, namby-pamby, tail-wagging, lavish of compliments, conciliatory, propitiatory and atrociously written as is found in this, the latest product of the pseudo-noble sometime Maikäfer which, to judge by its style and content, is aimed solely at and tailored to the tastes of the Cambeiwell philistines and the German ditto in the City. The man has even forgotten what little he managed to pick up in 1848 and has become a real bourgeois windbag (vol. 40, p. 370).” In the process of propaganda, when faced with the conflict between adhering to one’s principles and catering to the recipient, it is necessary to consider the advantages and disadvantages before making a decision. Take for example, when Engels published Marx’s earlier treatise on Ueber P.J. Proudhon in 1884, he said, “what will the French public say to the rather unceremonious manner in which Mohr speaks of them? And will it be wise to have this true and impartial judgment at the risk that the Brousses say: voilà le Prussien? Anyhow, I should be very loth to soften the article down to suit le gout parisien but it is worth considering (vol. 47, p. 107).” Clearly, principles were more important to Engels than to cater to the audience. This is completely consistent with Marx’s thinking many years ago. At that time,

164

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

he wrote for the Viennese News and while doing so, he observed the readers very closely. When talking about the purpose of doing so, he said, “one has to find out from the actual paper how, not what, one should write for the Viennese public (vol. 40, p. 409).” What is written in the principle, that is certain. The problem is how to write more suitably for a certain propaganda audience. It is not a bad thing for the propagandist to cater to readers’ taste in principle. After a certain period of communication, the propaganda object will adapt to the style of the propagandist, and the propagandist will understand the propaganda object more. After the revolutionary propaganda of 1848–1849, Marx noticed that the German public was shifting from experiencing in general to theoretical thinking. According to his observations, “after its recent cheering experience of haute politique, the German public will by and by find itself obliged to turn its urgent attention to the real content of present-day struggles (vol. 38, p. 252).” Engels, on his part, also wrote that “[s]ix months’ intercourse with working people would have prepared a public and taught the writers how to write for it (vol. 47, p. 105).” From this perspective, propaganda is a kind of intercourse that is not purely one way. As the propagandist is in an active position in the propaganda process, in addition to understanding the propaganda objects and adapting to their needs so as to achieve effective propaganda purposes, they must also be respected. This is a prerequisite of scientific socialist propaganda. The propaganda process should be as outlined by Engels: we place a scientific remedy before them, and as they can all read and think for themselves, they soon come round and join our ranks (vol. 27, p. 552). Engels once harshly criticized the propaganda object. On one occasion, he read a propaganda pamphlet written by the former Paris Commune member, Eugène Protol, pointing out angrily that “[i]f he has a strong point, it is the royal disdain which he pours out on his readers. Indeed, one must assume that one’s readers are incurable idiots in order to dare to offer them such a collection of palpable falsehoods (in which you see only snippets) and lies contradicting one another (vol. 50, p. 16).” Engels especially could not tolerate treating the working masses as mere propaganda objects. In this regard, he criticized the democrats in the Southern German Uprising of 1849, writing that “[t]he exploitation of the workers is a traditional affair, too familiar for our official ‘democrats’ to consider the workers as anything else than raw material for agitation, for exploiting, for causing trouble, as anything but cannon-fodder. Our “democrats” are far too ignorant and bourgeois to comprehend the revolutionary position of the proletariat, the future of the working class (vol. 10, p. 225).” Within the working class, Marx and Engels did not allow the propagandists to see themselves as privileged ideologists and did not allow propaganda objects to be treated as gangsters fooled by witch-doctors. They criticized the Bakunin sects for practicing a certain type of propaganda and claimed that “all Bakunin needs is a secret organisation of one hundred people, the privileged representatives of the revolutionary idea, the general staff in the background, self-appointed and commanded by the permanent ‘Citizen B’. Unity of thought and action means nothing but orthodoxy and blind obedience. Perinde ac cadaver (vol. 23, p. 470).” They also pointed

10.3 Object of Propaganda

165

out, “To them [the Bakunins], the working class is so much raw material, a chaos into which they must breathe their Holy Spirit before it acquires a shape (vol. 23, p. 114).” This type of absolute indoctrination is effective under certain conditions. It once gave Bakuninism some semblance of power in many places, but after a long time, the workers realized that they were being fooled and left of their own accord. About this, Engels wrote, “Against the rational means of agitation which experience has shown to be effective in all other countries, the cliquishness of the Bakuninist quacks will quickly reveal its impotence, and in the South of the country too the Italian proletariat will throw off the yoke imposed by people who derive their mission to lead the workers’ movement from their position as down-and-out bourgeois (vol. 24, p. 178).” Respecting the propaganda object is one of the main points of wise propaganda.

10.4 Methods and Effects of Propaganda Marx and Engels particularly valued the accuracy of the propaganda content. They also paid attention to the use of appropriate propaganda methods, were good at learning the successful experience of the enemy and their allies, as well as demanded that propagandists abandon the method of fooling the audiences. Some propagandists used unscrupulous means in order to achieve the propaganda effect that they desired while others, being confident in their own beliefs, chose to abandon effective methods that had been tried and proven. All of these had been criticized by Marx and Engels, especially that which had been overly simplified. As scientific socialism grew up struggling against other socialist trends of thought and anti-socialist prejudices, a kind of ‘enemy sentiment’ consciousness often existed, giving rise to a rigid propaganda method. Engels believed that this approach essentially obeyed the rules of the opponent. He understood it as “white because my adversary says: black, is simply subir la loi de son adversaire, et une politique de bébés (vol. 46, p. 441).” The way of understanding things as either white or black simplified propaganda methods, often causing damage to the propaganda campaign itself. For example, William Liebknecht, editor-in-chief of the German Social Democratic Party Newspaper, thought that the French Republican leader, Gambetta, would be an ally of socialism. Consequently, the situation became as Marx wrote, “he [Liebknecht] takes all the phrases of someone like Gambetta and his consorts at their face value and so constantly deceives his readers on matters of fact in just the same way as the French are entertained with false news by their governors (vol. 44, p. 90).” In 1892, Charles Bonerius, a French socialist residing in the UK, misunderstood the German Social Democratic leader Otto Bebel because of this type of ‘either white-and-black’ cognition. Bebel was thus regarded as an enemy. Engels’ analysis of that situation was as such: I know him to be quite incapable—with the best will the world —of expressing other people’s ideas and words without putting in his own.

166

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

He can’t help it; like Liebknecht, he only knows two shades, black and white; he either loves or hates; and as he cannot love Bebel, he needs must hate him (vol. 50, p. 56). In actual propaganda, the relationship between the enemy, myself, and friends, and the constraints of the environmental conditions are very complicated. Dealing with such relationships requires experience and a profound analytical ability. Additionally, one also must understand that things cannot remain in a ‘black and white’ dimension forever. In response, Marx asked that the propagandists possess nuanced personalities and become experienced and skilled people. He claimed that “[t]he novice in politics just as the novice in natural science resembles that painter who knows only two colours, white and black, or, if you prefer, black-white and red. The finer differences within each espèce reveal themselves only to the skilled and experienced eye (vol. 7, p. 488).” Propaganda requires a certain level of ‘hustle and bustle’ to create a certain atmosphere in a certain environment, but at a moderate level. However, because socialist propaganda was generally at a disadvantage in the nineteenth century, propagandists inadvertently prioritized the form of ‘hustle and bustle’ over its content. This was out of a desire to achieve their ideals and gain psychological satisfaction. This was also a simplistic way of propaganda, one that often yielded poor results. Earl Jones, the late leader of the British Workers’ Charter, was one such professional propagandist. Marx once said critically of him, “There is no denying the extent of Jones’ energy, persistence and activity, yet he goes and spoils everything by the way he cries his wares, by his tactless striving after pretexts for agitation and his anxiety to be ahead of the time. If he can’t agitate in reality, he seeks an appearance of agitation, improvises movements after movements (so that, of course, everything remains at a standstill) and periodically works himself up into a state of fictitious exaltation. I have warned him, but in vain (vol. 39, p. 523).” Socialist propaganda requires the resilience of its propagandists, who must learn to control the propaganda instead of going for one-sided pursuit of sensational forms. They must also persevere so as to obtain propaganda results that are much more concrete than just paying lip service. When the majority of propaganda targets are hostile or neutral to socialism, socialist propaganda campaigns become harmful. Under those circumstances, Marx and Engels often adopt two propaganda methods, one was to hide the propaganda motive, and the other was to use the materials of their adversary to explain their views. If you read their text published in more than 10 newspapers in the late 1960s, you can see that they adopted a propaganda method that was in line with the readers’ beliefs. The propaganda purpose was hidden in the narrative and review of the book so that people are not prematurely exposed to conclusions that are contrary to their beliefs. This approach was a success overall, and Das Kapital became known a few years later. At that time, Marx and Engels had planned to write a book review for the British social sciences magazine Biweekly Review, but all articles in the journal were signed. As Engels then said to Marx, “if this is the rule, it would be most unfortunate, since then it would be easy to see through the business (vol. 43, p. 34).” Clearly, they valued the way of covert propaganda.

10.4 Methods and Effects of Propaganda

167

When confronted with hostile views, unscrupulous propagandists often endeavor to use various materials of their own and their allies to prove how correct their views are. However, this propaganda effect is not convincing. Engels used another method. He “consider my statements sufficiently proven when I had confirmed them by quotations from official documents, impartial writers or the writings of the parties whose interests I was attacking (vol. 4, p. 584).” This is especially towards material used by his direct opponent. This is quite effective for maintaining the neutrality of the propaganda object and making one’s adversaries embarrassed. For example, much of the material in Engels’s The Condition of the Working Class in England was chosen this way. Engels explained, “whenever I lacked official documents for describing the condition of the industrial workers, I always preferred to present proof from Liberal sources in order to defeat the liberal bourgeoisie by casting their own words in their teeth (vol. 4, p. 304).” In October 1848, the Austrian army brutally suppressed the people’s uprising in Vienna. In order to illustrate the truth of the bloody suppression of the Austrian army and win more sympathizers, the material cited in the report written by Engels was all told by those who stood on the opposite side of the insurgents. According to him, “This source consists of the Swiss citizens who with difficulty and in mortal danger, and after maltreatment, escaped from the myrmidons of “order”, and having returned to their homeland, publish their experiences during the “days of terror” and the “war of order”. And indeed not raging “proletarians”, but big capitalists, people who owned enormous factories in Vienna, most trustworthy bourgeois of conservative convictions—and a Swiss conservative is well known to be the equivalent of a German “wailer” raised to the second power—and their reports are not appearing in radical scandal sheets but in the most serious conservative newspapers (vol. 8, p. 120).” This is enough to make more people believe in the truth. As a propagandist, Martin Luther exposed the hypocritical and cruel side of Catholicism directly and relentlessly in the German Reformation; Fer Voltaire in the French Enlightenment deeply expressed his polite remarks Stinging the nerves of Catholicism. Marx and Engels liked this type of propaganda, and they hated turning propaganda into political preaching. They demanded that propaganda employ unique methods suitable for the propaganda object or be alert or humorous. Engels believed that Wilhelm Wolff, a close friend of Marx and the son of a Silesian serf, had fully mastered Luther’s propaganda methods. In his words to Marx, Engels said, “if you choose to name only Lupus, there’s no longer any moral responsibility, and his Silesian tirades à la Luther, which are very well suited to the German Americans,— better than your style, which compels them to think—can be given free rein (vol. 38, p. 400).” Once, a dean who promoted deism in the streets of London brought Mark’s ideas to Voltaire’s propaganda. He told Engels, “Here in London a parson (as distinct from the atheists who preach in John Street) has been giving deistic sermons for the public, in which he makes Voltairian fun of the Bible. (My wife and children went to hear him twice and thought highly of him as a humorist) (vol. 41, p. 468).” In addition, there is another type of propaganda that Engels claimed was a “blend of Girardin display and Stirner braggadocio (vol. 38, p. 444).”

168

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

Ai de Geraldine was a famous French journalist in the mid-nineteenth century, known for his sensational slams and contingency. His agitation was extremely extensive and often caused sensational effects. When he stood on the side of the revolution and attacked the reactionaries, Marx and Engels gave him some praise. For example, in 1851, Marx claimed that “[t]his fellow [Geraldine] is responsible for more agitation in France than the whole gang of Montagnards and reds put together (vol. 38, p. 360).” However, from the perspective of propaganda methods, they were firmly opposed to the sensational attack in exchange for a temporary propaganda effect. Engels despised Proudhon’s writings as Jiradan-style propaganda because his writings, although very aggressive, were popular. Marx summarized his approach to propaganda as such: the sensational works of this kind have their role to play in the sciences just as much as in the history of the novel (vol. 20, p. 27). Going on an attack is an effective way of propaganda, and Marx and Engels advocated for Corbett-style attack. William Corbett was a well-known British journalist in the first half of the nineteenth century. His lifelong propaganda against various corruption was to protect the interests of the people. Marx called him “son of the great/English pamphleteer (vol. 14, pp. 96–97).” Corbett did not pursue sensationalism but was loyal to the facts and had consistent views. His style was sharp, spicy and humorous, and was of a strong logical force. Engels praised his style, claiming that there was “a certain kind of abuse, the so-called invective, is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric, employed by all great orators when necessary; the most powerful English political writer, William Cobbett, possessed a supreme command of it that is still admired to this day and serves as an unsurpassed model (vol. 24, p. 32).” In the first half of the nineteenth century, utopian socialists propagated socialism by setting examples, and Marx and Engels mocked this method of propaganda. Because they knew that the evolution of a society is deeply rooted in the traditional and realistic economic structure. It is by no means a man-made model. It can be reversed through the power of modeling. They wrote in the Communist Manifesto that “they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel (vol. 6, p. 515).” Engels also criticized this method of propaganda in his text The Anti-Durin Theory, stating that “[i]t was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments (vol. 25, p. 246).” In 1866, a group of French Proudhonists attempted to use their experiments in France to promote Proudhon’s socialism. Marx mocking wrote, “they will demonstrate the experiment to us, and the rest of the world, being bowled over by the force of their example, will do the same. Just what Fourier expected from his phalanstère modèle. D’ailleurs, everyone who clutters up the ‘social’ question with the ‘superstitions’ of the Old World is a ‘reactionary’ (vol. 42, p. 287).” The reason why this type of propaganda is doomed to fail is that propaganda believes in small experiences and

10.4 Methods and Effects of Propaganda

169

is convinced that this ‘fact’ propaganda is almighty, but it is ignorant of the historical development of society. Most of the propaganda methods criticized by Marx and Engels targeted shortterm propaganda effects. As guides of scientific socialist propaganda, they certainly hoped that propaganda would create a sensational effect but on the other hand, they paid more attention to the long-term effects of propaganda. To this end, Engels warned party leaders who were propaganda professionals, saying, “agitational and parliamentary work becomes very boring after a time. It is much the same thing as advertising, puffing one’s wares and travelling around are in business: success is slow in coming, and some never achieve it. But there’s no other alternative, and once you are in it you’ve got to see the thing through to the end, if all your trouble is not to have been for nothing (vol. 47, pp. 20–21).” However, not all people have the resilience of a propagandist, and certain environmental conditions also caused an acute illness in propaganda. Engels sees this as an ‘unhealthy consideration’. Speaking on propaganda in France, he told Bebel, the leader of the German Social Democratic Party that “the creation of an immediate impact on the public should be to them a consideration of greater moment than it is to you and me and the bulk of the German party is a failing that is not confined to France. Here and in America the case is just the same. It comes from the greater freedom of their political life and their long familiarity with it (vol. 48, p. 403).” In a relatively free environment, people’s lives are fast and propaganda activities can be carried out at any time. Meanwhile, politics itself is characterized by the pursuit of practical results. It is prone to all kinds of situations that simply pursue temporary propaganda effects. Marx and Engels’ awareness of the long-term effects of propaganda stemmed not only from their propaganda practices but also from their research on the history of propaganda. They valued the experience of the British liberals’ long-lasting antigrain law propaganda, which lasted from 1839 to 1845, although they repeatedly exposed the self-interest of the free bourgeoisie in this propaganda movement. The reason for the success of this propaganda campaign, in addition to its conformity with social development, is that the organizers of the campaign persisted through the propaganda campaign and were not affected by the success or failure of propaganda on an individual basis. Marx described their propaganda campaign as such: “They send an army of missionaries to all corners of England to preach the gospel of Free Trade; they print and distribute gratis thousands of pamphlets to enlighten the workingman upon his own interests. They spend enormous sums to buy over the press to their side. They organize a vast administrative system for the conduct of the Free Trade movement, and bestow all/the wealth of their eloquence upon public meetings (vol. 6, pp. 456–457).” The benefits of this lasting large-scale propaganda campaign were clearly gradual, but its historical significance is incomparable to the effect of any short-term propaganda. It is as Marx said, “due to the effect of the Corn Laws and the publications of the League, distributed in hundreds of thousands of copies, the tenant farmer has been awakened to political consciousness. He has realised that his interests are not

170

10 Propaganda as a Form of Intercourse

identical with those of the landlord, but are directly opposed to them, and that to no one have the Corn Laws been more unfavourable than to himself. Hence a considerable change has taken place among tenant farmers (vol. 2, p. 381) […]. Suffice it to say that one of the most important results due partly to the Corn Laws, partly to the League, is the freeing of the tenant farmers from the moral influence of their aristocratic landlords (vol. 2, p. 381).” Forty years of British propaganda in promoting 10-h workdays attracted Engels’ attention greatly. This propaganda campaign came to fruition after several generations, and its propaganda benefits were also gradual and had historical significance. As Engels pointed out, “The working classes, in this agitation, found a mighty means to get acquainted with each other, to come to a knowledge of their social position and interests, to organise themselves and to know their strength. The working man, who has passed through such an agitation, is no longer the same he was before; and the whole working class, after passing through it, is a hundred times stronger, more enlightened, and better organised than it was at the outset (vol. 10, p. 275).”

Chapter 11

News as a Form of Intercourse

News is a common form of modern mental intercourse, which has formed an inseparable part of people’s spiritual life. Engels cited “news” as a novelty in the Bible chapter “Acts”. Paul the Apostle preached in Athens, where the people wanted to listen to him because the things he said were very novel. He said, “For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing (vol. 2, p. 259)”. This is a record in the 1st to second century AD. Engels then turned to observe the reality of the Berliners, whose situation was very similar and so they were called New Athenians. He wrote, “Are they not also bent on nothing but to hear and see some new thing? Just go into your coffee-houses and pastry shops and watch the new Athenians/running after the newspapers while the Bible lies at home gathering dust, and nobody opens it; listen when they gather together whether their greetings are anything but: What is the news? Nothing new? Always something new, always something that never happened before, otherwise they are bored to death with all their culture, their pomp and their enjoyments (vol. 2, pp. 259–260).” Between the two situations in 1800, the irregular dissemination of news in ancient cities had become an extremely common dissemination phenomenon in modern cities. Because the spread of news is too natural and frequent in daily life, people rarely think about the news itself philosophically. In the works of Marx and Engels, words such as news, news, intelligence, announcements, announcements, anecdotes, etc., appear quite frequently. In their communication, phrases such as “[a]ll sorts of things have been happening here (vol. 39, p. 73)”, “[o]therwise nothing new (vol. 38, p. 157)”, and “[n]ow I shall tell you a piece of news (vol. 2, p. 524)” could be seen frequently. They had a rigorous and persistent grasp of the meaning of “news” and repeatedly demonstrated the phenomenon of news dissemination.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_11

171

172

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

11.1 Facts and the Generation of News The existence of news is premised on people’s ignorance. Marx pointed out, “That Dr Maas is a supporter of the Marx clique is news to me. (vol. 39, p. 52)” while Engels professed that “[t]he business of the Hatzfeldt woman and the 300,000 talers was quite new to me (vol. 40, p. 27) […]. According to today’s Daily News, Louis Napoleon is certain to exhume Kaspar Hauser and to claim succession to the throne of Baden through his Aunt Stephanie. Voilà de grandes nouvelles pour le citoyen Seiler dont l’étoile va se lever incessamment (vol. 39, p. 36)” The “news” mentioned here is social in nature and could be spread. It is one of the basic characteristics of news that you cannot repeat what the recipient knows and have fresh content. In a certain range of social interactions, the existence of news is premised on the ignorance of most people. In 1855, Lord Russell, President of the British Privy Council, spoke a lot about the negotiations between Britain and Russia. He concluded that the government had not granted its ambassadors full power to negotiate. Marx expounded on this last sentence in Russell’s lengthy speech and made a report, exclaiming that “[t]he last sentence is the only new piece of information Russell conceded to the Commons (vol. 13, p. 602)”. This shows that not all the disseminated content can become news. Most of Russell’s speech is already known to parliamentarians, so there are very few things that can be reported as news. In 1854, Engels wrote a military newsletter, which was changed from news to old news due to time delays. He wrote, “On top of that, the shilly-shallying of the Daily News chaps has meant that in the meantime some of my sources here have become known through the German press—the Moltke, which I have found enormously helpful, is now scarcely any good to me at all and in a fortnight all the rest will have gone the same way, and I wouldn’t dream of risking another £5 on the thing ON SPECULATION (vol. 39, p. 435).” It is precise because people’s “unknown” has become “known” that Engels’ article has lost the value of the publication. I don’t know" is only a prerequisite for news, but it is not the only condition. In 1881, Marx wrote a letter to his eldest daughter, Jenny, introducing the facts disclosed by a US weekly magazine. He said, “Engels — as always the truest of friends — has sent you at my request a copy of the Irish World in which an Irish bishop declares himself against landownership (private). This was one of the last items of NEWS I passed on to your mamma, and she thought you might get it into A FRENCH PAPER so as to horrify the French clericals. (vol.46, p.157)

Here, because the facts described are inconsistent with the usual situation, it becomes news for most people. At that time, bishops in Ireland generally supported private ownership. If it is reported that a bishop supports private ownership, it will not be news because it is in the common sense of people. Marx emphasized that "this is the latest news" because the existence of facts is beyond people’s understanding. In this sense, it is possible to deeply understand many common words that Marx or Engels said. For instance, Marx said, “No news apart from what you may already know, namely that Stirner has died. (vol. 40, p. 70)” while Engels said, “No news here, except that it’s a ghastly winter (vol. 40, p. 285)”.

11.1 Facts and the Generation of News

173

The speaker already knew but he regarded the passing of the German philosopher Stirner and the unusually cold weather as news. In addition to the fact that there might be others who are unaware of this news, these facts are unconventional changes. In the absence of accidents, there is no sense in telling people that Steiner is dead or that early spring has arrived in March. This feature of news is generally grasped by people in life. On one occasion, Marx talked about an acquaintance of his younger daughter Eleanor Marx (Tussy), Le Montifiori’s knowledge of news. He said, “Yesterday Mr Montefiore came to see me; he is going to Berlin; and, in a manner altogether typical of a young English man of letters, especially in London, said to Tussy: ‘If only the Prussians would do me the kindness of arresting me for a day or two! What splendid material it would provide for an article in a review or a LETTER TO The Times (vol. 45, p. 329).” The young man clearly understood that the content written in newspapers and periodicals must be a fact of change rather than a fact that happened normally. When he went to Berlin, newspapers, and periodicals would never be published as news; but if the Prussian authorities detained him, such abnormal events could naturally become news material. The young British man can make any imagination of “news”, but if imagination is written as fact in the news, it will cause a deviation in the grasp of the news. In 1881, Marx’s wife died, and an article in the French La Justice newspaper published an article saying that because Marx was of Jewish origin, the biggest difficulty he had with Jenny was overcoming racial prejudice. Marx said angrily, “Toute cette histoire is A SIMPLE INVENTION, THERE WAS NO préjugés à vaincre. I suppose, I am not mistaken in crediting the inventive genius of this literary ‘enjolivement’ (vol. 46, p. 157).” He emphasizes the difference between literature and art. If it is a literary work, one can conceive a plot from someone with Jewish ancestry; but as news, one can only follow the facts and not have speculative elements. Even logical reasoning must have facts. Marx and Engels repeatedly talked about the significance of changes in facts to the news. In early 1849, Engels came to Switzerland. As editor of The New Rhine News, he was troubled to write news, for the same reason he told Marx, “If only something worth writing about happened in this rotten country. But it’s all local rubbish of the rotteniest kind (vol. 38, p. 185).” Local quarrels may be news for Switzerland, but for Germany and Europe, they are too trivial to be news. Marx also often encountered this kind of situation when writing communication to The New York Daily Tribune. He once said to Engels, “Writing for the papers is at present very onerous, since nothing is happening in England and the turn economic affairs are taking is still far from clear (vol. 40, p. 11).” Marx actually talked about the news requirements for the extent of fact changes. The greater the change, in fact, the more likely it is to become news in a larger area. Facts change naturally, and the frequency of major news cannot be balanced. Therefore, the “off season” of news often appears in news work. This is the difference between news and other forms of communication. In 1842, Engels, a correspondent for The Rheinland in Berlin, talked about this situation. August is the university holiday, and various activities in society have plummeted. As Engels wrote, “I

174

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

am writing to you today to report that there is really nothing to report from here. Heaven knows, it is now the silly season or gherkin time, as they say here. Nothing is happening, absolutely nothing! (vol. 2, p. 353)”. Marx regarded the imbalance in news as a kind of regulation in that changes in facts act as a restrictive force on news. In 1859, he explained this as a correspondent for The New York Daily Tribune in Berlin, writing that “You know the German proverb: ‘Where there is nothing, the Emperor loses his right’ (Wo nichts ist, hat der Kaiser sein Recht verloren), and this law of nothingness, lording it over so mighty a personage as an Emperor, is, of course, not to be set at naught by your own correspondent. Where there are no events, there is no reporting. Such is the very conclusive reason which has induced me for some weeks to lay an embargo on my missives from the ‘capital of intelligence’, the central residence, if not of worldly power, at least of the ‘Weltgeist’ (vol. 16, p. 158).” This regular change can also be reflected on the newspaper page. Engels talked about The Pall Mall Gazette in 1888 and wrote that “I have not sent The Pall Mall Gazette of late because there is literally nothing in it. It is strictly a London local paper, and consequently deadly dull when nothing is stirring in London (vol. 48, p. 159).” Once a major event happened, the work of the newspaper was very tense. For example, the Great Britain Parliament debate in 1857 and the second Opium War, which The New York Daily Tribune was eager to write about. Engels told Marx, “ It’s lucky, by the way, that this parliament business has begun, with China thrown in for good measure; at this juncture The Tribune will need help again and will be forced to come to terms (vol. 40, p. 109).” The changes of facts in life never stops, but the frequency of major news is very limited, and newspapers and periodicals must be published within a certain period; people always need news materials, without big news, talk about small news and so the news reveals a difference in levels. To this end, Engels talked about changes in Manchester’s news hierarchy, “Here all that happens is thieving, broken bones on the railways, and flying up in the air. The local philistines are quite dumbfounded by the extraordinary events of the past week. Fortunately cotton is going down, which is why nothing is happening on the Exchange and people can concern themselves to their heart’s content with these momentous occurrences (vol. 39, p. 286).” Here because there are no major events in the economy, people will talk about some social news as things, and these things appear to be “significant” in contrast; if an economic crisis comes, then the crisis will become major news, and such society news will be ignored. The newsletter written by Marx was known for its pertinent analysis and accurate foresight and revealed the development trend of facts. In 1857, with his knowledge of economics, he realized that there was a huge deficit in the French economy. He wrote five newsletters to point out this point, but The New York Daily Tribune did not use it. When the economic problems of France became major news in 1858, the editor of the newspaper panicked. Marx criticized this, “There will, by and by, be further revelations about Bonapartist finance, and then the asses on The Tribune will realise the wisdom of not having published the very elaborated articles I sent them on the subject six months ago. The fellows are asses and anything which is not, in the

11.1 Facts and the Generation of News

175

crudest sense, a ’question of the day’ they tend to cast aside as UNINTERESTING, only to go and compile the most egregious rubbish about the selfsame subject as soon as it does become à l’ordre du jour (vol. 40, p. 297).” If we look at the news happening from the macro-historical perspective of fact changes, Marx believes that certain fact changes are often a repetition of similar things in the past. Therefore, news in this sense is not news, but “frequent news.” This dialectical thinking is very clear when Marx analyzed the news phenomena. People’s understanding is based on the life of each generation. Under certain conditions, history will become news for the new generation. In 1868, France published a book, Paris in December 1851 (Parisen décembre 1851), from which Marx talked about how history became news. He said to Engels, “In The Ténot (Paris) I find little new, except a few details—I have not yet read The Provinces. The enormous sensation created by the book in Paris, and in France as a whole, proves a very interesting FACT, namely that the generation that has grown up under Badinguet knew nothing at all about the history of the regime under which it is living. Now the fellows are rubbing their eyes and are quite thunderstruck. If one may parva componere magnis, have we not had precisely the same experience in our own way? In Germany the story is spreading, as a remarkable novelty, that Lassalle was only one of our satellites, and that he did not discover the ‘class struggle’ (vol. 43, p. 188)”. The two things Marx said about being “special news” for the new generation occurred nearly 20 years ago, and when most people “don’t know”, they became news again. In July 1856, an uprising took place in Madrid, Spain. Two days later, the uprising workers were sold by bourgeois liberal leaders, and the uprising failed. Marx used Heine’s verse when reporting this incident, “It is an old story, but is always new (vol. 15, p. 101)”. In 1874, the British poet Alfred Tennyson wrote a poem praising Princess Alexander Rovna, the fiancee of the Duke of Edinburgh, and each sentence ended with the name “Alexander Rovna”. Marx’s youngest daughter Elena felt the novelty in that and Marx told her in the words of the Preacher in the Bible that “there is nothing new under the sun. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun (vol. 45, p. 14)”. Because this kind of poem was written by Tsar Paul I nearly a hundred years ago, the two passages quoted by Marx contained profound philosophies about the occurrence of historical events. Major changes in specific facts seemed to have no rules to follow, but if viewed from a macro-historical perspective, then they had certain rules to follow. The old news and news, the existing and the current, have been penetrated by dialectics. The newsletters and current affairs reviews written by Marx make people feel an invisible and huge ideological force because his knowledge of news has been tempered by this kind of thinking.

176

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

11.2 The Newspaper as a Carrier of News In ancient society, the dissemination of news mainly occurred in the upper class of society, in the central area of economy, politics, and culture. The scope was limited. Only extremely significant factual changes can cause widespread dissemination in the lower levels of society can be unconsciously spread by “the telegraphy of people’s tongues (vol. 43, p. 42).” With the expansion of the market economy to the world, news dissemination is no longer a spiritual privilege, and it has gradually become an important content of social information dissemination. Its first widely used carrier is the newspaper. In the writings of Marx and Engels, there are many discussions about the basic functions of newspapers as news carriers. Take a look at a passage written by Marx on The Times in 1853, “How many leaders and how many pounds have its anonymous Pythias not made out of French revolutions, German insurrections, Italian outbreaks and Hungarian wars, of French ‘fusillades’, of Austrian gallows, of confiscated heads and beheaded property? Unhappy Times, if there were no ‘ferocious characters’ on the Continent, if it were to grow older day by day on the coarse food of Smithfield Market, London chimney smoke, dirt, ferocious cabmen, the six bridges of the Thames, intermural interments, pestilential churchyards, filthy drink-water, railway accidents, crippled pint and quart bottles, and other interesting topics, which form its regular stock-in-trade, in the intervals of continental dullness (vol. 11, p. 539)”. This criticized the newspaper advocate for the expulsion of political exiles from continental Europe. Regardless of the political inclination of The Times, Marx’s statement unequivocally illustrated the basic functions of the newspaper. If there is no change in facts, the newspaper cannot produce various articles, and naturally, there is no profit, so it loses the necessity of existence; it also illustrates the change in the level of news. If there is no major change in facts, then the newspaper can only rely on trivial social news. The development of The Times, in addition to the management of the Walter family, the French Revolution in the eighteenth century, and a series of major events in Europe in the nineteenth century, provided it with objective conditions for its role as a newspaper; otherwise, it could not become a worldwide newspaper in the nineteenth century. Marx and Engels had been criticizing The Times for its conservative stance, but they also admitted that the newspaper contained the best portrayal of the news. Engels wrote, “The Times hitherto enjoyed on the continent the reputation of a wellinformed newspaper, but a few more articles like that on German Communism must very soon destroy that opinion (vol. 3, p. 410)”. News is the basic content of a newspaper. Regardless of the differences in the political orientation and coverage of a newspaper, it can only become a newspaper by reporting facts. Engels described many newspapers he read in this way, “I look at random into a heap of English journals lying before me; there is The Manchester Guardian for October 30, 1844, which reports for three days. It no longer takes the trouble to give exact details as to Manchester, and merely relates the most interesting cases (vol. 4, p. 426) […] The Times of September 12, 1844, falls into my hand,

11.2 The Newspaper as a Carrier of News

177

which gives a report of a single day, including a theft, an attack upon the police, a sentence upon a father requiring him to support his illegitimate son, the abandonment of a child by its parents, and the poisoning of a man by his wife (vol. 4, p. 427)”. In July 1848, the Prussian cabinet prepared to take back the publishing policy that was relaxed during the March Revolution, Marx wrote, “The press will no longer report, it will be allowed merely to speak in general phrases so that well-meaning people from Herr Hansemann down all the way to the beer-parlour politicians will have the right to say that the press is merely revealing and is not proving anything! (vol. 7, p. 252)” Here, he believes that the basic function of newspapers is to “state facts” and use “empty words” to serve the situation that was being reported. Newspapers need a steady stream of news sources. Losing or gaining news sources can even show “emotion” between the lines of the newspaper. After the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1854, the war progressed slowly for a period, and there were few news sources about the war in British newspapers. When a little news came, the situation described by Marx was as such, “You will see from the English press the first exploits of the British army at Bomarsund. These poor journals, which had never anything brilliant to report, are in great enthusiasm about the successes of 10,000 French troops over 2000 Russians (vol. 13, p. 377)”. Due to the demand for news sources, when news sources are lacking, even if they come from the opposition, the possibility of adoption is greatly increased. April 1854 was the period when the British Parliament was adjourned, and there was little news. At this time Engels wrote a newsletter about the Crimean War, and Marx suggested that he “should immediately send the article to The Times as it stands and without waiting for one scrap of additional (vol. 39, p. 438)” He said, “it will be glad of anything it can get and, since the people there possess far more literary and political tact than the bunglers on the D.N. and would be prepared to accept an article from the devil himself if it were interesting enough (vol. 39, p. 439)”. Engels also observed this dependence of newspapers on news sources. He said of The New York Daily Tribune, “Furthermore, to the Yankees, this European politicising is mere dilettantism in which he who writes best and with the greatest esprit comes out on top (vol. 39, p. 147).” The various newspapers that accumulated after Marx’s death weighed half a ton. His purpose of reading the newspaper, in most cases, was not to criticize them but to obtain news. For example, he told Engels in 1869, “Do send me copies of Zukunft, so that I can see something about the Reichstag. And also, if possible, Manchester papers containing arguments about the price of cotton (vol. 43, p. 254)”. In his later years, Engels specially introduced the reading of the newspaper to the leader of the German Social Democratic Party, Karl Liebknecht. He said, “I read The Daily News in the morning, The Evening Standard and The Pall Mall Gazette in the evenings and The Weekly Dispatch on Sundays (vol. 48, p. 161) […]. Provided you are looking for literary contributions rather than politics, The Weekly Dispatch is at all events better than The Saturday Review (vol. 48, p. 161).” None of the newspapers they talked about were workers’ newspapers, and the political tendencies of the newspapers did not prevent him from obtaining news from them. This shows that

178

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

he will not deny the basic function of newspapers to publish news because of the political tendency of newspapers. Workers’ newspapers have certain propaganda responsibilities. They compete with bourgeois newspapers in providing news and are often at a disadvantage. Engels spoke to Victor Adler, editor-in-chief of Arbeiter-Zeitung, Austria. He said, “So, where news from official circles is concerned, you will never be able to compete with the big bourgeois papers who not only monopolise the sources but can also organize news-gathering services on a footing similar to that of big industry (vol. 50, p. 433).” However, he knew that a newspaper with no news had no readers, and Engels himself did not want to read it. After reading The Little Republic, which was influenced by the French Workers Party, he told Laura, Marx’s daughter, “The petite République is indeed awful reading-the discursive matter as well as the soi-disant reports of facts, and you will not be astonished to learn that I do no longer long for it, unless it given real news, real reports (vol. 50, p. 331)”. In 1892, the French Labor Party founded the daily newspaper The Socialist (Le Socialiste). Engels first considered whether the daily newspaper could provide readers with sufficient news. He said, “If the thing is to be superior to the usual run of Parisian dailies, there must be somebody who follows closely from day to day, and reports on, from time to time, the English and German movement (vol. 49, p. 427).” From here, we can see again that even the workers’ newspapers that are undertaking propaganda responsibilities can only perform their propaganda duties on the basis of exerting their basic functions. The newspapers broaden people’s horizons and are used as a means for them to participate in affairs taking place in distant places. Once there is no newspaper, people will feel lost. At this time, the value of the newspaper connecting the individual to the world is realized. Engels described this feeling many times. During the American Civil War, he described his anxious mood waiting for news to write a comment, “I look forward to the arrival of each steamer with expectancy; there is a positive deluge of exciting news just now (vol. 42, p. 123)”. In 1890, Engels made a trip to North Cape, Norway, and he once again felt the loss of no newspaper and so he wrote, “We met the German fleet at Molde but young William was not there—he sneaked past our steamer later on in the Sunelvsfjord in a torpedo boat—so that with the impossibility of getting papers we were out altogether of la grande politique. Fortunately nothing happened worth knowing—the first news at Bergen were about the reorganization of the German Party after Oct. 1st (vol. 48, p. 519)” On the way back, he saw a news about the Social Democratic Party in a newspaper posted on the boat and realized he had “safely returned to civilised latitudes after our trip to North Cape (vol. 48, p. 515).” Based on this feeling, Engels sees newspapers as the main way people get news. He wrote in commenting on the French law restricting publication in 1850, “It is true that, under the new law, by the enhanced price of newspapers a very numerous class of readers will be excluded from this mode of getting information (vol. 10, p. 39)”. There are always two sides to a problem. Since Marx and Engels regarded newspapers as their basic functions, they also regarded outdated newspapers as historical records. In 1852, a friend of Marx in the United States, Joseph Weydemeyer, wanted

11.2 The Newspaper as a Carrier of News

179

to get some information on the British workers’ movement. Marx recommended The British Charter Weekly “Notes to the People”. He wrote from a historical perspective, “As regards Ernest Jones’ Notes to the People, in which you will find all the day-to-day history of the English proletariat (vol. 39, p. 42)”. In 1860, Marx searched for information in order to conduct a debate. When he learned that the weekly “Rummeltipuff” by the Exiles in 1849 could explain the problem, he called it “The Book of History (vol. 17, p. 32).” The International Workers’ Association stipulates that each international branch’s newspaper will be sent to the General Committee twice in one issue, one for the communications secretary contacting the branch, and one for the General Committee library. Engels explained the latter as follows, “The General Council must be sent two copies of each of our journals, one for the library where a complete collection of all such journals is being made to help with the future history of the proletarian movement in all countries, the other for the secretary of the country where the journal appears (vol. 44, p. 126)”. Bourgeois newspapers also have the value of historical records. In 1887, someone asked Engels about the case of Heine and Lazar from 1846 to 1848. Although Engels went through this era, his memory was limited, so he told him “[e]ither the proceedings in the casket case of 1846, or those in Lassalle’s of 1848 should provide a clue (best source Kölnische Zeitung) (vol. 48, p. 118).” At that time, The Cologne Daily was a typical German bourgeois newspaper, Marx and Engels’ political enemies, but this did not prevent Engels from admitting its historical role in social news 40 years later.

11.3 The Social Role of News The dissemination of news, especially the widespread dissemination of social news, often gives people a relatively superficial understanding. It seems that people have a nature of interest in novelty, which has caused this kind of spiritual communication. Indeed, people’s curiosity has a considerable stimulating effect on the spread of news. Marx and Engels also have this interest. For example, Marx said to Engels, “There were some nice things from the Paris correspondent in The Manchester Guardian you sent me (vol. 40, p. 252).” A variety of anecdotes and anecdotes can often be seen in the communication between them, but this is only a transfer of intense work. Marx and Engels believed that the mass dissemination of news is the product of “universal intercourse” (12 pages, 222 pages) caused by the modern market economy. Just as money is seen as a medium of exchange, Marx also saw newspapers as “the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world, the embodied/culture that transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises their crude material form (vol. 1, pp. 164–165)” or as a lever for material and spiritual intercourse. He said, “[w]hat makes the press the most powerful lever for promoting culture and the intellectual education of the people is precisely the fact

180

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

that it transforms the material struggle into an ideological struggle, the struggle of flesh and blood into a struggle of minds, the struggle of need, desire, empiricism into a struggle of theory, of reason, of form (vol. 1, p. 292).” Once people are in contact with the world, this bond and leverage of news will show up. In addition to the overall social connection, the news itself has an invisible power because it symbolizes connection, change, and difference in modern mental intercourse. In 1855, due to the serious bureaucracy of the British cabinet and military command, tens of thousands of British soldiers on the frontline of the Crimean were frequently killed by the disease. After the incident was revealed, Parliament established a special investigative committee. Only the dissemination of this news has had a wonderful effect on the front. Marx made an image report on this “In the meantime the news of the uproar in the Commons against the Ministers, of Roebuck’s Committee and of the popular indignation in England, has reached the Crimea. Welcomed by the soldiers with jubilation, it struck the generals and department heads with horror. A week later the news arrived that commissioners were on their way with authority to investigate and to negotiate. This had the effect of a galvanic battery on paralytics (vol. 14, p. 126).” Before any improvement measures were implemented, frontline medical staff, railway workers, etc. broke through the bureaucratic barriers, started rescue and various military logistics projects, and the entire paralyzed situation became alive. The direct cause is just a piece of news. This situation also occurred on more specific occasions. In 1867 Marx talked about a strike by French workers, “We were providing financial support from the London Trade-Unions for the Paris bronze workers, who were out on strike. As soon as the masters learned of that, they gave in. The affair has created a deal of commotion in the French papers, and we are now an established force in France (vol. 42, p. 351).” In fact, the money was not delivered at that time, but the news itself created pressure to strike workers to achieve their goals. The distribution of facts across space and time was uneven. News bundles generated due to concentration of change often form an invisible spiritual force. The victory of the March 18th revolution in the Prussian capital of Berlin in 1848 took advantage of this power to a certain extent. Engels wrote about this, “Thus they sided with the Government in the first partial and provincial outbreaks, tried to keep the people quiet in Berlin, who during five days met in crowds before the royal palace to discuss the news and ask for changes in the Government; and when at last, after the news of the downfall of Metternich, the King made some slight concessions, the bourgeoisie considered the revolution as completed, and went to thank his Majesty for having fulfilled all the wishes of his people. But then followed the attack of the military on the crowd, the barricades, the struggle, and the defeat of Royalty. Then everything was changed (vol. 11, p. 35)”. To a certain extent, the continuation of revolutionary emotions also requires the power of news bundles generated by change concentration. Marx wrote about the situation in France after the February 1848 revolution, “at the same time as the waves of the February Revolution rose high over the whole Continent, and each new post brought a new bulletin of revolution, now from Italy, now from Germany, now from the remotest parts of South-Eastern Europe, and maintained the general ecstasy of

11.3 The Social Role of News

181

the people, giving it constant testimony of a victory that it had already forfeited (vol. 10, p. 64).” It can be seen from the discussion of Marx and Engels that a material potential generated by changes in facts and a strong psychological state of the news receivers were the reasons why news could play a larger social role. If the two were lacking, or could not reach a certain level, the social role of news would be weakened. In a market-economy society, news can become a link and lever between individuals and the world. In the final analysis, the news obtained is related to people’s interests. Due to the alienation of communication, people are a secret to anyone who do not know them, and the whole social production links everyone’s interests together. To resolve this contradiction, people needed unlimited access to news. Engels wrote about the owner as an example, “In the present unregulated production and distribution of the means of subsistence, which is carried on not directly for the sake of supplying needs, but for profit, in the system under which every one works for himself to enrich himself, disturbances inevitably arise at every moment. For example, England supplies a number of countries with most diverse goods. Now, although the manufac-/turer may know how much of each article is consumed in each country annually, he cannot know how much is on hand at every given moment, much less can he know how much his competitors export thither. He can only draw most uncertain inferences from the perpetual fluctuations in prices, as to the quantities on hand and the needs of the moment. He must trust to luck in exporting his goods. Everything is done blindly, as guess-work, more or less at the mercy of accident (vol. 4, pp. 381–382)”. In this case, any relevant news from near or far places has a mysterious power, which is either inspiring or frustrating. For example, the economic crisis in Europe in 1857 and the surplus of commodities, when the news that India needed commodities had such effects. Engels wrote, “The peculiarly favourable advices from Madras and Bombay (sales with profit, which has not been the case since 1847) have revived the Indian trade. Everyone who possibly can is rushing into it (vol. 40, p. 201).” The same is true of the news of the two German fairs in 1850. Marx and Engels wrote, “reports on the autumn fairs in Frankfurt and Leipzig sound extremely satisfactory to those members of the bourgeoisie who have a stake in them (vol. 10, p. 507)”. Due to the needs of the market economy, stock-exchange news has emerged, and social phenomena such as the use of news, making news, and news squeezing with power have also appeared. All the normal and misinterpreted news can reveal their connection to material interests whenever they are more important. To illustrate this connection, Marx repeatedly talked about the news squeezing of French emperor Louis Bonaparte in many major political and military events. For example, during the Crimean War of 1855, Marx wrote, “It is well known that, just as all roads lead to Rome, so all electric wires converge in the Tuileries, where they end in a “secret closet”. It has been noticed that the most important telegrams are published in Paris hours later than in London. During those hours a certain Corsican by the name of Orsi is said to be extremely busy at the Paris Bourse (vol. 14, p. 293).” Of course, the good news in the revolutionary war will also affect the material interests of the revolutionary government. For example, during the 1849 Hungarian War, Engels made the following report, “In any case, as the Magyar report says, the news of this

182

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

Hungarian victory has been reflected on the Pest money market in a rise of 20% in the Hungarian banknotes (vol. 9, p. 145)”. Analyzing the spread and effects of news and analyzing the relationship between news and interests were the basic methods used by Marx and Engels to demonstrate the main social role of news.

11.4 The Timeliness of News One of the direct difficulties encountered by the expansion of the market economy into the world was the increase in distance, and therefore, as Marx said in the movement of capital, “space must be annihilated by time (vol. 28, p. 448).” At that time, it was this impulse that stimulated the rapid transformation of various communication media and the rapid expansion of the amount of news. Therefore, the dissemination of modern news shows the characteristics of using time to eliminate space, and timeliness becomes one of the essential characteristics of news. Compared with the closed Middle Ages, modern social relations were constantly turbulent, the pace of life and work is accelerating, and the delivery of news caused by changes in facts must keep up with the speed of such changes, so Marx often described it as “the sheet lightning of the daily press (vol. 11, p. 108).” The concept of time in modern society is stronger than in any era. Marx tried to use modern concepts to evaluate production in the ignorance era. He wrote, “a savage commits a grave economic sin by his utter indifference to waste of time, and, as Tyler tells us, takes sometimes a whole month to make one arrow (vol. 36, p. 438)”. On the other hand, the situation in modern society was completely different. It was as Engels said, “where time is money, and where a certain standard of commercial morality is unavoidably developed, purely as a means of saving time and trouble (vol. 26, p. 400).” The whole society’s emphasis on time adds a sense of urgency to the news that is originally characterized by timeliness. All forms of communication related to time also require timeliness. In 1859, Engels planned to write a current affairs brochure, to which Marx responded, “You must set to at once, time being everything in this case (vol. 40, p. 393).” In 1852, the German poet F. Freiligrath wrote a current poem. Engels specifically told the editor who published it that “[t]hese things, particularly the Kinkel poem, should not be held back a moment longer than is unavoidable. This should really have been published in one way or another after Kinkel’s return to New York; but the longer it lingers, the more it loses in topicality and, even for things which are largely written with an eye to immortality, there is a certain period during which they are especially rewarding and at their most topical (vol. 39, p. 119)”. The life of news (as well as other current affairs styles) is short-lived, and it will lose value as time passes. Marx and Engels are very clear about this. In 1852, Marx wrote to an American editor, warning him that “daily reports lose all value if not published immediately on arrival (vol. 39, p. 41).” In 1891, Engels wrote a temporary article for France’s Almanachdu Parti Ouvrier and stressed that “I must

11.4 The Timeliness of News

183

know when your Almanach is to appear (vol. 49, p. 260)” because “you will see that it is impossible to write un article d’actualité unless it be printed and published at once (vol. 49, p. 260)”. Compared with scientific works, Engels saw news as a kind of product that was “calculated for immediate effect and drawn exclusively from the handiest sources, on a par with a scientific work painstakingly produced if outwardly, perhaps, not so brilliant (vol. 48, p. 421).” In order to speed up the delivery of news, the news must be short and suitable for the needs of specific newspapers, otherwise it would lose the opportunity to be published. In 1859, when Marx and the intermediary discussed the provision of telecommunications news for the Viennese Die Presse, he specifically addressed this issue, asking “Besides news from England, do these people want news from America, in short, from outside Europe?” and stressing that “[h]e must give me exact instructions about all this since telegraphy demands first and foremost that all non-essentials should be omitted (vol. 40, p. 408)”. As a form of news carrier, newspapers are always in a state of tension due to the timeliness required by the news. As Marx explained, “Philosophy, especially German philosophy, has an urge for isolation, for systematic seclusion, for dispassionate self-examination which from the start places it in estranged contrast to the quickwitted and alive-to-events newspapers, whose only delight is in information (vol. 1, p. 195).” News is constantly updated, so the value of the newspaper is also short-lived. For example, Marx read The Manchester Guardian in order to obtain the original materials from which he can write newsletters, which is why he said that “After the appointed day they are, of course, no longer of any use to me for my reports (vol. 40, p. 265)”. Marx and Engels not only talked about the characteristics of the timeliness of news in general but also analyzed the differences in the requirements of the timeliness of news according to the environment and historical conditions. In 1842, Marx sent a letter from his hometown of Trier to A. Ruge, editor-in-chief of the German Yearbook in Dresden, in which he wrote, “As you are at the centre of philosophical and theological news, I should like nothing better than to learn something from you about/the present situation. True, the movement of the hour hand is visible here, but not that of the minute hand (vol. 1, pp. 390–391)”. In terms of city size, Trier and Dresden were cities with a population of 100,000, but Trier is on the corner while Dresden is in the center of the Rhine region, where a large number of literati and religious people gathered. Because of that, there was a difference between the news center and the non-news center, the difference between the hour hand and the minute hand when the fact is changed. In the same year, Engels also compared the timeliness of the dissemination of theological news in Munich and Berlin. He wrote, “What could there easily remain an esoteric secret teaching because nobody bothered about it, is here mercilessly forced into the light of day. Nobody is admitted to heaven before he has gone through the purgatory of criticism. Anything remarkable that is said in the University here today appears tomorrow in all-German newspapers (vol. 2, p. 200).” The reason for this is that Berlin is the capital of Prussia and is known as the “spiritual capital”. It is very sensitive to all spiritual news, but Munich has no such historical tradition.

184

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

Due to the difference in the requirements for news timeliness in different regions, the more newsworthy publications should be run in the news center area, otherwise, they would not be able to compete with other journals in the center area in terms of timeliness. At the end of 1892, the theoretical journal New Age of the German Social Democratic Party was about to become a comprehensive weekly newsletter, which was published at the non-news center Stuttgart. Based on a strong awareness of the effects of news, Engels pointed out, “It is my opinion that if, as proposed by Dietz and August, the Neue Zeit is to be given a lighter, more popular tone and made’more interesting’ from a literary point of view, it will have to move to Berlin. For only there can a political review covering all events up to the eve of publication be catered for on the spot and only there can a wealth of artistic and literary work, which would otherwise come a week too late, be produced with speed and ‘immediacy’ (vol. 50, pp. 53–54)”. In terms of the timeliness of news in each country, specific political and economic systems and historical traditions exerted a certain influence. In the nineteenth century, Germany practiced the so-called “court democracy” in politics. The influence of authoritarianism was relatively strong, and the degree of social production was not high. Therefore, Germany’s news efficiency is far inferior to countries such as Britain and France in general. For this reason, when someone expressed concern that a young man engaged in economics research would do newspaper work in Germany, Engels responded as such, “For a journalist, his style is/quite exceptionally ponderous, but that, after all, doesn’t matter much in Germany (vol. 48, pp. 299–300)”. The 1848 revolution temporarily democratized the German political system, but this did not immediately change the bureaucratic tradition of the authoritarian era, and it took time to change people’s awareness of the aging of news. For example, the release of parliamentary news may not be seen until 24 h after Prussia. In this regard, Engels made a comparison and criticized Prussia’s National Bulletin. According to him, “The sessions of the English Parliament often last until four o’clock in the morning and yet four hours later the stenographic report of the session is printed in The Times and distributed to all parts of London. The French Chamber, which seldom began its sessions before one o’clock, terminated them between five and six and yet already around seven o’clock the Moniteur had to deliver a copy of the deliberations taken down in shorthand to all Paris newspaper offices. Why cannot the praise worthy Staats-Anzeiger get ready just as quickly? vol. 7, p. 216)”. Marx and Engels knew the importance of the timeliness of news from a high degree of communication in the world, so they were able to break through the traditional German inertia in the practice of news and showed a spirit of journalism. They presided over The New Rhine News periodical. The newspaper had a ‘latest news’ column, grabbed the news obtained before the evening release in the newspaper, and the headlines often appeared by 10 o’clock. This new newspaper had repeatedly defeated the 45-year-old Cologne Daily in terms of timeliness. On one occasion, The New Rhine News accurately learned the content of a king’s speech on the same day and published it before printing. The next day, Marx and Engels said proudly, “The speech from the throne which to the great indignation and annoyance of the

11.4 The Timeliness of News

185

Kölnische Zeitung was reported prematurely yesterday evening to the readers of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, proved to be authentic (vol. 8, p. 445)”. In July 1859, Marx took control of the editing of the London German newspaper People’s Daily. He and Engels immediately made the news of this tabloid newspaper beat the London newspaper in some ways. Engels obtained the secret terms of the French-Austrian peace treaty through private channels. He excitedly told Marx that “It’s important, I think, since we’ve been lucky enough to get hold of the secret articles, that this point be fully exploited. […] This point may well give the Volk a significance of quite a different order, and exact for it a position in the press (vol. 40, p. 468)”. When the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870, Engels wrote 59 short war reviews for Pyle-Mayer News one after another, providing many exclusive news. This exclusive news were “robbed” with the help of Marx. For example, the Prussian battle plan reported in the second short review, after Engels obtained it through private channels, sent a letter from Manchester to Marx in London. The first sentence of the letter was, “Enclosed you will find the plan of the Prussian campaign. Please get a CAB immediately and take it round to The Pall Mall Gazette, so that it can come out on Monday evening. It will make me and the P.M.G. tremendously famous. […] Delay is now fatal for articles of this sort (vol. 44, p. 17)”. The conscious pursuit of ‘timeliness’ by Marx and Engels in the statute of news was also reflected in their guidance to the party’s newspapers. In 1876, when the Russian news had not caught Europe’s attention, Marx instructed the German Socialist Workers’ Party’s Progress to pay attention to the news there. He said, “It is about time the Volksstaat, or rather, I should now say, the Vorwärts, put a finger at last on the real source of the rot in dealing with the oriental question (vol. 45, p. 155).” Sure enough, the “Advance News” was ahead of British newspapers in this respect. Engels has repeatedly criticized the editor-in-chief of the German Social Democratic Labor Party newspaper Der Volksstaat (William Liebknecht) for lacking the concept of statute of news. He said to Marx, “Wilhelm’s sheet is really disgraceful. I am not referring to the free-church-clerical babble, but all the news from their associations, etc., is always 8–14 days old before it is printed (vol. 43, p. 382) […]. Wilhelm ditto: his latest reports on 19 February are: Hanover, 13 January, Lörrach, 23 January, Munich, 25 January, Ernstthal, 17 January! (vol. 43, p. 442)”. The timeliness of news requires journalists to adapt to this style of writing, which was something Engels had discussed many times before. In 1892, his friend C. Schorlemmer passed away, and Engels wrote a eulogy in the newspaper very quickly. In his words, he said, “I had to write it in great haste and without any external aids on the afternoon before the funeral. Had I been able to wait until I got back to London I could have gone into greater detail. But in cases like these one must work exactly like a journalist, i.e. quickly, making do with the material to hand (vol. 49, p. 484).” For newspaper editors, Engels demanded the same type of time-sensitivity. He pointed out that “[e]rudition in a newspaper editor is far less important than the ability speedily to interpret things from the aspect that matters (vol. 46, p. 85)”.

186

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

In his later years, Engels made a comprehensive exposition on Die Journalistik, expressing his dialectical understanding of the timeliness of news. He wrote, “Journalism is a very useful training ground, particularly for us Germans since we all of us tend to be a bit clumsy (which is why the Jews are so ‘superior’ to us in this sphere too); it makes one more flexible in every way, one gets to know and assess one’s own abilities better and, above all, one learns to do a given piece of work in a given length of time. On the other hand, it can also lead to superficiality because shortage of time/accustoms one to dashing off things one knows one has not yet fully mastered (vol. 48, pp. 420–421)”. Here, Engels criticized Germany’s traditional habit of not having the concept of aging, and believed that journalism will impact this habit; at the same time, he also pointed out the problems that may be caused by excessive emphasis on aging.

11.5 The Organic Newspaper Movement In general, truth is the life of news. However, in actual news dissemination, purely real news seems to be rare due to technical reasons and possible propaganda intentions. Marx has ruled out the influence of various factors on newspaper reporting several times and demonstrated the process of newspaper reporting. He called this “organic newspaper movement” (lebendig Pressbewegung). In December 1842, the Rhine newspaper published two newsletters written by P. Coblenz, a reporter based in Mossel, reflecting the poverty of the grape farmers in the region and the problems of unpublished publication. After seeing the article, Governor von Schaoer issued two instructions and accused the reporter of being untrue. Marx, as editor-in-chief of The Rheinland, in the name of the reporter, wrote a continuous article in January 1843 to answer the accusations of the Governor. Chapel required that each communication be exhaustive, including all details and all reasons, otherwise, it was untrue. This was obviously a difficult request, reflecting the paranoid psychology of the Prussian bureaucrats. They would rather trust the reports of their subordinates than listen to public opinion. In response, Marx told him, “Apart from the fact that such work would require much time and resources, the newspaper correspondent can only consider himself as a small part of a complicated body, in which he freely chooses his particular function. While one is perhaps more concerned to depict his impression of the distressed state of the people obtained directly from their statements, another, who is a historian, will discuss the history of the situation which has arisen; the man of feeling will describe the distress itself; the economist will examine the means required for its abolition, this itself being one problem which can be treated from different aspects: sometimes more on a local scale, sometimes more in relation to the state as a whole, etc. Thus, with a lively press movement, the whole truth will be revealed, for if the whole appears at first only as the emergence of a number of different, individual points of view which—sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentally—develop side by side, in the end, however, this work of the press will have prepared for one

11.5 The Organic Newspaper Movement

187

of its participants the material out of which he will create a single whole. Thus, gradually, by means of a division of labour, the press arrives at the whole truth, not by one person doing everything, but by many doing a little (vol. 1, p. 333)”. The historians, emotional people, economists, etc. mentioned by Marx refer to newspaper reporters who are good at certain aspects. It can be seen from this that he regards newspaper reporting as an organic movement. The truth of the news is expressed as the sum of reported facts from different angles. Each report may appear to be one-sided or even wrong, but as long as the organic newspaper movement is in progress, the errors will be naturally overcome as the reports continue and complement each other. Therefore, the truth of newspaper news is, to a certain extent, the truth of history drawn from conflicting reports. This kind of work characteristic can often be seen in the newspaper news. For example, Engels talked about the situation of the British “Flag” during the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. He wrote, “In regard to Bazaine’s rumoured retreat from Metz and junction with MacMahon at Montmédy, the refutation of the story to which The Standard yesterday gave circulation has been sufficiently accomplished by the writer of the military review in the same journal this morning (vol. 22, p. 66).” Marx refuted people who believed that newspaper reports must be error-free from the beginning, calling these people “stupid friends.” He pointed out, “Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who is astonished at the discovery, that a controversy involves antagonistic opinions, and that historical truth cannot be extricated but from contradictory statements? (vol. 12, p. 291)”. It is true that more mature newspapers will have higher accuracy in news reports, but regardless of the size of the error or not, newspapers can only gradually improve the news in a circular organic movement so that the facts can be fully expressed. Since life cannot be stopped, the organic newspaper movement would not stop either. Therefore, Marx used “the treadmill of the press (vol. 38, p. 366)” to describe newspapers and wrote that “It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews its soul. (vol. 1, p. 165) […] Like life itself, therefore, it is always in a state of becoming, and never of maturity (vol. 1, p. 312) […] What is erroneous in the facts or judgments it puts forward today, it will itself refute tomorrow (vol. 1, p. 312)”. Newspaper reporting news is different from theoretical thinking. Theoretical thinking starts after being engaged. As Marx put it, “Man’s reflections on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development (vol. 35, p. 86).” The process of people’s reflection of the newly-emerging facts is synchronized with the process of fact changes and exposure, which is a process of understanding reality. The situation is as Engels said, “Just as the infinity of knowable matter is composed of the purely finite things, so the infinity of the thought which knows the absolute is composed of an infinite number of finite human minds, working side by side and successively at this infinite knowledge, committing practical and theoretical blunders, setting out from erroneous, one-sided, and false premises, pursuing false, tortuous, and uncertain paths, and often not even finding what is right when they run their noses against it (Priestley) (vol. 25, p. 514)”.

188

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

The “truth” (das Richtige) here also means “truth”. When Engels criticized the German idealist philosopher F. W. Schelling, he used the method of contrast to talk about the process of people’s understanding of reality. Schelling believed that only when reality reaches his philosophical height can it be kept brilliant. On the other hand, Engels felt that “for all its sublimity this was no more than a construction of thought and only to be transformed into a real process by a complete reversal (vol. 2, p. 214)” In other words, people’s understanding is deepened in response to changes in reality. News dissemination is a profession, so news reports must keep up with changes in facts. If this is not possible, it is not worthy of the job. On one occasion, Engels used this criterion to criticize Greenwood, the editor of Pyle-Mayer News. He said, “Greenwood did not publish the article until yesterday evening, when a mass of confirmation was already available, was very stupid (vol. 44, p. 29).” If the newspaper is required to work according to the characteristics of theoretical thinking, it will lose the attributes of a news carrier. In understanding the newspaper movement, Marx has repeatedly criticized B. Bauer, another idealist philosopher in Germany. From 1843 to 1844, Powell edited The General Literature Report (Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung). His publications were described by Marx as such: “The correspondents, therefore, also express themselves as though they were communicating facts to Critical Criticism and/expect from it the spiritual interpretation; they provide it with premises and leave the conclusion to it, or they even apologise for repeating things Criticism has known for a long time (vol. 4, pp. 145–146) […]. Sometimes, too, the experiences of the correspondents are merely the fulfilment and confirmation of Criticism’s prophecies (vol. 4, p. 146)”. To use this kind of philosophical fantasy to run a publication will of course fail. The General Literature Report soon ceased to exist. Powell’s conception is a stupid challenge to the characteristics of the newspaper movement. He stubbornly believed that if any development negated his point of view, it was only a superficial phenomenon and that he was essentially true. Marx mocked him, saying that “Criticism reproaches the daily press for its total addiction to the present instant. As for itself, it sees the instant as a moment in the context of the whole, i.e. takes a general view. What in fact transpires is that, if the daily press is, in practice, dominated by day-to-day events, Criticism experiences the same defeat in the realm of theory. The isolated event is immobilised by it and turned into the incarnation of a general proposition, which every/turn of events strips of even a semblance of verisimilitude (vol. 15, pp. 184– 185).” Here, Marx once again demonstrated the organic newspaper movement in the form of criticism. In actual journalism, the organic newspaper movement will be affected by factors such as political opinions, economic capabilities, and communication technology. Even without these effects, it will also be affected by the parties’ ability to recognize. Therefore, the organic newspaper movement usually manifests itself as a movement that deviates from the track from time to time, but in general, this deviation is limited like the pendulum of a wall clock. At the center of the swing are new situations and new facts that happen constantly. Marx and Engels talked about dozens of examples of such deviations from newspapers. For example, The Times reported on British

11.5 The Organic Newspaper Movement

189

trade. It often portrays the trade situation as a rosy color from its own point of view, but when the crisis comes and has already been revealed, it has to bow to the facts. It is as Marx criticized, “While on this side of the ocean we were indulging in our little prelude to that great symphonious crash of bankruptcy which has since burst upon the world, our eccentric contemporary The London Times was playing triumphant rhetorical variations, with the ‘soundness’ of British commerce as its theme. Now, however, it tunes another and a sadder chord. In one of its latest impressions, that of Nov. 26, brought to these happy shores by the Europa yesterday, that journal declares ‘the trading classes of England to be unsound to the core’ (vol. 15, p. 400).” The same is true of the Irish Daily News, which is keen to spread sensational news. According to Marx, “The shifts Government is driven to may be judged from the maneuvers of The Dublin Daily Express, the Government organ, which day by day treats its readers to false rumors of murders committed, armed men marauding, and midnight meetings taking place. To its intense disgust, the men killed return from their graves, and protest in its own columns against being so disposed of by the editor (vol. 16, p. 136)”. A typical example is the report of the fall of New Orleans in the British press. In April 1862, the North Army of the United States besieged the Southern Alliance’s military center, New Orleans. Most of the newspapers in London, England are on the side of the Southern League, and they are proving that New Orleans is unbreakable. When the exact news of the city’s breach came, Marx responded, “When the first rumours were confirmed two days later by steamers arriving from New York, the bulk of the English/pro-slavery press persisted in its scepticism. The Evening Standard, especially, was so positive in its unbelief that in the same number it published a first leader which proved the Crescent City’s impregnability in black and white, whilst its ‘latest news’ announced the impregnable city’s fall in large type (vol. 19, pp. 199–200)”. However reluctant those newspapers were to correct deviations in their reports, they had to eventually change their tone to make correct reports. They were not afraid of contradictions and even published contradictory news in the same newspaper. What force finally suppressed the subjective will of the newspapers and made them succumb? It was the fact itself. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles in the Bible, was famous for his unwillingness to believe in the resurrection of Christ. ‘Thomas of Unbelief’ later became synonymous with cautious doubters. In response, Marx wrote, “Finally, however, the fait accompli struck even the blindest Thomas (vol. 19, p. 200)”. The facts show up as a powerful force because it is integrated with the basic functions of the newspaper. Newspapers are the carriers of news, and factual changes are the source of news. It is impossible to report facts truthfully. Relying on the reporters to publish empty words that meet their wishes, newspapers will lose readers. Readers read newspapers to get the real news. When Marx criticized the French Le Gaulois) for fabricating lies, he used a mocking tone to explain the needs of readers, saying that “having during the late war successfully rivalled the Figaro and the Paris -Journal in the concoction of Munchausiades that made the Paris petite presse a

190

11 News as a Form of Intercourse

byword all over the world, the Gaulois seems more than ever convinced that the news-reading public will always cling to the tenet, ‘Credo quia absurdum est.’ (vol. 22, p. 292)”. Due to facts restricting newspapers, under normal circumstances, newspapers panicked when they made major reporting errors. For example, in May 1853, The Times reported that Russia had good intentions for Turkey. When various facts about Russia’s ambitions for Turkey were revealed, Marx described the embarrassment of The Times as such, “In no quarter did the latest news create greater consternation than in Printing-House-square. The first attempt made by The Times to lift up its head under the terrible blow, was a desperate diatribe against the electric telegraph, that “most extraordinary” instrument. “No correct conclusions could be drawn,” it exclaimed, “from that mendacious wire.” Having thus laid its own incorrect conclusions to the fault of the electric wire, The Times, after the statement of Ministers in Parliament, endeavors now also to get rid of its ancient “correct” premises (vol. 12, p. 113)”. Evidently, the fact of change has virtually suppressed the operation of the newspaper. So it is as Marx said, “The logic of this reply was altogether worthy of the letter this same Tourte, who was then Swiss Ambassador in Turin, wrote to the President of the Confederation informing him that Cavour was working with might and main to prevent the cession of Savoy and Nice at a time when this cession was already a fait accompli (vol. 17, p. 53).” Under the restraint of this force, the final reports of the incidents in the newspapers have a higher degree of truth, and the reports on the development of facts will have errors and one or more corrections to the errors. Of course, deviating from the facts and ruthlessly rumoring the work are two different things. The latter has departed from the category of organic newspaper movement and belongs to the category of news morality or politics. No matter how the organic newspaper movement was regarded as the regular feature of newspaper reporting, people could always cite many examples to illustrate that some newspapers were not subject to this rule, often rumored and never corrected, and need not be ignored. Readers’ protests were published with confidence without regard to economic deficits. This shows that the organic newspaper movement must have certain social conditions, that is, a certain degree of press freedom. When the newspaper makes a mistake in the initial report of the facts, it can freely publish continuous reports of correction; other newspapers can also correct and criticize the report from all angles without hindrance. For example, this situation occurred earlier in the United Kingdom. In 1854, Marx talked about such amendments made by The Guardian to The Times. He said, “I have also learned from a private source of information that The Times reports of the state of trade in the manufacturing districts around Manchester are generally misrepresentations, and that trade is everywhere in a declining condition except at Birmingham. The Manchester Guardian confirms this and adds that the resumption of work by so large a number of operatives on strike could not be expected to act otherwise than to depreciate prices (vol. 13, p. 225).” It’s no surprise that such situations were commonplace there. However, the news policy under the authoritarian system did not provide such social conditions, as was the case in France under Louis Bonaparte and Russia in

11.5 The Organic Newspaper Movement

191

the nineteenth century. In France, the economic crisis was clearly impending. The situation was as described by Marx, “all the Paris papers have received confidential warnings to beware of gloomy views; the bullion dealers are being frightened by gens d’armes, (vol. 15, p. 390) […] and finally, he inserted in his Moniteur, on the 7th of October, a report/addressed to himself, by his own Minister of Finance, asserting that everything was right, and that only the appreciation of things by the people was wrong (vol. 15, pp. 118–119)”. The situation in Russia was the same. Clearly, the Russian army had failed, but what happened was as to how Engels described it. “By his Imperial will, the ordinary course of events is altered after the fact, and a defeated attack from his relieving army against the besiegers is changed to a victorious sally from within the town. The reason is evident: The sallying force necessarily retires into its fortifications so soon as the object of the sally is obtained; the retreat thus is explained and made a matter of course; while, if the facts were stated as they actually occurred, the disgrace of the defeat could not be hidden (vol. 13, p. 537)”. Under the authoritarian system, the untrue reports of newspapers existed like insurmountable diseases, because the facts had completely become slaves to politics. However, the world’s exchanges in the nineteenth century have brought Europe, North America, and the whole world together. In this context, the organic newspaper movement did not shift people’s will and stubbornly opened the way for itself. The distorted news of French and Russian newspapers could not be corrected, but they also could not prevent the disclosure of them by newspapers of other countries. The incidents of the French and Russian newspapers mentioned above were actually reported by American newspapers. Newspapers in continental Europe could also correct newspapers in Britain, the United States, and other countries under certain conditions. For example, in 1870, British newspapers distorted reports of the persecution of Irish people, and they were exposed by French newspapers. At the time, Marx’s eldest daughter, Jenny, wrote a series of eight articles for French newspapers, reporting on the persecution of the Finnish Society of Ireland by British authorities, which forced British newspapers to report the matter fairly. According to Marx, “The British Government and press are furious that the Irish question has thus been placed on the ordre du jour in France, and that these blackguards will now be watched and exposed all over continent, via Paris (vol. 43, p. 476) […]. The English press will soon note that the idyllic days of systematic lying and hushing up the FACTS are over (vol. 43, p. 455)”. It can be seen from this that Marx saw the organic newspaper movement as a phenomenon beyond national boundaries.

Chapter 12

Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

In the writings of Marx and Engels, as many as 1500 kinds of newspapers and magazines were mentioned. Except for The New Rhine News they founded and some newspapers and periodicals with direct working relationships, the frequency of mentioning, quoting, and commenting on a certain newspaper is about the same as the role of this newspaper in social communication system. Therefore, the only occurrence in their writings is The Times, the only world newspaper in the nineteenth century, about 1000 times. Their investigation of newspapers and periodicals is more extensive and in depth than other media or forms of spiritual communication, and the most length of the argument.

12.1 The Types and Basic Functions of Newspapers In the works of Marx and Engels, the concept of “die Presse” generally refers to two types of publications, newspapers, and magazines, and sometimes includes current affairs brochures. Newspapers and magazines have the characteristics of regular publication, but there are obvious differences in content and timeliness. They wrote about the characteristics of daily newspapers and review magazines, saying that “[t]he greatest interest of a newspaper, its daily intervention in the movement and speaking directly from the heart of the movement, its reflecting day-to-day history in all its amplitude, the continuous and impassioned interaction between the people and its daily press, this interest is inevitably lacking in a review. On the other hand, a review provides the advantage of comprehending events in a broader perspective and having to dwell only upon the more important matters. It permits a comprehensive and scientific investigation of the economic conditions which form the foundation of the whole political movement (vol. 10, p. 5).” The first political theory written by Marx in 1842 divided newspapers into four categories: philosophical newspapers, religious newspapers, political newspapers, and entertainment newspapers. He and Engels mainly observed newspapers and © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_12

193

194

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

periodicals from a political perspective, but also inspected newspapers and periodicals from the perspectives of information transmission, management, and pastime. For example, when Marx said that “the big private bankers are obliged ‘publicly’ to invite each other periodically to examine their holdings of securities deposited with them, and also to request their customers through The Times to inspect for themselves the effects entrusted to them (vol. 14, p. 311),” he was talking about newspapers from the perspective of transmitting information. Once, Engels talked to Paul Lafargue, Marx’s son-in-law, about British newspapers and said, “If only you knew the confusion and disorder that reign in that business, you’d be far more patient (vol. 48, p. 49).” Here, he inspected newspapers and periodicals from an industry perspective. According to different readers, Marx also distinguished newspapers and periodicals into “The Morning Advertiser and The Daily Telegraph, which write for the MOB (vol. 40, p. 431),” then, “second in line, came the leaders of the high-priced press, with their inveterate rancor and lurid malignity against the parliamentary godfathers of the penny press (vol. 15, p. 240).” Specialized newspapers and periodicals also have an important position in the works of Marx and Engels, because they provide informative materials for academic research. In 1895, Engels pointed out in his last paper that “even today, when the specialized press provides such rich material (vol. 27, p. 506).” For example, in economics publications, Marx talked about The Economist and The Money Market Review. Readers of this type of newspaper are limited to professionals, and generally the information provided is reliable. Marx questioned the reliability of the exchange report, writing that “The meteorological bulletins do not indicate the state of the barometer more exactly than stock-exchange bulletins do the state of interest rates, not for this or that capital, but for/the capital available on the money market, that is, capital available for lending (vol. 32, pp. 459–460).” Engels once said that the German diplomatic and statistical publication Gotha Yearbook was “as good an authority on the subject as can be found anywhere (vol. 18, p. 465).” Some of these newspapers and periodicals are quite good. Marx once compared The British Business Bulletin with the general newspaper and wrote that “[t]he style of the document is dry, businesslike, not quite as lofty as that of the trade circulars that periodically emanate from the same source, offering for sale coffee, tea, sugar, spices and other products of the tropical countries in a more or less tastefully arranged fabric of phrases (vol. 14, p. 208).” Taking this as a positive example, he criticized the dullness of the general British newspapers. There are also more ‘special’ specialized newspapers, such as Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society and Transaction of the Bengal Science Association, which Marx cited out of; and Nature, a weekly magazine, from which Engels cited twice, and Das Ausland, a weekly magazine of economic geography, etc. Various industry newspapers and periodicals were also taken note of by Marx and Engels. For example, they regarded the development of the British railway newspaper as a sign of the development of the railway industry. In 1850, when they analyzed the development of the British railway, they cited the railway newspaper as an example, “The number of railway newspapers rose from 3 to more than 20. Some large daily newspapers would often earn £14,000 in a week from railway advertisements and

12.1 The Types and Basic Functions of Newspapers

195

prospectuses (vol. 10, p. 491).” The industry newspapers they mentioned also include agricultural newspapers, medical newspapers, mining magazines, fashion magazines, industrial newspapers, military newspapers, police newspapers, book market industry newspapers, drama newspapers, music magazines and, etc. Both Marx and Engels liked satire and humor in newspapers and periodicals, and some of the characters from those were often borrowed and used in their own articles. Out of the many on the market, they mentioned the British Clumsy, the French Le Charivari, the Satan, the German Kladderadatssch and Fliegende Blätter, the Spanish El Guirigay, Switzerland’s Der Gukkasten, the German Social Democratic Party’s humorous publication Der Wahre Jacob, the Austrian Social Democratic Party’s Glühlichter and the American Socialist Magazine Der arme Teufel and so on. Each of these had different political tendencies in their own strengths and weaknesses, but because they were expressed in humorous, witty text and graphic forms, the seriousness of politics was consequently diluted. Except for individual cases, Marx and Engels only discussed such newspapers lightly, as a special pastime. For example, Engels said to Laura Lafargue, Marx’s daughter, “I will send you some American comic papers after to-morrow, must show them here first (vol. 48, p. 128).” For abstract magazines, Marx and Engels believed that such magazines are a shortcut to obtaining information. Marx quoted the French Asia Magazine many times. Its full name was Asia Magazine, or the compilation of papers, abstracts, and sketches in the history, philosophy, science, literature, and language of the Oriental nation (Journal Asiatique, ou Recueil de mémoiresd ‘éxtraites et notices relatifsal ‘histoire, alaphilosophie, aux sciences, a la literature et aux langues des peuples orientaux), a collection of various materials on oriental issues. Engels specially recommended The British Review magazine to Karl Kautsky, editor-in-chief of the German Social Democratic Party theoretical journal New Era. He said: “This review has been issued for 10,000 copies, and even More, with abstracts of magazines from various countries and catalogues (article titles) of all magazines-for example, there are no fewer than 23 German magazines […] Comments may also be of great benefit to you. Only 6 pence per month, but many materials. In this way, you can avoid the pain of reading all other British magazines (vol. 38, p. 189).” As far as the distinction between national and local newspapers was concerned, they paid more attention to national newspapers, especially those that affected the overall situation, such as The Times. In order to understand the local conditions, they paid attention to reading local newspapers and periodicals everywhere. They were accustomed to comparing newspapers and periodicals from different regions from a macro perspective. They often criticized the narrow vision of local newspapers and periodicals. For example, when Marx wrote about the newspaper in his hometown, he commented, “If public discussion was not frank, frank discussion was not public. Frank discussion was limited to obscure provincial sheets, whose horizon, of course, did not go beyond their area of circulation and, as shown above, could not do so (vol. 1, p. 352).” Meanwhile, Engels criticized the tabloid of Bremen, Germany, writing that “The smaller local newspapers, which feed on scandals, feuds between actors, town gossip, and such like, can boast of a more tenacious existence (vol. 2, p. 105).”

196

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

In major European countries during the Marxist era, national comprehensive newspapers and periodicals carried more political taints, and local newspapers and periodicals lacked such colors because they were not in the political center. In this sense, Marx’s comment on the British local newspaper was that “the independent provincial press is almost unanimous in its opposition to the war-cry of the London press (vol. 19, p. 134).” In Marx’s writings, there are also distinctions between official, semi-official newspapers and people’s newspapers. He proposed the concept of die Volkspresse in 1842, which refers to private newspapers relative to Prussian official and semi-official newspapers. Under the autocratic system, private newspapers and periodicals reflected the wishes and voices of the people to a considerable extent, so Marx believed that those were the “real press (vol. 1, p. 311).” In 1858, Marx divided the French press under the dictatorship of Louis Bonaparte into two categories. He wrote, “[t]he attitude of the Paris press, as far as it depends on the public, and not on the public purse, entirely responded to the attitude of the people (vol. 15, p. 456).” Most private newspapers under the bourgeois democracy (regardless of how they are related to the government or parties) are mostly controlled by the upper classes of society. At this time, Marx used the concept of “people’s newspapers” to refer to the newspapers and magazines created by the lower classes of the society (mainly workers) For example, he called the British workers’ newspaper The People’s Paper (“eigentlichen Volkspresse”). Marx also divided the newspapers and periodicals of Prussia, Russia, and the Second French Empire, which carried out the autocratic system, into newspapers and periodicals subject to censorship and free newspapers. The free newspapers and periodicals mentioned here included newspapers and periodicals that were forced to undergo inspections in the form while constantly resisting inspections. In 1842, Marx proposed the distinction between censored newspapers and free newspapers based on whether the Prussian noble congressman divided the newspapers into good and bad based on loyalty to the royal family. He believed that the characteristics of these two types of newspapers are diametrically opposed. In fact, he believed that “[t]he essence of the free press is the characterful, rational, moral essence of freedom. The character of the censored press is the characterless monster of unfreedom; it is a civilised monster, a perfumed abortion (vol. 1, p. 158).” Marx regarded free newspapers as a true manifestation of the people’s knowledge of themselves. According to him, “It is a people’s frank confession to itself, and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom (vol. 1, p. 165).” Marx later said similar things when evaluating the Parisian newspaper under the Bonapartist dictatorship. He believed that they were “emasculated (vol. 17, p. 430).” Marx also used the concept of “independent newspapers and periodicals”. This concept basically refers to the same type of newspapers and periodicals as the people’s newspapers and free newspapers, but the angle of discussion is different. Such newspapers and periodicals are usually progressive in politics, at least not against the workers’ movement. For example, Marx and Engels talked about the situation after the failure of the revolutionary European democratic revolution in 1848, claiming

12.1 The Types and Basic Functions of Newspapers

197

that “[t]he destruction of the last remnants of an independent press on the Continent has made it the honourable duty of the English press to record every act of illegality and oppression in that quarter of Europe (vol. 11, p. 210).” The “independent newspaper” here explains it. He affirmed that independent newspapers and periodicals were subject to the opinions provided by such newspapers and periodicals. They were more authentic than party newspapers and could reflect true public opinion and helped people accurately judge the facts. Marx hated the manipulation of seemingly unofficial or non-partisan newspapers by the government or parties because they created a false state of public opinion. As he said, “[a]ccording to this paper, which may be regarded as the private Moniteur of the retired Russian diplomatists at Brussels (vol. 13, p. 294).” In fact, Moniteur used the word ‘notice’ in “Le Moniteur universel”, a government agency in France, Bonaparte, and it carries a derogatory meaning. Another example is when he discussed the British Morning Post. As it had been bought over by the British Prime Minister Palmerston, Marx said, “Among the English people the Morning Post is accordingly notorious as the Jenkins (the stock figure for the lackey) of the press (vol. 19, p. 128).” From his choice of words, we can see Marx’s contempt for such newspapers and periodicals. Based on the above knowledge, it is clear that Marx valued and respected the opinions of independent newspapers and periodicals. In July 1870, Louis Bonaparte launched the Franco-Prussian War. Marx emphasized the opinions of independent newspapers to criticize this war, pointing out that “all the independent journals of Paris condemned it, and, wonderful to relate, the provincial press joined in almost unanimously (vol. 22, p. 4).” In 1878, Marx commented on the debate taking place in the German parliament. The Minister of the Interior, Botho Wend August Eulenburg, said in Congress, “I believe that in so saying, Gentlemen, I am still today of one mind with the entire German press,” […] i.e. insofar as it has been reptilized1 i.e. with the single exception of independent papers of all complexions (vol. 24, p. 244).” The “independent newspapers” mentioned here included workers’ newspapers. Engels also attached great importance to newspapers and magazines that could express their opinions independently. He pointed out, “these twelve millions are to be used for we are informed by the Ostsee Zeitung, of Stettin, a paper which for many years not only has had the very best information about Russian affairs, but which also has had the independence to publish it (vol. 22, p. 283).” The last time Marx talked about newspapers and periodicals more intensively, the theme was independent newspapers and periodicals. At that time, the European powers were preparing to invade Egypt. Marx commented, “Incidentally, and aside from the selfstyled socialist journals, a large and most influential part of the 1

The reptile funds—special money funds at the disposal of Bismarck which he used to buy venal journalists, nicknamed reptiles. The nickname was current in Germany in the 1870s. Bismarck was the first to use it, although in a different sense, speaking in the Prussian Chamber of Deputies on January 30, 1869 (by reptiles, he referred to the circles hostile to the government). However, the Left-wing press began to apply the word to the semi-official press bribed by the government. Speaking in the Reichstag on February 9, 1876, Bismarck was forced to admit that the new meaning of the word "reptiles" had gained wide currency in Germany. (vol. 24, p. 599).

198

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

Paris press is incomparably more independent than that of London. Despite pressure from most of the PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS, despite collusion between the République Française, the Temps and the Journal des Débats, working hand-in-glove under the immediate direction of Gambetta; despite, what is more, the attempts at bribery by the FINANCIERS (Rothschilds, etc.) who have an immediate interest in joining the English crusade against Egypt, the Paris press has quashed every attempt (even Freycinet’s disguised ones) at joint intervention with England or with a Quadruple Alliance; without that press, Clemenceau would not have won his victory in parliament. But where in London is there even a modicum of an ‘independent’ press? (vol. 46, p. 298).” Newspapers and periodicals, as one of the main media of social spiritual communication, reflect almost all social, economic, political, cultural, national psychological, and other aspects and contradictions in the process of communication. A comprehensive examination of Marx and Engels’s expositions on newspapers and periodicals shows that although they talk about newspapers and periodicals more politically, their grasp of the newspapers and periodicals is comprehensive and never ignores the essential characteristics of newspapers and periodicals in other respects.

12.2 The Social Status and Role of Newspapers The scale and influence of the nineteenth-century newspapers and periodicals have enabled people to consider its independent social status as a whole. The young Marx, who devoted himself to the struggle of a society, noticed a social phenomenon and wrote, “Here, too, we must in the first place stress the point of view by which we have been guided in our exposition and recognise the powerful influence of general conditions on the will of the acting persons (vol. 1, p. 354). […] the specific position of the administration in regard to the Mosel region, the general state of the daily press and of public opinion, and, finally, the prevailing political spirit and its system (vol. 1, p. 354).” Marx regarded newspapers and periodicals as an independent part of society. In criticizing the author ‘the Prussian’, Marx wrote the following, “Let us distinguish—which the “Prussian” neglects to do—the different categories contained in the expression “German society”: the Government, the bourgeoisie, the press and, finally, the workers themselves. These are the different masses with which we are concerned here. ‘The Prussian’ lumps all these masses together and, from his lofty stand, passes sentence on them en bloc (vol. 3, pp. 191–192).” These four parts are interrelated, but Marx emphasized their “different” points and regarded them as different social systems. Here, newspapers and periodicals are equal to the four parts of the power organ, the bourgeoisie, and the working class. Such a division is rarely in the works at that time. As the newspapers and periodicals are, as Marx had already said, “all-sided, ubiquitous, omniscient (vol. 1, p. 165),” the publication of newspapers and periodicals itself is social, and the production of news, time commentary, and materials has the nature of social production. In 1849, when Marx criticized the last article of the

12.2 The Social Status and Role of Newspapers

199

“Cologne Daily” with the signature “Montesquis fifty-sixth”, he wrote at the beginning, “In order to atone for the injustice we have done to the anonymous Montesquieu LVI we have imposed upon ourselves the harsh penance of reading all his advertisements in the Kölnische Zeitung and making his intellectual private property available to the German public as common property (vol. 8, p. 255).” There is a theoretical issue involved here, that is, once an individual’s “mental private property” (referring to an article written by an individual) is published in a newspaper, it will not only belong to the individual but become “public property” (Gesamteigentum in German). People have the right to comment on top quality. At that time, most of the news and comments in newspapers and magazines were anonymous. Marx’s argument on this issue was the same as the above. He contended, “In this respect I am guided by the conviction that anonymity is an essential feature of the newspaper press, since it transforms the newspaper from an assemblage of many individual opinions into the organ of one/mind. The name of the author would separate one article from another as definitely as the body separates one person from another, and would thus completely suppress the function of being only a complementary part. Finally, anonymity ensures greater impartiality and freedom, not only of the author, but also of the public, since the latter sees not who is speaking, but what he is saying. Free from an empirical view of the author as a person, the public judges him solely by his intellectual personality (vol. 1, pp. 333–334).” In the same article, Marx also said that once people express their opinions in newspapers and periodicals, it was no longer just a personal opinion, but instead, had a social nature. This is because “[i]n the realm of the press, rulers and ruled alike have an opportunity of criticising their principles and demands, and no longer in a relation of subordination, but on terms of equality as citizens of the state; no longer as individuals, but as intellectual forces, as exponents of reason (vol. 1, p. 349).” What he said here has been idealized, but this situation existed. Many people have had such an experience. An invisible pressure required people who wrote in newspapers to be convinced that they were representatives of intellectual capacity, not only individuals. They wanted to represent more people; and regardless of their status, they are naturally “equal” with other people who expressed their opinions in the press. This invisible pressure originated from the idea that newspapers and periodicals face society, not just a few people who agree among themselves. Based on this understanding, he and Engels pointed out when they talked about France in 1850 that “As long as the newspaper press was anonymous, it appeared as the organ of a numberless and nameless public opinion; it was the third power in the state. Hitherto the newspapers had circulated as the paper money of public opinion (vol. 10, p. 138).” The “third force” mentioned here refers to the third force beyond the executive power of the French president and the legislative power of the parliament. The main point of these remarks is to recognize that newspapers and periodicals can become an equally important social force as power organizations. Newspaper articles “anonymous” typically illustrate how personal spiritual property becomes social spiritual property through newspapers and periodicals. Even if it is signed, the nature of this social transformation of spiritual property is the same. Marx explained this point when he talked about Montesquieu the fifty-sixth.

200

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

The comparison of newspapers to public opinion notes shows the social nature of newspapers. When talking about money, Marx pointed out “by the fact that they represent independent incarnations, expressions of the social character of wealth (vol. 37, p. 568). […] Thus the wealth of the individual is realised as social wealth only through the medium of money. It is in money, in this thing, that the social nature of this wealth is incarnated (vol. 37, p. 68).” The same situation applies to newspapers and periodicals. Newspapers and periodicals have property rights. Once people regard newspapers and periodicals as an open medium for spiritual communication, newspaper articles change from personal spiritual wealth to “public property”, and newspapers and periodicals become the embodiment of social spiritual wealth. In 1853, Marx discussed the great role of newspapers and telegraphs in society by demonstrating the conditions for India’s revival. He mentioned three conditions for the revival of India: the political unity consolidated by the telegraph network; the modern Indian army; and the free press. He was of the opinion that “[t]he free press, introduced for the first time into Asiatic society, and managed principally by the common offspring of Hindoos and Europeans, is a new and powerful agent of reconstruction (vol. 12, p. 218).” In view of the rampant autocratic newspapers of the Second French Empire and the Russian Empire, and ethnic conflicts hindering the development of social interactions, Marx emphasized the nature of national integration and the background of freedom of publication in Indian free newspapers; and the use of the telegraph network to consolidate political unity shows Marx’s foresight of the future information society. Marx and Engels’ awareness of the role of social communication in newspapers and periodicals is very strong. In 1860, Marx’s book Mr. Vogt was published, and he sent sample books or advertisements to more than 40 national newspapers; in 1872, the first volume of The Capital was published in French. 31 newspapers from various countries. In the list of newspapers and periodicals, the first one is The Times, because it was the only major newspaper in the world at that time. These newspapers are not proletarian, and many of them are politically dead enemies of Marx and Engels. In addition to the need for publicity, they are fully aware of the social communication role of newspapers and periodicals. If these newspapers and periodicals publish book reviews or book advertisements, no matter how they are evaluated, they will achieve the most basic communication between the book and the author of the book and the society. For example, Marx happily told Engels that “[t]he advertisement (bookseller’s) for my book has also appeared in the Neue Preussische Zeitung (vol. 41, p. 249).” Of course, Marx will not forget that he called the newspaper “the rascally newspaper (vol. 9, p. 466).” This phenomenon shows that once a journal has published a book review, the social nature of the public book review will elicit a response from other journals, otherwise they will lose face in the profession. In 1887, when the first book review appeared after the publication of the English version of The Capital, Engels wrote, “It is very fortunate that the press begins to speak of the book just/as the 1st edition is sold out, and the Athenaeum article is worth a good deal to us. The gentlemen of the press evidently did not know exactly how to speak of the book, hence the delay,

12.2 The Social Status and Role of Newspapers

201

but now the Athenaeum has given them the key-note, the others are sure to follow suit (vol. 48, pp. 34–35).” Newspapers and periodicals thus unconsciously open the way for their social communication, regardless of the wishes of the newspapers and periodicals involved. The social status of modern newspapers and periodicals was gradually formed in the course of centuries of historical development. Its relationship with the people differed from that of the monarchs and ministers. To a certain extent, it needed the recognition of the people to maintain its position in social interaction. This involved the relationship between newspapers and people caused by the social nature of the newspapers. In 1840, Engels wrote this in a poem, “Here is the paper. Let me draw fresh cheer/by drinking from the well-spring of the nations (vol. 2, p. 123).” This reflected a new awareness in Germany that newspapers reflected the people’s lives. In a situation where official newspapers and free newspapers were opposed, Marx believed that free newspapers could more fully reflect the voice of the people. When he participated in The Rheinland, he called the social nature of newspapers and periodicals formed in the historical development “historical personality”, pointing out that “[t]he popular character of the free press—and it is well known that even the artist does not paint great historical pictures with water-colours—the historical individuality of the free press, which makes it the specific expression of its specific popular spirit, are repugnant to the speaker from the princely estate (vol. 1, p. 143).” In this controversial statement, he clearly mentioned the people’s nature determined by the historical personality of the newspapers, that is, the free newspapers and the people have a more natural close relationship with the people. He said, “The press is, and should be, nothing but the public, admittedly often ‘passionate/exaggerated and mistaken, expression of the daily thoughts and feelings of a people that really thinks as a people’. It is rooted in the people and honestly sympathises with all the latter’s hopes and fears, love and hatred, joys and sorrows (vol. 1, pp. 311–312).” and that “precisely the elements which are not only the creative forces of a frank and public press, but also the conditions within which a frank and public press can operate and win popular recognition, recognition which is the breath of life of the press, and without which it hopelessly pines away (vol. 1, p. 351).” In January 1843, when the Prussian authorities decided to seal the “Rheinland”, the people of all parts of Prussia signed a petition on a large scale, requesting the cancelation of the blockade, which indeed reflected the close relationship between the newspaper and the people, as Marx said. Marx believed that in the relationship between the newspaper, the people, and the government, it is the duty of the newspaper, as an intermediary, to express the people’s voice. He questioned, “or is it not even a duty of the press to the government not only to express the popular conviction without consideration for the exceptional opinion of single individuals, but also to prove the reasonable content of this conviction? (vol. 1, p. 272)” This expression is also a kind of protection for the people, as he further claimed that “firstly, it is the duty of the press to come forward on behalf of the oppressed in its immediate neighbourhood (vol. 8, p. 316).” However, newspapers and periodicals are always associated with certain interests, and the relationship between newspapers and periodicals and the people also opens

202

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

up a way for themselves in the containment of various interests. Therefore, Marx paid more attention to the degree to which newspapers and periodicals represented the people under specific environmental conditions. In a social environment where business rules dominated, the relationship between newspapers and people was often tortuously reflected in the commercial interests of newspapers and magazines. In 1853, Marx positively quoted the British radical MP Bright when he compared the New York Daily Tribune with the London newspaper. He said, “The name of that paper was the New York Tribune, and it was laid regularly every morning upon the table of every workingman of that city who chose to buy it at the sum of one penny. [Hear, hear.] What he wanted to ask the Government was this: How comes it, and for what good end, and by what contrivance of fiscal oppression was it that one of our workmen here should pay 5d. for a London morning paper, while his direct competitor in New York could buy a paper for Id.? We were running a race in the face of all the world with the United States; but if our artisans were to be bound either to have no newspaper at all, or to pay 5d. for it, or were to be driven to the public houses to read it, […] while the artisan in the United States could procure it for Id., how was it possible that any fair rivalry could be maintained between the artisans of the two countries? (vol. 12, p. 176).” This passage actually concerns the interests of the British industrial bourgeoisie, but it is spoken in the form of concern for the workers. It typically illustrates the relationship between commercial newspapers and people’s relationship with the people and certain interests. No matter which class, group, or party is represented politically in the press because they happen to be in the same social environment, they will naturally and inevitably reflect the general consciousness of this society. When talking about German newspaper editors in 1858, Marx pointed out that they reflected “not so much irritated at the stammering of these cautious wiseacres as at the general state of public mind which they presuppose to exist (vol. 16, p. 79).” In 1858, he used reports and activities from French newspapers to elucidate “now and then, symptoms of returning internal life appear on the surface of the social body (vol. 16, p. 613).” During the American Civil War, Marx read various newspapers at the American Coffeehouse in London to judge the signs of American society. Marx attached great importance to newspapers and periodicals, but he did not think that mastering them will control everything. No matter how extensive the impact of newspapers and periodicals, it is only a spiritual force after all. In 1865, he relayed to Engels the words of Leon Lewis, a member of the International Workers Association, “The fellow imagined that by founding a paper, The Commoner, he could revolutionise England in 24 h or in 6 months at the very least (vol. 42, p. 162). […] I suspect to see if he can apply his ‘LEVER’ there with any more success (vol. 42, p. 162) […] In my opinion, he is worthless, although he has plenty of money and even more ambition (vol. 42, p. 162).” This person opposes an authoritarian communication policy, but at the same time imagines that the newspapers and periodicals can do whatever they want. In 1842, Marx criticized this understanding in The Rheinland and wrote that “[f]or a long time philosophy had remained silent in the face of the self-satisfied superficiality which boasted that by means of a few hackneyed

12.2 The Social Status and Role of Newspapers

203

newspaper phrases it would blow away like soap-bubbles the long years of study by/genius, the hard-won fruits of self-sacrificing solitude, the results of the unseen but slowly exhausting struggles of contemplative thought (vol. 1, pp. 196–197).”

12.3 Newspapers and Politics Marx and Engels mainly inspected the activities of newspapers and periodicals from a political perspective. This aspect richly involved various types of relations and various forms of expression between newspapers and politics. Since the newspapers and periodicals have a natural professional connection with the real movement, it is inevitable to be related to real politics to a considerable extent. Engels said about the relationship between newspapers and politics “The only question is how and how far to get involved in politics. This depends on circumstances and cannot be prescribed (vol. 22, p. 415).” Here he talked about three issues: first, newspapers and periodicals have a close relationship with politics; secondly, newspapers and periodicals are not the same things, so there is a question of how to intervene in politics and degree of intervention; and finally, the relationship between newspapers and political and Depending on the situation, there is no a priori “rule” that newspapers and periodicals must be related to politics or abandon politics. Here is an overall discussion of newspapers and politics. In fact, there are some tabloid newspapers and journals that have nothing to do with politics. For example, when Marx and Engels defended Mesa, the head of the Spanish branch of the International Workers Association, he said, “Mesa, who was editing a fashion magazine to earn his living and had just translated an article for an illustrated journal, was alleged to have sold himself to the bourgeoisie (vol. 23, p. 493).” Clearly, it would be boring to force such magazines into the political arena. From a political perspective, Marx regarded newspapers and periodicals as a “fort to be held and the political position not surrendered (vol. 38, p. 179).” From the perspective of the art of communication, he and Engels regarded the work of newspapers and periodicals as a kind of “pleasure (vol. 27, p. 76).” The first thing related to politics is the concept of “class”. Marx and Engels often looked at newspapers and periodicals from the perspective of class, but they showed it as a kind of macroevaluation. When summarizing the political attributes of a certain type of newspaper and periodicals in a country, they use the concept of “class”. In fact, they wrote, “So great is the mental vacuity of the English bourgeoisie and its press on the subject of pauperism, this national epidemic of England (vol. 3, p. 193).” On the other hand, when examining specific newspapers and periodicals, they rarely used general terms such as “bourgeois newspapers and periodicals”, but analyze their connection with specific parties. For example, Marx called The Morning Herald “the old organ of the English Aristocracy (vol. 12, p. 242).” They never apply “class analysis” simply and vulgarly everywhere. The situation in the United States was different. Newspapers and magazines “played” politics. There, the fact of class struggle could itself become a source

204

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

of money for newspapers. After the failure of the Paris Commune in 1871, the International Workers’ Association was slandered by European bourgeois newspapers, but American newspapers made a fortune and gained a reputation for sympathy with the international community. In response, Engels wrote, “That which sends European bourgeois and governments into convulsions appears, by contrast, interesting there (vol. 23, p. 177). […] The more fearful, therefore, the International appeared in Europe and the more monstrously it was presented by the correspondents of the American press—and no one is more adept at painting a lurid picture than these gentlemen—the more/widespread the view became in America that the time was now right for making both financial and political capital out of it (vol. 23, pp. 177–178).” The interrelationship between newspapers, classes, and politics was expressed in the United States in a model that could not be understood in the tradition of Europe. In fact, this was exactly the characteristic of the operation of the bourgeois newspapers under the relatively pure capitalist economic relationship. “The Party” was an important concept related to politics. In more specific cases, Marx and Engels analyzed the activities of newspapers and periodicals by judging the party attributes of the newspapers and periodicals. The party they referred to, in addition to the organized German and French workers’ political parties in the later period, generally refers to a relatively stable group of people with certain political opinions. These people had not yet formally organized. Another situation was that newspapers and periodicals that promoted certain claims were called government newspapers, but they did not necessarily have an organizational relationship with the party. For example, when Engels talked about Germany in 1844, he mentioned “that party which I now refer to is a philosophical one (vol. 3, p. 403) […] the periodical of the party, the German Annals, was more radical and open than ever before (vol. 3, p. 405) […] The political paper of the party, the Rhenish Gazette, published some papers advocating Communism, but without the wished-for effect (vol. 3, p. 406).” In fact, there was no such well-organized party, and no one of these two publications was designated as a party journal. Another example is when Marx hired a writer for the American Revolution “Die Revolution” in 1852. He said, “Since, then, you are unable to make any payment, it is all the more necessary to convince people that they are doing real party work and that their letters are not being pigeonholed (vol. 39, p. 41).” The “party” he mentioned refers to some people who have communist beliefs. “Revolution” is regarded as a party publication and it is only recognized by everyone. Marx and Engels often talk about the British Whig Party, Tory Party, Liberal Party, Radical Party, Conservative Party, and newspapers of these parties. For example, Marx studied the German “Cologne Daily” in 1859 and believed that there existed “very influential party, represented by the Cologne Gazette, of bankers, stock-jobbers and Crédit-Mobilier men, who by their material interests are subjected to the Crédit Mobilier at Paris, and consequently to Bonapartism (vol. 16, p. 313).” In fact, the newspaper was only considered by some people to be the representative of such people. The “parties” here have no organizational form. They used the concepts of the party and the party’s newspapers and periodicals to analyze the camps in the political struggle.

12.3 Newspapers and Politics

205

Marx and Engels stated that the typical country for the relationship between newspapers and politics in Britain. In this country of the nineteenth century, the capitalist economy and politics developed the most fully, as far as the relationship between newspapers and politics was concerned. Engels wrote about this, claiming that “[o]f course, the fine was quickly covered by subscriptions, for every Englishman subscribes to his newspaper, helps his leaders to pay fines, pays for his chapel or hall, attends his meetings (vol. 3, p. 386)” for “[i]t supplies recruits to every section of the bourgeoisie, and besides forms, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat now emerging with its interests and demands, a chain of more or less radical political and socialist sects, which one can study more closely in the English or French Chamber of Deputies and the daily press (vol. 6, p. 82).” The “own” mentioned here, of course, does not mean owning, but means that everyone with a certain political opinion can find newspapers and magazines in the UK that reflect their views. Under such social conditions, with the exception of a small number of political workers’ newspapers, almost all of the relations between the proletariat’s newspapers and politics were more or less dominated by their own economic interests. Since Britain was governed by aristocratic oligarchs for the bourgeoisie, the traditional power and political honor of the oligarchs also constrained the newspapers and periodicals. These are the two most basic types of restraint on newspapers and periodicals. Marx talked about the same problems encountered by Britain’s largest newspaper and the largest comic weekly. He said, “Still we must not forget The London Times and Punch, the Grand Cophta and the Clown of the British press, both of whom are riveted to the present administration by golden and official links, and, consequently, write up a factitious enthusiasm for the hero of the Canton massacres (vol. 15, p. 220).” This situation was most evident in the 10 years (1855–1865) of the British Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston in power. When Palmerston emerged as an aristocratic oligarch, most of the major newspapers in London turned to him with enthusiasm. On the eve of Palmerston as prime minister, Marx wrote, “In this decisive moment he procured the unreserved support of The Times. How he managed to bring this about, what contract he made with Mr. Delane, of course we cannot tell. Thus, the day after the vote, the whole daily press of London, The Herald only excepted, with one voice cried out for Palmerston as Premier; and we suppose he thought he had obtained the object of his wishes (vol. 13, p. 637).” In order to maintain the image of “freedom” in the United Kingdom, Palmerston used these two chains to effectively keep the newspapers of various readers in their original style and even argue with each other. Services. Marx said to Engels in 1859, “the LONG AND SHORT of it is that The Times, like all the rest of Palmerston’s papers (though these, depending on their allotted role, either oppose or support the various powers involved), is hinting at the necessity of reappointing THE TRULY BRITISH MINISTER (The Morning Advertiser and The Daily Telegraph, which write for the MOB, are saying it openly) (vol. 40, p. 431).” At this time, Palmerston temporarily stepped down for a few months, and he still had control over various newspapers. By the 1860s, he was even able to make Times’ foreign policy “his mere

206

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

slave (vol. 19, p. 23).” As the gold chain has pulled Times too tightly, or come across as too tempting, some important figures from the newspaper entered Palmerston’s cabinet. Some articles often quote Marx about Palmerston’s control of The Times when explaining the control of newspapers and periodicals in capitalist countries. This may be appropriate in explaining the essential relationship, but the specifics of Palmerston’s oligarchy. The situation should not be used to fully explain the problem. In modern British history, the degree of centralization like Palmerston is caused by various factors, not a common phenomenon, and various newspapers and periodicals are not completely passive. They will weigh the interests and determine their own political attitudes. The principles of a market economy have a decisive influence on the political attitudes of newspapers and periodicals. For example, the savvy The Times. In 1852, the United Cabinet, led by the Earl of Aberdeen, came to power. The newspaper boasted that the United Kingdom had entered the “the beginning of the political millennium.” Until one or two months before this cabinet fell, it was still singing praises for the cabinet. However, when it realized that Palmerston must rise as a new political force, it quickly changed its tone and began to attack the incompetence of the Aberdeen cabinet. According to Marx, “The very Times which inaugurated the reign of ‘All the Talents’ as a millennium, was, of all journals, the one which contributed most toward its downfall (vol. 13, p. 621).” The political attitude of newspapers and periodicals is just a balance of their own interests for newspapers and periodicals. Marx quoted, “After all, those worthies might have known if only from Cobbett’s disclosures, that The Times is nothing but a commercial concern, which doesn’t give a damn how the balance turns out, providing it is a balance in its own favour (vol. 41, p. 489).” This is true of high-priced newspapers in the UK, and the political attitude of cheap newspapers is even more volatile. For example, The Daily Telegraph, when Palmerston was in power, it naturally depended on this powerful dictator, whose motive was as Marx analyzed, “Politicians refer to The Daily Telegraph as “Palmerston’s mobpaper”, but Levy’s refuse barge only carries politics as ballast (vol. 17, p. 244).” Such newspapers and journals are much less constrained in political attitudes than The Times, because the latter has a certain prestige in society and also has to consider the “face” issue, while the former has no such concerns. This is why Marx said, “along with the respectable or would-be respectable press of the metropolis, there exists an irrespectable press, absolutely swayed by its political patrons with no literary standing to check them, always ready to coin money out of its privilege of free speech, and anxious to improve an opportunity of appearing in the eyes of the public as the last representatives of manliness (vol. 15, p. 597).” Since British newspapers and periodicals publicly changing their political attitudes were the norm rather than the exception, Marx and Engels’ political qualitative terms for the same newspaper and periodical were very different in different periods. For example, The Times was known as The Conservative Times (vol. 11, p. 346)” in 1852. In the second year, it became known as “the representative of the whole of the Cabinet (vol. 12, p. 537).” When Palmerston was in reign, it was called “Palmerston’s newspaper”; in the 1840s, Times was still a fierce critic of the foreign policy of

12.3 Newspapers and Politics

207

Palmerston’s foreign policy. The same is true of the relationship between The Times and another British Prime Minister Gladstone, as mentioned in 1863 that “The Times was a Gladstonian organ at that time (vol. 27, p. 100).” By 1869, “Gladstone has to contend with the opposition of The Times, the Saturday Review, etc., if we speak out boldly (vol. 21, p. 412).” This is not subjective and arbitrary judgment by Marx or Engels, but the political attitude of the newspaper itself is constantly changing. It is precisely because of this that to cite them about the relationship between a newspaper and politics, it is necessary to have an understanding of British history and the economy and politics of each period. As a regular understanding, the interests of newspapers and periodicals determined their political attitudes, but newspapers and periodicals were always in a complicated social relationship. The performance of this interest lies not only in the economy but also in other factors. Marx and Engels never regarded economic interests as the sole motivation for the political attitude of newspapers and periodicals. Sometimes, the political attitude of newspapers is motivated by national motives. For example, before the French Revolution in February, the Republican newspaper Nationale, its economic policy is protectionist. Marx pointed out when analyzing his motives, “The industrial bourgeoisie was grateful to it for its slavish defence of the French protectionist system, which it accepted, however, more on national grounds than on grounds of national economy (vol. 11, p. 113).” Here, the class attributes of the National News are expressed through national motives. At other times, patriotic considerations will also cause newspapers and periodicals to temporarily abandon their own interests and be consistent in diplomacy. In December 1851, Louis Bonaparte took a coup to power and was violently attacked by the British proletariat. This political attitude was directly caused by the conflict of economic interests, Engels wrote at the time, “They have every reason to cry out, for whatever Louis Napoleon took from others, he took it not from the working classes, but from those very classes whose interests in England the aforesaid portion of the press represents (vol. 11, p. 213).” Two years later, the Crimean War broke out, and Britain and France formed an alliance to fight against Russia. Although the political systems and ideologies of the two countries were opposed, they shared common interests on a larger international scale. At this time, the British newspapers stopped attacking Bonaparte from the point of view of “patriotism”, and Engels disclosed that an article by Bonaparte was nowhere to be published. It was then that Marx said to Engels, “I fear that, at this particular juncture, your ‘Napoleon as Lieutenant of Artillery’ will be rejected, as The Times has had orders to refrain from any semblance of anti-Bonaparte polemics. Since he is ‘our’ ally, every paper will be moved by the same patriotic considerations just now (vol. 39, p. 409).” The “order” here is of course not administrative, and “patriotism” is also in the sense of the ruling class, but as a motivation for a newspaper’s political attitude, it is not directly economic. Under certain conditions, the motivation of ideas over economic motivation determined the political attitude of newspapers and periodicals, even though the ideas themselves were the product of the entire economic system.

208

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

In a country’s newspapers and periodicals, big newspapers with a long history of influential parties often play a leading role in political statements, while various smaller newspapers and periodicals, due to lack of sources and lack of high-level staff, In consideration of their own interests, they will also follow one or several major newspapers. In 1859, Marx wrote this about the leading role of The New York Daily Tribune, “There exist at least some hundred smaller American papers, published in the English language, which receive their mot d’ordre from the Tribune, and, consequently, will reprint that article (vol. 40, p. 505).” The British Times was generally a conservative newspaper, but when it actively reported on the workers’ movement, other newspapers would follow. In September 1869, the Basel Congress of the International Workers’ Association convened. The Times first reported on the conference. At that time, Marx’s wife Jenny wrote, “if The Times publishes a few more reports, the other bell-wethers will follow, and then the success of the Congress will be assured (vol. 43, p. 544).” This happened, and Marx later talked about it many times. For those smaller newspapers, the direct motivation for their political position was not economic, but rather, a tradition of worship of authority was at work. In a country with strong traditions like Britain, the cultural circle formed in history has more influence on newspapers and periodicals than any political power and partisan interests. Marx has repeatedly pointed out the existence of cultural circles when reporting on noble scandals. In 1858, the British parliamentarian and writer Sir Bourwell persecuted his wife Rosina. This family incident has political significance, and the newspapers have been silent for a long time. The reason lies in the influence of the cultural circle. According to Marx, “It is true that, despite the great party interest involved, the metropolitan press, with some trifling exceptions, did everything in its power to hush the case by a conspiracy of silence—Sir Edward Bulwer being one of the chiefs of the literary coterie which lords it more despotically over the heads of the London journalists than even party connection, and to openly affront whose wrath literary gentlemen generally lack the necessary courage (vol. 15, p. 596).” Under such circumstances, it is not economic interests nor political interests that determine the political attitude of newspapers and periodicals, but tradition. This tradition has almost lost the socio-economic soil that produced it, but it will also exist independently for quite a long time and maintain a greater influence. Generally speaking, newspapers and periodicals are consistent with the classes and parties they represent, but this does not rule out the opposition between the two. How the class struggle has caused a certain class and its ideological representatives under certain conditions the alienation and even the opposition of the newspapers, Marx used the French bourgeoisie and the newspapers representing it in “Louis Bonaparte’s Fog 18th”. As an example, a detailed argument was made. This is pointed out to show that the relationship between class, party, newspapers, and periodicals is generally a “decision” of another, but this abstract axiom is not universal and must be analyzed concretely in order to prevent erring. Marx and Engels paid attention to class analysis and partisanship judgment of newspapers and periodicals, admitting that newspapers and periodicals are closely

12.3 Newspapers and Politics

209

related to politics, but they never said that every report and every activity of newspapers and periodicals is related to class and partisan and has a political nature. The self-interest of newspapers and periodicals may also obscure their political attitudes. For example, Marx called the British The Morning Advertiser, “the most widely distributed daily newspaper except The Times. He then analyzed that “it owes its influence to the fact that it is not edited, but rather offers a forum where any member of the public may join in the discussion (vol. 13, p. 590). […] but from time to time also to important writers who have not sold themselves to any party (vol. 13, p. 591).” Looking again at the British Review of Reviews magazine, Engels said, “Since Stead is a thoroughly mad sort of chap, albeit a brilliant businessman, it may well be of benefit to us and, on occasion, prove enormously effective if you were to send him copies-for whenever there’s a chance of creating a sensation, he ruthlessly seizes on it, irrespective of the source (vol. 49, p. 274).” Even a political newspaper, despite its obvious political tendencies, does not prevent it from publishing articles with various opinions and remaining neutral on some issues. For example, the largest newspaper in the nineteenth century in Germany, General Report, Marx had many political debates with it, and yet he said, “It is a known fact that the Allgemeine Zeitung allows the most widely divergent views to be expressed in its columns, at least on such neutral topics as that of English politics, and in addition it is the only German paper with a more than local significance in the eyes of the world (vol. 17, p. 114).” The problem is not that these newspapers give up politics in terms of content, but that they start from their own interests and have a good grasp of the degree of intervention in politics. Obviously, on the issue of the relationship between newspapers and periodicals and politics, it is useless to simply use the definition of class, party, etc. to set up complex newspaper and periodical activities. Marx and Engels provided examples of analyzing the relationship between newspapers and journals in various contexts.

12.4 Proletarian Newspapers and Workers’ Movements Marx and Engels were thinkers of the working class, so when they examined newspapers and periodicals from a political perspective, they paid particular attention to analyzing their attitudes towards the workers’ movement. In the era they lived in, countries in power and parties differed greatly, and their relations with the workers’ movement were not the same. It was inaccurate to characterize most non-worker newspapers as “bourgeois”. The general character of “class” is in the title of this section. Marx and Engels’ disclosure of the class nature of newspapers and periodicals was not to explain that the proletariat newspapers refused any reports about the workers’ movement and held a hostile position against the workers’ movement at all times. On the contrary, it was precisely because, under normal circumstances, the proletariat newspapers could report on the workers’ movement and show some sympathy that they thought it was necessary to remind readers of the class nature

210

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

of these newspapers that were essentially opposed to the workers. If they only paid attention to the revelations that some newspapers and periodicals were hostile to the workers’ movement, and not talk about the fact that these newspapers and newspapers reported on the workers’ movements in more cases, they could not accurately express all their views on the relationship between the proletariat and the workers’ movement. Most of Engels’ text in The State of the British Working Class and Marx’s Capital and the hundreds of newsletters they wrote for the New York Daily Tribune were about the workers’ movement, most of which came from the proletarian newspapers, books, and Official documents. Some materials have been praised for their fairness, truth, and sympathy for workers. For example, Engels cited a long paragraph of an article, which wrote, “It is indeed a monstrous state of things! Enjoyment the most absolute, that bodily ease, intellectual excitement, or the more innocent pleasures of sense can supply to man’s craving, brought in close contact with the most unmitigated misery! Wealth, from its bright saloons, laughing—an insolently heedless laugh—at the unknown wounds of want! (vol. 4, p. 336)” Words like this that describe distinct class antagonisms are not taken from workers’ newspapers, but from The Times, the largest bourgeois newspaper in Britain. Newspapers and periodicals are an extensive medium of communication, and they need to report daily on the facts that occur in real life. Therefore, regardless of their class and party tendencies, this social nature of the newspaper requires that it cannot always avoid obvious facts and strive to comprehensively report to win more people. Hence, the British situation that Engels described arose, “In the Morning Chronicle, another Liberal sheet, the organ of the bourgeoisie par excellence, there were published some letters from a stocking weaver in Hinckley, describing the condition of his fellow-workers (vol. 4, p. 480).” Marx has also quoted in full or in part on the reports of the living conditions of workers in the proletariat. These vivid reports describing the tragic lives of workers are touching, humane, and readable. When socialism became fashionable in the early days, various proletarian newspapers and periodicals actively promoted socialism. For example, Marx pointed out when talking about German newspapers in 1844, “All the liberal German newspapers, the organs of the liberal bourgeoisie, teem with articles about the organisation of labour, the reform of society, criticism of monopolies and competition, etc. (vol. 3, p. 200).” Just like Engels wrote, “This very morning, I read an article in a liberal paper, the Cologne Journal, the author of which had for some reasons been attacked by the Socialists, and in which article he gives his defence; and to what amounts it? He professes himself a Socialist, with the only difference that he wants political reforms to begin with, whilst we want to get all at once. And this Cologne Journal is the second newspaper of Germany in influence and circulation (vol. 4, p. 231).” In the competition among the proletariat newspapers and periodicals, the workers are the people who must fight for the readership. In 1862, British workers fell into poverty due to the cyclical economic crisis, when some newspapers and magazines seemed to become sympathizers for workers, as Marx wrote, “The Tory journals and The Times fulminate daily against the cotton despots who have sucked millions ‘out of the flesh and blood of the workers’ and now refuse even to contribute a few pennies to preserve ‘the source of their wealth’. The Times has sent its reporters into the factory

12.4 Proletarian Newspapers and Workers’ Movements

211

districts; their highly detailed reports are in no way calculated to make the ‘cotton lords’ popular (vol. 19, p. 240).” This kind of competition between newspapers and periodicals of different classes and factions is beneficial to the workers’ movement, and they have become one of the sources of material used by Marx and Engels to study the working class. When the workers’ movement grew stronger and the class struggle was more relaxed, as long as there was no direct damage to the self-interest of the newspapers, the proletariat newspapers and magazines were generally able to report more on the workers’ movements, and they became more objective in their evaluation of the workers’ movements, and even gave some praise. The most telling point in this regard the European newspapers ‘reports on the activities of the International Workers’ Association in the 1860s. In 1865, the International Conference of Representatives of London was held, and Marx once said excitedly, “All the Paris liberal and republican papers have made great fuss about our Association. Henri Martin, the well-known historian, had a most enthusiastic leader about it in the Siècle! (vol. 42, p. 202).” The Century Times was a key newspaper of the bourgeois republics. After the International Congress of Geneva in 1866, Marx again talked happily about the international coverage of English and French magazines. He said, “The Revue des deux Mondes and the Revue Contemporaine had two detailed articles on the ‘INTERNATIONAL’, which treat it and its congress as one of the most significant events of the century. The like also in The Fortnightly Review, in consequence (vol. 42, p. 338).” Two Continents Review was a biweekly political and literary French bourgeoisie, Modern Review was a French Bonapartite publication, and Biweekly Review was a British radical publication. The publications of different classes and parties on the workers’ movement were generally consistent. In 1867, the International Workers’ Association convened the Lausanne Congress, and The Times published a long newsletter about the conference for three consecutive days. Marx’s wife Jenny sent a letter from London to her old friend, Geneva Becker, excitedly writing, “You will simply not believe what a tremendous sensation the Lausanne Congress has caused here in all the papers. Once The Times had set the tone, by printing daily reports, 3 the other papers no longer considered it beneath their dignity to print not just short notices on the labour question, but even long editorials. There has been comment on the Congress not only in all the dailies, but the weeklies, too. […] In spite of everything, however, generally it was treated quite properly and taken au sérieux (vol. 20, p. 439).” On the other hand, Marx believed that this was a powerful symbol of the workers’ movement. He said, “Here in London they are saying that the international association, etc., must be strong indeed for The Times to report so expressly on it (vol. 42, p. 428).” In 1868, the Brussels Congress was held internationally, and The Times published five longer newsletters and editorials, including the full text of the work report of the International General Committee as written by Marx. He said, “The unusual seriousness with which the English and particularly the London press treats the International Working Men’s Association and its Brussels Congress (The Times alone devoted four leading articles to it) has stirred up a real devil’s sabbath in the German bourgeois press (vol. 21, p. 25).” Regarding the report of the International Basel

212

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

Congress in 1869, Engels talked about Germany’s “General Report”, saying that “The Augsburg [Allgemeine Zeitung] is again full of the information on the International in Geneva (vol. 43, p. 238).” The newspaper once reportedly confronted a Swiss factory owner subscriber in order to report an internationally supported strike in Basel. Marx wrote this matter in the international work report, claiming that “The Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung, a paper of worldwide circulation, presuming to report on the Basle events in an impartial spirit, the angry worthies threatened it in foolish letters with the withdrawal of their subscriptions (vol. 21, p. 70).” The “General Report” is a German conservative daily newspaper, one of Marx’s main political enemies. When the class struggle intensified and threatened the overall interests of the proletariat, the opposition between the proletariat newspapers and the workers’ movement was clearly revealed. Newspapers and periodicals gave up the appearance of justice in the past, almost uniformly slander the workers’ movement, refused to publish any defensive materials, and showed full class hatred. The most telling point in this regard is the reports of the workers’ movement by the newspapers of the Paris Commune. During the existence of the commune and the period after its failure, almost all the proletarian newspapers in Europe attacked the International Workers’ Association and the Workers’ Movement, portraying it as a terrible devil. In this case, Marx summarized it as such, “Apocryphal histories and mysteries of the International, shameless forgeries of public documents and private letters, sensational telegrams, followed each other in rapid succession; all the sluices of slander at the disposal of the venal respectable press were opened at once to set free a deluge of infamy in which to drown the execrated foe. This war of calumny finds no parallel in history for the truly international area over which it has spread, and for the complete accord in which it has been carried on by all shades of ruling class opinion (vol. 23, p. 226).” Marx also analyzed the reasons for the changes in international attitudes of newspapers and periodicals. According to him, “The press knew full well the objects and principles of the International. It had given reports of the prosecutions against it in Paris under the Empire. It had had representatives at the various Congresses held by the Association, and had reported their proceedings, and yet it circulated reports to the effect that the Association included the Fenian Brotherhood, the Carbonari, ceased to exist 1830, the Marianne, Ditto 1854 and other secret Societies, and asked if Colonel Henderson knew of the whereabouts of the General Council which was said to sit in London. These things were simply/invented to justify any action taken against the International. The upper classes were afraid of the principles of the International (vol. 22, pp. 597–598).” Marx’s last sentence clarified the essence of the problem. This was a general argument for the behavior of the proletariat. Even in this case, the proletarian newspapers and periodicals were not uniform. Due to the degree to which their interests were endangered, newspapers and magazines exhibited different attitudes towards the workers’ movement. Marx and Engels took advantage of this difference. Marx’s book The French Civil War of the Paris Commune was used to illustrate the evidence of the killing of commune members (appendix), which was published by the British The Daily News, The Evening Standard and The Evening Standard. The Times report and documents were composed.

12.4 Proletarian Newspapers and Workers’ Movements

213

At that time, the three newspapers represented different proletarian factions. On the 15th day after the failure of the Paris Commune, Marx’s France Civil War booklet was sold out in London. The hostile British newspapers began to be silent, and then they had to publish articles on it because the social nature of the newspapers forced them to report and comment on major facts. According to Engels, “The entire press has had to confess unanimously that the International is a great power in Europe to be reckoned with, which cannot be eliminated by refusing to talk about it. They all had to acknowledge the stylistic mastery with which the Address is written—a language as powerful as William Cobbett’s, according to The Spectator (vol. 22, p. 375).” The relationship between the proletariat newspapers and the workers’ movement is generally grasped from the standpoint of class struggle; the specific newspapers and magazines focus on analyzing the influence of various factors on them. This is the basic method for Marx and Engels to examine newspapers and periodicals politically. Just as the attitude of the proletarian newspapers and periodicals towards the workers’ movement cannot be uniform, there were many sympathizers of the proletarian journalists and writers who sympathize with the workers’ movement. This is another important reason why the proletariat newspapers regularly issue reports and comments in favor of the workers. For example, Charles Anderson Dana, editor of The New York Daily Tribune, and Max Friedländer, editor of the Austrian Die Presse, and Moritz Elsner, the German editor of Neue Oder-Zeitung, and John Swinton, reporter of The Sun in the United States; The Chronicle Morning News (The Morning Chronicle reporter Alexander Somerville, Daily News reporter Emily Crawford, etc. There should also be a recognition that some proletarians, who were close to the workers’ movement in their views, or had no clear political awareness, were willing to publish newspapers that reflected the workers’ movement for vanity or profit-making purposes. For example, George Reynolds from the United Kingdom who was a journalist close to the workers’ movement. In his newspaper Reynolds’s Newspaper, Marx and Engels were often called “workers’ newspapers”. However, it was clear about who’s in actual control. According to Marx, “Reynolds is a far greater rogue than Jones, but he is rich and a good speculator. The mere fact that he has turned an out and out chartist shows that this position must STILL be a ‘profitable’ one (vol. 40, p. 345).” As long as they held the editing power, Marx and Engels never thought it was bad to ask the property owners to run workers’ newspapers. Most of their works was also published by the publishers of the producers, and publishers generally recognized money. In 1873, the French publisher Maurice Lachâtre was willing to publish a book on the history of the development of communism by Engels, and Engels took this opportunity to ask him to fund his publication. He wrote, “since you say you are increasing your Capital for the sole purpose of placing it at the service of the Community, I shall consent to donate my labour on condition that you set aside a sum for the foundation of a weekly international organ, of which the socialist party has a pressing need, and of which Marx would be editor (vol. 44, p. 486).” On such issues, Marx and Engels are very practical. It is obviously stupid to use the word “bourgeois” to scare themselves.

214

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

12.5 Common Fairness and Objective Reports Although Marx and Engels mainly inspected the activities of newspapers and periodicals from a political perspective, they also made various evaluations from the perspective of professional work of newspapers and periodicals. For example, for The Times, if they superimposed their criticism of the newspaper, then this newspaper seems to be all fallacies and lies every day. In fact, they were able to criticize the class bias and reporting errors of The Times, precisely because the performance in this respect was not so much an obvious every moment. Otherwise, they would have to make such criticism every day and not be able to do anything else. Reporting attractive news to satisfy as many readers as possible is a newspaper profession. They have repeatedly evaluated The Times from this. In 1858, Marx cited a report, saying, “The value of this street enthusiasm is shown by the following anecdote emanating from a chief actor in the scene and the authenticity of which is vouched for by a highly respectable English paper (vol. 15, p. 454).” The newspaper mentioned is The Times. Engels, too, said “The Times hitherto enjoyed on the continent the reputation of a well-informed newspaper (vol. 3, p. 410).” Once, when reporting on the new British training station, Engels wrote that “Lest we may be charged with prejudice in describing what these ‘depots’ are, we will cite the London Times as authority (vol. 17, p. 435).” It can be seen that their evaluation of the Times in terms of newspaper occupations was quite high, which was consistent with the views of the world at that time. For some of the more famous British journals, although they had repeatedly criticized their class prejudice, they also recognized their actual status in the professional field. For example, Marx called The Economist magazine “the most sober, the most rational, the most moderate organ of the industrial Bourgeoisie (vol. 11, p. 343),” and The Spectator and The Examiner as “the most distinguished and respectable London weeklies (vol. 39, p. 260).” In 1858, Marx read an excerpt of a currency history book from The Economist and said to Engels, “to judge by the excerpts in The Economist it is FIRST-RATE (vol. 40, p. 317). […] but after all the fuss The Economist has made about it and the excerpts I myself have read, my theoretical scruples won’t permit me to proceed without having looked at it (vol. 40, p. 318).” It can be seen from this that no matter how severely Marx criticized this weekly magazine, it did not hinder his recognition of the publication’s professional authority. In that case, what were the main reasons behind the recognition of these newspapers by readers? Marx wrote about the situation in British newspapers and claimed, “What I did expect, however, in this particular matter, was at least the common fairness which no English paper, regardless of its shade of opinion, ever ventures to refuse (vol. 17, p. 16).” Every event faced by newspapers and periodicals may have different views, and the newspapers themselves also have their own views. However, as a social media, if it is to gain recognition from society, it must not only report one aspect of its own views and facts it prefers but also try to show a fair attitude. The term ‘fair practice’ originated in the United Kingdom, mainly London, and was related to the fact that London is at the center of world exchanges. The removal of

12.5 Common Fairness and Objective Reports

215

local prejudices and the diversification of contacts made it possible for London to concentrate on the most prestigious and authoritative newspapers of the nineteenth century, which was relatively lacking in cities in continental Europe. Engels made a comparison of several big European cities in 1885, and actually explained the reason why “common fairness” first appeared in Britain. He wrote, “I know and love Paris but, given the choice, I would rather settle permanently in London than there. Paris can only be enjoyed properly if you become a Parisian yourself, with all the prejudices of a Parisian, if/you confine your interests primarily to things Parisian and accustom yourself to believing that Paris is the centre of the world, the be-all and end-all. London is uglier yet more grandiose than Paris, and is the true centre of world trade; it also offers a far greater variety. But London also permits one to maintain a completely neutral attitude towards one’s surroundings as a whole, as is essential to scientific and, indeed, artistic impartiality. One adores Paris and Vienna, detests Berlin, but towards London one’s feelings are those of neutral indifference and objectivity (vol. 47, pp. 355–356).” This kind of “just” performance can often be seen in the works of Marx and Engels. In fact, that was a common occurrence. In 1850, Prussian agents tracked political exiles in the United Kingdom, and Marx and Engels wrote to the British newspapers to disclose the incident. When the British liberal weekly The Spectator published this letter, the editorial department wrote, “A letter in another page makes an extraordinary charge against our own Government. We know nothing more than is to be obtained from a perusal of the letter itself; but a charge publicly made, in so circumstantial a manner with so much verisimilitude of particulars, ought not to be unregarded. The charge is that of favouring the operations of Prussian bloodmen in London, in order to [obtain] an application of the Alien Act against German patriots (The Spectator, June 15, p. 554.) (vol. 10, pp. 390–391).” This is a concrete manifestation of British “common fairness”. This phenomenon is also common in Rhine Prussia, which is influenced by the Napoleonic Code. For example, in 1839 Engels published his first political newsletter Letters from Wuppertal, and his views were accused by Elberfelder Zeitung. Engels stuffed the rebuttal letter into the editorial department, and the newspaper published it. The editorial department wrote in a footnote at the time of publication, “We found this article in our premises yesterday without knowing who had sent it in. We are printing it word for word since we wish to be impartial but, for our part, we would note that we shall defend our generally expressed statements in detail only if the Wuppertal letter-writer names himself, just as we have done (vol. 2, p. 594).” Newspapers in such a small town had a sense of “unbiasedness”, indicating that it was already a newspaper professional practice. The same is true of the “Rheinland” and “New Rheinland” hosted by Marx. Socially important facts were never avoided, whether they were pleasant or unpleasant, such as important official documents, party documents, even if the editorial department was critical or had reservations, they were published. Just to prevent readers from misunderstanding the editorial department’s position, such documents were arranged below the horizontal line where the editorial department was not responsible for the content. Marx called this practice of New Rhine Newspaper “complete impartiality (vol. 7, p. 187).”

216

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

The meaning of “justice” in the writings of Marx and Engels is mentioned in two ways. For example, when talking about the theory of overproduction, Marx pointed out the views of a group of scholars, and then said, “In all fairness, however, it must be said, that other economists, such as Ure, Corbet, etc., declare OVERPRODUCTION to be the usual condition in large-scale industry (vol. 32, p. 129).” Looking again at his comment on the budget of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone, he wrote, “common fairness obliges me to say that Mr. Gladstone’s budget is a great and bold stroke of financial ingenuity (vol. 17, p. 350) […] it is a fair budget (vol. 17, p. 351).” He was critical of the content of the budget, but he affirmed its administrative methods. “Justice” or “just heart” here refers to two aspects. Marx regarded “common fairness” as the principle that newspapers and periodicals should abide by in common. This principle is often used to comment on the professional behavior of newspapers and periodicals. For example, he said in 1881, “London press attacks socialist parties in all Europe an countries, and how difficult it is for anyone who thinks it worth the trouble to say a word in return or even to get a brief answer into that press—it is really a bit too m u c h to have to recognise the principle that, should a Paris newspaper venture to criticise that arch-hypocrite and CASUIST of the old-fashioned school, the ‘great’ Gladstone, it is duty-bound to put entire columns at the disposal of Mr. Maxse and his prose, in order that he might repay Gladstone IN KIND for the avancement provided by the latter! (vol. 46, p. 84)” Here, he regards “fair practice” as a principle that needs to be maintained, and criticizes the London newspapers for violating this principle in dealing with socialist parties. Since the newspaper has published an opinion, it has undertaken an obligation to express an opinion that is contrary to this opinion. The German Social Democrat (Der Sozialdemokrat), which Engels called the “flag of the party”, was better to implement the “fair practice” principle within the party. In 1890, the newspaper published the newsletter “About the Russian Movement” (Aus der russischen Bewegung) and subsequently published a dissenting article “Answer” (Erwiderung). Because the “Answer” had a different view from the Russian Labor Liberation Society, its member Chasulich (Zacyliq) told Engels that the newspaper should not publish the “Answer”. Engels replied that his own view of the “Defense” was also bad. The Labor Liberation Society is a friend of the German Workers’ Movement, “but other socialist groups can also lay claim to some measure of consideration (vol. 48, p. 482). […] Bernstein has never harboured any ill-will whatsoever towards you, of that you may be assured, but he has an exaggerated sense of justice and equity; and rather than perpetrate one injustice against an enemy or a man he finds uncongenial, he will sooner perpetrate ten against his friends and allies; all his friends criticize him for an impartiality so excessive that it ends up as bias against his allies (vol. 48, p. 483).” Engels’s statement carried Zulich’s intentions, but it was clear that the principle of “common fairness” applied to the newspaper has been affirmed. Engels himself demanded the same from other newspapers. In 1871, the Italian newspaper La Roma del Popolo, which approached the workers’ movement, published an article about Mazzini’s distortion of the International Workers’ Association, Engels wrote a statement of rebuttal, and wrote to the newspaper editor saying “I count on you having

12.5 Common Fairness and Objective Reports

217

the honesty to publish the enclosed declaration. If we are going to fight, let’s fight honestly (vol. 23, p. 60).” In accordance with the professional principles of “common fairness”, the newspaper published not only Engels’ statement but also Engels’ short message. Marx’s rational thinking about the phenomenon of “common fairness” in newspapers and periodicals can be traced back to his argument that free newspapers are the third factor in early 1843. At the end of 1842, The Rheinland reported on the poverty of the grape growers in the Moselle region, which led to the accusation of the provincial governor. Marx defended in the name of the reporter and talked about the neutrality of the newspapers and periodicals when facing the facts. He said officials who manage these areas “will not give an unprejudiced description of them, precisely because these conditions are partly the result of his activities, whereas the unprejudiced official, who could give a sufficiently impartial judgment, is not an expert (vol. 1, p. 344). […] On the other hand, the private vine-grower can no more deny that his judgment may be affected, intentionally or unintentionally, by private interest, and therefore the correctness of his judgment cannot be assumed absolutely (vol. 1, p. 348). […] on the contrary, their description of the situation always retains the character of a private complaint (vol. 1, p. 348). In order to solve this difficulty, therefore, the rulers and the/ruled alike are in need of a third element, which would be political without being official, hence not based on bureaucratic premises, an element which would be of a civil nature without being bound up with private interests and their pressing need. This supplementary element with the head of a citizen of the state and the heart of a citizen is the free press (vol. 1, pp. 348–349.” Marx regarded the third factor as a political factor, that is, the role of newspapers and periodicals as a social function, and politics is based on the execution of a certain social function. Regarding the specific problems reflecting the poverty of peasants’ lives, Marx realized the possibility that newspapers and periodicals would serve as the third factor in many practical conflicts. The so-called third factor refers to the newspapers and periodicals as the third parties who do not intervene in the contradictory parties and provide a place to express their opinions. In this case, newspapers and periodicals may become fair representatives. Of course, this kind of justice is difficult to appear in a pure form, and all kinds of partiality are inevitable. Marx later explained this issue in many ways. “Justice practice” is therefore recognized as a principle in the activities of newspapers and periodicals. It is the result of the mutual restraint and comprehensive effect of various economic and political interests, especially in reflecting the real problems. In 1854, Marx made an analysis of the cabinet’s balance strategy while praising the cabinet sometimes and criticizing the cabinet at others. He said, “The opposition to the Coalition Ministry and the popular indignation at their manner of carrying on the war has grown so strong that even The Times is obliged to choose between damaging its own circulation and its subserviency to the Cabinet of all the Talents, and has thought fit to make a furious onslaught on them in its Wednesday’s number (vol. 13, p. 161).” Here, the reason for The Times to show a fair attitude is that its circulation is constrained. Even some newspapers and periodicals that are close to the workers’ movement, their “just practices” are considered from their own interests. For example, “Forward!” “Biweekly Review”

218

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

(Bpeped! Dvyxnedelnoe obozpenie), the reports about Marxism and Bakuninism were always balanced and did not indicate which side they are on. In 1876, Bakunin passed away, and the newspaper published a newsletter praising him. Marx analyzed, “Lavrov clearly considers it a good BUSINESS MANOEUVRE to accept Bakuninist articles, thus also committing that PARTY to his paper (vol. 45, p. 132).” Some news appeared in the newspapers and journals in the trial of justice, but was actually the result of conflicts of interests and conflicts, not that the parties were really out of justice. Marx has pointed out such phenomena from time to time. In 1858, a family scandal within the British nobility was revealed, he wrote about it, saying “It is often by the crooked ways of political intrigue only that truth becomes smuggled into some corner of the British press. The apparently generous horror at a real outrage is after all but a calculated grimace; and public justice is only appealed to in order to cherish private malice (vol. 15, p. 597).” In the field of unrealistic problems, the motivation of “common fairness” is more non utilitarian. Especially some academic journals, such as the British Chronicle that Marx talked about in 1867. He said, “The only weekly paper here in London which has a certain impartiality and is much concerned with things German, such as German philology, natural science, Hegel, etc., is a—Catholic paper, The Chronicle. It is obviously their tendency to show that they are more learned than their Protestant rivals (vol. 42, p. 464).” In addition to the social nature of newspapers and periodicals contributing to the principle of “just practice”, the concept of modern rights and obligations also played a considerable role in promoting the formation of this principle. In 1891, a man named Gilles (German Social Democrat, later found to be a police detective) slandered Avilin, leader of the British Workers’ Movement, in private life. For the honor of the latter, in the testimony of Engels’ secretary Louisa, he punched Gilles in the face. Gilles did not fight back, but in the German Social Democratic Party Central Newspaper “Progress”, he claimed for his own sake that he also beat Ivelin. “Advance News” did not publish Avilin’s rebuttal statement. To this end, Engels wrote to the leader of the German party Bebel, he said from the perspective of the general newspaper editor, “I, the editor, thought I may disapprove of their conduct, am bound to recognise their right to plead their own cause as they think fit. With you, however, the editorial department sets itself up as censor, lays claim to complete infallibility, and forbids them to conduct their own case. The editorial department has a right to believer that it has finished and done with Gilles and need not for its part allude to him again, but if Aveling and Louise come forward in their own names, it ought not to use this view as a pretext for muzzling a friend (vol. 49, p. 248).” Here, the ideological basis of the principle of “just practice” of the newspapers and magazines is very clear: I object to what you said, but I defend your right to speak it. Marx and Engels found in actual communication that if they want to make things more fair, they cannot be dominated by strong emotions. It is better not to be in a vortex of contradictions. In 1861, Engels believed that it was difficult for Britain to make a fair judgment on its own volunteers. The reason was that the tendency of newspapers and periodicals was too strong. He pointed out that “There has been one thing wanting to the volunteer movement, and that is a fair and intelligent, but

12.5 Common Fairness and Objective Reports

219

plain and outspoken criticism by competent outsiders. The volunteers have been to such a degree the pets of the public and the press, that such a criticism became an absolute impossibility. Nobody would have listened to it; everybody would have declared it unfair, ungenerous, untimely (vol. 18, p. 479). […] The politeness of people, with any regard for impartiality, was most fearfully taxed (vol. 18, p. 479); […] All this, as The Times very properly observes, without any organisation, without staff, commissariat, land transport, regimental train—nay, without knapsacks, and without all those necessaries for campaigning which a line soldier carries in that receptacle! (vol. 18, p. 481)” When you are in a debate, you need to have a strong sense of justice to be able to make a fair gesture, this is because “it would be madness for me to exchange my peaceful retreat here for some place where one would, have to take part in meetings and newspaper battles, which alone would be enough to blur, as it necessarily must, the clarity of one’s vision (vol. 47, p. 17).” When a class was not involved in the conflict between the other two classes, it was easy for the class to be fair in terms of problems. In 1865, Engels wrote about the fair evaluation of the workers’ political party when he commented on the struggle between the Prussian bourgeoisie and the nobility. He wrote, “The workers’ party, which in all questions at issue between reaction and bourgeoisie stands outside the actual conflict, enjoys the advantage of being able to treat such questions quite coldbloodedly and impartially (vol. 20, p. 41).” In some small things, Engels also tried to look at the problem from the perspective of a third party in order to maintain his impartial attitude. In his later years, with the special status of spiritual leader, he guided the spiritual communication activities of Marxist parties in a fair and balanced manner. In 1885, he reviewed the French manuscript of the French Marxist Fultan’s Marx’s book The 18th of the foggy month of Bonaparte and received another French socialist Paul Lavigne Translation. The relationship between these two people is not good. Engels resolutely returned the translated version of the latter to ensure his fairness. He said to Lavigne, “I do not consider that I have the right to use your work in any way. I shall take good care not to read a single page, for were it to prove better than Fortin’s, I should be unable to prevent/myself from introducing some of your turns of speech into his. And that would be unfair to you and also, perhaps, to Fortin, since the two of you no longer get on with one another. Much to my regret, the need for me to be impartial prevents my familiarising myself with your work (vol. 47, pp. 358–359).” For newspapers and magazines with a clear position, “fair practice” seemed to be a kind of restraint. However, Marx and Engels had always regarded “just practices” as a prerequisite for freely elaborating problems and winning readers. In 1842, Marx defended Buwell Powell in the German Yearbook (Deutsche Jahrbücher). Because articles that praised him in the past became the main theme in newspapers, Marx deliberately published more criticisms of his The content of the article, thus elaborating, produces a “fair” effect. He said at that time, “He will find it only fair that the characteristic features of Bauer’s opponents should be brought to the notice of the newspaper public, since Bauer’s character and teaching has been made a newspaper myth (vol. 1, p. 212).”

220

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

In 1844, Engels wrote an article about Britain in the French-German newspaper Vorwärts! The purpose of which was to criticize the British Constitution, but in the beginning, he praised the achievements and merits of Britain and the British Quite a high rating. He explained, “I have listed here at the outset, so that the good Germans may convince themselves of my “impartiality” at the very start (vol. 3, p. 490)” Thanks to this “fair” attitude, Engels was able to criticize the British Constitution comprehensively in the following main chapters without giving a partial bias. “Common fairness” is a formal overall posture of newspapers and periodicals. In terms of specific reports or descriptions of facts, “fairness” is objective, that is, it is reflected according to the original face of things. As a result, the so-called “objective reports” appeared. It appeared in the press in the mid-nineteenth century almost at the same time as “just practices”. It was characterized by the requirement to record facts; if there was a tendency, it would reveal concealment and nature; Obviously, this is an objective and organic way of reporting. Marx and Engels agreed with objective reporting, which, in Marx’s words, “expresses actual reality, and which expresses it as it would like it to be? (vol. 1, p. 315)” Engels further proposed the basic principles of this reporting method, “it will stand exclusively on the ground of fact, and carry only facts and arguments based directly on facts, arguments the conclusions from which are also obvious facts (vol. 4, p. 671).”

What is related to objective reporting is “facts”, not “opinions”. The opinion itself can be regarded as a form of fact, but there is no question of whether it is objective or not. “The new charge of distorted quotation, however, leads us into the field of subjective opinions, which necessarily vary. De gustibus non est disputandum. One person may regard as unimportant-intrinsically or for the purpose of quotation-something which another person declares to be important and decisive. The conservative will [never] quote acceptably for the liberal, the liberal never for the conservative, the socialist never for one of them or both of them. The party man whose own comrade is quoted against him by an opponent regularly discovers that the essential passage, the passage determining the real sense, has been omitted in quotation. This is such an everyday occurrence, something permitting so many individual viewpoints, that nobody attaches the permitting so many individual viewpoints, that nobody attaches the slightest significance to such charges (vol. 27, p. 112).” Marx and Engels knew that it was difficult to report some issues objectively, but they also believed that objectiveness could be achieved through hard work. In 1857, Marx was invited by the editor of the American Encyclopedia to write a batch of entries for the whole book without any party inclination. Engels said about this work: like the Charter Movement, Communism, the Napoleonic Code. Obviously, they divide the reflection of things into two categories. One is more difficult to be objective, but at least it can be done in form; the other is objective from form to content. The objective reporting method is to better adapt to people’s psychological state when receiving information. An objective narrative of facts is easier to accept than a preconceived statement of the reporter’s intentions. It does not completely exclude the author’s choice of facts to express his tendency but restricts the author’s subjective factors in the report. Engels once contrasted this method of reporting with the way that facts serve the political public. In 1854, when he talked about exaggerated reports

12.5 Common Fairness and Objective Reports

221

written by the Russians, he said, “as soon as a western language is chosen, the thing is different. Europe, then, is to judge, and the publicity of the west would soon scatter to the winds assertions which, in Russia, pass off for gospel truth, because there the opponent has not the right of reply. The tendency to glorify Holy Russia and her Czar remains the same, but the choice of means becomes more limited. Accuracy of fact must be more strictly adhered to; a more sedate and businesslike diction is adopted; and in spite of attempts at distortion which generally betray themselves soon enough, there remains at least enough of positive information to make such a book in many cases an important historical document (vol. 13, p. 124).” Objective reporting not only restricts the arbitrary display of subjective tendencies but also requires the author to pay close attention to the facts because it requires the first focus on the facts. Engels once talked to Marx about a documentary book “Residence in Bulgaria” (Residence in Bulgaria). He found that the subjective views of the two authors have changed due to objective observation. He said, “For Englishmen the fellows are remarkably free of prejudices, though they have their blind-spots IN ECONOMICS and also/IN POLITICS. But they can see. They arrived—at least Brophy did—as friends of the Christians, and changed their views completely in favour of the Turks (vol. 43, pp. 345–346).” Since objective reporting can provide more comprehensive information, Engels advocates that comrades within the party learn this method of reporting. He praised the German Social Democratic Party leader Bebel’s newsletter, saying “I never formed a definite opinion about events in Germany until I read Bebel’s articles on them. The Iucid, objective way in which he presented the facts without allowing himself to be swayed by his own presented was unsurpassed (vol. 49, p. 47).” On the other hand, he criticized the party leader Singer’s unobjective attitude when quoting. In 1884, when Singer conveyed Daenges’ views on a certain issue to the leaders of other parties, he only talked about the part that met his wishes and concealed the part that he did not agree with. When reporting news, no matter what position the communicator takes, it will not benefit the party if it is not objectively. Before the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the French emperor Louis Bonaparte insisted on not explaining the advantages of the Prussian army to his army in order to calm down the French army’s emotions but it was too late. Engels criticized this, “Singer would seem to have digested only such of my remarks as accorded with his own views: one soon learns how to do this in business where it may sometimes help, but in politics, as in science one should, after all, learn to take an objective view of things (vol. 47, p. 240).” To treat history and the facts that are happening, Marx and Engels had always been objective.

222

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

12.6 Newspaper and Periodical Supervision Duties Newspapers and periodicals openly report news and comment on current affairs, forming a function of social supervision. In 1849, Engels pointed out when defending The New Rhine, “how can the press fulfil its primary duty, the duty of protecting the citizens against excesses committed by officials? (vol. 8, p. 318). In 1859, after the German newspaper “General Report” published an article exposing Bonaparte spy Karl Vogt, Marx wrote to the editorial office of the newspaper, saying, “this does not of course prevent me from assisting the Allgemeine Zeitung, as far as it lies in my power, in a case in which it has in my view fulfilled the primary duty of the press: that of the denunciation of humbug (vol. 17, p. 3).” The “primary duty” mentioned here is an emphasis when looking at the problem from a political perspective, which is different from Marx and Engels’ basic functions of newspapers and periodicals from the perspective of newspapers and periodicals. They have a lot of discussion on the social supervision function of newspapers and periodicals, and about 200 specific examples are mentioned. For this kind of supervision of newspapers and periodicals, Marx twice likened it to “eyes”. While working on The Rhein, he said, “The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul (vol. 1, p. 164).” He further said, “It is by profession the public watchdog, the tireless denouncer of those in power, the omnipresent eye, the omnipresent mouthpiece of the people’s spirit that jealously guards its freedom (vol. 8, p. 314).” Here, the original word for “profession” in German is der Beruf (the corresponding word in English is ‘calling’), and now it is generally translated as “ten duty”. This is a concept shared by all Protestant nations and refers to the lifelong mission of a specific labor field. It contains a positive evaluation of the daily behavior of the world, that is, the obligation to complete worldly things is respected by one’s moral behavior The highest form of God, the only way of life that God can accept. Therefore, when using this concept, what is said has a certain sacred meaning. Protestantism is a religion that lays a sense of world communication. For medieval Catholicism, Protestantism is a huge conceptual advancement. Marx once defined the spread of the Protestant spirit as one of the tasks of The Rhine. Newspapers and periodicals, as the most widely public communication media at that time, supervised society at all times and everywhere. The natural focus of this “eye” was to report and comment on power organizations and social activists. According to Marx, “The press not only has the right but the duty to keep a close watch on the conduct of the people’s representatives. At the same time, we pointed out that Herr Zweiffel’s past parliamentary activity seems to be in line with the anti-popular remarks ascribed to him. Is it really the intention to deprive the press of the right to judge the parliamentary activity of a representative of the people? What then is the purpose of the press? (vol. 7, p. 187)” Penalties will be imposed if newspapers and magazines disclose, because “the press, the only effective control, has been rendered ineffective (vol. 7, p. 251). […] Indeed, what remains of freedom of the press if that which deserves public contempt can no longer be held up to public contempt?(vol. 7, p. 251).”

12.6 Newspaper and Periodical Supervision Duties

223

With the strengthening of the people’s sense of participation, the supervision responsibilities of newspapers and periodicals have been clarified. When Marx entered the society, people’s participation in politics was already on the agenda in Germany, but Hegel’s “philosophy of law” believed that “the direct participation of all in deliberating and deciding on the general affairs of the state includes “the democratic element without any rational form into the state organism which is a state organism solely by virtue of such a form”, i.e., the democratic element can be embodied only as a formal element in a/State organism which is merely the formalism of the state. The democratic element must rather be the actual element which gives to itself its rational form in the state organism as a whole (vol. 3, pp. 115–116).” On this basis, he explained the rights of newspaper supervision from the perspective of promoting social development in this way, “Since legal development is not possible without development of the laws, and since development of the laws is impossible without criticism of them, and since every criticism of the laws sets the mind and therefore also the heart of the citizen at variance with the existing laws, and since this variance is experienced as dissatisfaction, it follows that a loyal participation of the press in the development of the state is impossible if it is not permitted to arouse dissatisfaction with the existing legal conditions (vol. 1, p. 364).” Engels shared the same sentiments. He pointed out, “How can one criticise anything without intending to convince others of the—to put it mildly—imperfection of that which is being criticised, that is, to awaken dissatisfaction with it? (vol. 2, p. 310)” In their view, the supervision of newspapers and periodicals is to arouse people’s dissatisfaction with the existing order in its unique way in order to promote social progress. The premise of newspapers and periodicals disclosure is that people are “unknown”, which is also required by the timeliness of newspapers and periodicals. Engels said that if the newspaper can only report what has been made public, then it is able to adduce a judicial verdict, i.e. unless it publishes its denunciation only when it no longer serves any purpose! (vol. 8, p. 318)” For those in power, they are naturally willing to hear praise instead of criticism, but praise and criticism are complementary, as a peasant representative quoted by Marx said, “From one who is not permitted to find fault, praise also is valueless; (vol. 1, p. 180).” The social supervision of newspapers and periodicals cannot directly solve any problems. Its power lies in widespread and open dissemination. Disclosure itself will bring a huge spiritual power, or encouragement, or pressure. In terms of reflecting the voice of the people, Marx talked about the effect of The Rhein report on the living conditions of grape growers in the Moselle region. He said, “It alone can make a particular interest a general one, it alone can make the distressed state of the Mosel region an object of general attention and general sympathy on the part of the Fatherland, it alone can mitigate the distress by dividing the feeling of it among all (vol. 1, p. 349).” Clearly, the effect of newspaper supervision in this regard is spiritual, and by making the facts public, the people involved can alleviate their mental pain. In terms of commenting on power organizations and those in power, Marx quoted a passage from The Times that was published after the British Foreign Secretary

224

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

Palmerston signed a treaty that favored Russia but not Britain. It said, “It is not for us to understand how Lord Palmerston may feel, but we are sure there is no misapprehending how any other person in the station of a gentleman, and in the position of a Minister, would feel, after the notoriety given to the correspondence… (vol. 14, p. 20).” Such open pressure can sometimes lead to the change of power organizations and the resignation of those in power. In 1847, the French news revealed this effect on the July dynasty. As Engels recalled, “La Press(Girardin’s) brought every day a fresh revelation about some scandal. Or some other paper brought a reply to some charge of his; and this went on till it killed Louis Philippe (vol. 50, p. 58). […] It looks very much like the first scandals brought out by Girardin in 1846/47 and which led much farther than le rusé Emile expected (vol. 48, p. 107).” Of course, open criticism requires courage from journalists, and it is in this sense that Marx said, “one who is impartial should have more respect for the character of the critic who acts publicly than for the character of the critic who acts in secret (vol. 1, p. 122).” The social supervision of newspapers and periodicals actually forms a social check and balance force, which is effective for suppressing violations of law. Engels talked about the role of newspapers and periodicals when reporting on the modernization of the British army. He said, “The press took up the cause of the soldiers, and it soon became the rule among senior officers to extend philanthropy to the troops. Steps were taken to make life more agreeable for the soldiers (vol. 19, p. 313),” He also talked about the Swiss humorous newspaper Der Gukkasten because it dared to expose the illegal acts of government officials. This situation forces those in power to consider the supervision of newspapers and periodicals in their speech and actions. For readers, they have regarded newspapers and periodicals as organs that exercise social supervision. In the 1855 Crimean War, due to the serious bureaucracy of British military and political officials, tens of thousands of soldiers were starving on the front line without medicine, and so the situation became as reported by Marx, “the revolt of the Crimean army against a system which sacrifices it; for must we not call it a revolt when all ranks, from colonel down to private, commit breaches of discipline, writing thousands of letters to the London press every week and appealing to public opinion against their superiors? (vol. 13, p. 557)” If the newspaper does not have the role of social supervision, of course, it will not attract so many letters. Even people without culture have this kind of consciousness. In 1872, Engels cited the interview of a reporter from the Weekly Times published by Manchester when he discussed the housing problem in the UK. He said, “he directed us to a lower depth, where were a series of dwellings, regarding which he said if he were a scholar he should write to the newspapers, insisting that they should be shut up (vol. 23, p. 367). This illiterate hairdresser had this idea, of course, the premise is that the newspaper can implement social supervision in this regard. Marx’s belief that newspapers and periodicals have supervisory responsibilities is quite strong, and he believes that this can be done. In 1859, his manuscript of the first volume of “Criticism of Political Economy” was sent to the Prussian publishing house. He responded, “I presume that, in its own interest, the Prussian government

12.6 Newspaper and Periodical Supervision Duties

225

hasn’t taken any FALSE STEPS with my manuscript. Otherwise I should see to it that all hell was let loose in the London press (Times, etc.) (vol. 40, p. 378).” On one occasion, because he suspected that the Swiss authorities had illegally checked the mail sent to him, he listed the names of nine newspapers in a row, threatened to expose them, and prepared to write a special booklet. The newspapers and periodicals he mentioned are all big class newspapers of the proletariat, because they have a large number of sales, have great influence, and have a great social supervision role. This shows that in Marx’s view, the class and party attributes of newspapers and periodicals do not often contradict their performance of supervisory duties. He praised the General Report, Germany’s largest newspaper that fulfilled this duty, which was politically a bourgeois conservative and attacked him several times, but he still claimed that it had “performed a good deed in denouncing Vogt (vol. 17, p. 124).” On the premise that it did not involve the fundamental interests of newspapers and periodicals, regardless of the specific motives, newspapers and periodicals were consciously and unconsciously performing their duties of social supervision. Engels introduced the daily content of the German “Bremisches Unterhaltungsblatt” as such, “if a gutter has not been properly cleaned—the first to pay attention to it is the Unterhaltungsblatt. If a militia officer believes that his rank gives him the right to ride on the foot-path, he can be sure that the next issue of this newspaper will raise the question whether militia officers ought to be allowed to ride on the foot-paths. This excellent sheet could be called the providence of Bremen (vol. 2, p. 106).” This was especially true of newspapers in metropolises. In 1854, the City of London planned to build a new road along the River Thames, which was scheduled to bypass the Duke of Bacru’s villa. Due to his opposition, the project was interrupted halfway through for seven or eight years. Regarding this matter, Marx cited the uncovering articles of London’s largest bourgeois newspaper The Times and the workers’ newspaper Renault News, stating that “[i]n these matters the press here does not mince words (vol. 19, p. 221).” This “unwelcome” was not only reflected in such social events, but also in political commentary. For example, Marx cited comments made by the British The Morning Advertiser on parliament, “The Parliament of England says The Morning Advertiser has met, and … separated on the first night, in laughter more unseemly than the jesting of an idiot over his father’s burial (vol. 13, p. 615).” Such words cannot be counted as defamation because newspapers and periodicals have the right to comment on current affairs with impoliteness. Newspapers in the environment of the Third French Republic also showed a strong sense of social supervision. When the chauvinist General Browne was elected as a member of parliament by the avid 250,000 Paris voters, the largest bourgeois newspaper The Figaro wrote a group of articles that exposed the man who advocated military dictatorship. Engels said to the French Workers Party leader Lafarge, “The revelations about Boulanger in Figaro must be astounding. Could you let me have them? It is sad for the 247,000 or, rather 274,000 nincompoops, who in January 1889 allowed themselves to be taken in by that bogus panjandrum (vol. 49, p. 22).” In 1892, when some French authorities

226

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

took part in the scam that excavated the Panama Canal was revealed by newspapers, Engels was excited for several months and greedily read daily newspapers. If we analyze many examples of newspapers and periodicals performing their supervisory duties, in addition to the general sense of social justice and morality, the interests of newspapers and periodicals and the relationship between newspapers and classes and parties will have a strong or weakening effect on exposing specific issues. When talking about the supervision of newspapers and periodicals, Marx paid full attention to the restraint of various economic and political factors on newspapers and periodicals. Political newspapers and magazines with greater influence usually have inextricable links with certain classes and parties. They can exercise supervision over other classes and parties, but they will not criticize related classes and parties. However, when their own interests or prestige are threatened, they will not hesitate to assume the posture of newspaper supervision. In early 1855, many British newspapers revealed the inside story of the Cabinet’s “block diplomacy” against Russia, and The Times defended it. However, the newspaper soon changed its tone. According to Marx, “The Times too takes the occasion of Mr. Hamilton’s announcement to launch violent attacks on the Ministry’s “blockade diplomacy”. It is characteristic of the Thunderer of Printing-House-Square that his thunderclaps have always been flung post festum. From March 26, 1854, till today The Times has defended “blockade diplomacy”. Today when its rumblings obstruct no ministerial measures but may well gain it popularity, it suddenly turns into a clairvoyant (vol. 13, p. 582).” It can be seen that the social supervision responsibilities of newspapers and periodicals often open up the way for themselves through various impure motives in complex political and economic relations. Under the representative system, many newspapers and periodicals have a partisan background, and they generally do not criticize the parties to which they are connected. However, since they belong to different parties, the social supervision responsibilities of the newspapers and periodicals are realized on the whole. Due to the different interests of the parties, the newspaper of the British cabinet that came to power in 1858 revealed part of the “secret diplomacy” of the Palmerston cabinet. In this regard, Marx made the following report, “The portion of the London press opposed to secret diplomacy congratulated Lord Derby’s Cabinet on the bold step of initiating the public into the mystery of diplomatic whisperings; and The Morning Star, in its naive enthusiasm, proclaimed that a new epoch of international policy had dawned upon the United Kingdom. The sweet voice of praise became, however, in no time, overhowled by the shrill and/angry tones of criticism. The anti-ministerial press eagerly seized upon the “premeditated blunder,” as they called it (vol. 16, pp. 129–130).” The mutual disclosure of the two factions and newspapers has made the entire diplomatic insider of the ruling class public and subject to social supervision. Marx believed that this was beneficial for understanding real social problems. Another example is the disclosure of the status of workers, when he wrote, “in fact, the noisy, passionate quarrel between the two fractions of the ruling class about the question, which of the two exploited the labourers the more shamefully, was on each hand the

12.6 Newspaper and Periodical Supervision Duties

227

midwife of the truth (vol. 35, p. 667).” The Capital on the exploitation of factory workers and the exploitation of agricultural workers were obtained from Tory and Liberal Party newspapers, respectively. In order to protect the overall interests of the country’s ruling clique, sometimes most newspapers and periodicals of a country will not disclose matters involving such interests, but world exchanges have created a wider range of social supervision. In 1870, the British government persecuted the leaders of the Irish Independence Movement. The British newspapers were silent on this and even supported the position. The French newspapers had no interest in this matter, and they sharply exposed the inhumanity of the British authorities against Irish political prisoners. Abuse, thus forming the social supervision phenomenon of international newspapers and periodicals that Marx talked about. He wrote, “The British Government and press are furious that the Irish question has thus been placed on the ordre du jour in France, and that these blackguards will now be watched and exposed all over continent, via Paris (vol. 43, p. 476).” On many issues, the reasons for newspapers and periodicals to perform their social supervision duties are not single but multi-faceted. Sometimes the pursuit of sensationalism is the main thing, supplemented by a certain partisan motive, such as the investigation report on the issue of child labor published by the liberal newspapers and periodicals mentioned by Marx. He said, “On the other hand, the last report of the “Child./Empl. Comm.” afforded the press sensational copy always welcome. Whilst the Liberal press asked how the fine gentlemen and ladies, and the well-paid clergy of the State Church, with whom Lincolnshire swarms, could allow such a system to arise on their estates, under their very eyes, they who send out expressly missions to the Antipodes “for the improvement of the morals of South Sea Islanders”—the more refined press confined itself to reflections on the coarse degradation of the agricultural population who are capable of selling their children into such slavery! (vol. 35, pp. 687–688)” The more general disclosure of social issues has hardly any specific motives. Marx and Engels believed that the proletariat newspapers should be selfless and unscrupulous in performing social supervision duties. This is because “there is no concern for careers, for profiteering, or for gracious patronage from above (vol. 26, pp. 397–398).” The New Rhine they hosted set an example in this regard and showed no mercy to the enemy, and to the enemies, the newspapers also showed no mercy to the various flaws in the centrists, allies, and workers’ movements. The New Rhine was published with the subtitle ‘Democratic Organ News’, but Engels pointed out that “because of the various different elements from which the democratic party has been formed in Germany, we have considered it essential to keep an especially close watch on the democrats (vol. 7, p. 3 65).” In July 1848, the editorial office of the “New Rhine” received two manuscripts from Paris, both of which revealed that Bakunin was a Russian spy. Although Marx was a friend of Bakunin, the newspaper publishes this revelation while performing its supervisory duties. According to Marx, “we only accomplished the duty of the public press, which has severely to watch public characters. And, at the same time we gave to Mr. Bakunin an opportunity of silencing suspicions thrown upon him in certain Paris circles (vol. 12, p. 285).”

228

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

Yet, when Bakunin published a rebuttal statement in other newspapers, The New Rhine News was also reproduced in full. Bakunin once sent his friend Koszerski to Cologne to convey the challenge of the duel to Marx for this matter. Marx wrote in retrospect, “Koscielski, whom he had sent to Cologne as his second to call me out, examined the letters from Paris, whereupon he was so convinced that it had been my duty as an editor to publish the denunciation (I printed it without comment, as though it were an article) that he wrote by return of post and told Bakunin he could no longer act as his second (vol. 41, p. 91).” After things were clear, Marx and Bakunin restored their previous friendship. In this matter, it fully demonstrated Marx’s firm belief in performing social supervision duties in newspapers and periodicals and the selfless revolutionary mind of the Duke. Marx fully affirmed the social supervision duties of newspapers and periodicals, but he also saw various new problems arising therefrom, such as accusations and slander. He compared free newspapers to roses, hoping to affirm the social supervision role of newspapers (the rose thorn) on the premise of weighing the pros and cons.

12.7 The Business of Newspapers Regarding newspapers and periodicals, Marx and Engels often talked about this issue from the perspective of publication only; from the perspective of the staff working in newspapers and periodicals, they also regarded it as a “field of living.” Marx said about The New Rhine he hosted that “My claim to such an advance is, I believe, all the greater as I contributed more than 7000 talers to the Neue Rheinische Zeitung which, after all, was a party enterprise (vol. 38, p. 201).” In terms of the material basis of newspapers and periodicals, they had satirized many times the naive ideas that nothing can be born out of nothing. The French socialist scholar Proudhon had envisaged to use the “exchange bank” calculation to get his money to create his ‘People’s Representative’ “while he was still engaged in efforts to bring out a daily newspaper, Le Représentant du Peuple, without capital but by means of a calculation unequalled in its contempt for the rule of three (vol. 8, p. 130).” The Fourierists ran Peace and Democracy Daily. Although they look forward to the ‘Farren Steyr’ paradise designed by their teacher, Fourier, they could not do it without funds. When the newspaper owed Engels’ friend Weill 1000 francs for remuneration, Engels sarcastically said, “little Weill is somewhat riled because he isn’t getting his fees of 1000 or so francs from the Démocratie pacifique which appears to be embroiled in a kind of GREAT CRISIS AND STOPPING OF CASH PAYMENTS, and little Weill is too much/of a Jew to allow himself to be fobbed off with banknotes on the first phalanstery of the future (vol. 38, pp. 54–55).” German political theorist Heinzen, who has always boasted of his “mental capital”, co-founded a newspaper in the United States, and ended up publishing because of lack of material capital. Marx mocked, “In the issue of 13 August, the unfortunate Heinzen announces that Otto has withdrawn his capital, thus leaving him on his own

12.7 The Business of Newspapers

229

with his mental capital which will not, in industrial America, keep a newspaper going (vol. 38, p. 447).” First of all, it is politically successful. At the same time, using the former’s success to make some gains in management was the purpose of Marx and Engels engaged in workers’ newspapers and periodicals. In 1850, they wrote this about the newly created New Rhine Review, “it will only fully serve its purpose of exercising an uninterrupted and lasting influence on public opinion, and create new opportunities also from the financial point of view, when the editorial board is in a position to produce issues in more rapid succession (vol. 10, p. 605)” n 1895, when the Austrian Social Democratic Party’s Workers’ newspaper achieved both successes, Engels said happily, “Your news about the paper pleased us very much. The main thing is political efficacity; financial efficacity is bound to follow, and will be achieved far more easily and quickly once the former is assured (vol. 50, p. 470). For newspapers and periodicals to function properly, a large amount of capital must be raised. This is the main issue that Marx and Engels considered when they founded the newspapers. In 1866, Marx commented on the operation of The Commonwealth, the newspaper of the International Workers’ Association. He criticized the nonmanagers vision of the newspaper host, noting that “the fellows are exceedingly liberal with good advice and petty criticisms, and exceedingly parsimonious with CASH, so that the existence of the paper is assured only from one week to the next. Its readership is spreading week by week, but a PENNY PAPER, be it ever so successful, needs to be funded for at least a year ahead. To make it SELF-SUPPORTING in a shorter space of time is QUITE OUT OF THE QUESTION (vol. 42, p. 268).” Engels also expressed similar opinions on the work of the French Workers’ Party in establishing newspapers and periodicals. In fact, he said, “There’s nothing else you can do, for agitation involves keeping oneself in the public eye. With 10,000 francs you can maintain a weekly paper for a long time, and you ought to be able to raise that sum (vol. 48, p. 49).” The New Rhine News was established for this purpose. This is a newspaper management company with a fairly complete charter. The charter has 46 articles in total and covers all issues in the field of operations and business law. The New Rhine Review had no conditions to establish an operating company at the time of its establishment, but the operating terms listed in the stock advisory already included the basic content of a journal’s operating company charter. The two newspapers founded by Marx and Engels used the method of stock-raising from society to raise funds. The funds to be raised by the “New Rhine News” are divided into 600 shares, 50 tals per share, and the shares can be paid in installments; The New Rhine Review was prepared to raise 500 pounds, and only 50 francs per share, which made it small so that many people could also buy shares. With such measures, the ability of newspapers to absorb shares is strengthened. In terms of the initial use of funds, they focused on investing a significant portion of the profits they made into reproduction. Among the remainder after the New Rhine News paid shareholders’ interest, “ten per cent is put to a reserve fund for unexpected losses and improvements of the newspaper and for extraordinary expenditures (vol. 7, p. 552).” The New Rhine Review planned to transfer all profits into capital. After

230

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

the monthly magazine is converted into a weekly magazine, one third of the profits will still be used as reserves. Circulation and advertising are the material guarantee for newspapers and periodicals in their own development. In 1859, Marx participated in the work of the German People’s Daily in London, and talked about distribution and advertising several times. He added subscribers to the newspaper and asked Engels to provide distinctive articles, he said it was “[a] point not to be overlooked. With something more original from the theatre of war we ought TO CATCH at least 50 more customers in London (vol. 40, p. 449).” He also plans to maintain newspapers with advertisements. He said, “With proper MANAGEMENT, which is now under way but whose results won’t make themselves felt for weeks to come, the advertisements alone will pay for the little sheet (vol. 40, p. 472)”. In 1865, he spoke to his friends about the Weekly Newspaper of the Republic of the International Workers’ Association, stating that “Its circulation is increasing, but you know that a penny paper wants at least 20,000 subscribers, and cannot even then make the two ends meet without a goodly number of advertisements. The Commonwealth is of too recent an origin to come up to those requisites (vol. 42, p. 271).” The New Rhine provides experience for expanding circulation. As far as possible, Marx made all upper-middle-level progressives in the publishing area into shareholders and asked their representatives to be contact persons for the stocks, soliciting subscribers of the same class with their identity and prestige. At the same time, he cooperated with publishers and printers so that almost all beer shops in Cologne had placed newspaper orders, which was the best way to collect subscribers from the lower levels. In addition, newspapers published advertisements all over the streets of Cologne. On the day the newspaper was published, Cologne’s newspaper vendors were also mobilized so that the newspaper quickly spread throughout the city. Due to the contact between the newspaper editorial department and various places, newspapers have gradually set up collection stations in Germany, as well as post offices in France, Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and there are dedicated people responsible for this work. In less than three months, the number of subscribers to the “New Rhine News” reached 5000, which was the circulation that the major newspapers could reach at that time. Due to the revolutionary tendency of the newspapers, the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois subscribers have unsubscribed, but the newspapers have relied on the existing extensive contacts to continuously expand subscribers among the lower classes so that the circulation has not only declined but also increased to nearly 6000. Marx and Engels ran newspapers and periodicals, which were mainly responsible for the editing and writing of newspapers and periodicals. Therefore, cooperation with reliable and competent newspaper distributors (managers) is essential to the normal operation of newspapers and periodicals. When Marx served as the editor-in-chief of The Rhine, he got along well with newspaper publisher Dagobert Oppenheim, which was an important factor in the success of the newspaper. During The New Rhine period, the newspaper publishers were Korff and Naut. In the early period of the newspaper, Korf played a better role, and later he had a conflict with Marx. The operation of the newspaper was mainly borne by Naut. Naut’s work is very dedicated,

12.7 The Business of Newspapers

231

Marx entrusted him with the aftermath of The New Rhine and all the accounts. In The New Rhine Review, Marx and Engels asked their friend Konrad Schramm to act as an issuer, and they worked well together. In 1859, when Marx participated in the work of Das Volk in the German Devon, he regarded the issuer selection and fund raising as equally important. As for advertising, Marx famously said, “Every newspaper advertisement is a fact of intelligence. However, who on that account would seek representatives of literature in advertisements? A field cannot speak, only the owner of the field can. Hence, the field must appear in an intelligent form in order to make its voice heard (vol. 1, p. 301). […] The utilitarian intelligence which fights for its hearth and home differs, of course, from the free intelligence which fights for what is right despite its hearth and home (vol. 1, p. 301).” Here, through the difference between newspaper advertisements and publications, he explained that advertisements are the intellectual expression of certain interests (such as the interests of land nobles). For this reason, Marx opposed that newspapers and periodicals rely entirely on advertising for a living. However, under the premise of separate advertising and editorial policies, he agreed to advertise in newspapers and periodicals, and regarded it as one of the important income of newspapers and periodicals. In The New Rhine, you can read the detailed advertising price list every day and “advertisements of all kinds obtain very wide circulation through the many connections of our paper (vol. 8, p. 510).” Engels also believed that advertising has a practical effect on newspapers. According to him, “The six pages of JOINT-STOCK prospectuses in today’s Daily News—on the strength of which it thinks to outshine The Times—are bound to have an effect, likewise the 50–80 or so foreign railway, gold mining, steamship, etc., etc., companies (vol. 39, p. 253).” Meanwhile, Engels urged workers’ newspapers to pay attention to advertising. On one occasion, he gently criticized the issue of the French Workers’ Party newspaper, saying, “The last page of the Voie to-day looks rather queer, all Bel Ami and no advertisements. Rather too much for one dose, I should think (vol. 48, p. 29).” Advertisement itself is a broad form of social spiritual communication, which both Marx and Engels affirmed. Marx has written advertisements for himself and others many times. In order to promote books, he mentioned that “advance notices should appear in the Press to whet people’s curiosity (vol. 39, p. 259).” On one occasion, he drafted an advertisement for the book of a Hungarian military engineer and asked Engels to polish it. Marx also talked with interest about the British workers’ publications Notes to the People (Editor-in-Chief of Jones) and Friends of the People (Editor-in-Chief of Hani) advertising formats. He told Engels, “E. Jones has been puffing your article for all he is worth without, of course, mentioning your name. He has been compelled thus to cry his wares by competition from Harney who has got hold of some money, the devil knows where from, and has large advertising waggons driving round the CITY, with the legend ‘READ THE FRIEND OF THE PEOPLE’, the paper being displayed and on sale in all socialist SHOPS (vol. 39, p. 43).” Engels also believed that “advertising methods” have played an important role in information dissemination.

232

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

Heine used advertisements to break the ban on his works, Engels wrote, “the ban placed by the Federal Diet on Heine’s books, even future/ones, forced him to use all available methods of advertisement in order to ensure the sales that he would otherwise have automatically enjoyed (vol. 48, pp. 117–118).” Many years of business have made Engels a habit of paying attention to advertising. Once a friend was unfamiliar with steamship advertising, he immediately told him that “The location of these steamship offices may be found in any newspaper announcement, beneath which there is always the name of a local business house (vol. 39, p. 118).” In 1853, in order to find a job for Marx’s secretary Wilhelm Pieper, Engels read many job advertisements in newspapers and sent them to Marx. Newspapers can be in a good position in competition, and adopting new technologies is an important measure. When Marx hosted the “New Rhine News”, he paid great attention to constantly improving the technical status of the newspaper. In the case of very difficult funds, he took out his own money and bought a new printing press. The flyer promoting The New Rhine wrote at the time, “during the month of October we shall be able to ensure the dispatch of our newspaper to our subscribers in an enlarged format, with new powerful means for its support, the more punctually because before long the printing will be done by a new rapid printing press (vol. 7, p. 590).” In 1859, Marx actively supported People’s Daily printing in Hollinger Printing House, the reason is as he said “It is to appear at the beginning of next month from the same press as the Volk, and would benefit the latter in as much as Hollinger would then print by machine instead of by hand as heretofore (vol. 40, p. 480).” Engels, with his many years of business experience, often guides the operation of numerous workers’ newspapers. In 1851, he and Marx’s friend Wade were going to start Revolution in the United States but had no business experience. Engels told Marx that “Wade certainly appears to be still somewhat ‘green’ in regard to business matters; I shall drop him such hints on the subject as are necessary (vol. 38, p. 516).” For example, in the use of publication papers, Engels compared the costs of the two sides of the ocean for Wade to weigh the pros and cons. This is what he said, “The printing costs are colossal; for £5 per sheet—scarcely more than you have had to pay—we could get the thing similarly printed in London. Paper should, after all, be cheaper over there, since here it carries a duty of 1½d (3 cents) per lb. Perhaps you could inquire about the price from the local wholesale paper merchants and let us know what it is (vol. 39, p. 119).” In the 1840s, the encounter of the American German weekly Der Volks-Tribun made Engels clearly raise the issue of newspaper management. He commented that the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Cligue said, “The first instalment of this American Straubingers’ story concerned their misfortunes—evidently Kriege was at the helm and his management of the money side was big-hearted to say the least, the Tribun was given away, not sold, the funds consisted in charitable gifts, in short, by trying to re-enact Chapters III–VI of the Acts of the Apostles not even omitting Ananias and Sapphira, they finally found themselves up to their eyes in debt (vol. 38, p. 84).” On one occasion, German Social Democratic Party leader Liebknecht opened his mouth and asked Engels to prepare a newspaper for them in London. Engels warned him of this naive idea, “You surely ought still to be aware that just

12.7 The Business of Newspapers

233

as London is larger than Crimmitschau so too the difficulties in setting up a paper and all the demands made of it are correspondingly greater. If you can put some £10,000 at our disposal, we shall be at your service (vol. 44, p. 167).” Under his guidance for many years, the German Social Democratic Party gradually formed a party newspaper system for corporate management. On the eve of the death of Engels, the Central Organ Newspaper “Progress” was able to provide the party with a profit of 50,000 marks per year. The French Workers’ Party has also experienced this process of recognition. In 1881, the French Workers’ Party received 5000 francs. They did not have the business consciousness and immediately established a large newspaper, which soon collapsed again. He pointed out, “I confidently/predicted that, with their 5000 frs (if as much), they would last out for 32 numbers. If Guesde and Lafargue are intent on acquiring the reputation in Paris of tueurs dejourneaux, we can’t stop them, but nor shall we do anything else (vol. 46, pp. 144–145). […] But it’s absolutely essential that these gentlemen should learn at last how to stand on their own feet (vol. 46, p. 145).” In 1890, Engels said angrily when he learned that the French Workers’ Party still insisted on the early tradition of not paying, “A daily paper with unpaid rédaction, unpaid correspondents, unpaid everything—why it is ruination to begin with, and being kicked out of the paper you have made as soon as you demand the payment due for your work! (vol. 48, p. 431)” In 1894, the Austrian Social Democratic Party’s Arbeiter-Zeitung was going to be a daily newspaper. In order to support this plan, a syndicate of non-party persons was set up in London and a loan of 5000 Florens was given to the newspaper. Engels personally drafted the “Loan Conditions for founding The Worker’s Daily” for the newspaper and explained how to run the newspaper so that the funds can be used properly. Marx was an economist, and Engels had 20 years of business experience. They were experts in the newspaper industry rather than laymen. It was only because of various persecutions in politics that the high-quality newspapers and periodicals they founded were forced into bankruptcy. Perhaps, for this reason, people mistakenly believed that they had failed in the operation of newspapers and periodicals, of course, there was to be no discussion. In fact, their exposition provided many useful revelations for the operation of newspapers and periodicals on the combination of theory and practice. This is an ideological legacy that should not be ignored.

12.8 In Regard to “Internal Laws of Newspapers and Periodicals” Marx famously wrote in early 1843, “for the press to achieve its purpose it is above all necessary that it should not have any kind of purpose prescribed for it from outside, and that it should be accorded the recognition that is given even to a plant, namely, that it has its own inherent laws, which it cannot and should not arbitrarily evade (vol. 1, p. 314).” Marx here talks about respecting the internal laws of newspapers and

234

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

periodicals from both internal and external aspects: for the staff inside the newspapers, they should not follow the working rules of the newspapers and periodicals for political needs or economic benefits; outside the newspapers, they cannot be imposed on the newspapers Requirements outside the function. This is the last paragraph of an article. Marx did not further explain what is the internal law of newspapers and periodicals, but the word innre Gesetz means emphasis. The significance is that he confirms that newspapers and periodicals have independent working characteristics that are different from other things. If you conduct in-depth research, you should analyze its focus, that is, to recognize newspapers and periodicals and their own working rules, and require that both the internal and external aspects should not impose requirements other than the characteristics of newspapers and periodicals, or do not follow the characteristics of newspapers and periodicals. Our focus should be on Marx’s recognition of the inherent laws of newspapers and periodicals, and its significance for journalism research, rather than focusing on weaving some “laws” for Marx. Marx was not prepared to talk about specific “laws”. In the first sentence of this passage, Marx used the concept of “die bestimmung” of newspapers and periodicals, which has a sacred meaning, and regards the work of newspapers and periodicals as a duty and a bounden duty. In this passage, confirming that newspapers and periodicals have their own internal laws is the basis and premise for newspapers and periodicals to fulfill their missions. In order to illustrate the inherent laws of newspapers and periodicals, Marx made an analogy with the growth of plants, which was obviously influenced by the romantic writers of the time. He later compared the development of art to the different seasons of plants; illustrating the use of currency to capital, “Just as growth is characteristic of trees (vol. 32, p. 463), […] just as the attribute of the pear tree is to produce pears (vol. 32, p. 457).” Such an analogy shows that Marx emphasized the natural formation and irreversible nature of law. Looking at the noun “das Gesetz” (corresponding to English law) he uses, the first meaning is “law”, not other nouns that can also be translated into laws, such as standards and standards. Marx emphasized the newspaper The sacred nature of the law. The concept of “inner law” is often used in Marx’s Das Kapital and its manuscripts. Studying his use of this concept can understand his basic understanding of inner law. He wrote about the law of value, “the inner law enforces itself only through their competition, their mutual pressure upon each other, whereby the deviations are mutually canceled. Only as an inner law, vis-à-vis the/individual agents, as a blind law of Nature, does the law of value exert its influence here and maintain the social equilibrium of production amidst its accidental fluctuations (vol. 37, pp. 866– 867).” This shows that the “inner law” of a certain thing is not obvious and obvious but is presented in the form of various deviations in the contradictory movement of things, and the law is expressed as a macroscopic characteristic. Since the law works in a subtle and imperceptible way, Marx regarded the law of cognition as a scientific work. He said, “if it is a work of science to resolve the visible, merely external movement into the true intrinsic movement (vol. 37, p. 311), […] It is this law that explains the deviations, and not vice versa, the deviations that explain the

12.8 In Regard to “Internal Laws of Newspapers and Periodicals”

235

law (vol. 37, p. 186).” Here, he pointed out the basic method of studying the law: grasp the law from the deviation. In fact, his discourses on “organic newspaper movement”, “common fairness”, “newspapers are circulated as paper money of public opinion”, are regular phenomena summarized from various deviations of newspaper activities. The pure manifestation of such regular phenomena is rare in real newspaper activities because newspapers and periodicals will be affected by various factors, such as economic interests, classes, and parties, cultural traditions, newspaper workers’ own intelligence levels. However, from the deviations of many newspapers and periodicals movements, as long as people think carefully, they can vaguely feel the characteristics of the operation of these newspapers and periodicals summarized by Marx. In this passage of Marx, in order to ensure that the internal laws of newspapers and periodicals function normally, he emphasized a good working environment for newspapers and periodicals and believes that no pressure should be applied from the outside. It can be seen from Marx’s exposition on working conditions of newspapers and periodicals that he believed that the environmental conditions of freedom of publication could make newspapers and periodicals expose the laws of their own movements, while authoritarian news policies could hardly make newspapers and periodicals function normally. Therefore, Marx attached great importance to the slight independence displayed by newspapers and periodicals under such difficult conditions. In an environment of free press, newspapers and periodicals have freedom of spiritual activity, but they will still be constrained by money. He talked about France, which has a certain freedom of publication and said, “The French press is not too free; it is not free enough. It is true that it is not subject to a spiritual censorship, but it is subject to a material censorship, in the shape of high money sureties. It operates materially precisely because it is taken out of its proper sphere and drawn into the sphere of large trade speculations (vol. 1, p. 167).” Because of this situation, even under the conditions of free press, it is necessary to intersect newspapers and periodicals through various complex economic, political, and cultural factors in order to grasp the working rules of newspapers and periodicals. The important thing is to learn Marx’s method of studying newspapers and periodicals, rather than to fix his analysis of a specific newspaper. Anything that is realistic is not necessarily reasonable, and only if this consciousness is very clear will there be no illusions of “explaining the laws from deviation”. Marx also emphasized that internal staff should not get rid of the working rules of newspapers and periodicals. As can be seen from his large number of critical comments, this refers to the self-examination that newspapers and periodicals do not follow the working rules and succumb to the intervention of external powers. Engels said that this self-examination is a thousand times worse than the old book and newspaper inspection. Marx’s Das Kapital and its manuscript, with a Chinese translation of 10 million words, lasted 40 years, and in fact repeatedly demonstrated a basic law of capitalist production, namely the law of value. It can be seen that regular discovery and argumentation is a rigorous and tenacious thing. It is a thinking process that rises from concrete to abstract and from surface to essence and is not the same as summing up experience. Perhaps this is one reason why Marx did not carry out specific arguments

236

12 Newspapers as a Form of Communication Media

after proposing that newspapers and periodicals have inherent laws. But he definitely talked about the existence of this law, and he could not deny it due to various deviation movements of newspapers and periodicals. Marx made a metaphor on this: or the nature and length of a straight line are changed by the fact that it serves as the base of some triangle or as the diameter of some ellipse (vol. 36, p. 380). If it must be said that Marx demonstrated the internal law of newspapers and periodicals, then this law is his whole discussion of newspapers and periodicals, and this whole reflects the internal law of newspapers and periodicals. It is not a universal theorem that can be applied everywhere in one or two sentences, but a method that needs to be grasped by researchers, and conclusions with general meaning drawn by this method, such conclusions also need to be in the real movement of newspapers and periodicals Continuous development and improvement. Engels said, newspaper staff “can also lead to superficiality because shortage of time/accustoms one to dashing off things one knows one has not yet fully mastered (vol. 48, pp. 420–421).” Therefore, to discuss the law of newspapers and periodicals, newspaper workers must overcome this way of thinking. In this field, always remind yourself with the following words from Engels, “If ‘the triumph of the higher scientific method’ in economics, as in philosophy, consists only in giving a high-sounding name to the first commonplace that comes to one’s mind, and trumpeting it forth as a natural law or even a fundamental law, then it becomes possible for anybody, even the editors of the Berlin Volks-Zeitung, to lay ‘deeper foundations’ and to revolutionise science (vol. 25, pp. 206–207).”

Chapter 13

The Policy of Intercourse

The so-called communication policy refers to the various provisions made by the authorities in a certain area on the content and form of mental intercourse, from the emperor’s decree to various administrative regulations, until all had been regulated by law. All these regulations were associated with certain powers, which often affected the scale and shape of the spiritual exchanges of generations in this region, and promoted or hindered the development of exchanges. Specifically, all laws and systems that involved assembly, association, speech, publishing, education, faith, etc., as well as various documents and administrative measures that explained them, were communication policies. Almost all important issues related to the policy of communication were discussed by Marx and Engels. Some of these discussions were highly valued by contemporaries. For example, in 1910, the German Marxist theorist F. Merlin wrote that Marx’s work “was still among the most outstanding articles on press freedom issues.”

13.1 Book Inspection The inspection of books and newspapers was the subject of Marx’s first political essay argument, involving various forms of daily social communication at that time: books, newspapers, literature, and university forums. As he pointed out, “The appropriation of another’s will is presupposed in the relationship of dominion (vol. 28, p. 424).” The book inspection system is a communication policy adopted by the ruler in order to establish an open relationship of rule. In ancient Rome, there were already special newspapers and newspaper inspectors. Regarding the characteristics of the examination of the ancient Roman book, Engels cited the summary of the early German democrat Luding Walesrode, “The censorship in ancient Rome consisted in strict moral judgment on the citizens of the Republic; it came to an end when, as Cicero says, it could do no more than make a man blush (vol. 2, p. 278).” However, in the social development of more than 1000 years after the © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_13

237

238

13 The Policy of Intercourse

demise of ancient Rome, the inspection of books and newspapers as a communication policy has been stifling people’s spiritual communication. Marx wrote about the Prussian book inspection agency that “We can hardly assert the latter. For twentytwo years illegal actions have been committed by an authority which has in its charge the highest interest of the citizens, their minds, by an authority which regulates, even more than the Roman censors did, not only the behaviour of individual citizens, but even the behaviour of the public mind (vol. 1, p. 110).” Marx and Engels persistently fought the book inspection system, calling it “a police executioner who mishandles the product of my mind by applying an external standard alien to the matter in question” and a “mere mass-type fantasy, an un-Critical figment of the brain (vol. 4, p. 83).” They demonstrated the illegal nature, harm, and suppression of the social nature of human beings from various angles. First of all, book inspection was a law or system that was based on the parties’ way of thinking. In Marx’s words, “Modesty and seriousness of investigation—both the new instruction and the censorship decree make this demand, but for the former decorous formulation is as little sufficient as truth of content. For it the tendency is the main criterion, indeed it is its all-pervading thought, whereas in the decree itself not even the word tendency is to be found (vol. 1, p. 119).” Which was why the following situation appeared: “The censorship does not accuse me of violating an existing law. It condemns my opinion because it is not the opinion of the censor and his superiors (vol. 1, p. 166). […] The law which punishes tendency, however, punishes me not only for what I do, but for what I think, apart from my actions. It is therefore an insult to the honour of the citizen, a vexatious law which threatens my existence (vol. 1, p. 120).” In this case, the tendency to be required became a random factor in determining the meaning of these concepts, so there were two aspects to what Marx said, “I repeat, all objective standards are abandoned. As regards the writer, tendency is the ultimate content that is demanded from him and prescribed to him (vol. 1, p. 129).” Marx recognizes the struggle between different ideas, but that should exist between the parties. He wrote, “The law against a frame of mind is not a law of the state promulgated for its citizens, but the law of one party against another party. The law which punishes tendency abolishes the equality of the citizens before the law (vol. 1, p. 120).” On this premise, he felt that “the lack of rights of the press is beyond all doubt once its existence is made dependent on its frame of mind (vol. 1, p. 327). […] We demand that the legal position of a bad being should be unassailable, not because it is bad, but insofar as its badness remains within a frame of mind, for which there is no court of law and no legal code (vol. 1, p. 327).” Which was why Marx came to the conclusion that the book examined the illegal nature “which make their main criterion not actions as such, but the frame of mind of the doer, are nothing but/positive sanctions for lawlessness (vol. 1, pp. 119–120).” The second characteristic of book inspection is based on the premise of doubting everything. Since it is the tendency to examine the content of books and newspapers, it must be assumed that all the content of the dissemination is the object of suspicion, so the inspection of books and newspapers has become a typical law that implements

13.1 Book Inspection

239

spiritual horror. In this regard, Marx wrote, “The writer, therefore, has fallen victim to the most frightful terrorism, and is subjected to the jurisdiction of suspicion. Laws against tendency, laws giving no objective standards, are laws of terrorism (vol. 1, p. 119).” Third, in the legal process, the inspection of books and newspapers made the plaintiff, defender and judge concentrated on the prosecutor, thus destroying the foundation of the law. According to Marx, “This combination contradicts all the laws of psychology. But the official is raised above the laws of psychology, while the general public remains under them (vol. 1, p. 130).” Marx graduated from the Faculty of Law at Berlin University, and he hated legal procedures without mutual restraint. Since there is no mutual restriction, as far as the procedure of inspection of books and newspapers is concerned, it will also cause the irresponsible bureaucratic habits of the inspectors. He wrote, “The censor, too, is accuser, defender and judge in a single person; control of the mind is entrusted to the censor; he is irresponsible (vol. 1, p. 130).” Fourth, the book inspectors were mediocre officials, but they were above the writers, scholars, and artists, and logically caused a series of unsolvable contradictions. Marx said, “You demand modesty and your starting point is the monstrous immodesty of appointing individual servants of the state to spy on people’s hearts, to be omniscient, philosophers, theologians, politicians, Delphic Apollos. On the one hand, you make it our duty to respect immodesty and, on the other hand, you forbid us to be immodest. The real immodesty consists in ascribing perfection of the genus to particular individuals. The censor is a particular individual, but the press becomes the embodiment of the whole genus (vol. 1, p. 122).” The inspection of books and newspapers causes a reversal of relationships in that “the aptitude for ability has to act as censor of actual qualification, however much in the nature of things the relationship should obviously be the/reverse (vol. 1, pp. 128–129).” If the prosecutors were all super talented, then new contradictions appeared. Marx said, “If such a crowd of universal geniuses known to the government are to be found in Prussia—every town has at least one censor—why do not these encyclopaedic minds come forward as writers? (vol. 1, p. 126)” In other words, if the inspector was directly engaged in writing and teaching, why should they be required to inspect others? Here, Marx, like John Milton of England in the seventeenth century, revealed the inherent paradox of the inspection system of books and newspapers. Fifth, book inspection was an irrational criticism monopolized by the government. Criticism is a frequent form of spiritual communication, but the inspection of books and newspapers prohibited normal criticism and turned criticism into an arbitrary right. Marx said, “Censorship is criticism as a monopoly of the government (vol. 1, p. 159).” Under the inspection of books and newspapers, the right of social supervision, which has always been considered to be the responsibility of the newspaper, was naturally displaced “as a perfectly simple consequence it follows that the press is forbidden all control over officials as over such institutions that exist as a class of individuals (vol. 1, p. 123). […] The press is deprived of the right to criticise, but criticism becomes the daily duty of the governmental critic (vol. 1, p. 121).”

240

13 The Policy of Intercourse

Sixth, the inspection of books and newspapers caused the reversal of social understanding and the corruption of communication morality. In a society where the inspection of books and newspapers has existed for a long time, from the power holders to the people, many upside-down perceptions were recognized even if the parties did not feel it. For those in power, Marx said, “The government hears only its own voice, it knows that it hears only its own voice, yet it harbours the/illusion that it hears the voice of the people, and it demands that the people, too, should itself harbour this illusion (vol. 1, pp. 167–168).” In the writings of Marx and Engels, you can often see the disclosure of such behaviors in newspapers and periodicals. For example, in 1844, the Kingdom of Bavaria raised the price of beer, and the people angrily surrounded the king’s theater. Engels wrote, “The French papers assert that the King on this occasion ordered the military stationed before the theatre to fire upon the people, and that the soldiers refused. The/German papers do not mention this, as may be expected from their being published under censorship (vol. 3, pp. 521–522).” Concealing the facts was not conducive to the important plots of those in power. This was already a habitual act of newspapers and periodicals under the system of book and newspaper inspection. Like Marx said, “and since, however, one day necessarily contradicts the other, the press lies continually and has to deny even any consciousness of lying, and must cast off all shame (vol. 1, p. 168).” This is a concise and accurate description of the communication ethics under the inspection of books and newspapers. Living under the censorship of books and newspapers for a long time, some people’s concepts have become reversed. Marx said, “Since the nation is forced to regard free writings as unlawful, it becomes accustomed to regard what is unlawful as free, freedom as unlawful and what is lawful as unfree. In this way censorship kills the state spirit (vol. 1, p. 168).” Under this conventional concept, even if no one conducts inspections for a while, people will consciously “abide by the law.” Marx wrote, “When, on the other hand, there is no censorship because there is no press, although the need for a free and therefore censurable press exists, one must expect to find a pre-censorship in circumstances which have suppressed by fear the expression of thought even in its more unpretentious forms (vol. 1, p. 354).” Seventh, the inspection of books and newspapers was a policy of ignoring the people, which seriously hindered the spiritual development of society, nations, and individuals. Marx’s youth and youth were spent under the system of book and newspaper inspection. He deeply felt what book and newspaper inspection meant to the development of national spirit. When talking about the bad results of the examination of books and newspapers in Germany from 1819 to 1840, he called this period spiritual “posterity (vol. 1, p. 140).” The people under this system were extremely ignorant, Engels once recalled, “in passing judgment upon the slowness of political development in Germany, no one ought to omit taking into account the difficulty of obtaining correct information upon any subject in a country, where all sources of information were under control of the Government; where from the Ragged School and Sunday School, to the Newspaper and the University, nothing was said, taught, printed or published, but what had previously obtained its approbation (vol. 11, p. 15).”

13.1 Book Inspection

241

This policy of stupidity has caused such a sad situation in Austria: when news of the French Revolution in February 1848 came, the Austrian bourgeoisie (not to mention workers) “in their political innocence, either could attach no meaning to these news, or they believed them to be fiendish inventions of Metternich, to frighten them into obedience (vol. 11, p. 32).” Due to the closure of information, the spiritual development of many outstanding people is also limited. As Marx pointed out, “The censorship makes virtually every rational undertaking impossible (vol. 38, p. 131).” The Russian democrat Chernyshevsky is a typical example. Engels wrote, “His entire intellectual development had to take place within the surrounding medium created by this intellectual embargo. What Russian censorship would not let in scarcely existed for Russia, if at all. If there are sporadic weaknesses, sporadic instances of a limited/outlook, then one can only feel admiration that there are not more of them (vol. 27, pp. 422–423).” Eighth, the mental depression caused by the inspection of books and newspapers was a kind of artificial stability. In order to guarantee social stability, this was an important reason for those in power to defend the inspection of books and newspapers. For this reason, control had become increasingly tight. According to Engels, “to wind up into one comprehensive system all these attempts at creating an artificial stability, the intellectual food allowed to the nation was selected with the minutest caution, and dealt out as sparingly as possible (vol. 11, p. 28).” However, mental strength cannot disappear under violent repression, it can only change the form of struggle and pave the way for intensifying contradictions. Which is why Marx pointed out that “Censorship does not abolish the struggle, it makes it one-sided, it converts an open struggle into a hidden one, it converts a struggle over principles into a struggle of principle without power against power without principle (vol. 1, p. 159).” Engels wrote about Hegel in his book Principles of Legal Philosophy. He said, “That was blatantly a sanctification of the existing order of things, the philosophical benediction upon despotism, the police state, arbitrary justice, and censorship (vol. 26, p. 358).” Meanwhile, The Criticism of Hegel’s Legal Philosophy, written by Marx in 1843, laid the foundation for his communism. The young Hegelian Max Stirner stated in his book, “If the state is holy, there must be censorship […] The French Government does not contest freedom of the press as a right of man, but it demands a guarantee from the individual that he is really a human being.” (Quel bonhomme! Jacques le bonhomme is “called upon” to study the September Laws) (vol. 5, p. 347).” In their works, book inspection was a self-evident concept of negativity, a “sign of shame in old times” (6 volumes, 32 pages), and it could not be tolerated by its shadow. In 1860, Marx and German politician Karl Blind had a dispute in the “General Report”, which violated the “common fairness” of the work of the newspapers and deliberately issued Marx’s statement and modified it without authorization. Marx resisted, claiming “they also take upon themselves the endearing liberty of censoring me and making arbitrary alterations. In Cologne in 1842–43 I suffered from the twofold Royal Prussian censorship, but never imagined that in the year 1860 I would in addition fall victim to the censorship of Herr Dr. Kolb & Co. (vol. 17, p. 17).”

242

13 The Policy of Intercourse

Engels also firmly opposed the implementation of book inspections in the newspapers and periodicals of the workers’ party. He once told an editor-in-chief of the German Social Democratic Party that “The voices should have been raised in the parliamentary group demanding that the Neue Zeit to censorship is truly delectable (vol. 49, p. 135). […] However, we’ve taken care that they don’t get too big for their boots (vol. 49, p. 135).” In 1895, the German party was preparing to publish Marx and his early works, and the only condition Engels proposed was to prohibit the inspection of books and newspapers. He said, “A library which re-issues historical documents and writings from earlier periods cannot tolerate any kind of censorship—quite literally or not at all (vol. 50, p. 497).” In the struggle against the inspection of books and newspapers, they expressed a desire for spiritual freedom. Marx quoted the ancient Roman historian Tacitus while expressing his wish, “Rara temporum félicitas, ubi quae velis sentire et quae sentias dicere licet.—O rare happiness of the times, where it is permitted to think what you will and to say what you think (Tacitus, Historiae, 1, 1).—Ed (vol. 1, p. 131).” Engels does not succumb to the high pressure of the inspection of books and newspapers but must maintain the freedom of his own soul. He said, “Incidentally, I don’t allow the censorship to keep me from writing freely; let them cross out as much as they like afterwards, I don’t commit infanticide on my own thoughts (vol. 2, p. 488).” It was the preciousness of the freedom of the soul that I felt personally, so when Bismarck asked the newspapers to perform “self-examination” during the period when the anti-socialists were very legal, Engels said, “The journal itself, of course, has to content with appalling difficulties: the censorship it has to impose upon itself is a thousand times worse than the old, official censorship used to be (vol. 47, p. 57).” Because this kind of self-examination requires you to consciously stifle your thoughts, it is actually more brutal.n Marx’s conclusion about the book inspection was, “The real, radical cure for the censorship would be its abolition; for the institution itself is a bad one, and institutions are more powerful than people (vol. 1, p. 131).”

13.2 Knowledge Tax and Deposit The inspection of books and newspapers is essentially a policy of communication between ancient and medieval times. At the same time as it subsided, material inspection with the nature of early capitalism began to develop, that is, the deposit system established by newspapers and periodicals and the tax system imposed on newspapers. This is a communication policy in the transition from the policy of communication in the Middle Ages to the policy of communication in free capitalism. While opposing the spiritual examination of books and newspapers, Marx and Engels also strongly opposed this material examination because it stifled free spiritual communication in another form. When talking about the French press freedom that was incomplete before 1842, Marx pointed out, “The French press is not too free; it is not free enough. It is true that

13.2 Knowledge Tax and Deposit

243

it is not subject to a spiritual censorship, but it is subject to a material censorship, in the shape of high money sureties. It operates materially precisely because it is taken out of its proper sphere and drawn into the sphere of large trade speculations (vol. 1, p. 167).” This kind of “material inspection” made it impossible for the lowerlevel people who lacked money protection to have the right to start newspapers and periodicals. Because the newspapers and periodicals paid various guarantees and taxes, it was difficult for the lower-level people to afford high-priced newspapers and periodicals. In 1850, Marx and Engels specifically talked about the threat to the survival of newspapers and periodicals by raising the margin of newspapers and periodicals. At that time, the French Parliament passed a new publication bill, they commented, “A proposal of the government, made many times more drastic by amendments of the party of Order, increased the caution money, put an extra stamp on feuilleton novels (answer to the election of Eugène Sue), taxed all publications appearing weekly or monthly up to a certain number of sheets and finally provided that every article of a journal must bear the signature of the author. The provisions concerning the caution money killed the so-called revolutionary press (vol. 10, p. 137};” The “revolutionary newspapers” mentioned here refer to petty-bourgeois newspapers and magazines that were not strong but had a considerable number. Taxation of prints started in the UK. In 1694, the UK implemented a paper tax; in 1712, newspaper stamps and advertising taxes were implemented. In addition, there were other taxes imposed on newspapers, such as newspaper supplementary taxes. Those taxes were collectively referred to as “knowledge taxes”. Knowledge tax made newspapers and magazines expensive, greatly restricting sales, and the government achieved two goals at the same time: increasing income (millions of pounds per year) and curbing opposition newspapers. The British intellectual community and some early workers’ newspapers fought long against the knowledge tax. In 1836, the Parliament lowered the stamp duty; from 1853–1861, various knowledge taxes were gradually abolished. At this point, the policy of freedom of communication for British press and publication was finally established. Marx closely followed the process of abolishing the knowledge tax and wrote a series of reports and commentary articles in support of this measure to promote the democratization of spiritual communication. Knowledge tax caused a monopoly of a few large newspapers with strong financial resources. In this regard, Marx repeatedly criticized this system for stifling the creation of the spirit of freedom, because it not only greatly restricted the development of medium and small bourgeois newspapers, but also threatened the survival of workers’ newspapers. He pointed out in 1855, “Is further proof needed that the old system was a protective tariff system for the established press and a system prohibiting free mental production? Press freedom in England up to now -has been the exclusive privilege of capital. The few weekly journals which represent the interests of the working class—daily papers were, of course, out of the question—manage to survive thanks to the weekly contributions of the workers, who in England are making very different sacrifices for public purposes/than those on the Continent. The tragicomic, blustering rhetoric with which the Leviathan of the English press—The Times—fights pro aris et focis i. e., for the newspaper monopoly, now modestly

244

13 The Policy of Intercourse

comparing itself with the Delphic oracle, now affirming that England possesses only one single institution worth preserving, namely The Times (vol. 14, pp. 121–122).” Knowledge tax was also a big obstacle to popularizing national education because the lower people could not afford newspapers and can only read newspapers by accident in small hotels. In this regard, Marx specifically pointed out, “Both these clauses are a concession to the middle class—while the retention of the newspaper stamp still fronts with its massive barrier the spread of Democratic education (vol. 12, p. 65).” The retention of knowledge tax “professes an utter abhorrence of parliamentary interference with the sacred/interest of mill-lords, where the lives and the morals of whole generations are at stake, while it has croaked its most determined interference with cabmen and hackney-coach proprietors, where nothing was at stake except the conveniences of some fat city-men, and perhaps the gentlemen of Printing-house-square (vol. 12, pp. 190–191).” The abolition of knowledge tax was essentially a measure taken by the industrial bourgeoisie to remove the barriers to spiritual communication in free competition. Marx made an analysis of this and pointed out that abolition of knowledge tax caused “The emancipation from London of the provincial press, the/decentralization of journalism was, in fact, the main aim of the Manchester School in their fierce and protracted campaign against stamp duty (vol. 14, pp. 281–282).” The Manchester School was a radical school of British industrial bourgeois economic thought at the time. The abolition of the knowledge tax was mainly done by the industrial bourgeoisie, but this measure was social, and it would break the material inspection of spiritual exchanges, which benefited the working class. In this sense, Marx supported the abolition of knowledge tax. He said that the main purpose of this struggle was “to break down the monopoly of the newspaper-leviathans (vol. 12, p. 72).” He likened the monopoly of The Times to the rampant Leviathan, the legendary sea monster in the Bible. To support this struggle, he cited the long speech by the representative of the Manchester School, John Albert Bright, on the abolition of the knowledge tax, stating that the abolition of the knowledge tax would cause newspapers to appear daily on the workers’ breakfast tables. He also cited the words of Horace Greeley, a well-known American newspaper journalist, stating that if this policy of communication was implemented in the United States, “its operation would be to destroy their new papers (vol. 12, pp. 176–177).” The abolition of knowledge tax was met with resistance from major newspapers and periodicals represented by The Times. Marx called their resistance movement “a shameless and disgraceful opposition to the new Bill (vol. 14, p. 121)” and repeatedly reported their resistance in derogatory terms. Marx described the new situation of newspapers and periodicals that appeared after the abolition of various knowledge taxes with excitement. On August 5, 1853, the law to abolish newspaper advertising tax came into effect, he told Engels that day that “[t]he abolition of the advertisement duty means that Jones’ advertisements now bring him in £ 3 a week—the PAPER IS ARRIVING TO THE PAYING POINT (vol. 39, p. 369).” On June 30, 1855, the law to abolish newspaper stamp duty came into effect, and Marx immediately reported, “What is more significant, though, is the revolution in the provincial press caused by the abolition of stamp duty. In Glasgow alone four new daily penny papers are to appear. In Liverpool and Manchester the papers that

13.2 Knowledge Tax and Deposit

245

have hitherto only appeared weekly or twice weekly are to turn into dailies at 3d., 2d., and Id (vol. 14, p. 281).” Before the penny newspaper appeared, workers had to go to the tavern to read the newspaper. The last knowledge tax in 1861, the paper tax, was abolished. In 1862, Marx pointed out: Newspapers became necessary living materials for workers (see Chap. 15, Sect. 15.3 of this book). The habit of reading newspapers in small hotels has been replaced by subscriptions by various households. This is a phenomenon of information popularization brought about by the new communication policy. Ten years later, Engels specifically pointed out to the German worker leaders the new British newspaper reading habits that “since the introduction of the PENNY PRESS it is not possible to find papers anywhere to read without buying them (vol. 44, p. 361).” Marx and Engels supported the abolition of the material inspection of newspapers and periodicals—knowledge taxes and guarantees from the perspective of social spiritual development, but they did not forget the bourgeois nature of this reform. The content “went through metamorphoses of all sorts, turned itself into a penny paper and sought to live by “sensations” (vol. 19, p. 129),” for which it received a lot of criticism.

13.3 The Expression of Freedom and Market Economy Freedom of speech, press, and publication, association, assembly, etc. are the main features of the modern spiritual communication policy. These “freedoms” usually refer to the same meaning, meaning freedom of expression. The concept of freedom was born in ancient Greece and Rome. While still writing his doctoral thesis, Marx noticed Epicurus’ affirmation of the spirit of freedom. He wrote, “one must always bear in mind that Epicurus is concerned/neither with voluptas nor with sensuous certainty, nor with anything else except the freedom of the mind and its freedom from determination (vol. 1, pp. 447–448).” However, the historical relationship that caused Epicurus to produce the concept of spiritual “freedom” is contrary to the background in which the modern concept of freedom was generated. Marx later said of that era, “The ancient world, for which exchange value did not serve as the basis of production and which, on the contrary, collapsed in consequence of its development, produced a freedom and equality of a totally opposite and essentially no more than local content. (vol. 29, p. 475). […] To remain civilized they were forced to remain few. Otherwise they would have had to submit to the bodily drudgery which transformed the free citizen into a slave. The want of productive power made citizenship dependent on a certain proportion in numbers not to be disturbed. (vol. 11, p. 530)” In other words, the concept of freedom in ancient society was limited to the narrow circle of free citizens with civil rights, and the existence of this phenomenon was based on the fact that most people at that time were not free slaves.

246

13 The Policy of Intercourse

The modern concept of freedom originated from the period when the market economy expanded to the whole world, and it was premised on the formal equality of all people. In the economic manuscript of 1857–1858, Marx demonstrated in detail the origin of the modern concept of freedom. In simple commodity exchanges, the concept of equality is hidden first. He wrote, “the fact that the need of the one individual can be satisfied by the product of the other and vice versa, and that the one is able to produce the object for the other’s need, and that each confronts the other as possessor of the object of the other’s/need, shows that as a human being each transcends his own particular needs, etc., that they are behaving towards each other as men, that their common species being is known by all. This is unique (vol. 28, pp. 174–175). […] Moreover, in so far as this natural difference between individuals and their commodities constitutes the motivation for their integration, for their social relationship as exchangers, in which they are presupposed as and prove themselves to be equals, freedom comes to play a role in addition to equality. Although individual A may feel a need for the commodity of individual B, he does not seize it by force, or vice versa; A and B recognise each other as owners, as persons, whose commodities are permeated by their will. Accordingly, the juridical concept of the person comes in here, as well as that of freedom in so far as it is contained therein (vol. 28, p. 175).” When the exchange of commodities only happened as an accident, the concepts embedded in the exchange were not easily shown. When the exchange of commodities became a universal phenomenon, the concept of freedom began to become popular. The market economy began to have a significant refraction effect on the policy of political spiritual intercourse. Marx wrote about the Prussian bourgeoisie demanding freedom of expression, “To attain this aim it had to be able freely to debate its own interests and views and the actions of the Government. It called this “freedom of the press”. The bourgeoisie had to be able to enter freely into associations. It called this “freedom of association”. As a necessary consequence of free competition, it had likewise to demand religious liberty and so on (vol. 8, p. 159).” However, just as everything has contradictions when the concept of freedom brought by the market economy appears to be extremely sacred as an ideal, it often manifests itself as not free in practice. Because freedom and equality were manifested as a right, Marx said, “It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right by its nature can exist only as the application of an equal standard (vol. 24, p. 86); […] It recognises no class distinctions (vol. 24, p. 86).” Therefore, the rich class and individuals who had more money had much greater freedom of expression than the poor class and individuals who did not. This economically contradictory movement was also reflected in the specific application of freedom of expression. Marx studied the “Declaration of Human Rights” and the 1793 Constitution of the French Revolution. These two documents stipulated a series of human rights such as the right to express opinions, the right to assembly, and the right to believe in religion, and declared that it was the purpose. means. However, contradictions had arisen in real life. Taking press freedom as an example, Marx pointed out that “The right of man to liberty ceases to be a right as soon as it comes into conflict with political life, whereas in theory political life is only the

13.3 The Expression of Freedom and Market Economy

247

guarantee of human rights, the rights of the individual, and therefore must be abandoned as soon as it comes into contradiction with its aim, with these rights of man (vol. 3, p. 165).” In view of economic and political analysis, he did not recognize freedom of expression as a gifted human right but regarded them as the product of historical progress. The market economy was based on universal human rights in the form. Freedom of expression was conducive to the development of the bourgeoisie, and it also made it possible for the working class to also receive some rights to freedom of expression. So Engels said, “herein lies the historic progress as compared with the old servitude, that the principle of freedom is affirmed, and the oppressed will one day see to it that this principle is carried out (vol. 4, p. 474).” Therefore, Marx and Engels have always regarded the right to freedom of expression as “the rights of the people (vol. 26, p. 504).” The modern market economy has expanded the concept of freedom of expression from the narrow circle of ancient society to all people, which made it possible for Marx and Engels as thinkers to use this as a starting point, to abandon the bourgeois prejudice against freedom, and to think about the real people that freedom of expression should have content. Marx pointed out very early that publishing was an industry for printer owners and book sellers, but it should not be an industry for writers.It should be, instead, a free spiritual activity, so he refused to regard the emancipation of the mind as an industry freedom. He wrote, “If the press itself is regarded merely as a trade, then, as a trade carried on by means of the brain, it deserves greater freedom than a trade carried on by means of arms and legs (vol. 1, p. 172).” In the “Communist Manifesto,” Marx and Engels made it clear that they opposed the idea of free competition as the idea of freedom, and regarded the elimination of classes as the true condition for freedom. Since the concept of freedom on the basis of a market economy was not eternal, both Marx and Engels opposed to the abstract use of terms such as freedom and human rights to express communism about freedom in order to draw a line in theory. Condition) concept. They did not oppose the specific use of terms such as freedom and human rights but demanded that these words be given the exact meaning of scientific socialism. For example, the annual work report of the International Workers’ Association written by Marx in 1869 used the concept of innate human rights. This is what he wrote, “But the workmen on the Continent, as elsewhere, begin at last to understand that the surest way to get one’s natural rights is to exercise them at one’s personal risk (vol. 21, p. 77).” The “natural right” here is obviously different from the abstract use of the concept in the general sense. Marx’s knowledge of freedom of expression, in reality, is quite profound. He never interpreted various freedoms of expression as he pleased. He wrote, “We will do what we like. Sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas. It is truly the language of a ruler, which naturally has a pathetic flavour when coming from a modern baron (vol. 1, p. 146).” Almost all such misinterpretations of freedom occur in authoritarian countries. Due to the lack of practical knowledge of freedom of expression in the market economy, the reference system for “freedom” is only the willfulness of those in power. As a result, people regarded the willfulness of the authority as freedom

248

13 The Policy of Intercourse

and understand and used the concept of “freedom” in the reverse manner, and the authority also understood freedom according to their own experience. When they hear this term, they think it is anarchism. Continental countries in Europe in the first half of the nineteenth century were in a vicious circle of this concept for a long time. Everyone’s thinking was based on the predecessors’ predecessors. In this sense, Marx criticized the small group of young Hegelian “free men” because of their “loss of a few worthless creations of ‘freedom’, a freedom which strives primarily ‘to be free from all thought’, was therefore the first reason for a darkening of the Berlin sky (vol. 1, p. 393).” He believed that freely expressed thoughts themselves should be thought-out, independent thoughts, not arbitrary. So when he criticized the work of Freeman, he said, “I replied at once and frankly expressed my opinion about the defects of their writings, which find freedom in a licentious, sansculotte-like, and at the same time convenient, form, rather than in a free, i.e., independent and profound, content (vol. 1, p. 394).” Marx has always taken freedom of expression seriously, and chatting, publishing idle books, etc. are certainly a type of free expression, but he mainly understood freedom of expression as the right to express opinions on major issues related to politics and to insist on such opinions in various forms. In 1843, he pointed this out when discussing the living conditions of farmers in his hometown of Mossel River, writing that “there is perhaps not a single question of the state economy in which connections with internal and external policy do not exist. Hence the possibility of a frank and public discussion of conditions in the Mosel region presupposes the possibility of frank and public discussion of the whole of ‘internal and external policy (vol. 1, p. 351).” In the market economy society, people have various free rights in form, but at the same time, such rights also require people to learn to be responsible for themselves. For example, in the early period of the market economy, the real wage system was implemented, and workers could not freely control their meager labor income; after the monetary wage system was implemented, the workers gained this right of freedom, but they also brought responsibilities. In response, Marx wrote, “he is himself responsible for the way in which HE SPENDS HIS WAGES. He learns to master himself, in contrast to the slave, who needs a MASTER (vol. 34, p. 101).” When talking about the right to freedom of expression, Marx noted the responsibility corresponding to the right, citing the words of a farmer representative, “In the life of peoples, as in that of individuals, it happens that the fetters of a too long tutelage become intolerable, that there is an urge for independence, and that everyone wants to be responsible himself for his actions (vol. 1, p. 179).” The various forms of freedom are mutually restrictive, especially in the relationship of law, politics, and society, the degree of freedom of expression can most clearly measure the degree of freedom of a country’s material and spiritual communication. Any economic development and the perfection of a democratic system require freedom of expression throughout. Among various freedoms of expression, freedom of the press and publication is the most representative. Marx realized early on the interrelationship between various freedoms and pointed out, “The conflict here is the more interesting because the Assembly in its own person was given proof how

13.3 The Expression of Freedom and Market Economy

249

the absence of freedom of the press makes all other freedoms illusory. One form of freedom governs another just as one limb of the body does another. Whenever a particular freedom is put in question, freedom in general is put in question (vol. 1, p. 180).” After the German Democratic Revolution in March 1848, Berlin’s Attorney General Zweiffel attempted to restrict the freedom of publication and cancel the club based on the provisions of the Criminal Code that did not involve newspaper cases. With a series of rhetorical questions, Marx once again demonstrated the interrelationship of various forms of freedom of expression. He wrote, “As if the use of Paragraphs 367, 368 and 370 of the Penal Code against political speeches and writings were not the real definitive destruction of March 19, clubs and freedom of the press! What is a club without freedom of speech? And what is freedom of speech with Paragraphs 367, 368 and 370 of the Penal Code? And what is March 19 without clubs and freedom of speech? (vol. 7, p. 210)” In 1851, Marx reiterated in an article co-authored with the British Charter leader Ernest Jones that “[t]he liberty of opinion is the most sacred of all liberties, for it is the basis of all (vol. 11, p. 573).” When independently thinking about freedom of expression, Marx and Engels’ rights to freedom of expression were also thorough. Taking press freedom as an example, Engels’ definition was, “any man may publish his opinion without hindrance and without the previous permission of the government—the freedom of the press (vol. 3, p. 504).” The ‘opinion’ mentioned here mainly refers to comments on public affairs and social activists, especially disclosure and criticism. In 1849, when the Prussian authorities tried to ban such disclosure and criticism, Marx asked, “You sanction every arbitrary action of the officials, you permit every official villainous action, you punish only the denunciation of villainy. What then is the use of the hypocrisy of a free press? (vol. 8, p. 313).” From his rhetorical question, it is clear that he shared Engels’ sentiments in this aspect. The primary premise here is clearly “unobstructed” (unblocked channels), followed by “without prior permission from the state”, and finally, it should be noted that “publish your own opinions” rather than forced opinions. As long as these conditions are missing, other conditions are difficult to exist independently. According to this principle, Marx and Engels exposed various incomplete and false freedoms of press and publication and demanded that the working class fight for the complete freedom of press and publication.

13.4 On the History of Freedom of Expression in the 19th Century The nineteenth century was a period in which the people fought for freedom of expression. Marx and Engels have discussed almost all the events related to the struggle for freedom of expression in this century and gave these struggles a high

250

13 The Policy of Intercourse

historical evaluation. In these struggles, they have always stood on the wing of the revolution and do their utmost to safeguard the right of the working class to freedom of expression. As far as the historical existence of modern freedom of expression was concerned, Marx believed that “You find the natural phenomenon of freedom of the press in North America in its purest, most natural form (vol. 1, p. 167). […] but at the same time the masses are quicker, and have greater political means in their hands, to resent the form of a progress accomplished at their expense (vol. 45, p. 358).” However, the United States is a country with no traditional history, not typical enough. Therefore, he and Engels often used Britain as an example to discuss the history of freedom of expression. The development of British freedom of expression had an impact on the world. Engels talked about the four conditions for the development of Britain. He wrote, “The political activity, the free press, the maritime supremacy and the colossal industry of England have so fully developed the energy inherent in the national character, the combination of the most resolute force and the calmest delibera-/tion, in almost every individual that in this respect too the continental nations trail infinitely far behind the English (vol. 3, pp. 489–490).” One of these four conditions is its free spiritual communication policy. Therefore, he and Marx valued the British experience and talked about the progress of various British freedoms of expression and their impact on the European continent. The fact that British enlightened officials implemented press and publication freedom in their colonial India was recorded by Marx. He praised Charle Metcalfe, the acting Governor General of India who was persecuted for the implementation of freedom of the press, calling him “one of the best Indian functionaries, (Marx 1966, p. 130).” Marx and Engels wrote many reports in 1855 and 1872 on the rights of the people to freely gather in Hyde Park, maintaining “the most precious rights of London’s working people (vol. 23, p. 295).” The British struggle for freedom of expression has gone through hundreds of years, and they have spoken highly of it. Marx concluded, “As if the press, too, were not part of history, as if the English press under Henry VIII, the Catholic Mary, Elizabeth and James did not have to wage a hard and often savage struggle in order to win for the English nation its historical foundations! (vol. 1, p. 141)” Another example is the right to criticize freedom, Engels said: The right to criticize freedom in Britain is one that had been “secured by glorious revolutionary struggles in the past”. Among European countries, the reform of the British exchange policy was the most “peaceful”. In other European countries, the reform of communication policies has experienced more complicated and brutal repeated struggles. Even in countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland, the change of communication policies from the Middle Ages to modern society has experienced many twists and turns. In the writings of Marx and Engels, the history of the evolution of the communication policy of these countries was expressed in many ways, including the arbitrariness of those in power, and the ignorance of the people who were enslaved by the people and the traditional inert forces. In their exposition, a basic point of view is displayed

13.4 On the History of Freedom of Expression in the 19th Century

251

everywhere: the realization of freedom of expression is inevitable historical progress. On December 31, 1847, Marx attended the New Year’s party in Belgium. At this meeting, he affirmed the Belgian liberal constitution in this sense. According to him, “Karl Marx took the floor and proposed a toast in French to the Brussels Democratic Association, emphasising in an acutely drawn, clear analysis the liberal mission of Belgium in opposition to absolutism, forcefully expressing appreciation of the benefits of a liberal constitution, of a country where there is freedom of discussion, freedom of association, and where a humanitarian seed can flourish to the good of all Europe (vol. 6, p. 639).” The meaning and role of the bourgeois freedom of expression were not limited to the seizure of power and a short period of time after seizing power. However, the German bourgeoisie was inherently weak, and freedom of expression was just established in Germany. It was not so much a fight for the German bourgeoisie as it was for the German Social Democratic Party for the working class. Engels reviewed this part of history, writing that “freedom of the press, association and assembly— rights which the bourgeoisie, in the interest of its own rule, ought to have fought for, but which it itself in its fear now began to dispute when it came to the workers (vol. 26, p. 122). […] Peace bought at the price of servitude appeared more desirable to it than even the mere prospect of a freedom struggle. From that time on, this holy fear of the workers had become a habit with the bourgeoisie, until finally Herr Schulze-Delitzsch began his savings-box campaign (vol. 20, p. 57).” In fact, in a country where the bourgeois democratic revolution had been carried out more thoroughly, the working class could enjoy certain freedom of the press. Marx and Engels often emphasized on this by comparing the degrees of freedom under democratic and authoritarian systems. In 1877, the leader of the German Social Democratic Party, William Liebknecht, was jailed for violating the “law” in his speech. Engels sent a letter from London to his wife saying, “It’s all very well for us here to talk and criticise, when in Germany any thoughtless or ill-considered word may entail imprisonment and the temporary disruption of family life (vol. 45, p. 256).” There was no freedom of expression in Germany. Engels called it a ‘big prison’, and he had repeatedly invited party leaders to London to “breathe the air of liberty again (vol. 48, p. 95), […] The paper must import that fresh air into Germany and by far the best way of doing so is to mock our adversaries (vol. 46, p. 75).” In this free air, the environment of the British working class was unique. In the United Kingdom, freedom of expression was a general rule, and violation of it was an exception. It was precisely because of this situation that Marx and Engels were able to expose some acts that restrict the freedom of expression. Marx cherished Britain’s free press environment and in an article, he co-wrote with his daughter Jenny, he wrote that Britain was “the acknowledged sanctuary of the press (vol. 21, p. 430).” The same was true in the Netherlands. In 1872, the International Workers’ Congress was held in The Hague, the Netherlands. The more thorough freedom of expression valued by Marx and Engels was based on the situation of a large industrially developed country. In 1849, when comparing

252

13 The Policy of Intercourse

Switzerland with the advanced industrial countries, Engels criticized the Swiss newspaper as “recklessness (vol. 8, pp. 246–247).” For example, in Britain at that time, there were many parties, and the representatives of various parties, including the working-class leaders’ struggles with other parties, were incorporated into the daily track of political life, which was beneficial to the development of the working class. In the first half of Engels’s sentence, it was used to prove that newspapers in the capitalist system are not free, because newspapers of various parties would never violate the interests of their own parties and would not publish articles that criticize their bosses. Here, we need to find out who was the subject of freedom of expression. Legally, a specific newspaper existed as a legal person. Whether it could publish news or opinions that the boss did not like was a matter of internal choice, not a matter of freedom of publication. As a legal person, the owner of a newspaper could freely decide what to publish or not to publish, which was precisely the expression of freedom of publication. Since each party had its own media, individual opinions were expressed freely through the media representing them. Therefore, non-partisanship under the capitalist democratic system was premised on the free existence of party newspapers. For this feature, Engels explained after quoting eight British newspapers in 1890. According to him, “The eight newspapers cited all have their separate complete staff of parliamentary reporters. They are thus the same number of witnesses, fully independent of one another. In addition they are in their totality impartial, since they adhere to the most diverse party tendencies (vol. 27, pp. 105–106).” The bourgeois thinkers mainly affirmed the need to express freedom from the level of understanding of free competition. Marx and Engels saw that it could provide the conditions for daily political activities and affirmed it. Engels talked about press freedom in this sense and believed that the “[f]reedom of the press, free competition between opinions means giving freedom to the class struggle in the sphere of the press (vol. 9, p. 327).” That is, the working class and the proletariat have a legal struggle. It was precisely through the acquisition of the right to freedom of expression in the second half of the nineteenth century that the European workers’ movement was able to become a force against the proletarian forces. Starting from this understanding, Marx and Engels supported all struggles against the policy of authoritarian communication. Louis II Bonaparte’s Second French Empire (1851–1870) exercised authoritarian rule, depriving people of their right to freedom of expression. Marx published a series of newsletters exposing Bonaparte’s communication policy. Bonaparte’s royal writer Abu wrote a booklet to defend the emperor’s cancelation of freedom of publication. He said, “It is true that with us the liberty of the press is subjected to severe restrictions, but the right to print and publish is not confiscated; it is only postponed. The nation consents to remain silent around a Prince who does great things, as the friends of a philosopher or a great writer keep silent in his cabinet (vol. 17, p. 393).” Except for a few connecting words, Marx did not add a commentary, and translated it into English and published it in American newspapers. Bonaparte hated the word “freedom”, and Marx published his criticism of freedom in American newspapers, adding only one sentence: “Now, too, he openly declares Liberty to be a humbug (vol. 16, p. 259).” Because the autocracy of these

13.4 On the History of Freedom of Expression in the 19th Century

253

arguments was too obvious, publishing it in the free United States was already a mockery and criticism of it. In fact, the ‘voluntary silence’ of French newspapers was premised on the threat of the police. For example, in 1858, several French newspapers published some financial figures of chattel credit companies, which indicated that the company protected by Bonaparte was going bankrupt. The imperial prosecutor immediately summoned the editors of these newspapers and warned them that such incidents would be submitted to the court to publish false news with ulterior motives. Marx reported this in detail. This ‘voluntary silence’ is even premised on the threat of imprisonment and exile. Marx pointed out in refuting Bonaparte’s condemnation of press freedom, “In that hatred of anarchy he found his warrant for dispersing the Republican Chamber, breaking his own oaths, overturning the republican Government by military force, crushing out all freedom of the press, and driving into exile or shipping off to Cayenne all opposers of his sole dictatorship (vol. 16, p. 309).” Comparing the authoritarian communication policy between France and Prussia, Marx hated the latter even more, because the latter decorated this communication policy with liberal words, which was deceptive. In 1840, the newly enthroned King of Prussia, Friedrich-William IV, ridiculously announced his advocacy of free speech on the basis of the original national system. In order to illustrate the connotation of his “freedom”, Marx published a king’s words in The Rhine. The king said, “The more deeply I have it at heart that the noble, loyal and commendably frank frame of mind, wherever it may be displayed, shall not find its freedom of speech curtailed, and that truth shall be as little as possible restricted in the sphere of public discussion, the more ruthlessly must the spirit that employs the weapons of lying and misleading be held under restraint so that freedom of speech cannot be cheated of its fruits and its blessings by being misused (vol. 1, p. 280).” Obviously, this freedom was a gifted ‘freedom’ shifted by the king’s subjective likes and dislikes. Since the right to grant freedom needed to be in the hands of some individuals, it also meant that there was no freedom. Marx called this kind of freedom “new fetters [that are] chains of roses (vol. 1, p. 116).” In 1849, King Pu issued a new decree to “reform” freedom of publication, freedom of association, etc., which explained what Prussian freedom of expression meant. According to these laws and regulations, the police could, under any circumstances, search the newspaper editorial department and close the club in accordance with the instructions of the administrative authority rather than the judicial organ; anyone who showed disrespect to the king would be sentenced to five years in prison. Marx angrily termed this “the world-famous liberalism of Frederick William IV (vol. 9, p. 52).” Marx has exposed this kind of Prussian pseudo-liberalism all his life and showed no mercy. The Prussian Constitution claimed, “Every Prussian possesses the right of freely expressing his opinions by way of speech, writing and printing (vol. 16, p. 76). […] if you never did before, arrive at a full appreciation of the strange antagonism between idealism and realism, theory and practice. Every step of yours, simple locomotion even, is tampered with by the omnipotent action of bureaucracy, this second providence of/genuine Prussian growth (vol. 16, pp. 76–77).”

254

13 The Policy of Intercourse

In 1870, Prussian Prime Minister Bismarck had forgotten what communication policy he implemented in the country, and actually accused the French bourgeois interim government of obstructing the freedom of the press to express opinions. Marx mocked him, saying “Bismarck did evidently but intend to crack a Berlin Witz (vol. 22, p. 274).” Verbal liberalism and action authoritarianism are the characteristics of the Prussian communication policy. Engels concluded, “That is the police state pure and simple, which one should better practise on the quiet, while preaching the constitutional state out loud (vol. 26, p. 307).” Regarding the limitations of British freedom of expression in the nineteenth century, Marx did an analysis in 1871, when a reporter from the US newspaper Le Monde said that Britain might peacefully transition to socialism. According to him, “The English system of agitating by platform and press until minorities become converted into majorities is a hopeful sign (vol. 22, p. 606). […] The English middle class has always shown itself willing enough to accept the verdict of the majority so long as it enjoyed the monopoly of the voting power. But mark me, as soon as it finds itself outvoted on what it considers vital questions we shall see here a new slave-owner’s war (vol. 22, p. 606).” Marx greatly appreciated the freedom of expression in Britain and estimated that Britain may take the path of peaceful transition, but he has never forgotten the right to express freedom there (although sometimes freedom makes people forget its bourgeois nature).

13.5 The Freedom of Expression and Workers’ Movement Marx and Engels experienced the historical process of the workers’ movement from weak to strong for decades and reached the following conclusion: “To be able to fight, you must first have a terrain, light, air, and elbow-room. Otherwise, you never get further than chit-chat (vol. 46, p. 192).” Various freedoms of expression provide possible conditions for the workers’ movement. In the historical investigation of the workers ’movement, they paid attention to the influence of various rights of freedom of expression on workers’ autonomy. For example, their evaluation of the American Workers’ Movement in 1846, “The workers attach so much importance to citizenship, i.e., to active citizenship, that where they have it, for instance in America, they ‘make good use’ of it, and where they do not have it, they strive to obtain it. Compare the proceedings of the North American workers at innumerable meetings, the whole history of English Chartism, and of French communism and reformism (vol. 5, p. 217).” In 1847, Marx refuted Christian socialists, pointing out that “Does the Herr Consistorial Counsellor then believe that the proletariat, which is more and more adhering to the Communist Party, that the proletariat will be incapable of utilising the freedom of the press and the freedom of association? Let him just read the English and French working men’s newspapers, let him just attend some time a single Chartist meeting! (vol. 6, p. 225)” The UK’s struggle to limit workdays also relied on freedom of

13.5 The Freedom of Expression and Workers’ Movement

255

communication policies. Engels recalled, “This law has been won by English factory workers by years of endurance, by the most persistent, stubborn struggle with the factory owners, by freedom of the press, the right of association and assembly, as well as by adroit utilisation of the divisions in the ruling class itself (vol. 20, p. 235).” On the contrary, in the absence of freedom of expression, the development of the workers’ movement was extremely difficult. For example, in France under Louis Bonaparte, the situation was as Engels said, “the defeats of June 1848 and December 1851 were succeeded by the eighteen years of the Bonapartist Empire, during which the press was fettered, the right of meeting and of association suppressed and the working class consequently deprived of every means of inter-communication and organization (vol. 24, p. 222).” Marx said as well, that “In France, where the freedom of the working class is extremely limited, the spread of our principles and of our Association has not been as rapid as one might have hoped (vol. 20, p. 421):” In view of the close relationship between freedom of expression and the workers’ movement, Marx regards whether he can consciously strive for various rights to freedom of expression as a symbol of the maturity of the workers’ movement and a starting point for the workers’ movement. In 1868, he wrote to the Congress of the All-German Workers’ Union, writing that “I am happy to see that the programme of your Congress0 lays down those points from which, in fact, any serious workers’ movement must proceed: agitation for complete political freedom, regulation of the working day, and systematic international cooperation of the working class in the great, historical task which it has to accomplish for the whole of society (vol. 21, p. 10).” Marx and Engels paid special attention to a country that was not ruled by autocratic rule over freedom of expression. In these countries, Marx saw the working class as fighting for freedom of publication, expression, and association. Engels warned the working class there: even if the bourgeoisie in the country gave up fighting for these freedoms, the working-class party must replace the bourgeoisie in this cause, because “despite its bourgeois character, a timid bourgeoisie can manage passably well but without which the workers can never win their emancipation (vol. 20, p. 69). […] And unless there is freedom of the press, the right, of association and the right of assembly, no workers’ movement is possible (vol. 20, p. 76). […] Without these freedoms it will be unable to move freely itself; in this struggle it is fighting to establish the environment necessary for its existence, for the air it needs to breathe (vol. 20, p. 78).” In countries where there were already various freedoms of expression, Marx and Engels paid attention to the extent to which the working class made use of the freedom of expression environment. They repeatedly criticized the political inaction of the British working class. In 1864, Marx pointed out in the ‘Declaration on the Establishment of the International Workers Association’ that the United Kingdom had “never before seemed the English working class so thoroughly reconciled to a state of political nullity (vol. 20, p. 10).” In 1880, in his letter to the leaders of the British Social Democratic League, he criticized again, saying “it is only because the English working class know not how to wield their power and use their liberties, both of which they possess legally (vol. 46, p. 49).”

256

13 The Policy of Intercourse

Before and after the birth of Marxism, some socialist factions criticized, without evidence, the freedom of expression that the bourgeoisie sought. Some of these criticisms were legit in terms of the content they revealed, but their intentions were usually reactionary. Marx and Engels were critical of this. There was a “real” socialist faction in Germany in the 1840s. When Germany had not yet achieved various freedoms of expression, it demanded to return to the “freedom” of the medieval guild. Therefore, “they only needed to bring their new elucidations into harmony with their own philosophical conscience, in order then to noise abroad before the whole of Germany that political progress, like all politics, is evil, that constitutional freedom in particular elevates to the throne the bourgeoisie, the class most dangerous to the people, and that in general the bourgeoisie cannot be attacked enough (vol. 6, p. 76).” Marx and Engels pointed out in the Communist Manifesto “By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement./German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic3 conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany (vol. 6, pp. 511–512).” When a member of the Communist League criticized the freedom of press from a real socialist perspective, Engels told him, “this means literally working pour le roi de Prusse, and indirectly, against our party—usual warm-hearted outpourings, impossibility of effecting anything (vol. 38, p. 113).” Ferdinand La Salle, an agitator in the German workers’ movement, attempted to cooperate with Bismarck, the representative of the authoritarian regime, to implement “national socialism.” He drafted a decree for Bismarck declaring that disseminating domestic and foreign news is the exclusive cause of the country. Those who disseminate news in rallies and newspapers without going through the country are subject to fines and imprisonment. On one occasion, Marx and LaSalle had a face-to-face argument. LaSalle believed that in the most advanced America at that time, “‘The freedom of the individual’ is merely a ‘negative idea’, etc., and other antiquated, mouldering, speculative rubbish of the same ilk (vol. 41, p. 390). […] an enlightened Bonapartist (vol. 41, p. 390).” According to LaSalle, the bourgeoisie, which fought for the freedom of expression, is a “reactionary gang.” When this term appeared in the draft program of the German Socialist Workers’ Party, Engels pointed out angrily, “Take the chaps who dismantled the system of small states in Germany, who provided the bourgeoisie with elbowroom in which to carry out its industrial revolution, who introduced a unified transport system–both for things and for persons–, thereby inevitably according greater freedom of movement to ourselves-were their actions those of a ‘reactionary mass’? (vol. 49, p. 262) […] Take the French bourgeois Republicans who between 1871 and

13.5 The Freedom of Expression and Workers’ Movement

257

’78 put paid once and for all to the monarchy and the rule of the clergy, who secured freedom of the press, of association, and of assembly to an extent hitherto unknown in France in non-revolutionary times, who introduced compulsory schooling and standardized education, raising it to a level that might well serve as an example to us in Germany—were their measures those of a reactionary mass? (vol. 49, p. 262) […] Take the Englishmen of the two official parties who have vastly extended the suffrage and brought about a fivefold increase in the number of voters, who have evened out the size of constituencies and introduced compulsory and improved schooling, who at every session still vote not only for bourgeois reforms but also for one concession after another in favour of the working man—their progress may be slow and sluggish but nobody can condemn them out of hand as ‘one reactionary mass’ (vol. 49, p. 262).” In the activities of the International Workers’ Association, the Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin who advocated anarchism was known for his opposition to the working class for political freedom. He felt that “The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association and the freedom of the press, these are our weapons— should we/fold our arms and abstain if they seek to take them away from us? It is said that every political act implies recognition of the status quo. But when this status quo gives us the means of protesting against it, then to make use of these means is not to recognise the status quo (vol. 22, pp. 417–418).” The hostile views of the workers’ movements on freedom of expression shared a common characteristic, that is, they all originated in countries that had long been ruled by authoritarian systems. When the holders of these ideas were revolutionizing, ready-made and accustomed authoritarianism has become the criterion for their analysis. They were unconditional and unwilling to broaden their horizons through large-scale industrial production. Instead, they regarded the restoration of small production methods and the lives of small citizens as the purpose of the revolution and called this socialism or communism. Therefore, they instinctively cursed the policy of free expression in the process of social progress from a reactionary standpoint. For example, August Willich, a far-left representative in the Communist League, after his planned revolution succeeded, his communication policy was “to ban all newspapers except one, which would have to publish daily orders about the prescribed mode of thought and behaviour, and a quantity of further details (vol. 12, p. 504). […] which he had brought with him ready-made, inviting the officers to declare themselves immediately and openly in favour of ‘that’ which he called democracy (vol. 12, p. 505).” Marx expressed great contempt for Willich’s plan.

13.6 Communication Policy and Law Modern communication policy is generally expressed in the form of law, and the basic policy for communication is the constitution or constitutional documents. The writings of Marx and Engels dealt with almost all important communication laws in

258

13 The Policy of Intercourse

Europe and the United States in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some laws were also analyzed in detail. In 1844, Marx analyzed the provisions on freedom of expression in the French Constitutions of 1791 and 1793, summarized the core expressions of these provisions, and criticized it, saying, “Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post (vol. 3, p. 162). […] But the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the/right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself (vol. 3, pp. 162–163). […] It makes every man see in other men not the realisation of his own freedom, but the barrier to it (vol. 3, p. 163).” Marx’s point of view broke through the limitations of the bourgeoisie. He believed that the development of large industries and the advancement of the market economy to the world have created a system of world exchanges, breaking the simple and closed state of people’s exchanges in the past, and creating a general connection. However, this was a universal connection based on things (private property). People must be informed of other people’s activities in order to survive and develop; but for their own survival and development, everyone strives not to let others know their information. Which is why the situation he described arose, “The individuals appear to be independent (this independence, which altogether is merely an illusion and should more correctly be called unconcern, in the sense of indifference), appear to collide with each other freely, and to exchange with each other in this freedom (vol. 28, p. 100).” Under such circumstances, everyone required freedom of speech, publication, association, assembly, education, etc. At the same time, it required the freedom of others not to violate their own interests. This legal “freedom is the right to do and do anything that does not harm others.” This legal concept is neither ever-existing nor eternal. Marx affirmed the tremendous progress of people’s communication relationships brought about by the development of large industry and also pointed out the contradictions among them. He found that “others” is a limitation of everyone’s freedom, not real freedom, from which even less free results can be derived. The restriction of “not harming others” can actually be an excuse for anyone (especially those in power) to restrict others’ freedom of expression. For example, if the publication law is premised on “not harming others”, then it may be a means to guarantee freedom of publication, or it may be a law that stifles publications more severely. Therefore, Marx repeatedly emphasized that “The press law, therefore, is far from being a repressive measure against freedom of the press, a mere means of preventing the repetition of a crime through fear of punishment (vol. 1, p. 162).” The ideal state of freedom of expression envisioned by him and Engels was that everyone regards others as the realization of their own freedom, not the limitation of their own freedom. In the words of the Communist Manifesto, it is “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all (vol. 6, p. 506).” They just put forward ideas here, and did not make further utopian descriptions.

13.6 Communication Policy and Law

259

Marx and Engels were not utopians. While demonstrating their understanding of freedom of expression and law, they put forward the requirements for the most thorough and practical improvement of the relationship between freedom of expression and law in their environment. The basic principle was: strive for equality for all in front of ordinary courts, make the law guarantee everyone’s right to freedom of expression as much as possible, and reduce the dependence of objects on the freedom of expression control. Engels said something about this, “the first prerequisite of all liberty—that all officials be responsible for all their official actions to every citizen before the ordinary courts and in accordance with common law (vol. 24, p. 70).” In terms of publishing law, Marx proposed that “The press law is a real law because it is the positive existence of freedom. It regards freedom as the normal state of the press, the press as the mode of existence of freedom, and hence only comes into conflict with a press offence as an exception that contravenes its own rules and therefore annuls itself (vol. 1, p. 162).” Meanwhile, in terms of association law, Engels proposed that “The primary condition for the right of free association must be that no association and no society can be dissolved or prohibited by the police, that such measures can only be taken after a court sentence has established the illegality of the association or of its actions and purposes and the originators of these actions have been punished (vol. 7, p. 288).” Under the premise of legislation guaranteeing freedom of expression, they recognized that the policy of spiritual communication is expressed in law. If the legislation did not have this basic premise, then the kings of Prussia, the French emperor, and the Russian tsar would also welcome the statement that “freedom is the right to do and can do anything that does not harm others”, because it protects their authoritarian rule More favorable. Starting from the realization that legislation must guarantee freedom of expression, Marx has repeatedly criticized the Constitution for recognizing the people’s right to freedom of expression, and specific laws restrict or even basically eliminate the pseudo-liberalism of these rights. The French Constitution of November 1848 stipulated the citizens’ rights to freedom of expression, but later the specific organic law actually canceled these rights, Marx revealed that “[t]he Constitution constantly repeats the formula, that the regulation and limitation of the rights and liberties of the people (e. g., the right of association, of the Franchise, the Freedom of the Press, of Tuition, etc.) shall be determined by a subsequent organic law, — and these ‘organic laws’ ‘determine’ the promised freedom by destroying it (vol. 10, p. 577).” The Prussian Constitution of 1850 also stipulated various rights of freedom of expression of Prussians. However, Marx found that “[a]ll the liberties granted by the Prussian Charter are clogged with one great drawback. They are granted within ‘the limits of law’. Now the existing law is exactly the absolutist law, which dates from Frederick II, instead of from the birthday of the Constitution (vol. 16, p. 77).” Marx and Engels regard legislation as the embodiment of changes in material lifestyles and development in the field of law. According to Marx, “On the contrary, the law must be founded upon society, it must express the common interests and needs of society — as distinct from the caprice of the individuals—which arise from the material mode of production prevailing at

260

13 The Policy of Intercourse

the given time (vol. 8, p. 327).” Engels also pointed out, “People forget that their right derives from their economic conditions of life, just as they have forgotten that they themselves derive from the animal world (vol. 23, p. 381).” Because of economic factors, they opposed the regard of “laws as mere caprices of the dominant will and hence always finds that they come to grief against the ‘awkward something’ of the world (vol. 5, p. 330).” When it came to the legal differences between the Islamic world and Western Europe, Marx said, “If you supplant the Koran by a code civil, you must occidentalize the entire structure of Byzantine society (vol. 13, p. 103).” The same is true in reverse, Engels said, “The Hungarian Constitution bears a certain resemblance to that of Great Britain, which circumstance has been turned to good account by Magyar politicians, who thence would make us jump to the conclusion that the Hungarian nation is almost as advanced as the English; and yet there are many hundreds of miles and of years between the petty tradesman of Buda and the Cotton lord of/Lancashire or between the traveling tinker of the Puszta and the Chartist working-man of a British manufacturing metropolis (vol. 12, pp. 88–89).” He bluntly criticized the national vanity of Hungarian politicians because they only noticed some of the same words and phrases, ignoring the relationship between the actual content of the law and the specific economic basis. In actual life, the law reflected that economic life was very tortuous, which had a considerable degree of inheritance. For example, the English method. Engels said, “The English jurist relies on a legal heritage that has preserved a good part of the old German freedoms through the Middle Ages, that does not know the police state, which was nipped in the bud by the two revolutions of the seventeenth century and has attained its apex in two centuries of uninterrupted development of civic freedom (vol. 26, p. 506).” This involved opportunities for tradition and social change. British traditional unwritten customary law, with the early Germanic consciousness of freedom, although this kind of freedom consciousness is different from the modern free consciousness of the social basis, after all, it has the same form, when faced with the seventeenth-century revolution, the inheritance of the law The relationship made the English customary law inherited unconsciously with new content. This is why Marx said, “in England the most important political freedoms are in general sanctioned not by Statute Law but by Common Law; such, for instance, is the case with freedom of the press (vol. 8, p. 330).” Due to the progressive nature of the English law, Marx and Engels have drawn on it a lot from the legislative concept of the communication policy. Legislation on freedom of expression and other laws with obvious political nature were of a class nature. Marx and Engels pointed out in Communist Manifesto that they argued with the bourgeoisie, telling them “[y]our very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class (vol. 6, p. 501).” However, “In order to accomplish this we must translate the simple fact from sober economics into the really far more ideological sphere of jurispru-/dence (vol. 23, pp. 375–376).” Therefore, they generally only clarified

13.6 Communication Policy and Law

261

the class nature of the law and the material basis in the final analysis. The analysis of specific communication policies never simply applies the word "class". They believed that the law of the social ruling class as a whole was to “maintain the old laws in face of the new needs and demands of social development is essentially the same as hypocritically upholding out-of-date particular interests in face of the up-to-date general interests (vol. 8, p. 328).” The personal power of lawmakers “is based on conditions of life which as they develop are common to many individuals, and the continuance of which they, as ruling individuals, have to maintain against others and, at the same time, to maintain that they hold good for everybody (vol. 5, p. 329).” In this way “must the law correspond to the general economic situation and be its expression, it must of itself constitute a coherent expression that does not,/by reason of internal contradictions, give itself the lie (vol. 49, pp. 60–61).” In this case, the more open the laws made by the ruler, the greater the capricious restriction (inconvenience) on individuals in the ruling class; at the same time, it was also conducive to the ruled class to use the law to achieve their own purposes. Therefore, Engels said, “[a]ll the more so for the rarity with which a statute book is the harsh, unmitigated, unadulterated expression of the domination of one class: this of itself would be contrary to the ‘concept of law’. The pure, logical concept of law of the revolutionary bourgeoisie of 1792–96 had already been adulterated in many respects even in the Code Napoleon and, in so far it was embodied therein, has had to be constantly subjected to all manner of modifications as a result of the growing power of the proletariat (vol. 49, p. 61). […] And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing general, socially binding force (vol. 44, p. 258).” This form is a variety of more thorough laws that guarantee workers’ freedom of communication and development. The more thorough bourgeois nature of the law might benefit the workers’ movement, but also in the fair form of the law. Marx wrote in a reading note that “in many communities, this force has to act at a very great distance from the bulk of the persons exposed to it, and thus the Sovereign who wields it has to deal with great classes of acts and with great classes of persons, rather than with isolated acts and with individuals. Among the consequences of this necessity are many of the characteristics sometimes supposed to be inseparable from laws, their indifferency, their inexorableness, and their generality. (Maine 1914, p. 393).”1 Meanwhile, Engels wrote, “the stick used to measure what is natural right and what is not is the most abstract expression of right itself, namely, justice (vol. 23, p. 381). […] While in everyday life, in view of the simplicity of the relations discussed, expressions like right, wrong, justice, and sense of right are accepted without misunderstanding even with reference to social matters, they create, as we have seen, the same hopeless confusion in any scientific investigation of economic relations as would be created, for instance, in modern chemistry if the terminology of the phlo-

1

Maine (1914).

262

13 The Policy of Intercourse

giston theory were to be retained (vol. 23, p. 381).” When the fundamental interests of the ruler were not involved, this form of simple fairness might be transformed into fair content. In order to prevent possible violations of workers’ interests by various laws of free expression, Engels proposed a basic principle: “it is being done by all workers’ parties in all countries where the workers have a certain measure of legal freedom of action, and this for the simple reason that it is the most productive method for them. However, the prerequisite for this is that the other side also acts legally (vol. 27, p. 78).” The so-called “legally” refers to obedience in action; and “morally” refers to ideological approval. Workers’ parties naturally cannot ideologically agree with the rulers’ laws. If the other party does not obey the law, then the people have the right to revolt. After all, “The truth is that the Constitution of 1812 is a reproduction of the ancient Fueros, but read in the light of the French Revolution, and adapted to the wants of modern society. The right of insurrection, for instance, is generally regarded as one of the boldest innovations of the Jacobin Constitution of 1793, but you meet this same right in the ancient Fueros of Sobrarbe, where it is/called the Privilegio de la Union. You find it also in the ancient Constitution of Castile (vol. 3, pp. 429–430).” Engels praised the law-abiding rules of Britain. He wrote, “Ever for the English, the most law-abiding nation, the first condition of legality on the part of the people is that all other agents of power remain within the bounds of the law; should this not be the case, then in the English view of law, rebellion is the first civic duty (vol. 27, p. 78).” Although the law has certain stability, it must change with the progress of society. Therefore, Marx’s take on law was such: “Even apart from general grounds, the law can only be the ideal, self-conscious image of reality, the theoretical expression, made independent, of the practical vital forces (vol. 1, p. 273).” From this point of view, he called for the abolition of outdated laws that bound people’s spiritual development and the enactment of laws that guarantee freedom of expression, because “[i]f freedom in general is rightful, it goes without saying that a particular form of freedom is the more rightful as freedom has achieved in it a finer and better-developed existence (vol. 1, p. 173).” When requesting the use of the press and publication law to replace the inspection of books and newspapers, he agreed with the opinion of a farmer representative of the Rheinland Parliament that “Whenever the inevitable progress of time causes a new, important interest to develop and gives rise to a new need, for which no adequate provision is contained in the existing legislation, new laws are necessary to regulate this new state of society. Precisely such a case confronts us here (vol. 1, p. 179). […] That is the truly historical view in contrast to the illusory one which kills the reason of history in order subsequendy to honour its bones as historical relics (vol. 1, p. 179). […] Our whole exposal has shown how isolated this courageous, dignified and resolute view was in the Assembly (vol. 1, p. 180).” When it was too late to make a new law, he and Engels both demanded a new perspective to explain the old law. In February 1849, in the jury court hearing the defamation case of “New Rhine News”, Marx told the jurors, “If existing laws enter into open contradiction to a newly achieved stage of social development, then it is

13.6 Communication Policy and Law

263

up to you, gentlemen/of the jury, to come between the dead behests of the law and the living demands of society. It is up to you then to anticipate legislation until it knows how to comply with social needs (vol. 8, pp. 313–314). […] And it is precisely here, where there are such contradictions between old legislation and new political and social conditions, it is precisely here that the jury has to intervene and by a new interpretation adapt the old law to the new conditions (vol. 8, p. 319).” They struggled with retrogression in this area all their lives. If it came from those in power, it would be resolutely disclosed; traditional ideas from the people would be mocked in good faith. For example, after Denmark announced the freedom of publication, Engels mocked the special publication of Christian counseling there. He said, “The only thing these countries are good for is to show what the Germans would do if they had freedom of the press, viz., what the Danes have actually done, immediately found a ‘society for the proper use of the free press’, and print almanacs full of Christian good intentions (vol. 38, p. 94).” The nineteenth century in which Marx and Engels lived was a period of transition from communicative legislation to authoritarian nature. In order to make this kind of legislation more thorough and more conducive to the workers’ movement, they put forward basic legal requirements for the law on communication. First, the law should not be preventive. As Marx pointed out, “A preventive law, therefore, has within it no measure, no rational rule, for a rational rule can only result from the nature of a thing, in this instance of freedom. It is without measure, for if prevention of freedom is to be effective, it must be as all-embracing as its object, i.e., unlimited. A preventive law is therefore the contradiction of an unlimited limitation, and the boundary where it ceases is fixed not by necessity, but by the fortuitousness of arbitrariness, as the censorship daily demonstrates ad oculos (vol. 1, p. 163). […] Laws therefore, cannot prevent a man’s actions (vol. 1, p. 162),” This is a basic view of modern law drawn by Marx from the critical book inspection system. If the law on spiritual communication is preventive, then all communication must be assumed to be the object of suspicion, which is equivalent to stifling any free communication. Furthermore, the law must be distinguished from the party’s identity, and cannot be measured by the way of thinking. Engels once said: the field of opinion is a “For as soon as we disregard this point, we find ourselves exclusively in the field of inconsequential opinions, in which after years of strife each sticks to his guns (vol. 27, p. 121).” The law only interferes with illegal issues in the field of opinions, such as defamation, etc., but does not interfere with other contents of the opinions. The parties agree on the content of the opinion, and its characteristics are as Marx said, “[w]hat earns me hatred and contempt among the members of one party earns me love and honour among the members of the other party (vol. 8, p. 313).” Therefore, he firmly opposed the use of party tendencies as the basis of law. The laws under the capitalist democratic system could not be measured by ideological methods. Marx and Engels have repeatedly mentioned such cases. In 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was sent to court by the French government for writing “property is theft” in his book. Engels remarked in response, “In the case of such a piquant paradox any French jury can be relied on for acquittal. And so it came to pass. The Government disgraced itself and Proudhon became a famous man (vol.

264

13 The Policy of Intercourse

8, p. 129).” However, in Germany at the time, even this principle of bourgeois law was not recognized. On one occasion, he heard a speech by a German jurist and very much agreed with him. He wrote, “Of the other speeches, Hänel’s was the best from a legal viewpoint; he came out with the absurd demand that a citizen should conform to the law not only outwardly but also inwardly—that such a thing should be called for, that the mere intention and the public expression thereof, could be held punishable by deprivation of rights shows how debased all middle-class concepts of legality have become in Germany—not that they have ever prevailed over there save in the case of the oppositional bourgeoisie (vol. 47, p. 435).” In Tsarist Russia, things were even worse, and even without a concrete basis for speech, people could be convicted. Knowing the reason why the famous Russian writer Chernyshevsky (Qepnyxevcki) was sentenced to 8 years of hard labor, Marx wrote angrily, “the Senate, on the Tsar’s orders, most graciously reversed this verdict, and sent off to Siberia this cunning man who, as the judgement said ‘was so clever that he cast his writing in a legally unexceptionable form, but nevertheless publicly dispensed poison therein’. Voilà la justice russe (vol. 43, p. 531).” Third, legal provisions should be clear, not vague. The vague terminology reflected the characteristics of legal autocracy. In 1843, when the Prussian cabinet criticized The Rhine with such legal terms, Marx pointed out, “But if even for a moment we were to concede (what, however, we expressly deny) that all the accusations of the ministerial rescript were well founded, the result nevertheless would be that in their present indefinite and ambiguous formulation they would provide just as much and just as little reason for a ban on any newspaper whatever as for a ban on the Rheinische Zeitung (vol. 1, p. 361).” The vagueness of the legal terminology led to excessive flexibility of judgment and allowed subjective willfulness to do whatever they want. In this regard, Engels criticized authoritarian Austrian law, stating that “[a] code of laws of unheard-of elasticity enables the Government to obtain convictions against even the mildest expression of the demands and interests of the working class (vol. 24, p. 219).” Finally, judicial power should be independent of administrative power. If the judicial power could not be independent, and the administrative power must be obeyed, the authority of the law would disappear. Engels felt that “[t]his is the case in France, England and America; the mixing of the two leads to the most unholy confusion, and its most extreme consequence would be to unite the chief of police, investigating officer and judge in one person (vol. 2, p. 302).” In 1860, Marx commissioned a Prussian lawyer to file a defamation prosecution against Friedrich Zabel, editor-in-chief of the National Zeitung. Because the Prussian judge was also a judicial official, he was ordered by the administrative power to create the situation that Marx described. “First the judge gives a ruling in his capacity as an official; later on he gives his verdict, in his capacity as a judge (vol. 17, p. 270). […] The fact that in Prussia the right to take action against a slanderer, for example, depends on the interim "ruling" of an official whom the government, moreover, may punish for so-called “derelictions of duty while in office”, with censure, fines, forced transfer and even dishonourable dismissal from the judiciary (see the interim ordinance of July 10, 1849/and the Law concerning discipline of May 7, 1851)—how

13.6 Communication Policy and Law

265

shall I even begin to make this credible, if not clear, to English readers? (vol. 17, pp. 270–271)” Here, he clearly regarded the separation of British judicial power and executive power as a positive premise. When the legislation of the mental communication policy met the above four requirements, Engels took the freedom of press as an example and called it “absolute freedom of press”. When reviewing The New Rhine, he wrote, “while on the Rhine we had unconditional freedom of the press—and we used it to the last drop (vol. 26, p. 123).” When speaking about his work for The New Rhine and Der Sozialdemokrat, he said, “Twice in my life I have had the honour and the pleasure of working for a periodical where I enjoyed to full the two most favourable conditions in which one can be effective in the press: firstly, unconditional press freedom, and secondly, the certainty that one was reaching exactly that public one wished to reach (vol. 27, p. 76).” The legal environment in which these two newspapers were located basically had the four legal requirements he and Marx talked about. “Absolute freedom of publication” was in a legal sense, referring to the more thorough degree of renunciation of the rule of man in publishing under the capitalist democratic system, which was not the same as philosophical freedom and necessity, absolute and relative. It was the legal expression of the most open policy of spiritual communication that could be achieved in the era of Marx and Engels.

13.7 A Few Specific Communication Laws and Practices Slander and Insult Among the laws that involve spiritual interaction, the most widely used are provisions on defamation and insults. In this regard, Marx can be called an expert in law. In 1849, he explained the relevant provisions of the Napoleonic Code in a very good legal language and made a definite analysis of slander and insult. He pointed out, “what does insult involve? The imputation of a definite vice and insulting expressions in general terms. If I say: you have stolen a silver spoon, that is a calumny against you in the sense of the Code pénal. If, on the other hand, I say: you are a thief, you have thievish desires, then I am insulting you (vol. 8, p. 312).” Defamation and insults are both forms of framing but to varying degrees. Insult is a kind of general abuse, and defamation must have specific content, so he pointed out the reason for this was “in the latter case the thing is more probable, greater damage to honour, and so on (vol. 8, p. 486). […] Instead of the fine under §375 it incurs the much heavier punishment of imprisonment and loss of civil rights (vol. 8, p. 486). […] other insults or insulting expressions which do not have this double character of seriousness and publicity will entail only a simple police punishment (vol. 8, p. 485).” On July 5, 1848, The New Rhine published a newsletter entitled Arrest, which reported the brutal behavior of the Gendarmerie when they arrested the leader of the

266

13 The Policy of Intercourse

Cologne Workers Union, criticizing the Berlin Attorney General Zweife He implemented a reactionary policy against the revolution. For this reason, Marx, Engels, and the issuer Hermann Korff were accused of insulting the Attorney General and slander the gendarmerie. On February 7, 1849, the Cologne Jury Court opened the case. Marx used legal knowledge to dismiss these two allegations. First of all, insulting the Prosecutor General is untenable, because the disclosure of him by the newsletter was specific rather than abstract, even if the newspaper slandered him, the law made no sense of it. This was because The New Rhine mentioned “‘Herr Zweiffei is said to have declared.’ In order to calumniate someone I must not cast doubt on my own assertion as occurs here with the use of the ‘is said’; I must express myself categorically (vol. 8, p. 313).” In this way, Marx overturned the first accusation. As for the accusation of slander against the military police, Marx said, “you need only to glance at the incriminated article to convince yourselves that the Neue Rheinische Zeitung far from having any intention of insult or calumny, merely fulfilled its duty of denunciation when it attacked the local prosecuting magistrates and police. The hearing of the witnesses has proved to you that in regard to the police we have reported only the real facts (vol. 8, p. 314).” Here, he refuted the accusation with facts. Once the evidence proves that there is something, the premise of the accusation no longer exists. In 1860, when Marx criticized the British Daily Telegraph, he talked about a lawsuit reported by the newspaper editor Levi. He said, “Unfortunately Levy had spiced the stew with the name of an innocent person. The resulting libel action brought against Levy ended with his conviction and the public condemnation of his newspaper by the English judiciary (vol. 17, p. 244).” Levi pulled a specific person into a specific event, so Marx directly concluded that Levi was slanderous, not just insulting the innocent person. Obviously, Marx’s views on slander and insult were clear and consistent. Defamation or insults must be established, they must also have a clear target, and must be open or directly submitted to the parties. Engels has demonstrated these two conditions. In the lawsuit involving The New Rhine, although the newspaper was accused of defamation of the gendarmerie, there was no specific object of defamation. He grabbed this and retorted, “[a]nd how can the prosecution speak of calumny when the alleged victims of calumny are not named, not even precisely indicated? (vol. 8, p. 320). […] The law expressly demands that the calumniated individual must be precisely indicated. In the passage of the article in question no particular policeman but at most the royal Prussian police as a whole can find that it has been defamed. It can feel insulted by newspapers making public the fact that illegal and brutal acts are committed by members of this corps with impunity (vol. 8, p. 320).” In April 1846, the Prosecutor of the Rhine Province, Franz Niecolovius, sued Lasal, saying that he had insulted the Deputy Attorney General of the city of Düsseldorf, Ammon, and The evidence is a personal letter from Lasalle to a farmer. Engels mocked the prosecutor general’s legal ignorance while commenting on the matter. He said, “According to the practice adopted hitherto in the police courts, it was always requisite that the material containing the insult should be addressed to the insulted person himself or that it should be publicly disseminated. Herr Nicolovius

13.7 A Few Specific Communication Laws and Practices

267

now discovers that if one writes in insulting terms to a third person about an official, that is an insult to the official! (vol. 9, p. 340).” Privacy In people’s spiritual communication, Marx attached great importance to people’s inviolable privacy rights. He wrote, “My existence is under suspicion, my innermost being, my individuality, is considered bad, and it is for this opinion of me that I am punished (vol. 1, p. 120).” In March 1849, when the King of Prussia introduced a new publication law that violated the privacy of individuals, he angrily revealed in The New Rhine using a special font, “The new Bill, on the other hand, intends to subject to the control of the police and Public Prosecutor’s office and/or make punishable all utterances made in private conversation, in the home, in the bosom of the family, in private letters, i.e. it intends to organise the vilest, most universal espionage (vol. 9, p. 53)” From safeguarding this right, Marx, as a reporter, made the following principled elaboration of reports on private issues in newspapers and periodicals. He said, “Since I do not mention my own name, in all my detailed reports I shall give the names of officials and communities only when quoting printed documents that are available in bookshops, or when mentioning names will harm no one. The press is obliged to reveal and denounce circumstances, but I am convinced that it should not denounce individuals, unless there is no other way of preventing a public evil or unless publicity already prevails throughout political life so that the German concept of denunciation no longer exists (vol. 1, p. 334).” Although he did not use the concept of privacy in modern communication here, he explained the content and principle limits of privacy quite completely: First, newspapers and periodicals should not expose the private affairs of ordinary individuals unrelated to society or politics, such as His name, address, and activities, etc.; second, if such personal private affairs involve or hinder social life, or the person is in political activities, then his personal activities are not private matters that should not be disclosed, but become the object of the news report. Engels also said that newspapers and periodicals cannot infringe on the privacy of individuals. In 1883, the German Social Democrat Philek published without permission in the mailbox section of his newspaper Süddeutsche Post and distorted a letter sent to him by a chemist. Engels said angrily, “How was it that this purely private piece of information found its way into the paper rather than into a proper letter box? And how could Viereck have had the impudence to make public use in his paper of private information supplied by Schorlemmer for Deinhardt — on Viereck’s own evidence an extremely importunate man — purely to oblige Viereck? (vol. 46, p. 443)” Due to Philek’s repeated excuses for his mistakes, although they were politically gay, Engels and Shoreham decided that “‘One must/make a complete break with a swine like that,’ Schorlemmer writes to me […] that has been done (vol. 46, pp. 444–445)” and reported the matter to the party leaders. Marx respected this principle of communication that was a practice at the time (now a provision of general law), but at the same time, he firmly opposed the use of this right as a cause of damage to public interests. In 1867, the Dollfuse family,

268

13 The Policy of Intercourse

the textile king of Alsace, France, formulated a nominal charity contract. Once who signed this contract, it became a dependent slave with little personal freedom. Paris newspapers have disclosed this, and the family believes that this is their private matter, and the newspaper has no right to interfere. To this end, the representative of the family and the mayor of Muruz, Jean-Dollfuse, joined the group in February 1868 to submit a draft law article to the legislative requesting the protection of their private life. The legislature passed the draft stipulating that “[a]ny publication in a periodical that may concern a fact of private life shall be an offence which shall be punished with a fine of 500 francs (vol. 42, p. 673).” The legal text seemed to be very good, but upon careful interpretation, it recognized that the contract of the Dollfuse family was a private matter not related to public interest. Marx wrote angrily, “As for the Dollfuses in Alsace, they are HUMBUGS who have managed, through their conditions of contract, to establish a comfortable and at the same time for them very profitable serfdom-relationship with their workers. They have been duly exposed in the Paris press, and for/this very reason one of these Dollfuses, in the Corps législatif, recently introduced and CARRIED one of the most infamous paragraphs of the Press Law, namely that ‘vie privée doit être murée’ (vol. 42, pp. 552–553).” In 1875, the Russian populist thinker Pjotr Lawrow criticized a booklet coauthored by Marx and Engels, which made Engels once again elucidate the use of privacy. This booklet revealed the Russian anarchist conspirator Bakunin. Lavrov believed that it was full of "private affairs", and private affairs are as sacred as private letters and should not be disclosed in political disputes. Engels acknowledged that private matters and private letters should not disclose this right to privacy. He wrote, “To accept the validity of this argument on any terms is to render the writing of all history impossible (vol. 24, p. 21). […] The relationship between Louis XV and Du Barry or Pompadour was a private matter, but without it the whole prehistory of the French Revolution is incomprehensible (vol. 24, p. 21). […] But if the said innocent Isabella is/Queen of Spain and one of these young men kept by her is a young officer called Serrano; if this Serrano is promoted field marshal and prime minister in recognition of the heroic deeds he has performed behind closed doors, is then supplanted and overthrown by another, subsequently throws his faithless sweetheart out of the country with the help of other companions in misfortune, and after a variety of adventures eventually himself becomes dictator of Spain and such a great man that Bismarck does his utmost to persuade the Great Powers to recognize him—then this private affair between Isabella and Serrano becomes a piece of Spanish history, and anyone wishing to write about modern Spanish history and knowingly concealing this titbit from his readers would be falsifying history (vol. 24, pp. 21–22).” His point was clear: the privacy of political activists was smaller than the average person. When an individual’s private affairs and even private interests are connected with public interests and social politics, the individual’s private affairs are not ordinary private affairs but become part of history and society. They have lost the right to be unrevealed, and have become unavoidable content in historical records and news reports.

13.7 A Few Specific Communication Laws and Practices

269

Copyright Since the advent of printing machines that could be copied in large quantities, in order to protect the interests of authors, copyright has gradually evolved from the practice of mental intercourse to regulations. Marx had a strong sense of copyright. In 1869, the editor-in-chief of Demokratisches Wochenblatt, the German Social Democratic Labor Party, Liebknecht published in his newspaper without the consent of the author and the original magazine Eccarius’ article Tailoring in London. Marx wrote on this, saying “First, he reprints from the Revue der Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung Eccarius’ article about ‘Tailoring in London’, without asking Eccarius and without quoting the Revue as his source. […] But, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, Wilhelm should not be allowed to publish the article as an original contribution for him, instead of as a reprint from the Revue (vol. 43, p. 228).” After the signing of the Berne Convention in 1886, copyright became a law of international spiritual communication. Engels defended his rights as an author in accordance with the spirit of this convention. In 1890, he made his own copyright requirements in accordance with the practice of the British magazine industry, he said, “Under English law the article belongs to the journal and the editor can make what alterations he likes unless you have a prior agreement to the contrary. In such a case I stipulate, 1. that the copyright remains vested in me, 2. that no alterations are made without my express consent (vol. 48, p. 460).” Even for the propaganda and publishing work within the party, he demanded that respect for copyright be the prerequisite. In 1894, the Russian socialist Krichevsky (Kpiqevcki) translated and published some works of Marx and Engels without permission. Engels wrote a letter to him in protest of his copyright infringement. He wrote, “I must needs draw your attention to the fact that, in accordance with the Berne Convention Introduction to Wage Labour and Capital by Marx (1891) as well as the above-mentioned works are my literary property and that translations of them into foreign language may not be published in the countries of the Union without my permission (vol. 50, p. 302). […] So far as I am aware, it has hitherto been customary in the party, even in the case of translations of works unprotected by the Berne Convention, to show consideration for the write by applying to him for authorization (vol. 50, p. 302).” Engels also paid great attention to complying with the relevant provisions of copyright. In 1895, he prepared to publish Marx’s article in the “Rheinland” from 1842–1843. He had specifically consulted with lawyers about how much copyright Marx’s heirs enjoyed to the articles of that year, and how to obtain copyright for these works. In order for the German Social Democrats to remember the lessons of the Russians, he warned the leaders of the German Party about the publication, saying “So far as the Russians are concerned, it is normal practice to encroach upon an author’s right without so much as your leave’ in the interests of propaganda’, not to speak of the interests, as is frequently the case, of their own private printing-shop and publishing house, as opposed to those of others. Up till now, however, I have not been accustomed to that kind of thing when dealing with Germans (vol. 50, p. 491).”

270

13 The Policy of Intercourse

The Right of Concealment In the age of Marx, the practice now known as the "right of concealment" already existed, that is, the editorial department of newspapers and periodicals has the responsibility to keep news sources secret. For this reason, Marx once hesitated to face the court and the newspaper was sealed up and refused to tell the source of the news. In the autumn of 1842, The Rhine published a draft of the divorce law secretly formulated by the Prussian authorities. The draft was provided by Flotwell, the son of the provincial governor. This bill caused extensive discussion in national newspapers and magazines, and the authorities were very passive. The King of Prussia threatened to seize the situation and demanded that the editorial department speak out who leaked the bill. As the editor-in-chief, Marx refused to cooperate, so this matter became one of the main reasons for The Rhine being censored. The exception to this situation is the voluntary disclosure of the news source itself, but the editorial department of the newspaper does not have the right to require them to disclose it. In 1885, the German Social Democrat (Der Sozialdemokrat) published many articles criticizing the parliamentary majority for preparing to vote in favor of the shipping allowance bill. The main article was written by the party leader and party leader Liebknecsi. His identity determined that he should take responsibility for these articles, but he did not do so. Because of its anonymous publication, the editorin-chief of the newspaper, Eduard Bernstein, is responsible for anonymous articles. To this end, Engels was somewhat disturbed by Bernstein, he said to another party leader, “he should not take upon himself responsibility for other people’s articles unless he reserves the right to name them. You know whom I mean and who it was that wrote most of the articles about the steamship affair—the ones that so enraged the majority and for which Ede appears to have assumed responsibility (vol. 47, p. 271).” It can be seen from his remarks that no matter how others commented on this matter, the editor of the newspaper strictly followed the convention and bore the responsibility of publishing for the author. This practice was the same in other newspapers. In 1855, the Times published an anonymous letter from a reporter, exposing the fact that a large number of British soldiers died in the Crimean War due to bureaucracy. The Deputy Secretary of the Army, Fore Piere, asked the newspaper editorial department to provide the name of the reporter. Marx reported on the response of The Times, writing that “[t]he demand was rejected, unless Mr. Frederick Peel expressly promised that the correspondent would not suffer any reprisals because of his revelations. Peel would not accept this condition but denounced the refusal of The Times in Parliament (vol. 14, p. 492).” In this matter, Marx supported the approach of the editorial department of The Times. The Responsibilities of Authors and Publishers In the nineteenth century, some unwritten regulations on internal responsibilities and rights of the press and publishing industry were formed, and now some have become the basis for legal accountability. For example, the newspaper editor or editorial department was responsible for anonymous articles, which has the dual meaning of responsibility and power. Engels pointed out clearly that “we guarantee that whenever

13.7 A Few Specific Communication Laws and Practices

271

it is desired names will be kept secret and we shall hold our correspondents responsible only for the correctness of the facts of which they inform us. The editorial board assumes the responsibility for publication (vol. 4, p. 674).” When the editorial department did not take responsibility, Engels was very angry. On one occasion, when talking about Prussia’s Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung, he criticized the editor-in-chief of Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg for saying “What makes Hengstenberg so detestable to me is the really scandalous editing of the KirchenZeitung. Nearly all the contributors remain anonymous and the editor, therefore, has to be responsible for them; but if somebody who has been attacked in the paper takes him to task, then Herr Hengstenberg denies all knowledge of the matter, will not reveal the name of the author, but also disclaims all responsibility (vol. 2, p. 460).” As far as the interior of the editorial department is concerned, there is also a convention of who is responsible and who is responsible. In 1877, some members of the German Social Democratic Party violated this practice, and the party’s organ editor William Liebknecht was punished and aerial. In response, Marx criticized that “[t]hey have, contrary to all party and journalistic practice, deliberately so organised things that Liebknecht has to go to jug for all articles, even if written during his absence, thus in fact playing the same role on the Vorwärts as the man of straw on a French paper (vol. 45, p. 247).” However, in law, the content of the newspaper is the responsibility of the issuer. Article 15 of the “Articles of Association of the New Rhine News” in 1848 stipulated, “The manager assumes legal liability for the content of the newspaper, handles the commercial business of the company, the publication of the newspaper, the editing of advertisements and checking of proofs (vol. 7, p. 547).” Despite this stipulation, under normal circumstances, the newspaper editorial department (or chief editor) was responsible for articles published in the name of the editorial department. Meanwhile, the advertiser was responsible for the advertisements below the horizontal line in the newspaper. The content of literary and artistic works, essays, etc. was the responsibility of the author, but the overall responsibility for publishing was the issuer. In 1848, the Cologne prosecutor Hecker accused Marx of writing a letter to the people under the line of the New Rhine. Marx mocked his lack of common sense and pointed out, “Karl Marx could never be directly ‘accused’ of high treason, even if the printing of revolutionary facts or proclamations constituted a newspaper guilty of high treason. In the first place, one had to charge the one who had signed the newspaper, especially in this case, where the document in question appeared in the feuilleton section (vol. 7, p. 486).” In 1849, an anonymous newsletter was published below the horizontal line of The New Rhine, exposing a resident company commander who used public fuel for speculative trading. Two of his subordinates broke into Marx’s house and demanded that he surrendered the author. Marx stated to Colonel Engels, the Commander of the Second Guard, “do not the non-commissioned officers themselves admit that I explained to them that things below the line are no concern of mine and that in any case I am responsible only for the section of the paper signed by me? (vol. 38, p. 194).”

272

13 The Policy of Intercourse

The Right to Amend and Defend During Marx’s time, the right to correction and the right to reply appeared in the form of convention. The New Rhine mentioned above revealed that the captain and company commander were dissatisfied with them. Marx responded, “that they were at liberty to insert a refutation gratis (vol. 38, p. 193).” This was their right to defend. Under normal circumstances, if the length of the reply or amendment was equivalent to that of the original text, then it was free. The newspaper was obliged to do so. When the newspaper refused, people would have to resort to the law. In 1860, the British Daily Telegraph published a letter defaming and insulting Marx. He wrote to the newspaper editor saying, “if you do not prefer being sued for libel, I request you to make in your next number an amende honorable for the recklessness with which you dare vilifying a man of whose/personal character, political past, literary productions, and social standing, you cannot but confess to be utterly ignorant (vol. 17, pp. 14–15).” Here, he first asked for an apology (a form of correction or reply), and at the same time threatened to resort to law to defend his rights. For the editor or editorial department, the method of apology changed depending on the amount of external pressure. In 1882, a newspaper of the French Workers’ Party published an article that attacked German comrades with a chauvinistic view, which caused protests from the German Social Democrats. The editorial department soon announced that it disagreed with the article. In this regard, Engels expressed the views of Marx to the Germans, “A disclaimer did appear and admittedly it made pretty light of the matter, but Marx tells me that, according to the tenets of the Paris press, it was as adequate as any that is customarily issued in respect of an editor who has blundered, always assuming that no pressure has been brought to bear on the paper (vol. 46, p. 360).” However, if the reply or correction received by the editorial department was unreasonable, it reserved the right to refuse to publish it. In 1882, Godard, an anarchist journalist in the French Workers’ Party, wrote an article in an attempt to provoke conflicts with the fact that Le Citoyen revealed that he had turned to the French gas company and he could not overturn that fact. Thus, he attempted to sow discord among members in the editorial department to cause internal conflicts. The newspaper editorial department refused to publish his article. Engels commented on the matter, “To refuse a chap of this kind what is known as a rectification is quite in keeping with the customs of the Paris, as of any other, press (vol. 46, p. 389).”

Reference Maine HS (1914) Lectures on the early history of institutions, the 7th edn. John Murray, London.

Chapter 14

The Psychology of Intercourse

Human mental intercourse is always accompanied by invisible psychological activities. The psychological factors of cognition, emotion, and will are interrelated, which promotes but also restricts the depth and scope of communication. In his first political theory, Marx pointed out: No one’s mental intercourse can possibly rise “above the laws of psychology (vol. 1, p. 130).” He and Engels had explained various psychological phenomena of mental intercourse, especially the issues of sensation, perception, memory, thinking, and imagination in the cognitive process, which have been demonstrated more.

14.1 The Relationship Between External Environment and Intercourse Psychology Marx regarded human mental intercourse as the product of the continuous improvement of the human brain in social connections, as a social practice. He paid attention to the influence of the external environment on people’s psychology. He cited the industrial revolution environment as an example and wrote, “We see how the history of industry and the established objective existence of industry are the open book of man’s essential powers, the perceptibly existing human psychology (vol. 3, p. 302).” Regarding the nature of man, Marx said before that it lies in the true social connection of man. In this way, he regarded the extensive social connections of people created by the modern industrial revolution as their psychological activities on both sides of the problem, emphasizing that the actual external environment is the basis of psychological activities. Due to the influence of historical and realistic external environments (economy, politics, culture, religion, geographic location, historical formation, etc.), there is a clear difference in the psychology of communication among various ethnic groups, which causes obstacles to the communication between various ethnic groups. The general exchanges brought about by the big industry have made this psychological barrier a secondary position in national exchanges. In © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_14

273

274

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

discussing the communication psychology of various nationalities, Marx and Engels provided more examples of analytical problems. Britain was at the center of world exchanges at that time, and industrial technology, social wealth, and colony possession ranked first in the world. Therefore, in recent hundreds of years, the entire nation had formed a blind and proud psychology, which hindered the British from being understanding and true to things. Engels wrote, “[b]ecause of the vast ignorance of the English masses in regard to foreign affairs and their hereditary arrogance which leads them to look on a foreigner as a secondrate human being and everything occurring abroad as of little account, a conspiracy of silence is easily imposed (vol. 50, p. 27).” Even the British Workers’ Party reflected this psychological characteristic. When Engels wrote the introduction to the English version of his book "Socialism from the Dream to the Development of Science", he took into account the national characteristics of the British workers’ party. He said, “I dare say about halfs as long as the whole book, and had to be done carefully, for the British philistine hates being made fun of by foreigners, yet I could not help it (vol. 49, p. 399).” He also noticed the influence of historical traditions on the psychology of the British, they exhibited a kind of “Englishman’s inherent respect for the law (vol. 2, p. 374).” This concept even makes their humor unique, forming a kind of “peculiarly dry, humorous manner of speaking which particularly appeals to the English (vol. 42, p. 163).” The French, especially the Parisians, were very different in style and psychology from the British. Engels portrayed the inhabitants of Paris in this way: Paris is “a city whose population combines a passion for pleasure with a passion for historical action like no other people, whose populace know how to live like the most refined Epicurean of Athens and to die like the most intrepid Spartan, Alcibiades and Leonidas in one person (vol. 7, p. 512).” Because they were relatively fond of pursuing pleasure, they were more frivolous in reading preferences. Marx wrote in the preface to the French version of Das Kapital, “it is to be feared that the French public, ever impatient to arrive at conclusions and eager to know how the general principles relate to the immediate questions that excite them, may become discouraged because they will not have been able to carry straight on (vol. 35, p. 23).” Engels reminded the French Workers’ Party that they should be mindful of the psychological characteristics of the French people, “especially for a Paris public, accustomed to easy reading and, moreover, adapted for lazy readers (vol. 50, p. 488).” However, the French tradition of engaging in historical actions meant that the political and spiritual exchanges there were quite developed, even at the expense of actual interests for political forms. In that regard, Engels once said that “[t]he French, who are by nature political, struggle against social evils with political weapons (vol. 4, p. 512).” The psychological characteristics of this interaction are also reflected in the party activities of the French Workers Party. May 1891 was a Friday. To commemorate May Day, the German Social Democratic Party decided to hold a commemorative event on Sunday, May 3; but the French Workers’ Party considered this change in days to be a weak and shaken move. For this reason, Engels compared the psychology of the exchanges between the two countries in a letter to the leader of

14.1 The Relationship Between External Environment and Intercourse Psychology

275

the French Workers Party, Lafarge, and pointed out that “the divergence of opinion is quite natural; it is the antagonism between north and south. You southerners sacrifice everything to form, where-as the northerners tend to underrate it, concentrating rather on the substance. You like a theatrical effect; they, perhaps, pay too little heed to it (vol. 49, p. 122).” At that time, the German party’s decision, because if the commemorative event was held on May 1, it would lose 200,000 to 300,000 marks of the party’s funds, which meant that the party’s funds would be almost completely exhausted. In order to pursue the dramatic effect of holding demonstrations at the same time, this price was unnecessary. The situation in Germany was different at the time. The inconsistencies, wars, and authoritarian rule of the last millennium, and the late arrival of the Industrial Revolution had made the life circle of the Germans much narrower than those of the British and French, thus forming a kind of communication psychology that permeates the small citizens of the German-speaking region. Marx thoroughly analyzed the psychological characteristics of German citizens early on, and wrote, “It is well known that a certain kind of psychology explains big things by means of small causes and, correctly sensing that everything for which man struggles is a matter of his interest, arrives at the incorrect opinion that there are only “petty” interests, only the interests of a stereotyped self-seeking. Further, it is well known that this kind of psychology and knowledge of mankind is to be found particularly in towns, where moreover it is considered the sign of a clever mind to see through the world and perceive that behind the passing clouds of ideas and facts there are quite small, envious, intriguing manikins, who pull the strings setting everything in motion (vol. 1, p. 171).” Due to this psychological reason, the general German spiritual intercoursal activities were vulgar, narrow-minded, and shortsighted. The Germans did not have much of a sense of humor. Marx wrote, “Beside these harmless prejudices, your average Berlin luminary is an incorrigible wiseacre, indiscreet, fond of talk, indulging a certain low humor, known in Germany as Berliner Witz, which plays more with words than with ideas, a curious compound of a little irony, a little skepticism and much vulgarity—altogether no very high specimen of mankind, nor a very amusing one, but still a typical character (vol. 16, p. 98).” Marx and Engels hated these psychological performances of the little citizens and often laughed at it, hoping that the German working class would get rid of it. The environmental conditions in the United States and Europe were very different, and their characteristics were as Marx said, “in which bourgeois society itself, combining the productive forces of an old world with the immense natural terrain of a new one, is developing on an unprecedented scale and in unprecedented [conditions of] freedom of movement and far surpassing all previous achievements in [the] mastery of the forces of nature, and in which, finally, the contradictions of bourgeois society itself appear only as transient moments (vol. 28, p. 6).” This environmental condition created two characteristics of American communication psychology. The

276

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

first was that almost any form of intercourse could be accepted, and it was psychologically open; the second was that it focused on actual spiritual needs and enjoyment. This is why Engels said America was “a nation so eminently practical and so contemptuous of theory (vol. 47, p. 541).” When Engels wrote for the American newspaper for Marx, Marx specially reminded him to “[w]rite a series of articles on Germany, from 1848 onwards. Witty and uninhibited. The gentlemen of the foreign department are exceedingly uppish (vol. 38, p. 425).” Obviously, they have grasped the psychological characteristics of Americans’ interactions. Marx and Engels often analyzed various phenomena of spiritual communication from the perspective of class and partisanship, but they also realized that the media of different classes and partisans were exposed to the same communication psychology when they were in the external environment of the same nation and country. This is due to the common external environment. In this sense, Marx believed that newspaper workers in a country could usually reflect “general state of public mind which they presuppose to exist (vol. 16, p. 79).” According to him, “Just as the press in England is bound up with the latter’s history and specific conditions, so also in Holland and Switzerland (vol. 1, p. 142).” Marx and Engels’ criticism of the ills of the internal communication between workers’ newspapers and workers’ political parties in various countries also reflected the psychology of the nationalities and countries to which these newspapers or political parties belonged. Among the external factors that affected the psychology of communication, the most direct and realistic factor was the political system. Although each ethnic group had its own psychological characteristics of communication, if different political systems were used as the external environmental conditions to distinguish among them, then some of the communication psychology was shown by the spiritual exchanges of the Prussian Kingdom, Russian Empire, and Second French Empire under the authoritarian system. The characteristics were very similar; and the psychological characteristics of the spiritual exchanges in Britain, Switzerland, and the United States under the democratic system were very different from them. Many statements by Marx and Engels demonstrated this situation. Under the authoritarian system, obedience and catering were the most prominent characteristics of intercoursal psychology. People were accustomed to writing and disseminating instructions, and once there was no instruction, they felt helpless. This is why Marx wrote that “[a]ll Russian scholars were called on to give responses and refutations, and these in the event turned out to be terribly weak (vol. 42, p. 164).” Meanwhile, Engels said, “The German poet always sings to command (vol. 6, p. 241).” In this case, the information dissemination of the media had also been distorted. They were accustomed to taking the initiative to think according to the ruler’s thinking, constantly changing with the change of the ruler, and were proud of the success of this system. This was no longer a compulsion but rather, had become a habitual way of thinking from generation to generation. Marx described this kind of psychology of communicators caused by environmental conditions as: “After the deluge, the organic beings peopling the earth were shaped in more decent and

14.1 The Relationship Between External Environment and Intercourse Psychology

277

moderate size than their antediluvian predecessors. The same law prevails in the process of the formation of society. Still, we are involuntarily driven to the conclusion that the German Revolution itself must have been very dwarfish indeed, if the Lilliputians of the Berlin Press are to be considered as the legitimate representatives into whom it has finally settled down. However that may be, if these editors are no heroes, nor even common fighting men, they are shrewd calculators at all events (vol. 16, p. 78).” For example, after the Franco-Prussian War, Prussia asked France to cede part of its territory as a guarantee of security. At this time, German newspapers had the same voice. In Engels’ analysis of intercoursal psychology, he said, “The hysterical demands of the philistines for ’guarantees’ are altogether absurd, but they tell because they suit the book of the people at Court (vol. 44, p.62).” Since the exchanges in authoritarian countries can only be repeated in a narrow range, people’s eyes are generally limited to their “motherland”, so another kind of communication psychology corresponding to obedience and catering is also very obvious namely blind National arrogance. The most typical example of this was the German citizens, who were very weak in action and had nothing in mind. According to Marx, “It is a man imbued with the notion that Berlin is the first town of the world; that there is to be found no "Geist" (an idea not to be translated, although ghost is etymologically the same word; the French esprit is quite another thing) save at Berlin (vol. 16, p. 98);” Such blind national vanity does not allow any information that is not conducive to the nation to appear. This is why the general phenomenon that Engels said in Russian books occurred: “The sobriety of facts is drowned in floods of inflated bombast, events are distorted according to the exigencies of national vanity, the victories achieved on the field of battle are put into the shade by greater victories achieved on paper by the authors, and detraction from the character of the enemy, whoever he be, predominates from beginning to end (vol. 13, p. 123).” Clearly, this abnormal intercoursal psychology was due to the lack of a necessary and normal external environment for mental intercourse. Any kind of intercourse, especially open communication, needs the support of spiritual power. Marx called this “the moral strength required by a distressed population for public and/ frank discussion (vol. 1, pp. 354–355),” The strict control of spiritual activity by the authoritarian system has killed this necessary spiritual force. Since Britain was under a democratic system, people’s intercoursal psychology was opened due to the influence of external environment, and the general factual changes no longer caused any fuss. Not to mention marches and demonstrations, which were the replacement of the government within the legal process that people were also accustomed to. This is because people there had formed an ‘inherent habit’, which Engels described as “no denying that John Bull is dull-witted enough to consider his government to be not his lord and master, but his servant, and at that the only one of his servants whom he can discharge forthwith without giving any notice (vol. 23, p. 611).” For example, when the British Prime Minister Gladstone stepped down in 1885, the British responded like this, “You have no idea how comfortable John Bull feels under his ministerial crisis. Not a bit of excitement. Evening papers,

278

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

special editions, etc., do not sell at all. The Grand Old Man, as they call Gladstone, disappears from the political foreground quite unnoticed (vol. 47, p. 303).” The influence of external environment on spiritual communication usually required a certain psychological factor as an intermediary. In 1853, the British political activist Palmerston sought the position of prime minister. In order to report and analyze this matter, he searched for many materials of this nobleman and wrote a sensational British pamphlet Pa Viscount of Maiston. The direct reason that prompted him to write is the new facts, and the psychological intermediary is an angry emotion inspired by the facts. It is unpleasant not to write. He said at that time that “I have writer’s itch, and this in the ’loftier sense of the term’, you must needs conclude from the fact that I am writing to you today although—as so often nowadays—I have been working without a break for thirty hours on end (vol. 39, p. 378)” On one occasion, he successfully wrote an article that also described his own experience. He wrote, “They were, moreover, good articles, for ira facit poetam (vol. 40, p. 469).” He borrowed the famous quote from the Roman poet Juvenalis three times before and after to illustrate how to stimulate the desire for communication due to the external environment.

14.2 The Psychology of Identification in Intercourse The process of identification refers to treating yourself as someone else in intercourse. Especially in the interaction with strong interaction, this kind of psychological activity is more obvious. It plays an important role in the realization and continuity of communication. Marx and Engels elaborated more about this psychological phenomenon. For example, in the first volume of Das Kapital, Marx wrote an analysis on the exchange of commodities: In a sort of way, it is with man as with commodities. Since he comes into the world neither with a looking glass in his hand nor as a Fichtian philosopher, to whom “I am I” is sufficient, man first sees and recognises himself in other men. Peter only establishes his own identity as a man by first comparing himself with Paul as being of like kind. And thereby Paul, just as he stands in his Pauline personality, becomes to Peter the type of the genus homo (vol. 35, p. 63).” Here, we refer to the identification of value in the exchange of goods and the identification of people in the same category. As long as people interact, they need different levels of identification at different levels of race, class, partisanship, interests, gender, opinions, interests, emotions, etc., otherwise, communication would be ineffective. Identifying this intercoursal psychology is not only a link in the cognitive process, but also expresses emotions and intentions. Therefore, the psychological process of identification is one of the comprehensive expressions of various psychological factors. What is the psychological prerequisite for intercourse between people to happen? Eliminating non-essential factors in intercourse, Marx wrote, “Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love

14.2 The Psychology of Identification in Intercourse

279

only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return—that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent—a misfortune (vol. 3, p. 326).” Here, he pointed out the requirement of homogeneity (of course not necessarily the same amount) of mental intercourse, that is, the requirement of identification. This requirement not only runs through the whole process of intercourse but also the psychological prerequisite for intercourse to start. In people’s daily life, there are not many intercoursal situations that strongly demand identification, and usually only a vague sense of identity issues, so it is more appropriate to use “identification” when talking about such situations. What is the scale by which this psychological activity is supported? Marx called it “the inner scale”. According to the explanation of sociology, the internal scale is a psychological standard established inside the subject. It is like a mirror, which can be used for self-examination and can also be used to measure people and objects. Marx believed that only talents have this internal scale. He repeatedly compared human activities with those of ants, spiders, beavers, and bees, pointing out that “An animal forms objects only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty (vol. 3, p. 277).” What we are talking about here is the difference between humans and animals that is manifested in human mental intercourse. It is an indispensable and sometimes unconscious internal scale. This is why Marx said, “Then we shall less allow ourselves to be led astray by a one-sided and trivial experience, since in such cases the result is indeed that all experience ceases, all judgment is abolished, all cows are black (vol. 1, p. 154).” For example, how to view the freedom of press and publication from the perspective of beauty requires the parties to use their own internal standards in political views, emotions, aesthetics, etc. before they can express opinions and exchange opinions with others. According to Marx, “Freedom of the press, too, has its beauty—if not exactly a feminine one—which one must have loved to be able to defend it. If I truly love something, I feel that its existence is essential, that it is something which I need, without which my nature can have no full, satisfied, complete existence (vol. 1, p. 137).” Here, he used his own life experience to explain his argument: people communicate in accordance with their own internal scale. The relationship between regular publications and their readers usually required both parties to have clear internal scales (viewpoints, interests, styles, etc.) so that they could measure each other and build a sense of trust before they can stabilize. It is on this basis that Marx said, “the conditions within which a frank and public press can operate and win popular recognition, recognition which is the breath of

280

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

life of the press, and without which it hopelessly pines away (vol. 1, p. 351).” Only when the degree of closeness between the two parties reaches the step of mutual trust can there be the kind of mental intercourse that Marx termed “read[ing] between the lines (vol. 39, p. 553).” In the process of human mental intercourse, the sense of identity of different genders also plays a subtle role. In 1886, Marx’s son-in-law Paul Lafargue’s paper Le Matriarcat. Êtude sur les origins de la famille was published in the French magazine New Review and Engels immediately became aware that an important reason for the publication of this article was that the editor-in-chief of the journal is a woman (Juliette Adam), and women identify subtly with this article. So he told Lafargue, “Your article in the Revue nouvelle gave me much pleasure. Obviously one makes some allowance for what you are permitted to say in a periodical of that kind. Even so, I was surprised at the number of risqué allusions you were allowed to get away with—but she is a woman, she has a definite standpoint. Had the editor-in-chief been a man, you would have found yourself up against a much more ferocious brand of morality (vol. 47, p. 431).” Even the choice of color is related to the identification of people’s inner emotions in communication. Marx’s thinking was premised on a broad sense of history, which was why he thought that “[t]he popular character of the free press —and it is well known that even the artist does not paint great historical pictures with water-colours — the historical individuality of the free press (vol. 1, p. 143),” needed a thick layer of oil paint. From that, he also considered “from one who is not permitted to find fault, praise also is valueless; in absence of expression it is like a Chinese picture in which shade is lacking (vol. 1, p. 180). […] Finally, it was expressed also by a member of the peasant estate in an ill-humoured but excellent speech (vol. 1, p. 180):” Because of the strong feelings about the failure of the French worker’s June uprising, he wrote such a famous sentence: “Only after being dipped in the blood of the June insurgents did the tricolour become the flag of the European revolution—the red flag! (vol. 10, p. 70)”. Red always appears in the environment of battle, hunting, and burning. This experience has been widely recognized by people. Of course, Marx was no exception. Therefore, when the experience environment reappears, he associated his revolutionary feelings with the color red. When people receive information, their sense of identity is expressed in the "internal scale" to measure external information. If their internal scale and external information are consistent in some respects, intercourse may begin and continue; and when disseminating information, treating yourself the same as others means that you want others to be consistent with your own internal standards, so the identity psychology is now transformed into a desire to converge. Regardless of success, people always tenaciously grasp the external objects and express their emotions, opinions, interests, etc. This is why Marx’s motto was “[u]nder all circumstances, the full heart speaks for itself (vol. 3, p. 209).” Due to the different statuses of people in society, the convergence of communication requires differences in psychological performance. Marx talked about this kind of psychology of King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia and his royal newspaper’s

14.2 The Psychology of Identification in Intercourse

281

reflection on this psychology, writing that, “In any case, for a royal heart, just as for a woman’s heart, and for every heart, it remains an intoxicating supreme delight to give full vent without hindrance to one’s most intimate thoughts, and to attune the world if only by a speech, by a document, to the desires of one’s own heart. […] Hence the outpouring of the Neue Preussische Zeitung, which is more or less that of the royal heart, is in itself of great psychological interest (vol. 9,p. 66);” In fact, the pursuit of convergence between the outside world and one’s own scale is not smooth everywhere, so people often suffer from various kinds of mental intercourse. Regarding this, Marx once said, “if hope deferred maketh the heart sick, fulfillment of prophecy deferred maketh the mind skeptical (vol. 16, p. 148).” Here, he explained from the opposite angle that identity is the psychological prerequisite for people to engage in mental intercourse. In intercourse among people at that time, the strongest sense of identity was the communication of Partisan views, the communication of class consciousness, the communication of nationality and locality, and the self-cognition of people. Partisan Views In regard to the exchange of party views, once people were convinced of a certain point of view, under certain conditions, they often showed a temporary state of extreme identity, that is, psychology of fanaticism. This was the case of the LaSalle in the prosperous period of the German workers’ movement. Engels had helped Eisenach leader Bebel analyze this phenomenon. He said, “You must also not forget that, if the Neuer, for example, has more subscribers than the Volksstaat, this is due to the fact that each sect is necessarily fanatic and through this fanaticism obtains, particularly in regions where it is new (as, for instance, the General Association of German Workers in Schleswig–Holstein), much greater momentary successes than the Party, which simply represents the real movement, without any sectarian oddities. On the other hand, fanaticism does not last long (vol. 44, p. 514).” In the exchange of partisan views, the sense of identity could often transcend direct economic interests. In 1852, the Jones and Hagen factions in the British Workers’ Charter Movement fought many times, and the Hagen factions won the support of those who controlled the economic sources of Jones’ The People’s Paper. However, precisely because of the tension between the two factions, the subscribers of the People’s Daily who are loyal to Jones in the opinion would prefer to pay twice the fee, but also support the newspaper. Marx was excited to tell Engels that “before [the Hagens] launched their campaign Jones was to be crushed. They have RATHER miscalculated He has raised the price of his paper by a penny without losing a single subscriber (vol. 39, p. 196).” The relationship between the tone of some political newspapers and their readers often revealed a stable identification of partisan views. In 1881, Marx introduced his doctor Kunemman to Engels, claiming that “52–54 years old at the very least, since he was a student at Strasbourg university in 1848; politically, he has found the paper Le Temps to be the organ that corresponds most closely to his temperament (vol. 46, p. 262);” Meanwhile, Corret, a personal friend of Marx’s, was an orthodox

282

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

whom he could “very well imagine the old man’s enthusiasm at seeing the truly orthodox policy preached in a large Paris daily. Fancy the old buffer, who all his life has defended the power of the Crown, now talking of a saviour of the Republic (vol. 46, p. 92).” Class Consciousness In a period of stable class struggle, the recognition of class consciousness within a class was not obvious, and often consumed a lot of energy in external struggles due to internal factional struggles; but at the moment when the class struggle intensified, the same people’s class consciousness was extremely strong. In 1855, in a rally parade in Hyde Park, London, a group of bourgeoisie and their family’s luxury carriages encountered a huge parade of lower-level people, which immediately aroused their anger towards them. They surrounded the convoy and the situation was described by Marx as such: “what a diabolical concert it was: a cacophony of grunting, hissing, whistling, squeaking, snarling, growling, croaking, shrieking, groaning, rattling, howling, gnashing sounds! A music that could drive men mad and move a stone. To this must be added outbursts of genuine old-English humour peculiarly mixed with long-contained seething wrath (vol. 14, p. 306).” The long-suppressed hatred of the bourgeoisie infected each other in this special atmosphere and finally led to the identification of thousands of people of the same class. National and Local Sexual Intercourse Under certain conditions, inter-ethnic exchanges can evoke a strong sense of identity within a nation. The reasons for this type of situation are complex, and the durations are also very different, but the expressions are almost uniformly open throughout the entire nation. Shouts and actions, or a tacit understanding of a national emotion within. In 1861, because the British mail ship “Trent” loaded with the special envoy of the Southern League, the Lincoln government detained the ship. This incident caused a momentary strong sense of identity among the English people, as Marx reported, “With the first news of the Trent case the English national pride flared up and the call for war with the United States resounded from almost all sections of society (vol. 19, p. 127).” In 1882, Marx observed the local Moorish people in the French colony of Algiers and found a silent, strong, and lasting sense of identity. He recorded that there was “[a]bsolute equality in their social intercourse, not affected; on the contrary, only when demoralized, they become aware of it; as to the hatred against Christians and the hope of an ultimate victory over these infidels, their politicians justly consider this same feeling and practice of absolute equality (not of wealth or position but of personality) a guarantee of keeping up the one, of not giving up the latter. (Nevertheless, they will go to rack and ruin without a evolutionary movement.) (vol. 46, p. 242)”. When Marx and Engels discussed the mentality of the Chinese nation opened by the Western powers, they also found the same strong national sentiment. According to Engels,” But now, at least in the southern provinces, to which the contest has

14.2 The Psychology of Identification in Intercourse

283

so far been confined, the mass of the people take an active, nay, a fanatical part in the struggle against the foreigners (vol. 15, p. 281). […] They kidnap and kill every foreigner within their reach (vol. 15, p. 281). […] The very fanaticism of the southern Chinese in their struggle against foreigners seems to mark a consciousness of the supreme danger in which Old China is placed (vol. 15, p. 283).” It is this sense of national identity that enables all strata of the same nationality to behave as a whole in spiritual personality under certain environmental conditions. Human Self-Cognitive Abilities Human self-cognition manifests itself as a kind of self-interaction, that is, the interaction between the current environment and its concepts and existing concepts. In order to achieve consistency between the present and the past, a sense of identity is also needed, otherwise psychological imbalance will occur. A conscious and rational person often feels this and can reach a new identity through inner struggle. Marx was such a person. For example, the conflict between his inner writing honor and actual material interests was an interaction between his internal scale and the actual environment. He wanted to maintain his image as a scientific worker, and he did not want to become a vulgar newspaper article author. This mental state was just as he described, “I find perpetual hackwork for the newspapers tiresome. It is timeconsuming, distracting and, in the end, amounts to very little. However independent one may think oneself, one is tied to the newspaper and its readers, especially when, like myself, one is paid in cash. Purely learned work is something totally different, and the honour of figuring beside an A.P.C., a LADY CORRESPONDENT and an archbishop is CERTAINLY not to be envied (vol. 39, p. 367).” The result of this conflict of ideas was, of course, to compromise with the real environment while maintaining the established internal scale. If you change the existing internal scale and replace it with a new internal scale, this conflict of self-communication will manifest as a kind of pain. This is the pain of pursuing the new internal scale, because at this time “the Augsburg newspaper has never known the pangs of conscience called forth by the rebellion of man’s subjective wishes against the objective views of his mind, since it has neither a mind of its own, nor views of its own, nor even a conscience of its own (vol. 1, p. 221). […] We are firmly convinced that the real danger lies not in practical attempts, but in the theoretical elaboration of communist ideas, for practical attempts, even mass attempts, can be answered by cannon as soon as they become dangerous, whereas ideas, which have/conquered our intellect and taken possession of our minds, ideas to which reason has fettered our conscience, are chains from which one cannot free oneself without a broken heart; they are demons which human beings can vanquish only by submitting to them (vol. 1, pp. 220–221).” Since identity is the psychological prerequisite for spiritual communication, can two or more parties without identity not be able to communicate? Of course not, but this kind of communication is usually carried out in various forms of opposition. Real communication between the parties is more difficult, and it causes more misunderstandings than understanding. However, as long as there is such interaction,

284

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

mutual influence will occur, that is, mutual penetration of identity. Marx and Engels also noticed this situation. In 1851, in many controversies with German petty-bourgeois exiles, Engels pointed out to Marx that their writings had affected those people in controversy. He wrote, “the fellows are compelled to recognise the superiority of our stuff, not only by their constant preoccupation with it, but even more by its influence on them of which despite their stubbornness and rage they are quite unaware. In all this scribble, there is not a single phrase that does not contain a plagiarism, an uncomprehending distortion of our stuff, or something suggested by it (vol. 38, p. 418).” On the one hand, quietly using the other party’s point of view; on the other hand, insisting on its own internal scale (in fact, this scale also changes), such is the characteristic of the lack of identity of the mental intercourse, in which the identity still plays a role, but only the expression becomes distorted. In many cases, the recognition of all aspects of communication is not a coincidence, but the party with stronger information energy constantly changes its internal scale of expression, prompting other parties to tend to themselves and realize communication. The relationship between the author and the reader best illustrates this. Authors are usually the ones with stronger information energy. Experienced authors can cultivate readers by expressing art and establish close communication with readers. In this regard, Engels specifically quoted Heine’s words, “The author finally gets used to his public as if it were a reasonable being (vol. 37, p. 881).” This is the question of how the author and reader can achieve psychological identity.

14.3 Psychological Barriers to Intercourse Regardless of the form of mental intercourse, it is a kind of mental connection in all aspects of intercourse that occurs at the same time or across time and space, and any kind of psychological obstacle may cause the connection to be interrupted, distorted, or slacken. Studying such psychological obstacles and overcoming or using them are issues that Marx and Engels often considered. Therefore, they left behind a lot of enlightening expositions and observation materials in this regard. The biggest psychological obstacles affecting communication are various prejudices of individuals, classes, parties, society, and nations. Prejudice is an attitude that lacks sufficient factual basis for external things. When all parties in the communication are biased, the communication is difficult to conduct or in a state of information distortion. What Marx felt the most was the obstacles caused by party prejudice to communication. After the defeat of the revolution in 1848, he was attacked by the German liberal newspaper editor Zabel. This kind of attack greatly increased the gap between the public and Marx because of the party prejudice at that time, so he had to spend time writing counterattacks. It was like what he said, “Here the position was different. Zabel accused me of a series of criminal and infamous actions and he did so for the

14.3 Psychological Barriers to Intercourse

285

benefit of a public whose political prejudices inclined it to credit the greatest atrocities and who, moreover, in view of my eleven-year absence from Germany, had nothing to enable it to form a judgment of me (vol. 17, p. 259).” People always observe problems from their socio-economic and political status in their interactions, so they have certain prejudices; the limitations of classes also hinder the comprehensive and true communication between classes. For example, the prejudice of French farmers in 1848 caused a long period of incommunicability between them and the workers in Paris. Engels described the psychology of this class after talking to hundreds of farmers. He said, “It goes without saying that the peasants’ age-old contempt for town-dwellers was merely increased and vindicated by this year’s events. The peasants, the countryside must save France; the countryside produces everything, the towns live off our corn, dress in our flax and our wool, we must restore the proper order of things; we peasants must take charge of affairs ourselves — this was the eternal refrain that sounded, more or less clearly, more or less deliberately, through all the peasants’ confused talk (vol. 7, p. 522).” Sure enough, Louis Bonaparte ruled France on behalf of the peasants, using this peasant prejudice to restore order, so that in the next 20 years, the French society was almost stagnant, and the frequency of social and mental intercourse fell to the lowest level. Workers also have many prejudices due to the narrowness of their lives and low education levels, especially the spontaneous communism that emerged among the early workers. Prejudice is particularly obvious. Marx has pointed out various manifestations in this regard. For example, extending the status of workers to all people to achieve equality, using the common-wife system to oppose marriage, indirectly denying all cultures and civilizations, eliminating all private property that could not be publicly owned, and using compulsory methods to abandon human abilities. These class prejudices made the workers’ movement at a stage of small denominations for a long period of time, and did not receive widespread sympathy and support from society. Engels believed that only advanced workers’ parties could “still be progressive and resist the workers’ reactionary appetites and their prejudices (vol. 39, p. 68).” With the maturity of the workers’ movement and the weakening of these prejudices, the workers’ movement became a general social movement. In ethnic exchanges, the biggest psychological obstacle is ethnic prejudice. This psychology has complex historical, cultural, and political causes. Marx wrote this about Britain and India, “Here indeed is one of the greatest inconveniences and difficulties in the Government of India from England, that views of Indian questions are liable to be influenced by purely English prejudices or sentiments, applied to a state of society and a condition of things to which they have in fact very little real pertinency (vol. 15, p. 548).” In mental intercourse generally, personal prejudice also hinders the true degree of information transmitted and received. For example, a reader “can be accused of deliberate distortion, and this tends to be done wherever an account does not conform to the preconceived notions of the reader (vol. 2, p. 27).”, as Engels claimed. If the author is biased, he is often unaware of preconceptions. In this regard, Engels commented on the German economist Rodbertus-Jagetzow, writing that “he surrendered the first

286

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

condition of all criticism—freedom from bias. He worked on towards a goal fixed in advance, he became a Tendenzökonom (vol. 26, p. 290).” Another psychological barrier associated with prejudice in communication is the effect of motivation on perception. Motivation in intercourse tends to bias intercourse itself, and people’s perception is instinctively accustomed to receiving affirmative information and interpreting information in a way that satisfies themselves (or the party, the class, the nation) to the greatest extent so that the situation always looks better than it actually is. This is more beneficial to one’s own side while avoiding the unpleasant aspects of perception. Only when the person is soberly aware of this possible psychological obstacle can he get rid of its influence and obtain real information. For example, when releasing information from the national motives, the parties often have a strong sense of vanity, which may distort the information. Engels famously remarked, “This shows how ignorance and national vanity unite in manufacturing heroes and enhancing the glory of a nation’s arms (vol. 13, p. 531).” Engels criticized the French newspaper’s report on French rule in Algeria, saying that “[t]he French bulletins and French papers abound in statements of the peace and prosperity of Algeria. These are, however, a tribute to national vanity (vol. 18, p. 69).” The same is true of the British newspapers. The British army encountered considerable difficulties in suppressing the Indian uprising, but the British newspaper was stunned by every tiny victory. Engels criticized this, pointing out that “[n]o people, not even the French, can equal the English in self-laudation, especially when bravery is the point in question (vol. 15, p. 392).” Clearly, this vanity does not bring trust between people, but alienation. When possible adverse information appeared, the motives of the nation often covered up the facts and caused obstruction in intercourse. In January 1858, the British army failed to attack Lucknow in India, but the news was not seen in the British and British newspapers in India. The reason was as Engels put it, “The Times’s Calcutta correspondent states that evidently the British suffered on the 27th "what almost amounts to a repulse," but that from patriotic motives the Anglo-Indian press covers the disgrace with the impenetrable vail of charity (vol. 15, p. 450).” The British army committed many crimes against China in the two Opium Wars, but these things were covered up in the newspaper. In his anger, Marx wrote, “We hear nothing of the bullying spirit often exercised against the timid nature of the Chinese, or of the vice introduced by foreigners at the ports open to their trade (vol. 15, p. 235). […] How silent is the press of England upon the outrageous violations of the treaty daily practiced by foreigners living in China under British protection! (vol. 15, p. 234)”. In general debates, Engels repeatedly found that motivation influenced perception so that the subject of the intercourse digressed and could not reach consensus or confrontation. This affected the real understanding of the parties for a long time. In 1894, two German university professors began a debate on the historical philosophy of Hegel, Marx, and Eduard Hartmann. By observing this debate, Engels pointed out with emotion the difficulties that this communication psychology poses for true mutual understanding. He said, “in literary debate one has to get used to the fact that,

14.3 Psychological Barriers to Intercourse

287

lawyer-fashion, one’s opponent suppresses what doesn’t suit his book and introduces extraneous matter if he thinks this will enable him to pull the wool over his reader’s eyes (vol. 50, p. 429).” In the one-way relationship between the communicator and the recipient, if the communicator’s attitude is too hard, or if it wants to be affirmed, it shows excessive enthusiasm, and the original identity of the recipient is not enough to bear these excessive attitudes. Or enthusiasm, then there will be a psychological barrier that is very unfavorable to the communicator, that is, reverse psychology. Marx and Engels demonstrated various manifestations of reverse psychology from different angles, or corrected the extreme performance of the communicator, or used the communicator’s mistakes to strive for the recipient’s identity. When external pressure forces people to be unable to choose freely, people tend to have a favorable impression of being forced to lose, and the gap between those who exert pressure and those who pass on it increases. This is the “forbidden fruit effect” in intercourse. Marx demonstrated this very early on when he pointed out, “It is regarded as an exception, and if freedom can never cease to be of value to mankind, so much the more valuable is an exception to the general lack of freedom. Every mystery has its attraction. Where public opinion is a mystery to itself, it is won over from the outset by every piece of writing that formally breaks through the mystical barriers (vol. 1, p. 164).” One of his books The Housing Question also used the forbidden fruit effect to receive unexpected intercourse effects. Regarding this, he said, “The fact that a new reprint has now become necessary I owe undoubtedly to the benevolent solicitude of the German imperial government which, by prohibiting the work, tremendously increased its sale, as usual, and I hereby take this opportunity of expressing my respectful thanks to it (vol. 26, p. 425).” It was with this reverse psychology that Marx and Engels spread the news published in Das Kapital to Germany. At that time, their action strategy was “If we were in Germany, we should already have created a stir in all the papers, and have managed to get the book denounced, which is always the best thing (vol. 42, p. 462).” If the news disseminated was too false, the effect of the intercourse was often the opposite. Marx repeatedly illustrated this phenomenon by taking the French Official Report of the French Empire during the Second General Bulletin as an example. It mentioned, “Germany forgets that France stands under the protection of a legislation which does not authorise any preventive control on the part of the government (vol. 17, p. 134). […] This and similar declarations by the Moniteur produced the very opposite effect to the one intended, or so it was reported to the Karl of Malmesbury (see the Blue Book On the Affairs of Italy. January to May 1859) (vol. 17, p. 134).” At that time, France’s economy was very bad, but the Bulletin often published news of economic prosperity and warned other newspapers against “[such] is the official meaning of ‘protecting the industry and the capital of the country against maneuvers,’ and of ‘enlightening the public,’ instead of ‘deceiving it.’ (vol. 15, p. 501) […] The warning will act, but quite in the opposite direction, the more so since it emanates from a Government whose financial frauds have become a topic of general conversation (vol. 15, p. 500).”

288

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

When expressing emotions or positions, excessive enthusiasm or excessive stubbornness may get the receiver’s abnormality and indifference. In this regard, Marx has talked about many examples. In the British election of 1857, the candidate Palmerston was touted to an inexhaustible degree. Marx warned him using a famous quote from the French diplomat Talleyrand-Périgord: No wonder that John Bull should prove reluctant to stand this, and that a reaction against the Palmerstonian fever should have set in (vol. 15, p. 228). During the American Civil War, most British newspapers were too partial to the Southern League, causing the Americans there to show indifference to these newspapers. In this regard, Marx reported that “The English press is more Southern than the South itself. While it sees everything black in the North, and everything white in the land of the “nigger”, 3 people in the slave states themselves do not by any means lull themselves with the “certainty of victory” that The Times celebrates (vol. 19, p. 260).” In daily life, fashion is a common phenomenon, but if a fashion lasts too long, it may reverse people’s understanding of the problem. This was something that Engels had a deep understanding of. In 1857, when he was recuperating, he studied the trendy phenomenon of medication and said to Marx, “whatever the literature on the subject, there is no doubt that, for some time past, it has become increasingly the fashion to reduce all diseases to lack of iron in the blood, a fashion which is already beginning to evoke a reaction; as to the disease of which, more than any other, this is known to be the primary characteristic—anaemia—some Frenchmen have latterly declared that iron has nothing at all to do with it (vol. 40, p. 153).” The extreme performance in all kinds of intercourse is actually a product of incompatible opposing thinking. Its existence is difficult to avoid completely, but there should be a limit. Once it exceeds the capacity of all parties to the exchange, going to extremes will obviously hinder the normal progress of the exchange.

14.4 The Formation of “Attention” in Intercourse There must be a partner for intercourse to take place, and the first step in attracting people is to attract attention. "Attention" is a psychological phenomenon that accompanies the psychological processes of sensation, perception, memory, thinking, imagination, etc. in communication, and refers to the selective treatment of certain facts, problems, knowledge, opinions, images, sounds, etc. Orientation and concentration help to obtain a clear and clear image of them. It is the beginning of the intercourse process. Only when people open the door of “attention” can they talk about identity, connection, and development. Marx and Engels have studied the various factors that form attention, and have successfully attracted the public’s attention many times. They viewed the change of facts as the primary factor in forming attention. The greater the changes in the facts that occur, the stronger the attention is drawn. If the war process is compared with the parliamentary debate, the attention drawn by the former is obviously far greater than the latter. In 1848, due to new wars in the

14.4 The Formation of “Attention” in Intercourse

289

Hungarian War and the Danish-Prussian War, Engels wrote this about parliamentary activities, “All this passed quite unnoticed in view of the cannonades at Novara and Pest, and even the "naval battle" at Eckernförde and the storming of the Düppel fortifications made a greater impression than all the speeches from the Right and the Left in the Prussian people’s representative body (vol. 9, p. 295).” If people think that hopeless things happen, the attention will be more intense. In 1892, after a long period of decline in the British Workers’ Movement, workers in East London won the elections. Engels wrote about the changes triggered by this fact, pointing out that “According to Tussy, the elections here in the East End of London have aroused wild enthusiasm. The workers have at last realised that they are capable of something if only they have the will (vol. 49, p. 479). […] Facts and facts alone are what impress hard-headed John Bull and these cannot fail to do so (vol. 49, p. 480).” The information conveyed in words is certainly important for expressing art, but the facts provided are still important factors for attracting attention. In 1843, Marx was attracted by the facts he reported while reading a local newspaper, Gemeinnütziges Wochenblatt (Charity Weekly). He said, “We have here, therefore, merely a simple relation of facts, sometimes accompanied by a brief elegiac epilogue. Precisely because of their artless simplicity they can produce a shattering effect, but they could hardly even claim to be a frank and public discussion of conditions in the Mosel region (vol. 1, p. 352).” In 1853, Marx read the newsletter entitled Death to Poverty in the British Northampton Mercury. There was a detailed report on workers starving to death which attracted his attention. He thought the newspaper provided “a picture perfectly astonishing to contemplate (vol. 11, p. 485).” and he introduced the full text was to American newspapers. Facts should also be used to attract the attention of the audience when speaking to the public. Engels carefully observed the speech of the British Owen socialist Watts, particularly quoting his words, “What we do not know through facts does not concern us at all; we keep to the basis of ‘real facts’, where there can be no question of such fantastic things as God and religious theories (vol. 3, p. 385). […] The lecturers have a very good manner of arguing; they always start out from experience and from verifiable or obvious facts and at the same time the exposition is carried out in such a systematic way that it is very difficult to fight them on the ground they have chosen (vol. 3, p. 385).” In 1847, Marx participated in a meeting of economists. At the meeting, there was a British speaker Dr. Bowring, whose views Marx did not agree with, but he admitted that his speech attracted attention because “Mr. Bowring’s speech is the more remarkable because the facts quoted by him are correct, and the phrases with which he seeks to palliate them are characterized by the hypocrisy common to all Free Trade discourses (vol. 6, p. 461).” In their daily life, Marx and Engels also observed a phenomenon in which originally worthless books attracted people’s attention because the author became famous all of a sudden. For example, the poem collection of the unknown poet Gottfried

290

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

Kinkel could not be sold originally but because he participated in the 1849 constitutional uprising in southern Germany, the trial after injury and capture caught the attention of the society and so “[t]he publishing house of Cotta accepted his poems but without offering him a royalty and most of the copies remained unsold until that stray bullet in Baden gave a poetic nimbus to the author and created a market for his products (vol. 11, p. 248).” The essence of attention is to choose another stimulus away from the existing one. What determines this choice is the intensity, degree of change, novelty, and contrast with other stimuli. Generally speaking, spiritual interactions that cause contradictions and conflicts have advantages in these four areas and allow the public to turn their attention to themselves. Marx and Engels are very familiar with this point. At a meeting, in order to activate the atmosphere of the meeting, they deliberately argued and attracted attention. Marx made a famous speech about free trade due to the situation. After more than 40 years, Engels still remembered this matter very clearly. He recalled, “All I can remember is that, when the discussion began to flag at the German Workers’ Society in Brussels, Marx and I arranged between ourselves to conduct a mock debate in which he advocated free trade and I protective tariffs; I can still see the chaps’ astonished expressions when they suddenly saw us go at it hammer and tongs (vol. 49, p. 114).” The most successful case in which they attracted the attention of the society with the debate was when the publicity after the publication of the first volume of Das Kapital. At that time, Engels published book reviews of various viewpoints in 10 newspapers in Germany and Britain, as if many people were arguing about this book. When people’s attention was drawn to this book, economists had to express their opinions. In response, Marx said, “You must impress on him that ‘making a commotion’ is what matters most, far more than how it is done or being thorough (vol. 42, p. 439).” Critical messages are generally easier to attract people’s attention than neutral or praise messages. It is in this sense that Marx does not want others to post general comments on his articles as “it really is not desirable[…] to write a critique (vol. 38, p. 559).” In 1859, the first volume of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy was published. When a friend wanted to help him promote it, Marx told him, “I expected to be attacked or criticised but not to be utterly ignored, which, moreover, is bound to have a serious effect on sales (vol. 40, p. 518).” Marx fully understood the various factors that drew attention in his interactions, so he felt comfortable with various criticisms of himself. In 1853, when the British Charter leader Jones was attacked by The Economist, Marx said, “Jones is under attack from The Economist and is acquiring fame (vol. 39, p. 401).” The personal character, merit, and authority of the communicator are also factors that attract attention in intercourse. The higher the moral evaluation, the greater the intensity of attention. Engels listened to the debate at the Swiss National House in December 1848, and his observations vividly illustrate this mentality of communication. Congressman General Dufour, due to his merits in the Swiss democratic revolution of 1847 and his good conduct, attracted distinctive attention in Parliament. When Dufour was about to take the stage, Engels portrayed the scene as “Suddenly

14.4 The Formation of “Attention” in Intercourse

291

the conversations and moving about in the assembly ceased. There was complete silence and all eyes turned to a beardless, bald old man with a big aquiline nose, who began to speak in French. This little old man, who in his simple black suit and with his completely civilian appearance was more like a professor than anything else, and who struck one only by his expressive face and lively, penetrating glance, was General Dufour, that same Dufour whose far-sighted strategy crushed the Sonderbund almost without bloodshed (vol. 8, p. 149).” Most of the content and forms of people’s interactions are very common. If there are some differences in the style characteristics and expressions of communication, it can attract attention to a certain extent and promote communication. In this regard, Marx and Engels had relatively rich experience, and they particularly discussed the following methods to attract attention: First, make the article or speech as original as possible. As Marx famously said, “People demand something new, new in form and content (vol. 43, p. 39).” This succinctly expresses a kind of intercourse psychology. British physicist Tindol’s speech at an academic annual meeting in 1874 attracted Engels’ attention for this reason, because he went a step further than Newton, completely forbidding God from entering the natural world, and exiled him to the emotional world. This was a bold point of view at the time. As Engels said, “Tyndall’s inaugural lecture, incidentally, is the boldest speech to have been delivered in England to such an audience, and has created a tremendous impression and panic (vol. 45, p. 50).” Second, if the content of the communication did not have many novelties, in order to attract people’s attention, the expression must have a unique style. In this regard, the Austrian Social Democratic Party’s Arbeitter-Zeitung once did a great job. Engels was full of praise for it, writing that “one can see that it is under way and that the Thursday evening and Sunday number are distinct from the others in that each has its own particular character to suit a particular reading public (vol. 50, p. 409).” When Marx took part in the work of the German newspaper Das Volk published in the UK in 1859, he also said this was “a point not to be overlooked. With something more original from the theatre of war we ought TO CATCH at least 50 more customers in London (vol. 40, p. 449).” When writing character reviews, Marx paid great attention to the characteristics of the article. In 1854, he discussed with Engels a group of articles that commented on the British politician Lord Palmerston. In order to attract the attention of the British public, he believed that “If you agree with all this—(Nos. 2 and 3 would, of course, have to be pungent enough to produce a real sensation in London; moreover, such is the footing we are on with Tucker that we can write anything we choose without worrying about English prejudices)—then compose a letter for me putting these proposals to Mr. Tucker (vol. 39, p. 473).” As a result of paying attention to the characteristics of writing, although there are no more new materials in this group of articles, they have been reprinted one after another and tens of thousands of copies have been issued. Third, if it is difficult to make the content unique, then try to make the content refreshing so as to attract people’s attention. In 1854, when the Tsar’s two daughters visited the United Kingdom, Marx praised the title used by The Observer for both

292

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

summarizing the facts and expressing opinions. He wrote, “Even The Examiner, the first of the first-rate London weekly papers, announces the arrival of these guests under the laconic rubric ‘More Russians.’ (vol. 12, p. 255)” The numbers are generally boring, but they are arranged in an orderly manner and can also attract attention. In 1892, the French Workers’ Party made significant progress in the elections, but this incident in France did not attract public attention due to improper propaganda. Engels criticized it, writing, “What a rottenly organized statistical service you have over there! / But that will come in time. You’ll discover that nothing fires the imagination of the masses more than a splendid, well set out array of figures announcing electoral victories (vol. 49, p. 423).” Sincerity, with a certain emotional tone, can often help the general content of the article attract people’s attention. In this regard, Marx praised the British critic Ernest Belfort Bax. Although the content of his article was sometimes not distinctive, Marx pointed out that “[t]here is a sincerity of speech and a ring of true conviction about him which strike you (vol. 46, p. 185).” Fourth, as far as each specific communication content is concerned, centralized communication can attract more attention than decentralized communication. The famous book Legend of Lessing by Franz Mehring was originally published several times in New Times magazine. Engels compared the degree of serial and monograph attention, and told the author this, “I look forward to seeing the Lessing-Legende published on its own. That kind of thing is greatly impaired if brought out piecemeal (vol. 50, p. 135).” He repeatedly reminded the editors of the newspaper to publish his and Marx’s papers as soon as possible in order to attract the reader’s attention. In 1869, Marx sent a report on miners he made to the German Social Democratic Labor Party (Sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei, SDAP), the newspaper People’s National News. Engels said to Marx, “once you have read it, but on the explicit condition that it is not spread over more than 2 nos. Otherwise it is no use (vol. 43, p. 221).” This was because he knew that the period of a weekly report would make people’s attention to a current problem completely disappear from his mind. There are two psychological reasons for the various methods to draw attention as mentioned by Marx and Engels: First, the contrasting relationship of stimuli. The contrast in the content, form, style, or expression of communication is easy to cause people’s unintentional attention. By the time Christmas came in 1867, Marx’s Das Kapital advertisement had already been produced. They discussed it and decided to delay the advertisement until the beginning of the next year. Engels said, “The stuff must not appear in the papers until after New Year, otherwise it will get lost in the flood of notices for Christmas books (vol. 42, p. 491).” Second, people’s unique curiosity in communication. Stereotypical and formulaic information does not easily attract attention. Rather, any novel information will stimulate people’s desire to inquire. Marx cited Aristoteles’ famous quote, “Surprise … is the beginning of philosophizing (vol. 1, p. 220).” It was by using this kind of psychology that when Engels completed his booklet Savoy, Nice and the Rhine in 1860 . Given that Engels was portrayed as a communist demon by the Prussian

14.4 The Formation of “Attention” in Intercourse

293

propaganda agency, Marx said to him, “Had you actually put your name to the pamphlet, the public would have seized upon it, if only out of curiosity (vol. 41, p. 135).” In the same year, when Marx wrote a book of revelation titled Herr Vogt, Engels suggested that “[t]he only thing that can make Vogt interesting is his connection with Bonaparte and Plon-Plon, and this you must emphasise in the title, if you are to arouse the philistine’s curiosity (vol. 41, p. 205)” In 1852, the Prussian authorities created the case of the Cologne Communists. “Owing to the unusual delay in bringing the case before the court, the Ministry’s direct intervention in the proceedings, the mysterious hints about unheard-of horrors, the rodomontade about a conspiracy ensnaring the whole of Europe and, finally, the signally brutal treatment of the prisoners, the trial was swollen into a procès monstre, the eyes of the European press were upon it and the curiosity and suspicions of the public were fully aroused (vol. 11, p. 401).” Marx published his booklet Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne, and he requested that “advance notices should appear in the Press to whet people’s curiosity (vol. 39, p. 259).” In most cases, the formation of attention is caused by the relatively protruding stimuli; some attention is not formed by the difference, but gradually formed by the accumulation of continuous mild stimuli, which repeatedly drew attention. Marx and Engels talked about this situation many times and the limitations of using this method. In their discussion, there are two typical cases. One is the attention caused by the propaganda to withdraw the 1 billion francs ransom received by the Bourbon dynasty after the French Revolution in February; the other is the German Social Democratic Party leader Bebel in 1893. The attention of the parliamentary speech of the future State and Social Democratic Party. They reported on the former, which lasted for several months in France. They wrote, “Under the headline Rappel du milliard’ the newspapers day by day print the names of fresh communes giving their adherence to this magnificent measure. Soon on all the walls, in all the communes, it will be possible to read: ‘Rappel du milliard’ (vol. 9, p. 82).” The latter was because the Social Democratic Party repeated propaganda in different forms on different occasions; hence, the already influential Parliamentary speech of Bebel attracted the attention of the whole society. Engels said excitedly, “The debate on the socialist organization of the future lasted five days, and Bebel’s speech was wanted in three and a half million copies. Now they are having the whole debate published in pamphlets at five sous, and the effect, already tremendous, will be doubled! (vol. 50, p. 113)”. The repetition mentioned here only refers to the content of intercourse, and its form and method also need to be constantly changed. Without this condition, simple repetition usually causes not attention but boredom. Even if the form and method of communication frequently change, it should be moderate, otherwise, it may be counterproductive. When Marx reported on the strike in the UK, he tried to figure out the reader’s psychology, claiming that “[i]t would be tedious to go on enumerating, letter after letter, the different strikes which come to my knowledge week after week. I shall therefore merely dwell occasionally on such as offer peculiar features of interest (vol. 12, p. 288)”.

294

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

Attention drawn from mental intercourse is mostly unintentional attention created in daily life, but when changes, in fact, involve people’s vital interests, attention is drawn from the conscious purpose of the participants in the intercourse. This kind of intentional attention shifted quite quickly due to the containment of interests, and Marx himself experienced this. In July 1848, as the Prussian Cabinet proposed a provisional publishing bill, the focus of The New Rhine News immediately shifted from commenting on a certain member’s speech to discussing the bill. Marx explained the following to the reader: We had thought that today we might be able to amuse our readers once again with the agreement debates, in particular to present to them the brilliant speech of Deputy Baumstark, but events prevent us from doing so. Charity begins at home. When the existence of the press is threatened, even Deputy Baumstark is abandoned (vol. 7, p. 250).” The makers of the bill did not want people to pay attention, but for the party subject to this bill, it deserved active and intentional attention.

14.5 Gossips or Rumours Gossip is a common form of abnormal mental intercourse, and it is also a manifestation of intercourse psychology. Marx and Engels were often surrounded by various rumors, so they experienced this very much. When rumors spread in the neighborhood or certain political, economic, and cultural groups, due to the narrow scope, it can be regarded as a normal phenomenon. However, if it becomes social gossip, the spread will often be extremely rapid and unstoppable. On one occasion, inaccurate news about Marx’s health was spread several times in the newspaper. Engels was extremely angry. He said, “Whatever you do, don’t put anything about Marx’s state of health into the paper; Viereck shamefully exploited in the Süddeutsche Post the information I sent his wife from time to time (he hardly ever wrote to me himself!), but naturally I was able to keep this from Marx, otherwise he would have hauled me over the coals. Here again Viereck had failed to ask my permission. (vol. 46, p. 450).” According to Engels, this matter involved the process of rumors spreading. Rumors started out as misunderstandings, myths, or intentions in people’s interactions, and became social rumors through multi-level interpersonal communication or media reports. The more layers that go through, the less accurate the information. In Switzerland during the October Uprising in Vienna in 1848, people spread rumors based on their life experience and their respective inaccurate information channels, which also contained elements of mislisting, mistrust, and myths. The characteristics of their transmission are as Engels said, “Hundreds of rumours were bruited about, debated, called in question, believed, refuted, and all possible aspects were thoroughly discussed (vol. 8, p.12).” The intentional rumors combined with the media are the most harmful. After the failure of the Paris Commune, the newspapers once spread the rumor that the International Workers’ Association was divided, and Marx followed the source and

14.5 Gossips or Rumours

295

found that it was made by the Paris-Journal. Although rumoring can certainly restore some damage to reputation, once the rumor spreads, the situation became as Marx said, “the false news spread like wildfire through the London press which indulged in long leaders upon that pleasant event proving at the same time the decomposition of the International and the incorrigible perversion of the Paris workmen (vol. 44, p. 122).” On the eve of major social events (wars, disasters, coups, economic crises, etc.) and during the events, rumors often became the main topic of people’s interactions. Because people’s emotions were very unstable at this time, coupled with the blockage of information channels, the rumors spread extremely fast and wide. For example, after the news that the French credit movable company was going bankrupt in 1857, the situation got out of hand as such: Last Sunday’s Observer relates how the dissemination of horrible rumors about the Crédit mobilier sent everyone rushing to the Bourse to rid themselves à tout prix of their SHARES (vol. 40, p. 216). In 1860, Garibaldi launched a war of liberation in Italy. This was a huge event for the suzerains, and there were rumors. Due to the lack of information in the mountains, people used the most advanced telegraph at the time to spread various inaccurate messages. Marx wrote about the scene in Berlin at that time, “Locusts have never poured upon Europe in such multitude as do now the electric canards (vol. 17, p. 381).” People’s uneasy or passionate emotions are not only psychological factors for believing rumors but also a perpetuator for spreading it. During the Crimean War, Britain had repeatedly circulated false news that the British and French allied forces had captured Sevastopol, a Russian fortress, and it continued to spread like wildfire. On the other hand, good news on one’s own side, for example, in the misrepresentation in early October 1854, was like how Marx and Engels put it: The English press, in general, has proved a worthy representative of that class, and it would seem that the very name of Sevastopol need only be pronounced in England to put everybody in a fool’s paradise (vol. 13, p. 484). […] In the enormous credulity of which the English public have given us such imposing proofs (vol. 13, p. 487), […] Still, the news was too good not to be believed, and accordingly it was believed (vol. 13, p. 489). Some rumors became the fuse of the outbreak of revolution. The problem is not the truth of the gossip, but the rumor that reflected people’s emotions at that time. Marx discussed this issue when he analyzed the Spanish revolutions of 1820 and 1848. In 1820, the revolutionary leader Lie Ge raised his troops against the king’s abolition of the democratic constitution of 1812. Although it only lasted for two and a half months, because the whole country was generally angry about the abolition of the constitution. The situation became as Marx described: Men’s minds, struck by the boldness of Riego’s sally, the rapidity of his march, his vigorous repulses of the/ enemy, imagined triumphs never gained, and aggregations and re-enforcements never obtained. When the tidings of Riego’s enterprise reached the more distant provinces, they were magnified in no small degree, and those most remote from the spot were the first to declare themselves for the Constitution of 1812. So far was Spain matured for a revolution, and even false news sufficed to produce it. So, too, it was false news that produced the hurricane of 1848 (vol. 13, pp. 442–443).

296

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

Clearly, a certain strong desire of people is an important reason for the generation and spread of rumors. Marx called this gossip and described it as “express[ing] actual reality, and which expresses it as it would like it to be (vol. 1, p. 315).” During the Hungarian War in 1849, The Cologne Daily was too strongly opposed to the struggle of the Hungarian national liberation from Austria’s stand and published many “facts” that it hoped to appear. Engels took the newspaper’s report on April 17 as an example to describe the spread of rumors and the psychology of the newspaper editor. He wrote, “Not a word from Transylvania. Yesterday the Kölnische Zeitung had the Russians and Puchner march in again. The news came from the Bukurester Zeitung, it passed from there into the Wiener Zeitung and finally into the Kölnische. However, it merely gave the positions which Puchner and the Russians occupied after the capture of Hermannstadt by Bern before they fled through the Roterturm Pass. The Kölnische Zeitung could have known that as well as we; but in its pleasure at seeing the imperial troops at last advance again at any point, it fell into the trap and prompdy reprinted this ancient news, deliberately put into the Wiener Zeitung to confuse the reader. That is how history is made (vol. 9, p. 294).” Under the influence of biased psychology, even if there are some facts, it would distort the facts until they become unrecognizable and turn into rumors. That’s how the rumors about money formed of the workers in June 1848 during the French revolution. Engels analyzed this whole process and wrote that “The Paris Moniteur has published with the greatest conscientiousness all cases where money was found on the insurgents. There were at most twenty such cases. Different newspapers and correspondents have repeated these cases and cited different sums. The Kölnische Zeitung, with its tried critical tact, which takes all these different reports of the twenty cases for so many different cases and then still adds all the cases circulated by rumours, might at best perhaps arrive at 200 cases. And that entitles the paper to state that almost all the 30,000 to 40,000 workers had money! (vol. 7, p. 155)”. Rumors during the war are often directly related to people’s interests, so Marx said that one of the factors that caused the rumor was because “the effects of the war should become taxable upon their pockets, mercantile sense was sure to overcome national pride, and the loss of immediate individual profits was sure to outweigh the certainty of losing, gradually, great national advantages (vol. 14, p. 143).” Various rumors about revolutionaries were often related to counter-revolutionary psychological panic. Engels persuaded his mother not to listen to various rumors about the Paris Commune, writing this: And yet you have in the course of your lifetime heard quite a few people denounced as veritable cannibals—the members of the Tugendbund under the first Napoleon, the demagogues of 1817 and 1831," the men of 1848—and subsequently it always turned out that they were not so bad after all, and that the horror-stories initially put into circulation about them by interested parties, subsequently dissolved into thin air (vol. 44, p. 228). From the perspective of the recipients and re-disseminators of rumors, such people generally belong to the minority citizen class. Their cultural level is low, and their living environment is sparse and scattered. Therefore, they lack judgment and are easily influenced by momentary emotions or external pressure. This is the broadest social basis for rumors. In March 1849, those in power in the German states started

14.5 Gossips or Rumours

297

many rumors about the revolutionaries’ preparations for a revolt, and those rumors were quickly spread. Marx and Engels described the psychological process of this intercourse as follows: on each occasion, alarm has been aroused in the breasts of worthy philistines by hot air from "reliable sources", "indubitable indications", and "authentic reports". But the jokers endowed with divine grace sit calmly behind the scenes, rejoicing at the effects of their reports à la Santa Claus which ˆre being systematically spread by the whole of the servile press, and they smile in a superior manner when the stupid philistines take these calculated cries of alarm au sérieux (vol. 9, p. 55). In the United Kingdom, it was mainly the shopkeepers (a class of proletariats) who spread rumors. They allowed instinctive emotions to control their actions. Marx and Engels described those rumors as “implicitly believed by that excellent specimen of humanity, the English shopkeeper (vol. 13, p. 484).” Many rumors became increasingly sensational, often related to unintentional exaggeration in the republication of proletariats. Chinese citizens also like to believe and spread rumors. When Marx reported on the Taiping Army, he noticed how they made use of this mentality to win. He wrote, “Emissaries are sent out first to feel the way out in secret, spread alarming rumors, start some fires. If these emissaries are seized by the mandarins and executed, others follow immediately, until either the mandarins flee with the population of the city or, as was the case at Ningpo, the demoralization that has set in makes the victory of the insurgents much easier (vol. 19, p. 218). […] If the emissaries have spread panic, they are followed by purposely chased fugitive villagers, who exaggerate the number and power and frightfulness of the advancing army. While the flames rise inside the city and, perhaps, its troops take the field under the impression of these scenes of terror, they see in the distance, dizzying their minds, a few of the harlequin hellhounds, whose appearance has a magnetic effect (vol. 19, p. 218).” Marx did not approve of this primitive method of fighting, and regarded it as a deformed phenomenon of stagnation in Chinese society. Of course, sometimes rumors are caused by objective conditions. At the time of social chaos, it was often difficult for the media to ensure the accuracy of news because of the limitations of communication technology and interview conditions. This was the situation on the eve of the fall of the Second French Empire in 1869. According to Engels, “At a moment like this, the bourgeois press does not tell us anything about what is really happening, and even the revolutionary press does not suffice to enlighten one. The confusion is certainly great (vol. 43, p. 373).” Sometimes, rumors are caused by a misinterpretation of the language. In 1853, the British rumored that there was a riot in Serbia, and Marx soon discovered that this was due to a translation problem between different languages. He corrected in the report that “Yesterday the same papers communicated the outbreak of a counterrevolution in Serbia, yet this news likewise rested on no better foundation than a false translation of the German word, Auflauf , the fact being that only a small riot had taken place (vol. 12, p. 278).” In an enclosed environment, rumors can be easily controlled by the ruler. For example, during the Indian uprising in 1857, British colonial authorities relied on

298

14 The Psychology of Intercourse

rumors to maintain calm in areas outside the uprising. Marx wrote, “The persistent rumours about the fall of Delhi are being circulated throughout India by the government in Calcutta, no less, and are intended, as I see from the Indian papers, as the chief means of preventing unrest in the Madras and Bombay presidencies (vol. 40, p. 152).” However, the cost of doing so is often fatal. Once the social information is clear and the truth is exposed, the status of the ruler will be shaken. After the outbreak of the revolution in 1848, Germany’s enclosed environment was broken, resulting in the situation that Engels described as “[t]hings are indeed beginning to look brighter. The lies and misrepresentations which the old government organs have been so busy spreading about Poland and Italy, the attempts at stirring’up enmity artificially, the turgid phrases proclaiming that German honour or German power is at stake—all these formulas have lost their magic power (vol. 7, p. 166).” The disintegration of the Second French Empire was at a time when the rumors made by the ruler were broken. Marx pointed out, “The silly lies in the Moniteur, the frivolous pamphlets indited by the literary condottieri of the Emperor, and the evident signs of vacillation, distress, and even fear, on the part of the fox who is forced to play the lion, have done the rest, and turned general hatred to general contempt (vol. 16, p. 268)”.

Chapter 15

The Mental Intercourse of Workers

Marx and Engels were working-class thinkers, and with them, the issue of workers’ mental intercourse, which was generally not valued by society, received special attention. They first systematically expounded on the history of the development of the working-class spirit, summed up the experiences and lessons of internal communication among the workers’ political parties, and stipulated a series of principles premised on modern consciousness on the Marxist workers’ party’s mental intercourse. Throughout their discussion of the mental intercourse of workers, two lines of thought can be clearly seen: fighting tenaciously with narrow sectarian consciousness and expanding workers’ horizons of intercourse; and resolutely defending the purity of Marxist theory and the workers’ honor of external contact.

15.1 Large Industries and the Mental Development of Workers The study of political economics and the investigation of the working class caused Marx to attach great importance to the spiritual activities of workers. In 1844 and 1863 respectively, Marx quoted the same paragraph in the book Production Movement by German political commentator Schultz, “To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs—they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment. The developments in the labour organism gain this time (vol. 3, p. 242).” From this perspective, while demonstrating the physical exploitation of workers by capital, he and Engels both ruthlessly exposed capital’s strangulation of the workers’ mental development. Engels believed that an important reason why factory workers were reduced to livestock was that they demonstrated no mental activity. According to him, “It offers no field for mental activity, and claims just enough of his attention to keep him from thinking of anything else. And a sentence to such work, to work which takes his © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_15

299

300

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

whole time for itself, leaving him scarcely time to eat and sleep, none for physical exercise in the open air,/ or the enjoyment of Nature, much less for mental activity, how can such a sentence help degrading a human being to the level of a brute? (vol. 4, pp. 415–416)” Marx also pointed out that “the encroachment of capital over the time of labour is the appropriation of the life, the mental and physical life, of the worker (vol. 33, p. 493) […]. The savage and the animal have at least the need to hunt, to roam, etc.—the need of companionship (vol. 3, p. 308).” It was this huge sacrifice made by the workers that enabled the spiritual interactions of the upper classes of society to develop. Marx quoted the French economist Gargne’s words, “From another angle, the less time the working class has to exploit the domain of knowledge, the more time remains for the other class. If the men of this latter class can devote themselves consistently and assiduously to philosophical observations or literary compositions, it is because they are free from all concern for the production, manufacture, or transportation of the objects of their daily subsistence, and because other people have undertaken the burden of these mechanical operations for them (vol. 30, p. 301) […] Thus, the more society advances towards a state of splendour and power, the less time the working class will have to give to studying and to intellectual and speculative work (vol. 30, p. 301) […]. That is to say, the free time of society is based on the absorption of the worker’s time by compulsory labour; thus he loses room for intellectual development, for that is time (vol. 30, p. 301).” This view of Gargne accurately reflected the relationship between the division of labor between mental and physical work in the early industrial revolution. There is no doubt that mental activity is based on the creation of necessary labor; but from this point of view, it is believed that the more prosperous a society, the narrower the space for worker’s spiritual development, but obviously the judgment is wrong. Marx said in other places that with the prosperity of society, the time for workers to participate in social spiritual activities will increase. Marx and Engels also talked about the impact of poverty on the spiritual development of workers. Marx said, “Their material privation dwarfs their moral as well as their physical stature (vol. 22, p. 602).” While Engels also quoted a British child labor investigator, saying, “Symons observes that poverty exercises the same ruinous influence upon the mind which drunkenness exercises upon the body (vol. 4, p. 412).” Since mental intercourse was extremely suppressed by poverty, when conditions permit, workers had to regard intercourse as the end itself and pursued it hungrily. After observing the lives of workers in the Paris Hotel in 1844, Marx wrote, “as a result of this association, they acquire a new need—the need for society—and what appears as a means becomes an end. In this practical process, the most splendid results are to be observed whenever French socialist workers are seen together. Such things as smoking, drinking, eating, etc., are no longer means of contact or means that bring them together. Association, society and conversation, which again has association as its end, are enough for them; 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 (vol. 3, p. 313).” From the workers, he saw the meaning of intercourse for the lives of people (not just workers).

15.1 Large Industries and the Mental Development of Workers

301

Marx and Engels were rational thinkers, not perceptual moralists, so they did not, like some utopian socialists, negate the industrial revolution because the workers suffered physical and mental damage from the industrial revolution. They believed that only the development of large industries can awaken workers’ awareness of their own mental development. Engels once talked about the mental lives of workers on the eve of the British Industrial Revolution. He said, “intellectually, they were dead; lived only for their petty, private interest, for their looms and gardens, and knew nothing of the mighty movement which, beyond their horizon, was sweeping through mankind. They were comfortable in their silent vegetation, and but for the industrial revolution they would never have emerged from this existence, which, cosily romantic as it was, was nevertheless not worthy of human beings (vol. 4, p. 309).” Clearly, this poor early worker’s life was not worthy of nostalgia. Therefore, when refuting a Proudhonist, Engels pointed out that “now comes this tearful Proudhonist and bewails the driving of the workers from hearth and home as though it were a great retrogression instead of being the very first condition of their intellectual emancipation (vol. 23, p. 323).” Marx discussed the conditions for the development of workers’ spirit from the perspective of social development. As far as the cultural environment was concerned, the industrial society could provide many more opportunities than the agricultural society in terms of creating and meeting mental needs, and it was conducive to the long-term development of workers’ mental life. In this regard, Marx said, “he would have seen that I depict large-scale industry not only as the mother of the antagonism, but also as the producer of material and intellectual conditions for resolving these antagonisms, though this cannot proceed along pleasant lines (vol. 42, p. 552).” From November to December 1849, Engels lived with some Paris workers who were sent by the state to the country to repair flood dams during their exile in France. These workers were the main participants of the French February revolution the year before. He deeply felt the impact of the urban environment representing the large industry on the level of workers’ mental intercourse as according to him, “They appeared not to read any papers any more (vol. 7, p. 517) […]. The exhausting work, their relatively good living conditions and especially the separation from Paris and transfer to a remote, quiet corner of France had reduced their horizon remarkably. They were already on the point of turning into rustics, and they had only been there for two months (vol. 7, p. 5).” Under the conditions of industrial society, it became self-evident that the entire life of a laborer is nothing other than labor power, that therefore all his disposable time is by nature and law labor time, to be devoted to the self-expansion of capital. Time for education, for intellectual development, for the fulfilling of social functions and for social intercourse, for the free-play of his bodily and mental activity, even the rest time of Sunday (and that in a country of Sabbatarians!)’—moonshine! (vol. 35, p. 270).” The higher-level mental activities include, “the worker’s participation in higher, including spiritual, pleasures, agitation for his own interests, subscription to newspapers, attending lectures, educating his children, developing his taste, etc., his only share in civilisation, which distinguishes him from the slave, is economically possible

302

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

only by his extension of the range of his enjoyments in times of good business, that is at the times when saving is possible to a certain degree. (vol. 28, p. 216).” These workers’ mental activities was achieved after many years of struggle. He and Engels supported various measures or legislation that were conducive to the physical and mental development of the workers in order to protect workers’ mental development. This was regardless of the motives of those pre-existing measures or legislation. For example, the necessary cultural education for workers and their children, legislation restricting working days. Marx’s analysis of this was, “Apart from higher motives, therefore, their own most important interests dictate to the classes that are for the nonce/the ruling ones, the removal of all legally removable hindrances to the free development of the working class (vol. 35, pp. 9-10).” This practice inadvertently caused the results to become what he and Engels put forth, “The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie (vol. 6, p. 493).” Especially the various factory laws in Britain, which Marx believed are “for development and movement … not only against the manufacturers, but also against the workers themselves (vol. 42, p. 552).” Among them, the laws restricting working days had been discussed from the perspective of workers’ mental development. According to Marx, “It is needed to restore the health and physical energies of the working class, that is, the great body of every nation, as well as to secure them the possibility of intellectual development, sociable intercourse, social and political action (vol. 20, p. 187).” Engels also said, “The fixing by Act of Parliament of their working-day within relatively rational limits has restored their physical constitution and endowed them with a moral superiority, enhanced by their local concentration (vol. 27, p. 265).” As the level of knowledge among early workers was limited, teaching them to realize the relationship between their mental development and vital interests required certain legal constraints. Because some workers were so narrow-minded, they resisted certain laws that actually benefited their long-term interests for the sake of the small interests in front of them, such as “the resistance of women workers to a limitation of hours (vol. 42, p. 552).” or “[i]n too many cases, [people are] even too ignorant to understand the true interest of his child, or the normal conditions of human development (vol. 20, p. 189).” In fact, he felt that “[o]ne element of success they possess—numbers; but numbers weigh only in the balance, if united by combination and led by knowledge (vol. 20, p. 12).” Marx believed that although large industry was a condition for the liberation of workers’ spirit, the capitalist system was also a fundamental obstacle to the development of the workers’ spirit.

15.2 The Historical Form and Characteristics of Workers …

303

15.2 The Historical Form and Characteristics of Workers’ Mental Intercourse The most reflective of the development level of workers’ mental intercourses were the various political interactions undertaken by workers. Marx and Engels divided the development of workers’ spirit into two stages, taking the 1840s as a turning point. Before this, it was a childhood stage for the spiritual development of workers; thereafter it was a stage of maturity. The main signs of maturity are the establishment of the International Workingmen’s Association in 1864 and the Paris Commune in 1871. The most obvious form of worker political interaction was the organization of workers. In the United Kingdom, early workers’ organizations were mainly various trade unions (FTU) and workers’ associations. In such an organization, people’s contacts soon developed into an understanding of the interests of the class. In reviewing this history, Marx wrote, “The constitution of these workers’ associations is accordingly the same everywhere. One day per week was devoted to discussion, another to social activities (singing, recitations, etc.). Libraries were set up everywhere, and where possible classes in elementary education were started for the instruction of the workers (vol. 17, p. 78).” Engels also wrote, “Only when estranged from his employer, when convinced that the sole bond between employer and employee is the bond of pecuniary profit, when the sentimental bond between them, which stood not the slightest test, had wholly fallen away, then only did the worker begin to recognise his own interests and develop independently; then only did he cease to be the slave of the bourgeoisie in his thoughts, feelings, and the expression of his will. And to this end manufacture on a grand scale and in great cities has most largely contributed (vol. 4, p. 419).” This workers’ organization formed the National Workers’ Association, a national worker’s political party with 4 million workers, in the 1830s and 1940s. Marx and Engels had pointed out numerous times that “[o]f Radical shams there has been unfortunately enough since the break-up of the first working men’s party which the world ever produced—the Chartist party (vol. 24, p. 406).” In countries that were relatively closed at the time, such as France and Germany, worker organizations were secret. Marx and Engels affirmed the significance of such activities, pointing out that “[t]he tireless propaganda carried on by these proletarians, their daily discussions among themselves, sufficiently prove how little they themselves want to remain ‘as of old’, and how little they want people to remain ‘as of old’ (vol. 5, p. 214).” However, they believe that intercourse under secret conditions can only keep workers on such low-level intercourse forever. In the early days of workers engaged in social intercourse, small hotels, cafes, etc. were their main activities. According to Engels, “his social need can be gratified only in the public-house, he has absolutely no other place where he can meet/ his friends (vol. 4, pp. 400–401).” Judging from the public nature of this place, he considered it a kind of “oblig[ation] to give up even this innocent means of communicating with

304

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

each other (vol. 6, p. 560).” Marx and Engels engaged in communist propaganda in the early days, and they also approached workers in such places. In view of the level of mental development among early workers, the form and content of mental intercourses they engaged in and accepted were most popular in popular literature, while theories, economic, and philosophy were still limited to the interests of a few worker leaders. Therefore, Marx and Engels said, “the systems themselves they nearly all appeared in the early days of the communist movement and had at that time propaganda value as popular novels, which corresponded perfectly to the still undeveloped consciousness of the proletarians, who were then just beginning to play an active part (vol. 5, p. 461).” After decades of stubborn struggle, by the 1840s, the situation of workers’ mental intercourse had changed. Especially in the UK, the considerable scale and higher levels described by Engels were formed. He wrote, “The workers now have good, cheap editions of translations of the French philosophical works of the last century, chiefly Rousseau’s Contrat social, the Système de la Nature and various works by Voltaire, and in addition the exposition of communist principles in penny and twopenny pamphlets and in the journals. The workers also have in their hands cheap editions of the writings of Thomas Paine and Shelley. Furthermore, there are also the Sunday lectures, which are very diligently attended; thus during my stay in Manchester I saw the Communist Hall, which holds about 3000 people, crowded every Sunday, and I heard there speeches which have a direct effect, which are made from the special viewpoint of the people, and in which witty remarks against the clergy occur. It happens frequently that Christianity is directly attacked and Christians are called "our enemies" (vol. 3, p. 387).” He also said, “I have often heard working-men, whose fustian jackets scarcely held together, speak upon geological, astronomical, and other subjects, with more knowledge than most “cultivated” bourgeois in Germany possess. And in how great a measure the English proletariat has succeeded in attaining independent education is shown especially by the fact that the epoch-making products of modern philosophical, political, and poetical literature are read by working-men almost exclusively (vol. 4, p. 528) […]. The proletariat has formed upon this basis a literature, which consists chiefly of journals and pamphlets, and is far in advance of the whole bourgeois literature in intrinsic worth. On this point more later (vol. 4, p. 528).” Marx and Engels saw the good qualities shown by the mental development of the workers but also pointed out more the immature nature. First of all, the workers lacked a sense of independence and relied to a certain extent on some people in the proletariat (Utopian Socialists) to speak on their behalf. In this regard, they pointed out that it was “logical at a time when the proletariat has not yet developed sufficiently to act as a class. Certain thinkers criticise social antagonisms and suggest fantastic solutions thereof, which the mass of workers is left to accept, preach and put into practice (vol. 23, p. 106).” Most of these thinkers abandoned the actual political movement and condemned the workers’ strike, association, and political initiation. However, it was also them who provided many enlightenment factors for the working class, as well as many books and periodicals that improved the intellectual level of workers. This is why

15.2 The Historical Form and Characteristics of Workers …

305

Marx said, “while we cannot repudiate these patriarchs of socialism, just as chemists cannot repudiate their forebears the alchemists, we must at least avoid lapsing into their mistakes, which, if we were to commit them, would be inexcusable (vol. 23, p. 394).” Secondly, because the early workers’ horizons were not broadened, the competition among free workers which was caused by free competition had not been eliminated, and there were serious denominations in their exchanges. Marx and Engels wrote, “The first phase of the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie is marked by a sectarian movement (vol. 23, p. 106) […].These sects act as levers of the movement in the beginning, but become an obstruction as soon as the movement outgrows them; after which they become reactionary (vol. 23, p. 107). […] To sum up, we have here the infancy of the proletarian movement, just as astrology and alchemy are the infancy of science. If the International were to be founded it was necessary that the proletariat would go through this phase (vol. 23, p. 107).” Finally, the content of the early workers’ interactions was often vulgar and politically reactionary. This was related to the narrow vision of the workers at that time. They cursed reality and could not realize the root cause of poverty, so they vented their hatred to some non-cause targets. Therefore, Marx and Engels pointed out that “The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form (vol. 6, p. 514).” For example, the concept of average wealth, they proposed a public wife system. Marx criticized that, saying, “this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism (vol. 3, p. 294). […] General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way (vol. 3, p. 295) […]. It has a definite, limited, standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it (vol. 3, p. 295).” Another example was the rejection of higher-level mental activities and products. Engels criticized, “they purposed making the world a working-man’s community, putting down every refinement of civilisation, science, the fine arts, etc., as useless, dangerous, and aristocratic luxuries, a prejudice necessarily arising from their total ignorance of history and political economy (vol. 3, p. 397).” They interpreted productive labor only as labor for the production of necessities, and therefore rejected higher-level mental products. They believed that they were the product of the exploitation of workers by the rich and destroyed capital and property. Marx criticized their views as asceticism, claiming that “[t]he former are determined to sacrifice the fruits which have developed within this antagonistic form, in order to get rid of the contradiction (vol. 32, p. 395).” Because of this concept, many workers’ denominations excluded culturally educated people in their actions, thus restricting the extent of their intercourses. Engels said this of the early German workers’ groups: “They who were otherwise

306

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

arch-democrats and extreme equalitarians to the extent of fostering ineradicable suspicion against any schoolmaster, journalist, and any man generally who was not a manual worker as being an ‘erudite’ who was to exploit them, (vol. 27, p. 451).” All these problems in terms of intercoursal content and communication policy were manifested as retrogression in thinking. Marx and Engels commented on Feargus O’Connor, the main leader of the British Charter, saying that “[h]is whole nature is conservative and he most emphatically hates both industrial progress and revolution. All his ideals are patriarchal and petty-bourgeois to the core (vol. 10, p. 514).” Marx and Engels did not despise workers’ mental activities for this reason. They gave heartfelt praise for every progress the workers showed in their mental activities. In 1846, the German worker communist Wilhelm Weitling founded the Die Junge Generation magazine under very difficult conditions. Engels once wrote that “This paper, although written for working men only, and by a working man, has from its beginning been superior to most of the French Communist publications, even to Father Cabet’s Populaire. It shows that its editor must have worked very hard to obtain that knowledge of history and politics which a public writer cannot do without, and which a neglected education had left him deprived of (vol. 3, p. 402).” Marx wrote about Wettering’s book Guarantee of Harmony and Freedom, “As for the educational level or capacity for education of the German workers in general, I call to mind Weitling’s brilliant writings, which as regards theory are often superior even to those of Proudhon, however much they are inferior to the latter in their execution (vol. 3, p. 201). […] it is enough to compare these gigantic infant shoes of the proletariat with the dwarfish, worn-out political shoes of the German bourgeoisie, and one is/bound to prophesy that the German Cinderella will one day have the figure of an athlete (vol. 3, pp. 201–202).” They saw the pursuit of their own development from the workers’ early mental activities, which is why they wanted people to understand that “One must know the studiousness, the craving for knowledge, the moral energy and the unceasing urge for development of the French and English workers to be able to form an idea of the human nobility of this movement (vol. 4, p. 84).” They opposed the mental aristocracy above the workers, believing that workers could also liberate themselves mentally. When the young Hegelian philosopher Bruno Bauer tried to be the spiritual savior of the workers, Marx pointed out, “Modern prose and poetry emanating in England and France from the lower classes of the people would show it that the lower classes of the people know how to raise themselves spiritually even without being directly overshadowed by the Holy Ghost of Critical Criticism (vol. 4, p. 135).” Marked by the establishment of the International Workers’ Association, newspapers and public international workers’ organizations have become a modern form of worker interaction. Engels said, “It was the moment when the common, cosmopolitan interests of the proletariat could come to the fore (vol. 45, p. 41).” Under this background of international union, he and Marx described the scenario as “let Mr. Cochrane console himself, the International has plenty of organs of its own in Europe and America, and in almost all civilised languages (vol. 23, p. 141). The activities and influence of dozens of newspapers and periodicals of the International Workers Association in the 1860s and 1970s showed that the workers’ mental intercourses had

15.2 The Historical Form and Characteristics of Workers …

307

entered adulthood, and the international organization itself had become an extremely rapid information dissemination network organization. Marked by the Paris Commune, Marx believed that the sectarian stage of worker development was basically over. After the 1870s, the workers’ mental intercourses adapted to the economic, political, and cultural characteristics of various countries and exhibited a variety of situations. The independent workers’ political parties in each country have become the bridge of interconnection within the working class of the country. The main external communication medium is the newspaper. In this regard, Marx said in 1879 that “the growth of Socialism of late years has been so great that its existence has become unnecessary. Newspapers have been started in the various countries. These are interchanged. That is about the only connection the parties in the different countries have with one another (vol. 24, p. 575).” Engels further pointed out in 1882, “On the other hand the International does indeed still exist. In so far as it can be effective, there is liaison between the revolutionary workers of all countries. Every socialist journal is an international centre; from Geneva, Zurich, London, Paris, Brussels and Milan the threads run criss-cross in all directions and I honestly don’t see how at this juncture the grouping of these small centres round a large main centre could give added strength to the movement—it would probably only lead to greater friction (vol. 46, p. 197).” In Engels’ later years, Marxist workers’ parties in various countries (especially Germany) not only had millions of newspaper readers but also established their own distribution network, with their own publishing houses, bookstores, and various workers’ clubs. In 1886, Engels said the following when he published the memoirs of an old worker professional revolutionary, “So far as his ideas about the sale of banned books are concerned, he might still be living in the ‘40s,/ and he has no inkling of the way this has now changed into a big industry (vol. 47, pp. 502–503).” This reflected the tremendous changes in workers’ mental activities during the past 40 years. Until 1895, the year in which he died, he was still talking about the workers’ newspaper. He wrote, “you will never be able to compete with the bourgeois papers who not only monopolise the sources but can also organize news-gathering services on a footing similar to that of big industry (vol. 50, 433).” Marx and Engels had done a lot of work to promote the development of the workers’ mentality. Their general principle was: “one can still be progressive and resist the workers’ reactionary appetites and their prejudices (vol. 39, p. 68).” To this end, they first opposed the workers’ organization of secret groups whenever conditions permitted because such organizations were limited the scope of workers’ intercourses and artificially created various denominations. Marx specifically addressed this issue at the Congress of the International Workers’ Association, stating that “this type of organisation is opposed to the development of the proletarian movement because, instead of instructing the workers, these societies subject them to authoritarian, mystical laws which cramp their independence and distort their powers of reason—He seeks acceptance of the motion (vol. 22, p. 621).” Secondly, they resolutely opposed the sectarian consciousness in workers’ interactions. Engels said, “the only thing that could really delay its march, would be the consolidation of these differences into established sects (vol. 48, p. 8).” Marx also

308

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

pointed out that “[o]n the other hand, the International could not have asserted itself if the course of history had not already smashed sectarianism. The development of socialist sectarianism and that of the real labour movement always stand in indirect proportion to each other. So long as the sects are justified (historically), the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historical movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary (vol. 44, p. 252).” Sects had multiple manifestations in terms of workers’ interaction. Conceptually, this was manifested as a spiritual dictatorship by sectarian leaders, and the blind worship of leaders by the masses of workers; in action, it manifested itself as a kind of sectarian fanaticism, repulsion of mental workers, and unprincipled fights between the newspapers and newspapers of various factions and many more. As early as 1849, the Cologne Workers Union, under the influence of Marx, criticized its former leader Andreas Gottschalk, claiming that “Dr. Gottschalk took the opportunity of the Democratic Congress in Frankfurt to state that he was able to utilise the Cologne workers just as much for a red monarchy as for a red republic, thus alleging that the workers themselves were merely a machine blindly obedient to him; (vol. 9, p. 498).” When recalling the past, Marx said, “When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules. (Lassalle subsequently operated in the reverse direction.) (vol. 45, p. 288).” In the 1860s, when the German workers’ movement recovered, Marx discovered that when Lasal began to agitate among the workers, he found that “in Levy’s presence, he was constantly reiterating his ’dictatorial aspirations’ (vol. 40, p. 24).” This resulted in new sectarianism in the German workers’ movement. In 1868, Marx sent a letter to Johann Schweitzer, the successor of LaSalle to admonish him. He wrote, “You yourself know the difference between a sect movement and a class movement from personal experience (vol. 43, p. 133). […] that a new stage of development had been reached and the sect movement was now ripe to merge into the class movement and end all ’eanisms’ (vol. 43, p. 134). […] The latter is mostly concerned with financial issues, and you will soon discover that all dictatorialism finds its end here (vol. 43, p. 135).” Marx and Engels often satirized various stupid acts of worshiping leaders. When the LaSalle newspapers engaged in this kind of worship, Marx called it “infantile ’apotheosis’ (vol. 42, p. 71).” and criticized it, saying “an institution for the idolization of Keir Hardie (vol. 50, p. 434).” For poems written by some workers, such as We Will Be Lasalists, Marx called them “nonsense [that] has got to stop BY and BY (vol. 42, p. 71).” Once, he quoted such a poem: Thou German proletariat, come heed The clarion call, nor any longer stay! Here stands a man prepared to pave the way To thy prosperity. Be thine the deed! He hath no truck with lofty parliaments,

15.2 The Historical Form and Characteristics of Workers …

309

Nor doth he flaunt his gift of eloquence, Speaks for us all with homely wit and colour, Man of the People, Ferdinand Lassalle! Macte puer! If that isn’t sauce for the gander!(vol. 41, p. 475).

An important manifestation of the sect in action was the continuation of the spiritual development of workers in childhood and exclude mental workers. Shortly after the establishment of the International Workers Association, the representative of France proposed a bill of this content, but it was rejected and the bill drafted by Marx was passed. It said, “At the same time, the Council seizes this opportunity of expressing its high esteem for Citizen Lefort, in particular as one of the initiators of the Working Men’s International Society and in general for his approved public character, and further it protests that it does not sanction the principle that none but an ouvrier is admissible as an official in our society (vol. 20, p. 82).” According to Marx, “A further factor is this: the workers seem to want to take things to the point of excluding any literary man, etc., which is absurd, as they need them in the press, but it is pardonabl e in view of the repeated treachery of the literary men (vol. 42, p. 109).” This consciousness of repelling literati continued to appear after the failure of the Paris Commune. In 1873, Marx received a leaflet written by Gustave-Paul Cluseret, a former commune member and military representative. On it was written, “In some respects the fellows even go further than the Jurassians, e.g. they call for the expulsion of the so-called brain-workers. (The nicest thing about the whole business is that this piece of nonsense was written by that miserable MILITARY ADVENTURER Cluseret (who in Geneva describes himself as the founder of the ’International’ in America) (vol. 44, p. 535).” In 1881, Engels criticized the Parisian Proletariat. He said, “The Prolétaire was the organ of the very narrowest clique of the most inveterate scribblers among the Parisian workers. It was axiomatic that access could be had and contributions made only by genuine manual workers. The most bigoted Weitlingian ’scholar’-baiting was the order of the day. The sheet was in consequence quite without substance, while preening itself on being la plus pure expression of the Parisian proletariat (vol. 46, p. 145).” On the other hand, some party members of workers’ backgrounds pursued formal ‘learning’, which caused the party to make some theoretical fallacies. In this regard, Marx criticized the most leftist representative of the German party Mr. Most. He wrote, “The workers themselves, when like Mr Most and Co. they give up working and become literati by profession, invariably wreak ’theoretical’ havoc and are always ready to consort with addleheads of the supposedly ’learned’ caste (vol. 45, p. 283).” Like the ‘return to ancestral phenomenon’ in social development, the mental intercourses of workers in the mature stage often occurred in various childhood stages. For example, the illegal sectarian organization within the International Workers’ Association, The Alliance of Socialist Democracy, threatened with assassination, prohibiting its members from contacting the Madrid branch’s agency newspaper recognized by the International General Committee. Marx and Engels wrote, “The Alliance congregation of the Index marked out La Emancipation for the censure of

310

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

the faithful. At Cadiz, to instil a salutary fear into the hearts of the sinful, it was stated that any person selling La Emancipation would be expelled from the International as a traitor. The Alliance’s anarchy takes the form of inquisitorial practice (vol. 23, p. 494).” It took some time to clear the traditional and narrow concept of communication in the worker’s mental intercourse. Marx and Engels spent a lot of energy fighting this tenaciously. For example, in the 1840s, the famous French publication Workshop, whose editors were all proletariats who were excellent workers in terms of behavior and loyalty, but promoted feudal socialism. Thirty years after this publication disappeared, its influence was still there, and Marx had to criticize again: “It would be superfluous to deal here with the criticism of the recipe prescribed by Bûchez in the reign of Louis Philippe in opposition to the French Socialists and accepted by the reactionary workers of the Atelier (vol. 24, p. 93).” Due to the influence of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s bourgeois socialism, 20 years after his death, Marx found that “those in Paris, who as workers in luxury trades are, without realising it, themselves deeply implicated in the garbage of the past. Ignorantly vain, arrogant, compulsively talkative, rhetorically inflated, they were on the verge of spoiling everything, as they flocked to the congress in numbers quite out of proportion to the number of their members (vol. 42, p. 326).” In London, trade unionism at the beginning of the nineteenth century was still prevalent after the 1960s, which severely hindered the expansion of the scope and scope of worker interaction. According to Marx, “As everywhere, the London workers, of course, also include a knot of asses, fools and rogues, rallying round a scoundrel (vol. 42, p. 154).” Despite this, Marx and Engels were still full of confidence in the future of the workers’ mental development. They pointed out in the editor’s note for an article written for workers: “Before the proletariat fights out its victories on the barricades and in the battle lines it gives notice of its impending rule with a series of intellectual victories (vol. 10, p. 485).” Through their exposition on the history of workers’ spiritual development, we can see that this conviction of victory is accompanied by the process of the struggle between scientific socialism and workers’ ignorance and prejudice. In 1872, a statement issued by workers who had been freed from the influence of the Louis-Auguste Blanqui sect caught Marx’s attention.

15.3 Newspapers as the Essential Living Materials of Workers Marx and Engels had always examined the relationship between newspapers and workers from two aspects. From a political perspective, they regarded workers’ reading of political newspapers as a measure of workers’ mental development. In

15.3 Newspapers as the Essential Living Materials of Workers

311

1891, the French Socialist Party’s Le Socialiste did not retail, only accepted subscriptions, and the number of subscribers increased every day. Engels wrote to the editorial office of the newspaper about this, “It goes to show that your working men are beginning to read and to acquire a taste for other things besides sensational and pornographic newspapers. You may be proud of this success; it augurs very well (vol. 49, p. 123).” This situation started in Germany when LaSalle reinvigorated among the workers (in the early 1960s). Engels said, “Since that time our workers have read newspapers to a far greater extent and far more regularly and to the same extent they have become thereby more familiar with foreign words (vol. 24, p. 458).” Since he and Marx talked more about this issue from a political perspective, later researchers tended to focus only on this aspect. Although they (especially Marx) also inspected the relationship between newspapers and workers from the perspective of economics, they were ignored. From 1861 to 1863, Marx wrote continuously and completed a set of 23 manuscripts (1472 pages) of economic manuscripts. In his notebook XV (approximately written in 1862), he began to list newspapers along with bread, meat, beer, and milk as ‘products consumed by workers every day’. Then, in the notebook XXI (written in May 1863), the newspaper was clearly included in the ‘essential living materials’ of British urban workers. He wrote, “The conditions of his existence—and also the limited extent of the value of the money he has acquired—naturally compel him to spend it on a rather restricted range of means of subsistence. Nevertheless, /some degree of variation is possible here, such as, e.g. newspapers, which form part of the necessary means of subsistence of the English urban worker (vol. 34, pp. 100–101).” From then on, when Marx talked about the reading of newspapers by British workers (including workers from other countries in the future), newspapers were the necessary means of living for workers and it became his prerequisite for talking about problems. From July 1863 to June 1864, he drafted Das Kapital Volume One Chap. 6 ‘Results of the Direct Production Process’, which focused on the relationship between newspapers and workers’ lives, and included the notebook XXI in the 1861– 1863 manuscript, which the content of the relevant page was almost completely used in the new manuscript. In 1864–1865, in the first draft of Volume Two of Das Kapital, he reiterated his previous views. Here, he referred to workers in general, not just British workers. This can be explained by Marx’s last article, Workers’ Questionnaire, which he wrote for the French magazine La Revue Socialiste in 1880. In question 24 of the third part of the article, he investigated “the price of [the workers’] necessaries, such as … purchase of journals, (vol. 24, p. 332).” Clearly, Marx now believed that French newspapers were also a necessary means of living for workers. Marx was of the view that ‘newspapers were a necessary means of life for workers’ and accumulated 20 years of observation materials, not just talking about it casually. When he began studying economics in 1844, he noticed that workers were acquiring “a new need—the need for society —and what appears as a means becomes an end (vol. 3, p. 313).”

312

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

In 1851, he discovered that the monetary wage system gave workers greater personal freedom, while “the nature of the income is still determined by the type of occupation, not only as at present by the quantity of the universal medium of exchange, but also by the nature of his occupation, the ways in which the individual can enter into relations with society and appropriate it are extremely limited, and the social organisation for the interchange of the material and intellectual products of society is from the outset/restricted to a definite method and a particular content (vol. 10, pp. 591–592). […] On the other hand, the money the workers are able to spare after paying for the most essential means of subsistence, can be used by them to buy books, lecturers and meetings, instead of meat and bread. They are in a better position to acquire the universal powers of society, such as the intellectual ones (vol. 10, p. 591).” Meanwhile, “the worker’s participation in higher, including spiritual, pleasures, agitation for his own interests, subscription to newspapers, attending lectures, educating his children, developing his taste, etc., his only share in civilisation, which distinguishes him from the slave, is economically possible only by his extension of the range of his enjoyments in times of good business, that is at the times when saving is possible to a certain degree (vol. 28, p. 216).” In the 1850s and 1960s, Marx followed closely the progress of the British shortening working days, popularizing national education, and abolishing knowledge tax. The shortening of working days had relatively increased the free time of workers and provided conditions for national education; Penny News became popular with the abolition of knowledge tax, just in line with popularizing national education. In this way, the newspaper became a necessary means of living for the workers, and then that became apparent. People usually interpreted the ‘necessary living materials’ to be consumer goods in daily life. However, Marx also included mental intercourse media such as newspapers in the category of necessary living materials, thus illustrating the importance of mental intercourse for the survival and development of workers under modern conditions. One of the main signs that humans are different from animals is that they have high-level spiritual activities and interactions. Such mental activities and interactions develop in parallel with human material production and human production. The emancipation of the working class had always included both material emancipation and spiritual emancipation. As people in society, their mental lives and intercourse were not optional but rather, necessary. However, the sword and fire of the primitive accumulation of capital had almost completely wiped out the mental needs of the workers. Their mental needs burst out during the resistance. It was just like Engels described, “The English working-man who can scarcely read and still less write, nevertheless knows very well where his own interest and that of the nation lies. […] If he cannot write/ he can speak, and speak in public (vol. 4, pp. 410–411).” Later, the newspaper became a necessary means of life for workers, which is one of the signs of social civilization progress. With the advancement of civilization throughout the world, the proportion of mental products in human essential life showed an increasing trend.

15.3 Newspapers as the Essential Living Materials of Workers

313

Newspapers had become a necessary means of living for workers. The direct reasons for that were the implementation of the monetary wage system, the shortening of working days, the popularization of national education, and the abolition of knowledge tax. From a macro perspective, this was an inevitable result of the industrial revolution and the communication revolution in the 19th century. With the completion of the Industrial Revolution, artisans in the past must have a minimum level of culture in order to adapt to the reform of the means of production driven by the steam engine and become the "manpower" of large machines-modern workers. The communication revolution marked by the reform of communication and transportation had modernized various intercoursal methods, helped production continue to use time to overcome the obstacles of space, and achieved tremendous social development. The circulation of newspapers and magazines also increased rapidly. This way, the newspaper became the necessary information in the life of the workers of the lower levels of society and this was mentioned in the agenda. Capital destroys all old living habits, destroys all restrictions on the use and exchange of mental power, and involves the entire society, and thus the working class, into a wide range of social connections. Newspapers are a necessary means of life for workers and an inevitable trend of social development, but there are differences between the time when it becomes a reality in various countries. Of course, the ruling class cannot imagine what kind of counter-effects they would inadvertently give the workers. The newspaper Marx referred to in 1862–1863 as a necessary means of life for British workers was not a political organ of the working class itself, but a popular penny newspaper that had just become popular. Their founders were cultural merchants or bourgeois liberties. Faction. As can be seen from the 1864 Inaugural Address of the Working Men’s International Association, at that time Marx blamed the British working class for the underdevelopment of the British workers’ newspaper. He wrote, “All the efforts made at keeping up, or remodelling, the Chartist Movement, failed signally; the press organs of the working class died one by one of the apathy of the masses, and, in point of fact, never before seemed the English working class so thoroughly reconciled to a state of political nullity (vol. 20, p. 10).” Although the content of penny newspapers was considered ‘low’, they gave workers the news, knowledge, and cultural entertainment necessary for daily life. From this perspective, Marx said that newspapers had become necessary materials for workers. The political class’s universal connection with the newspapers of this class was a higher symbol of the mental development of the working class. Its starting point was the Paris Commune in 1871.

15.4 The Spirit of the Paris Commune In the early morning of March 18, 1871, Paris was awakened by the thunderous cry of "Long live the Commune!" When this historical event was just revealed in front of people’s eyes, Marx quickly grasped its nature and meaning, immediately dropped

314

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

the theoretical research on political economy, and paid attention to every declaration and action of the Paris Commune, a workers’ regime. From March 18th to May 1st, he read newspapers of various countries and communes every day, a total of 27 kinds of newspapers; after the failure of the commune, he read dozens of newspapers, and the translations of newspaper excerpts were over 200,000 words. Since April, he had changed his draft several times, summarizing the experience of the commune in all aspects (including the communicative activities of the commune). Two days after the last soldiers of the Commune were martyred under the Commune Wall, on May 30, he read the International General Committee Declaration The Civil War in France drafted by him to the General Committee of the International Workers Association. The Paris Commune was the only incident that Marx encountered when the working class took control of power. Therefore, his exposition on the communicative activities of the commune seemed even more rare and important. When Marx discussed the mental intercoursal activities of the Paris Commune, he often used the communicative activities of the Versailles government, which was the direct enemy of the commune, as a comparison. This showed the class characteristics of the intercoursal activities of the working class after he held power. In The French Civil War and its drafts, he exposed the Versailles government’s intercourse policy. The head of this as iws Adolphe Thiers, whom Marx called a "vulgar professional reporter." In him, he concentrated the hypocrisy and reaction of the Versailles communication policy. Marx pointed out that before becoming the head of government, “he over and over rehearsed his stale homily of the “libertés nécessaires”, to stamp them out when in power (vol. 22, p. 453).” On the day when Paris raised the human flag on March 18, his government issued a law prohibiting the issuance of new newspapers and taxing all newspapers for two cents per copy. Immediately after, Versailles blocked all channels of communication between Paris and other provinces: The Provinces are only allowed to look at Paris through the Versailles camera obscura. (Nothing but the lies and slanders of the Versailles journals reach the departments and reign there unrivalled.) (vol. 22, p. 466). […] Thousands of commissioners of police scattered in the environs of Paris have been ordered by the prefect of the gendarmerie, Valentin, to confiscate journals of any trend published in the insurgent city, and to burn them publicly, as used to be done in the heyday of the Holy Inquisition (vol. 22, p. 467). Excerpts from newspapers published by Marx also recorded that as soon as the authorities found anyone with a newspaper published in Paris, the person was immediately sentenced to three months; in the notice to the governors of Versailles, all hotels and taverns were inspected and not allowed any kind of Parisian newspaper for customers to read. Confronting Versailles, the scumbag of society, was Paris full of bright workers. The commune policy of the Paris Commune was consistent. On the third day of the uprising in Paris, Engels reported to the International General Committee that “The Commune was to be elected the next day. They had announced that the liberty of the press should be respected but not the rotten Bonapartist press (vol. 22, p. 586).” In Britain, big newspapers were essentially a form of autonomy by which the nobles managed the country in the name of the bourgeoisie. In the Paris Commune,

15.4 The Spirit of the Paris Commune

315

newspapers were not tools manipulated by rulers. Marx pointed out, “It is not political self-government of the country through the means of an oligarchic club and the reading of The Times newspaper. It is the people acting for itself by itself (vol. 22, p. 464).” Commune newspapers and periodicals and various spiritual communication activities (clubs, gatherings, school education, religious activities, correspondence between the masses and the government and newspapers, etc.) exemplify this kind of people’s mastership. There were 30 or 40 newspapers in Paris. In addition to the Journal of the French Republic (Journal Officiel de le République Français), the communist government, the workers’ factions, such as the Blanquis, Proudhons, New Jacobins, as well as various workers’ clubs, all had their own newspapers. The bourgeois newspapers and newspapers were not allowed to publish any newspaper that did not collude with Versailles or engage in sabotage. Excerpts from the newspapers and periodicals made by Marx for the writing of the French Civil War, cited by the commune as narrations and comments on the facts, were mostly from the bourgeois radical newspaper Mot d’Ordre (a Parisian newspaper) and Le Rappel (Victor Hugo’s newspaper). These newspapers had opinions on the commune’s measures on specific issues, but they were not hostile to the commune. In France, the church’s mental intercourse with freedom in daily life was a huge deterrent. The commune began to change this situation after its establishment. Marx wrote, “Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the physical force elements of the old Government, the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the "parson-power," by the disestablishment and disendowment of all/churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the Apostles (vol. 22, pp. 331–332).” Clearly, religion as an intrinsic spiritual commune was not denied, but it is classified as a ‘private cleanup’, thus liberating worldly mental intercoursal activities and directly benefiting education and science. Marx noted that the commune attached great importance to the reform of education because it was the basis of the level of social interaction. He wrote, “There was, of course, no time to reorganize public instruction (education); but by removing the religious and clerical element from it, the Commune has taken the initiative in the mental emancipation of the people. It has appointed a Commission for the organization of education (vol. 22, p. 473). […] As the Professors of the Ecole de Médecine have run away, the Commune appointed a Commission for the foundation of free universities, no longer state parasites; (vol. 22, p. 474). […] By the disestablishment of all churches as proprietary bodies and the banishment of religious instruction from all public schools (together with gratuitous instruction) into the recesses of private life, there to live upon the alms of the faithful, the divestment of all educational institutes from governmental patronage and servitude, the mental force of repression was to be broken, science made not only accessible to all, but freed from the fetters of government pressure and class prejudice (vol. 22, p. 537).” Education in France had long been subject to arbitrary control by administrative officials and priests, and the scope of teaching has been greatly restricted. These measures truly reflected the policy of freedom of public relations.

316

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

Science had also been liberated by restricting religious and government oppression of mental activities. In response, Marx wrote, “They feel that only the working class can emancipate them from priest rule, convert science from an instrument of class rule into a popular force, convert the men of science themselves from the panderers to class prejudice, place hunting state parasites, and allies of capital into free agents of thought! Science can only play its genuine part in the Republic of Labour. (vol. 22, p. 496).” Commune newspapers and magazines were the defenders of the Commune cause. However, except for a few newspapers (such as Cri du Peuple) who were willing to publish different opinions at the same time, most newspapers only wanted to publish articles that reflected their views. Since each faction had its own newspapers, they reflected the public opinion of the commune as a whole. Marx recorded an event in the newspaper excerpt: The Secretary General of the Commune Executive Committee and the Social Rescue Committee Brisack tended to the New Jacobin, who originally wrote for the Pro Commune La Commune and later felt that he could not be fully free in the newspaper Posting his own opinions, it is natural to switch to an article in Le Vengeur who shares his views. When conditions permitted, maximizing the declaration of the implementation of the people’s freedom of publication into action was the basic feature of the public relations policy in Paris. The commune seized more than a dozen newspapers and periodicals. This was not against the declaration of freedom of publication, but that these newspapers went beyond the responsibilities of newspapers and engaged in conspiracy against the commune. Marx pointed out, “while it burned by its gendarme inquisitors all papers printed at Paris, and sifted all correspondence from and to Paris […] with the savage warfare of Versailles outside, and its attempts at corruption and conspiracy inside Paris—would the Commune not have shamefully betrayed its trust by affecting to keep up all the decencies and appearances of liberalism as in a time of profound peace? Had the Government of the Commune been akin to that of M. Thiers, there would have been no more occasion to suppress Party-of-Order papers at Paris than there was to suppress Communal papers at Versailles. (vol. 22, p. 340).” Paris-Communist Commissioner and reporter Charles-Auguste-Arthur Arnould reviewed in 1878 the commune’s communication policy and wrote that during the Empire period, he once strongly demanded freedom of the press and declared that the freedom of the press as an absolute, primary, and gifted right, as well as the rights of association and assembly. If they could not establish the principles that they had advocated in the past, they could not allow others to respect them seriously, and if they were not used to implementing these principles, then they would never be able to establish true principles. The policies of intercourse he expressed in the commune were described by Marx in a few short and powerful strokes just after the incident. The newspapers and periodicals of the commune assumed the responsibility of social supervision of the newspapers and periodicals. In the excerpts of Marx’s newspapers and periodicals, detailed disclosures were made of the commune’s newspapers and periodicals on all the former Second Reich agents, as well as the true and fair reports of vulgar acts in Versailles. The newspapers of the Commune also ruthlessly exposed the dereliction of conduct of dissidents and staff mixed into them and

15.4 The Spirit of the Paris Commune

317

reported the arrest of the leaders of the Commune. Marx wrote that “[t]his shocks the bourgeois who wants political idols and "great men" immensely (vol. 22, p. 478).” From April 15th, the commune’s main newspaper Gazette published daily records of the commune’s meetings (except military deployment), so that everyone’s speech and behavior at the meetings were subject to the supervision of the people. Marx mentioned this several times in the first draft of the French Civil War and excerpts from newspapers and periodicals. Hegel once viewed the publication of the hierarchical parliamentary record from the standpoint of Prussian authoritarianism, arguing that its purpose was to cause public opinion. Young Marx was sharply opposed to him at that time, pointing out that “In its true consistent meaning, therefore, unabridged publication of the Assembly proceedings can only be full publicity for the activity of the Assembly (vol. 1, p. 149). […] A truly political assembly flourishes only under the great protection of the public spirit, just as living things flourish only in the open air (vol. 1, p. 151).” Thirty years later, Marx saw in the newspapers of the Paris Commune that his youthful ideals had become reality. He was proud of the commune because the commune’s “[did] away with the state hierarchy altogether and [replaced] the haughteous masters of the people by its always removable servants, a mock responsibility by a real responsibility, as they act continuously under public supervision (vol. 22, p. 488). […] But indeed the Commune did not pretend to infallibility, the invariable attribute of all governments of the old stamp. It published its doings and sayings, it initiated the public into all its shortcomings (vol. 22, p. 340). […] for a few pounds, acting in bright daylight, with no pretensions to infallibility, not hiding itself behind circumlocution office, not ashamed to confess blunders by correcting them (vol. 22, p. 488).” Opening the affairs of the commune was another basic feature of the social networking policy. By performing the duties of newspapers and periodicals, the newspapers of the commune prevented the public servants from overriding the masters of the society. In these newspapers, facts were always respected the most, and they only responded to the brutal abuse of the enemies of Versailles with a contemptuous smile. It was in this sense that Marx said, “Paris all truth, Versailles all lie (vol. 22, p. 342).”

15.5 The Mental Intercourse of Marxist Workers’ Party The emergence of the Marxist workers’ party itself was an impact on sectarian barriers in workers’ intercourse. The existence of various worker denominations was premised on the workers’ loyalty to the leaders’ dogma, so the newspapers run by leaders were similar to ‘gospels’ for workers. The newspapers and periodicals founded by Marx criticized this “savior” consciousness. His guidelines for DeutschFranzösische Jahrbücher, the first socialist journal he founded, were as followed: we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles (vol. 3, p. 144).

318

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

Most of the worker denominations refused to associate with other denominations, and even regarded the other party as more evil than the common enemy; and the earliest communication organization Communist Communication Committee established by Marx and Engels actively expressed a sincere desire to communicate with all representatives of the worker denominations and socialism. According to them, “In this way differences of opinion can be brought to light and an exchange of ideas and impartial criticism can take place. It will be a step made by the social movement in its literary manifestation to rid itself of the barriers of nationality. And when the moment for action comes, it will clearly be much to everyone’s advantage to be acquainted with the state of affairs abroad as well as at home. (vol. 38, p. 39).” This kind of intercourse was contrary to the characteristics of the communication within the sect of the workers and was premised on the recognition that man was not holy. Marx said, “it is, you see, simply a question of establishing a regular correspondence and ensuring that it has the means to keep abreast of the social movement in the different countries, and to acquire a rich and varied interest, such as could never be achieved by the work of one single person (vol. 38, p. 39).” This wide-ranging, non-sectarian prejudice of the Marxist workers’ party was premised on firm principles. They all demanded that the party’s people and party publications followed “Citizens Marx and Schapper, seconded by many others, move that in addition to Citizen Prinz as editor of the official organ of the Association an editorial commission should be appointed which should see that this organ truly represents the interests of the Association and is directed in the spirit of our party. (vol. 48, p. 363).” In his speech, during the formation of the party, Engels pointed out that the task of a party press was to “debate, first and foremost, to explain, to expound, to defend the party’s demands, to rebut and refute the claims and assertions of the opposing party (vol. 6, p. 294).” In 1859, without consulting with Marx and Engels, LaSalle published a booklet on the international situation. Since the outside world has always regarded Lazar and Marx, Engels, and others as a party, Marx pointed out to Lazar (as was later reported to Engels) that “I have taken the opportunity of giving Lassalle a brief outline of my views on the Italian question, at the same time telling him that, should anyone wish at such a critical moment to speak in the name of the party, the following alternatives must hold good. Either he consults the others beforehand, or the others (euphemis-/tic for you and me) have the right to put their own view before the public, without regard for that anyone (vol. 40, pp. 542–543).” After the Marxist workers’ party matures, the party’s newspapers and public meetings are the party’s external image. Engels once said, “I was speaking of the party, and that’s whatever it makes itself out to be before the public, in the press and at congresses (vol. 45, p. 257).” Speaking of the German Social Democratic Party’s agency newspaper, he said, “The Sozialdemokrat was the banner of the German party (vol. 27, p. 78).” Also, “The workers themselves, when like Mr Most and Co. they give up working and become literati by profession, invariably wreak ’theoretical’ havoc and are always ready to consort with addleheads of the supposedly ’learned’ caste (vol. 45, p. 283). […] You will have noticed how semi-taught philistine fantasies make their appearance in the Volksstaat from time to time (vol. 45, p. 30). […] And

15.5 The Mental Intercourse of Marxist Workers’ Party

319

then we actually get a pert lad from Berlin being allowed to publish, at the ’sovereign people’s’ expense, an endless series of articles containing his unedifying thoughts on England and the most egregious Pan-Slav poppycock! (vol. 45, p. 284).” The workers’ political party had a perfect organizational structure and regulations, which was conducive to the unity of the party’s thinking and consistent action, but it also brought some restrictions on the expression of ideas. For thinkers like Marx and Engels, this restriction could become intolerable bondage. In 1892, Engels saw Wilhelm Liebknecht, the editor-in-chief of the German Social Democratic Party’s Congress debate party newspaper, and was furious at Li’s embarrassing situation. On behalf of himself and his dead friend Marx, he said, “quite aside from the question of money, it’s a most otiose position for anyone with any initiative to be editor of a paper belonging to the party. Marx and I were always agreed that we would never accept such a position and the only paper we could have was one that was not financially dependent even on the party itself (vol. 50, p. 33).” This showed their pursuit of mental freedom as thinkers. Regarding the actual mental intercourse of the party, in addition to safeguarding the party’s program and strategy and having to take a certain degree of organizational measures, they had always insisted on solving the problem through consultation within the scope of the party’s organization and constitution. In order to prevent his words from being regarded as higher than the party’s leadership, Engels once stated, “It goes without saying—but let me make it quite clear once again—that in this article I speak purely in my own name and not in the name of the German party (vol. 27, p. 237). […] My articles are not in any case binding on the party, which is a great piece of luck for both of us, aithough Liebknecht supposes I regard it as a personal misfortune though this would never have occurred to me (vol. 49, p. 271).” In normal intra-party contacts, Marx and Engels believed that the party’s leading body has the responsibility of leading the party’s newspapers and periodicals. At the end of 1869, the Equality newspaper, the organ of the Swiss Federation of Romani Communities of the International Workers’ Association, was once controlled by the Bakuninists. They violated international constitutions and openly questioned the General Committee in this newspaper and their newspaper Progress (which is under the leadership of the Romance District Federation). A document written by Marx on behalf of the General Committee addressed to the committee of the Federation stated: the Romance Federal Council has no right either to abdicate its functions in favor of the Égalité and the Progrès, or to let these newspapers usurp its functions (vol. 21, p. 84). […] The General Council reminds the Romance Federal Council that it is responsible for the question of the newspapers L’Egalité and Le Progrès (vol. 21, p. 85). The party’s leading body had this kind of leadership power through a certain organizational process and was endowed by the majority of the entire party. Its foundation was the trust of the entire party. This power manifested itself as a spiritual force. In this regard, Marx has said many times that it “[i]s not its authority solely moral, and does it not submit its decisions to the Federations which have to carry them out? (vol. 23, p. 255).” The party’s leading body could achieve leadership because it had gained the trust of the majority of the party.

320

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

In light of historical experience and lessons, Engels also opposed the use of the party’s newspapers to command the party. From 1890 to 1892, a far-left opposition "youth" appeared within the German Social Democratic Party. When they put forward opinions on the party’s leadership, they exaggerated the facts arbitrarily and used this as an excuse to boycott the party’s leadership in the newspapers. In response, Engels fought against them. He pointed out, “this clique becomes even more dangerous if it unites to form a mutual assurance society, setting in motion all the means of organized advertising in order to smuggle its members into the editorial chairs of the party newspapers and control the party by means of the party press (vol. 27, p. 85).” Later facts showed that once the youth faction left the party, their newspapers and magazines soon became empty. In 1892, Engels questioned, “what, may I ask, has been achieved by those who showed some promise—the Kampffmeyers, Ernsts, Müllers et al.—now that they are no longer under the thumb of the party leadership? Their paper is utterly without substance and apart from that they produce nothing (vol. 49, pp. 526–527).” Most of these people later realized the recklessness of their actions and returned to the party’s position. Since the party’s leading was composed of people who were not saints, mistakes were inevitable. In this connection, Marx and Engels criticized the Congressional Social Democratic Party as the representative and leading institution of the German Social Democratic Party in the 1880s. They wrote, “has German Social-Democracy indeed been infected with the parliamentary disease, believing that, with the popular vote, the Holy Ghost is poured upon those elected, that meetings of the faction are transformed into infallible councils and factional resolutions into sacrosanct dogma? (vol. 45, p. 400).” Clearly, there would be another situation when the party’s leading body led the party’s mental intercourse activities. In this regard, Engels pointed out this contradiction as early as 1873. At that time, the main leaders of the German Social Democratic Labor Party (SDAP) Bebel and Liebknecht (Editor of the People’s National News) were in prison. Bebel wrote a letter to Engels, saying that the party’s affairs are handled by the party while the secretary of York presided over it. Meanwhile, the newspaper was presided over by editor Blos. Engels knew that both men were inclined to the La Salle faction and rejected Adolf Hepner, a newspaper editor who insisted on the correct position. Engels, on behalf of Marx and himself, expressed their concerns about Bebel. He wrote, “It was not Hepner but Yorck’s letter to him, signed by the Committee, which made us here fear that your imprisonment would be used by the Party authorities, which unfortunately are entirely Lassallean, to transform the Volksstaat into an ’honest’ Neuer Social-Demokrat (vol. 44, p. 510). […] The Party authorities, after all, have a certain formal measure of control over the Party paper, which they refrained from exercising when you were there, but which they have undeniably tried to impose this time, with damaging/ effects on the Party (vol. 44, pp. 510–511). […] Nor can I accuse him of weakness, for if the Committee clearly gives him to understand that he should resign from the editorial board, adding that otherwise he will

15.5 The Mental Intercourse of Marxist Workers’ Party

321

have to work under Bios, I do not see what other resistance he could offer. He could certainly not barricade himself in the editor’s office against the Committee (vol. 44, p. 511).” In order to avoid solving problems in the form of open splits as much as possible, Marx and Engels demanded that the party’s leadership and the party’s newspapers and journals used the party’s program and strategy as the standard for measuring action. In 1879, the German Socialist Workers’ Party Congress authorized MP Kaiser to speak in Parliament and voted in favor of protecting tariffs. Party member Hill’s publication Lantern (Die Laterne) criticized him for violating the party’s program and strategy. However, Hirsch was criticized by some members of the party group, saying that he criticized the party group for violating the party’s discipline. To this end, Marx and Engels wrote to the main leaders of the German Party. They pointed out, “if those upon whom, above all others, it is incumbent to see that party discipline is maintained, themselves so glaringly infringe that party discipline by a resolution of this kind, then so much the worse (vol. 45, p. 400). […] Hirsch was again perfectly justified in our opinion in handling him as roughly as he did (vol. 45, p. 399). […] for which previously Kayser alone could have been blamed, is all the greater for this affair, as is Hirsch’s merit in having brought to light in public and for all the world to see Kayser’s preposterous phraseology and his even more preposterous vote, thus saving the honour of the party (vol. 45, p. 400).” Marx also said angrily, “they are already so far infected with parliamentary cretinism as to believe themselves above criticism and to denounce criticism as a crime de lèse majesté! (vol. 45, p. 414).” In this matter, Marx and Engels jointly formulated the basic principles for the party’s internal mental intercourse: the party’s leading body had the power to supervise the party’s newspapers and periodicals, but party members and newspapers and periodicals also conducted party leadership according to the party’s program and strategies and had the right to criticize. In this sense, following the party’s program and strategy was more important than the specific leadership and leadership relationship. After Marx’s death, Engels formulated a series of specific principles for the mental intercourses within the Marxist workers’ party based on the conflicts that occurred in the German party’s mental exchanges and the solutions to the conflicts, so that the mental life within the party was subject to certain disciplines and people could express their opinions fully and freely. In 1884–1885, the ‘shipping allowance incident’ occurred within the German Party. In November 1884, the majority of the Congressional Congress of the Social Democrats prepared to vote in favor of granting German regular ships to Africa, Asia, and Australia, which was obviously related to German colonial policy. The editorial department of the Social Democrats, which was the party’s organ, published many letters from party members, expressing opposition to the majority practice of the party group because it violated the party’s program and strategy. The party group adopted a statement that the party organ’s position was the responsibility of the party group, so under no circumstances should the party organ’s newspaper take opposition to the party group. Due to pressure from the entire party’s condemnation of the party

322

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

group, the party group was forced to vote against it and issued a circular with the editorial department in the organ newspaper on April 23, 1885. The report says: Die Fraktion denkt nicht daran und kann nicht daran denken, den“ Sozialdemokrat “ als ihr persönliches. Organ zu betrachten, mit dem sie nach Belieben schalten und walten kann. Der „Sozialdemokrat “ gehört der Gesamtpartei und ist das Organ der Gesamtpartei. Die Gesamtpartei wird aber vertreten durch die Fraktion, die kraft ihres Amtes als Parteivertretung naturgemäß die Kontrolle des Parteiorgans hat (Bernstein, 1928).

Engels was on the side of the newspaper editorial department in this incident. He said, “the Sozialdemokrat was anything but a mere mouthpiece for the parliamentary group. When in 1885 the majority of the group favoured the Steamer Subsidy, the paper firmly supported the opposite opinion and held on to its right to do so, even when the majority forbade it this right in an order of the day which they themselves must today find incomprehensible. The fight lasted for just four weeks, during which the editors were warmly supported by the party comrades inside and outside Germany. On April 2 the ban was issued; on the 23rd the Sozialdemokrat published a declaration agreed between the parliamentary group and the editors, indicating that the group had rescinded its ban (vol. 27, p. 77).” Considering the difficult environment in which the German anti-socialist extraordinary laws were implemented at that time, and preventing the majority of the party groups from putting pressure on the newspapers, Engels suggested that “[t]he matter would, in my view, take a smoother course were the Sozialdemokrat to discard the official character that has been attached to it (vol. 47, p. 271).” This proposal was adopted, and from November 1886, the Social Democrats Newspaper was no longer published as an organizational newspaper. Engels said after receiving this news, “To have conferred an official character on the paper in the first place was, in my view, a great mistake, and so, indeed, it has proved to be in the Reichstag and elsewhere; but once it had been done, you could hardly go back on it without appearing to disown the paper and beat a retreat (vol. 47, p. 509). […] Nor, as Liebknecht saw it, was there any question of beating a retreat, and the paper will now be able to express the views of the great bulk of the party far more freely and with far less regard for the gentlemen of the right wing. (vol. 47, p. 509).” Engels’s sentiments about the party’s leadership were clear. He wrote, “those gentlemen who form the majority of the parliamentary group are intent on setting themselves up as a ’power’ to judge by their statement in today’s Sozialdemokrat (vol. 47, p. 269). […] It is far more important for us to maintain our theoretical standpoint in the face of the rubbish that is printed in Germany than to criticise the parliamentary group’s mode of action (vol. 47, p. 285).” This is a more important issue of principle because it involved the party’s Marxist direction. In 1891, after the abolition of the anti-socialist law, the German Social Democratic Party began to discuss the new party platform. In order to further eliminate the influence of Lasalism, with the support of Engels, the party’s theoretical weekly Die Neue Zeit published the Critique of the Gotha Programme written by Marx 15 years ago. The publication of this historical document was supported by the party’s

15.5 The Mental Intercourse of Marxist Workers’ Party

323

grassroots organizations, but for the party leaders who participated in the formulation of the Gotha program at that time, they felt that they had damaged their reputation. The Congressional Group and the Party’s Executive Committee, therefore, announced the inspection of New Age. Engels angrily asked the party leaders, “In what respect do you differ from Puttkamer if you introduce an Anti-Socialist Law into your own ranks? (vol. 49, p. 181). […] You have absolutely no idea how odd an impression this proclivity for forcible measures makes upon one who lives abroad and is accustomed to see the most venerable party leaders being well and truly taken to task within their own party (e.g. the Tory government by Lord Randolph Churchill) (vol. 49, p. 181). […] The time has come to formulate the theoretical foundations of our party with full clarity and uncompromisingly, so the present publication is very timely indeed (vol. 49, pp. 587–588).” The changes in the party’s struggle environment, the party’s own growth and maturity angle prompted Engels to re-examine the party’s "legal basis." He believed that during the formation of the party, due to the harsh environment, the party was very weak, and at this time the old party leadership required absolute obedience. They can neither demand nor impose the implicit obedience that could be demanded by the former party leadership, specifically elected for the purpose (vol. 46, p. 8).” When the party was in an offensive state, similar organizational principles were needed. Engels recalled that the Charter Party, the earliest working party, had said this: the Chartists, being a party specifically organized for the use of force as their very name implies, were subject to dictatorship, and expulsion was an act of military discipline (vol. 48, p. 425). When the German Social Democratic Party was under the very oppression of anti-socialists, the party’s leadership also needed a certain dictatorship. According to Engels, “a dictatorship [that] was, of course, essential and excellently managed (vol. 49, p. 135).” However, when the environment and period of the party’s struggle were peaceful, the party itself was very strong, and the organizational system was perfect, the "legal power base" that must not be adopted to actually hinder intraparty interaction should be changed. To this end, Engels has two famous quotes: The constitutional basis upon which a living party functions must not only be self-created, it must also and at all times be susceptible to change (vol. 45, p. 418)” and “It is the law of the development of parties that a party which has achieved a certain degree of power finds that the very demonstrations which it could not do without in its early days have become impractical (vol. 50, p. 63).” As far as mental intercourse within the party was concerned, from 1890 until his death, Engels expressed the following thoughts many times. He wrote, “the strict discipline of a sect cannot be maintained in the case of a big party, nor is this altogether a bad thing (vol. 49, p. 174). […] The discipline of a party numbered in millions is quite different from that of a sect numbered in hundreds (vol. 49, pp. 516– 517) […] and again, you should not forget that discipline in a big party cannot be anything like as strict as it is in a small sect, (vol. 49, pp. 181–182). […] The party is outstripping the strict discipline of earlier days; with 2 or 3 millions and an influx of ‘heddicated’ elements, more latitude is needed than what has hitherto not only sufficed but actually proved a useful restraint (vol. 50, p. 33).”

324

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

Based on those ideas, he put forward three specific principles related to mental intercourse within the party: The principle of free exchange of views within the party Since 1885, Engels had repeatedly used this concept to show that it was a necessary condition for the development and education of new members of the party. He called this “free expression of opinion (vol. 47, pp. 284–285).” With the growth of the party, there were different schools within the party. He repeatedly reiterated, “No party can live and prosper unless moderate and extreme tendencies grow up and even combat one another within its ranks, and one which expels the more extreme tendencies out of hand will merely promote their growth (vol. 48, p. 425). […] Every party has a right wing and a left wing, (vol. 27, p. 84).” In this case, relying on “absolute obedience” would not solve the problem, while unity of thoughts could only be achieved by exchanging opinions. Thus, Engels said, “The party is so big that complete freedom of discussion within its ranks is imperative. Otherwise, the many new elements who have joined it during the past 3 years and who are in some cases still exceedingly green and unpolished, could not be assimilated and trained (vol. 49, p. 11).” In addition to party meetings, party newspapers and periodicals were also a venue for exchanging opinions. Newspapers and periodicals were not only a medium for spreading the party’s program but also a place for exchange of ideas within the party. This principle was established during the period of the International Workers Association. In 1869, Marx stated in an international document, “The community of action the International Working Men’s Association is calling into being, the exchange of ideas by means of the different organs of the sections in all countries and, finally, the direct discussions at the general congresses would also gradually create a common theoretical programme for the general workers’ movement (vol. 43, p. 236).” The free exchange of opinions could be divided into two categories: theoretical discussions and criticisms of specific programs and strategies of leaders and the party. In terms of party theory, Engels believed that “it is, of course, perfectly in order to disagree with party members, no matter whom, as to their mode of procedure in this or that case, or to dispute or differ on a point of theory (vol. 46, p. 146).” The tradition of discussing theory was also formed during the period of the International Workers Association. Engels wrote in 1871 as an international communications secretary, “we must go much further, we must develop the positive side of the question, how the emancipation of the proletariat is to take effect, and thus the discussion of different opinions becomes not just inevitable but necessary (vol. 44, p. 181).” Because there was a certain distance between theoretical issues and the struggle for reality, for the development of the party’s theory, discussions beyond the existing concepts in the constitution of the organization were affirmed, which is why “as regards discussions of/ theoretical points, the Council desires nothing more ardently than this (vol. 44, pp. 183–184). […] No document has been issued by the General Council which does not go beyond Article 1. But the Council can go beyond

15.5 The Mental Intercourse of Marxist Workers’ Party

325

the official programme of the Association only insofar as circumstances are able to justify it (vol. 44, p. 184).” In 1877, Marx conceived that the party’s theoretical publication “would provide an opportunity for criticism and counter-criticism in which theoretical points could be discussed by us and the total ignorance of professors and university lecturers exposed, (vol. 45, p. 242).” However, it did not materialize. In 1891, Engels reiterated the principles of this theoretical discussion. When the leaders of the party were afraid of theoretical differences, Engels pointed out that “You—the party—need socialist science and this cannot exist without freedom to develop (vol. 49, p. 181).” Engels was unequivocal in asking party members and party newspapers to criticize party leaders freely. Due to the tradition of the special status of party leaders formed in the early workers’ movement, the opposite situation often referred to by Engels would arise: the press and agitation combined to turn the party into the latter’s milch cow and butter purveyor, only to see the said cow abruptly slaughtered by Bismarck and the bourgeoisie (vol. 46, p. 187). On the other hand, some leaders “live within the orbit of small cliques and what they hear they assume to be the voice of the people (vol. 47, p. 340).” In view of this situation, Engels repeatedly emphasized after the party was at peace that “Your German can never get accustomed to the fact that someone in office cannot lay claim to being handled more gently than anyone else (vol. 49, p. 166). […] It is also imperative that the chaps should at long last throw off the habit of handling the party officials—their servants—with kid gloves and kow-towing to them as infallible bureaucrats, instead of confronting them critically (vol. 49, p. 131).” In 1889, when Engels learned that the leader of the Danish Social Democratic Party had retaliated against the critics, he stated, “The labour movement depends on mercilessly criticising existing society, criticism is the breath of life to it, so how can it itself avoid being criticized or try and forbid discussion? Are we then asking that others concede us the right of free speech merely so that we may abolish it again within our own ranks? (vol. 48, p. 425).” The party’s leading body applied the principle of moral influence to the party’s newspapers and periodicals. In view of the “shipping allowance incident" within the German Party in 1885 and the public publication of the "Criticism of the Gotha Programme” in 1891, Engels believed that it was necessary to clarify the way the party’s leading body leads the party’s newspapers. He told the German party leader Bebel, “That the Executive and/or you yourself still have and must retain considerable moral sway over the Neue Zeit and everything else that is published, goes without saying. But with that you must and can rest content (vol. 49, p. 181).” The so-called moral influence referred to non-strong administrative control. This was obviously an inheritance of the tradition of the International Workers Association. At that time, Marx believed that the authority of the international leadership was purely moral. In doing so, it not only maintained the party’s leadership oversight of the party’s newspapers and periodicals but also gave them more freedom of movement. In later discussions, he used the concept of "moral influence" many times.

326

15 The Mental Intercourse of Workers

Under this form of leadership, the party’s leadership should avoid direct interference in the writing of party members. In October 1891, Eduard Bernstein revised his introduction to The Complete Works of La Salle and received instructions from the leaders. For this Engels criticized the party leaders, telling them “I think you would be well-advised to stop bombarding poor Ede with letters about Lassalle; he is becoming tremendously irritabale bacuse of them and so confused over what you people, on the one hand, are demanding and what he, on the other, considers to be his duty, that this sort of thing can only make matters worse and he’ll end up by producing nothing but contradictory material (vol. 49, p. 253).” After the German party entered a peaceful period, Engels divided the party’s newspapers into two types: formal and informal. The purpose was to give the exchange of opinions within the party more freedom. He opposed turning all newspapers and periodicals run by party-led groups and individual party members into official party newspapers and likened such a decision to Bismarck’s “national socialism” for railways, post, and telecommunications. In this regard, he proposed to the party leaders in 1892 to create a publication dedicated to the debate under the moral influence of the party’s leadership. He said, “It’s absolutely essential for you to have a press in the party which is not directly dependent on the Executive or even the Party Congress, i.e. which is in a position unreservedly to oppose individual party measures within the programme and accepted tactics, and freely to criticise that programme and those tactics, within the limits of party decorum. As the Party Executive, you people ought to encourage a press of this nature—indeed initiate it, for you would then exert far more moral sway over it than if it were to come into being partly against your will (vol. 50, p. 33).” The principle of openness of ideological struggle within the party In the early stage of the Marxist workers’ party, due to its own weakness and the strength of external enemies, it was a general rule not to engage in open ideological struggle within the party, and it attached great importance to external evaluation of the party. In the early days of the International Workers Association, Marx believed “The reason why we decided not to publish any official report on the conference— apart from lack of money and the fact that the Rules oblige us to present a general report to the Congress, such double emploi thus to be avoided —was basically that to initiate the public in the situation, especially the very ’fragmentary’ nature of the conference, would do us more harm than good and provide our opponents with a useful weapon (vol. 42, p. 214).” With the growth of the International Workers’ Association, Marx advocated public reporting in all subsequent congresses and was proud to receive the attention (both praise and criticism) of the bourgeois world. In 1872, Marx and Engels fought against the Bakunin group within the International Workers Association, stating that “There is only one means of combating all these intrigues, but it will prove astonishingly effective; this means is complete publicity (vol. 23, p. 459).” Since then, as conditions permit, the principle of open intra-party struggle as the party’s spiritual interaction has been fixed.

15.5 The Mental Intercourse of Marxist Workers’ Party

327

When the Marxist workers’ party was strong, the enemy’s reaction after the open intra-party struggle became insignificant. For this reason, Engels repeatedly criticized the outdated ideas that valued the evaluation of the enemy too much. According to him, “Every struggle has moments when one cannot deny one’s opponent a certain satisfaction, if one is not to inflict positive damage on oneself (vol. 24, p. 21).” Once Bebel said: the enemy praises you, which is not good; the enemy curses you, generally speaking, your way is right. In response, Engels said, “This regularly reiterated argument about your opponents cannot but end by inviting the interpretation that those opponents can play ducks and drakes with us. Come to that, Marx and I used to say as long ago as 1848:’What blunder of ours can have earned us our opponents’ praise?’ i. e. just as you do (vol. 49, p. 247).” When the "youth faction" within the German party provoked controversy, Bebel believed that this kind of quarrel was publicly outrageous. However, Engels believed that he “will in future be able to avoid settling such matters in public. I think it’s better that you should, despite minor disadvantages and much personal unpleasantness (vol. 49, p. 268).” On the eve of his death, he told a comrade of the German Party, “I was not unduly disturbed about the row in the party. It is much better that things of this kind should crop up time to time and be properly thrashed out than that people should don their nightcaps (vol. 50, p. 405).” Clearly, publicity was Engels’ choice after weighing out the pros and cons. The development of Marxist workers’ party was riddled with problems and many unpleasant things and weaknesses were exposed. As early as 1848 in The New Rhine, Marx declared, “Every new organ of public opinion is generally expected to show enthusiasm for the party whose principles it supports, unqualified confidence in the strength of this party, and constant readiness either to give the principles the cover of real power, or to cover up real weaknesses with the glamour of principles. We shall not live up to these expectations, We shall not seek to gild defeats with deceptive illusions (vol. 7, p. 27).” Engels reiterated this principle again in 1891. He said, “You can’t just enjoy what is pleasing in a movement; you also have to put up with its momentary unpleasantnesses (vol. 49, p. 174).” The three principles of Engels’ mental intercourse within the party were all to expand the freedom of intercourse within the party. However, this was not the goal itself. The goal was to consolidate the party through free exchanges and adapt the party to the new struggle environment. His principle was limited by the "party". If you leave the party’s program and strategy, then freedom itself has no meaning for intra-party contacts. This is why he said, “We must permit discussion in order not to become a sect, but the common standpoint must be retained (vol. 27, p. 405).”

Reference Bernstein E (1928) Sozialdemokratische Lehrjahre. Der Bucherkreis G.M.B.H, Berlin

Chapter 16

The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

Whether engaged in material or mental intercourse, human beings have always been the main body of communication. From this perspective, Marx proposed three social forms that are closely related to human material and mental interactions: Relationships of personal dependence (which originally arise quite spontaneously) are the first forms of society, in which human productivity develops only to a limited extent and at isolated points. Personal independence based upon dependence mediated by things is the second great form, and only in it is a system of general social exchange of matter, a system of universal relations, universal requirements, and universal capacities, formed. Free individuality, based on the universal development of the individuals and the subordination of their communal, social productivity, which is their social possession [Vermögen], is the third stage. The second stage creates the conditions for the third (vol. 28, p. 95). Here, Marx provides a new historical perspective for examining the historical development of human interaction. He and Engels discussed the intercoursal characteristics of each social form.

16.1 The Dependency Form of People Engaged in Intercourse The forms of interpersonal dependence span the longest, including all stages of social development before the modern market economy society. The intercoursal activities of people in various historical stages were very different, but they shared common characteristics of intercourse, namely, that people’s intercourse was always limited to a narrow range. Individuals had no independent personality in intercourse. People only use the identity and mentality of a member of the community when they participate in mental intercourse. This is the lower level necessary for human mental intercourse. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8_16

329

330

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

16.1.1 Primitive Times In the early days of this long era, the main manifestation of intercourse was sex. According to Marx, “North pole and south pole attract each other, female and male sexes also attract each other, and man is born only through the unifying of their polar differences (vol. 3, p. 88).” and “[t]he direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman (vol. 3, p. 295).” This is a very simple dependency relationship, and the archaeological discoveries of a large number of reproductive worship around the world have confirmed this. When people form clans, people’s mental intercourse (still intertwined with material intercourse at this time) is mainly manifested in natural religion. Bisexual interaction occupies an important position in natural religion, but has been subordinated to the interaction with “God”. This is because when people are conscious, they not only interact with the opposite sex but also have a huge and incomprehensible nature. The situation at that time was as Marx and Engels described: it is consciousness of nature, which first confronts men as a completely alien, all-powerful, and unassailable force, with which men’s relations are purely animal and by which they are overawed like beasts; it is thus a purely animal consciousness of nature (natural religion) precisely because nature is as yet hardly altered by history—on the other hand, it is man’s consciousness of the necessity of associating with the individuals around him, the beginning of the consciousness that he is living in society at all (vol. 5, p. 44). The essence of natural religion is that people interact with gods in fantasy through rituals such as prayer, sacrifice, and dance. Among them, people are attached to the imaginary “god” and have no independent status. When the clan society was relatively developed, the People’s Congress was a relatively concentrated form of intercourse. This form of intercourse was mainly used to convey news, deliberations, arbitration, entertainment, etc. For example, the ancient Germans, Marx said that their commune was “outwardly merely by virtue of the periodic gatherings of its members, although their unity in itself is posited in descent, language, common past and history, etc. (vol. 28, p. 407)” At the end of primitive society, oral literature gradually separated spiritual communication from interweaving with material communication. Regarding their role, Marx quoted the ancient historian Tacitus, “only sort of Registers and History (p. 518).1 ” Both the People’s Congress and oral literature reflect the narrow and dependent relationship between people. When discussing the basic characteristics of this period, Marx said, “Co-operation, such as we find it at the dawn of human development, among races who live by the chase, or, say, in the agriculture of Indian communities, is based, on the one hand, on ownership in common of the means of production, and on the other hand, on the fact, that in those cases, each individual has no more torn himself off from the navel-string of his tribe or community, than each bee has freed

1

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Works of Tacitus. In Four Volumes. To which are prefixed, Political Discourses upon that Author by Thomas Gordon. The Second Edition, corrected. (London: T. Woodward and J. Peele, 1737). Vol. 4.

16.1 The Dependency Form of People Engaged in Intercourse

331

itself from connection with the hive (vol. 35, p. 339). […] In this early condition of society, the individuality of persons was lost in the gens. (Morgan, 1877, p. 86)2 .” The narrowness of this type of interaction was summed up by Engels in this way: The tribe remained the boundary for man, in relation to outsider as well as himself: the tribe, the gens, and their institutions were sacred and inviolable, a superior power, instituted by nature, to which the individual remained absolutely subject in feeling, thought and deed. Impressive as the people of this epoch may appear to us, they differ in no way one from another, they are still bound, as Marx says, to the umbilical cord of naturally evolved community (vol. 26, p. 204). In the original intercourse, the individual did not have an independent status, and the whole clan or tribe lived. This is a form of intercourse that human beings have to adopt in childhood. No matter how equal the people in the intercourse are, there is no concept of private ownership, there is nothing worthy of praise.

16.1.2 Ancient Greek-Roman Era When Europe transitioned from the primitive era to the ancient Greek-Roman era, mental life entered an unprecedented period of prosperity. It was as if intercourse had been freed from human dependence. Marx and Engels analyzed several basic reasons for the prosperity of mental activities in this period. First, there was a preliminary commodity economy. According to Engels, “The appearance of private property in herds and articles of luxury led to exchange between individuals, to the transformation of products into commodities. Here lies the root of the entire revolution that followed (vol. 26, p. 216).” Marx went one step further and declared that “Ancient Rome, in its later republican days, developed merchant’s capital to a higher degree than ever before in the ancient world (vol. 37, p. 330),” The ancient Greek city-states themselves were commercial cities, through which the various nationalities of Greece were connected. The development of business greatly stimulated the vitality of mental intercourse. Secondly, the social division of labor made mental activities independent. In the case of very low productivity, this division of labor was based on slavery. It was as Engels said, “It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour between agriculture and industry on a larger scale, and thereby also Hellenism, the flowering of the ancient world. Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science’ without slavery, no Roman Empire (vol.25, p. 168).” Finally, the free spirit created by the maritime trade and war life in the GreekRoman era ensured the richness of mental activities. Greece is located in the eastern Mediterranean, which was the busiest commercial passage in the world at that time. Marx felt that “all these excellent bases for the revival of the naval power in the Adriatic, there is only one drawback—Austria itself. If, with its present organization and under its present Government, Austria were able to found a commercial and 2

Morgan (1877).

332

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

naval power in the Adriatic, it would upset all the traditions of history, which has ever coupled maritime greatness with Freedom (vol. 15, p. 150).” In this environmental atmosphere, Greece and later Rome formed the characteristic of maritime cultural openness. However, all these spiritual activities were not the comprehensive development of human personality but were shrouded in the ‘religion’ worshipped by the country or city-state. To which Marx pointed out, “That with the downfall of the ancient states their religions also disappeared requires no further explanation, for the ‘true religion’ of the ancients was the cult of ‘their nationality’, of their ‘state’ (vol. 1, p. 189).” The thoughts of the philosopher Aristotle of that era itself reflected this situation. Marx cited him, writing that “Aristotle’s definition is that man is by nature a town-citizen. This is quite as characteristic of ancient classical society as Franklin’s definition of man, as a tool-making animal, is characteristic of Yankeedom (vol. 35, p. 331).” In order to maintain the operation of the commodity economy in the ancient GreekRoman state machine, all citizens must participate in all activities as citizens of the city-state rather than individuals. Obviously, although the basis of ancient GreekRoman social interaction was much broader than that of the clan period, it was still narrow, and city-state or nationalism was only a reflection of an enlarged form of human dependence. The personality of the citizen disappears in the ideology of the city-state or state. Once the ancient country ceased to exist, the ancient Greek-Roman civilization almost disappeared. In addition, the ancient Greek-Roman commodity economy was commercial capital rather than industrial capital, and the prosperity of mental activities required a certain percentage of slave labor security. Once the society becomes dysfunctional, the momentary mental prosperity would overturn together with the entire state machine. Regarding the demise of ancient Greece, Engels said, “the mass of the free citizens were impoverished and had to choose between competing with slave labour by going into handicrafts themselves, which was considered ignoble and base and, moreover, promised little success—and complete pauperisation. Under the prevailing circumstances what inevitably happened was the latter, and, being in the majority, they dragged the whole Athenian state down with them (vol. 26, p. 222).” Ancient Rome fell for the same reason. As Engels wrote, “dying slavery left behind its poisonous sting by outlawing the productive work of the free. This was the blind alley in which the Roman world was caught (vol. 26, p. 249).”

16.1.3 Middle Ages The European medieval society established on the ruins of ancient Rome was established by the barbaric Germans, and was characterized by direct personal attachment. Marx wrote, “Here, instead of the independent man, we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the social relations of production just as much as it does the other

16.1 The Dependency Form of People Engaged in Intercourse

333

spheres of life organised on the basis of that production. But for the very reason that personal dependence forms the groundwork of society, there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form different from their reality (vol. 35, p. 88).” The social structure determines the characteristics of intercourse. Engels summarized that in five sentences, namely, “exchange was restricted, the market narrow, the methods of production stable; there was local exclusiveness without, local unity within; the mark in the country; in the town, the guild (vol. 25, p. 260).” Because the definition of intercourse was too narrow, both the lord and the peasant were in a state of occlusion. In the Middle Ages, everyone almost only had a connection with people without any social media in the relationship of attachment. This connection was expressed as the right of the upper level to the lower level and the obligation of the lower level to the upper level. Therefore, this connection has a political character, which is a major feature of the medieval intercoursal relationship, namely the politicization of secular intercourse. Marx pointed out, “every private sphere has a political character or is a political sphere; that is, politics is a characteristic of the private spheres too (vol. 3, p. 32).” and so, “[i]n the Middle Ages the life of the nation and the life of the state are identical. Man is the actual principle of the state—but unfree man (vol. 3, p. 32).” In this case, mental intercourse appeared to the power organization as a privilege, controlling the exchange of information, and deliberately blocking information as a condition for the power organization to survive. In response, Marx said, “The general spirit of the bureaucracy is the secret, the mystery, preserved within itself by the hierarchy and against the outside world by being a closed corporation. Avowed political spirit, as also political-mindedness, therefore appear to the bureaucracy as treason against its mystery. Hence, authority is the basis of its knowledge, and the deification of authority is its conviction (vol. 3, p. 47).” After the extroverted path required by ordinary people’s communication was blocked, they had to turn to inner communication. Therefore, in the Middle Ages, Christianity became a universal form of spiritual communication. However, this kind of intercourse did not give people real hope. Instead, it was quite suffocating mentally, which was why religious asceticism strengthened. In regard to that, Engels wrote, “Only this Christianity, as was bound to be the case in the historical conditions, did not seek to accomplish the social transformation in this world, but in the hereafter, in heaven, in eternal life after death, in the impending ‘millennium’ (vol.27, p. 448).” In the field of religion, human dependence existed just as the name of God did. The monks held the hearts of the folk and the royal aristocracy. Engels said, “just as in every primitive stage of development, the clergy obtained a monopoly in intellectual education and education itself became essentially theological. In the hands of the clergy politics and jurisprudence, much like all other sciences, remained mere branches of theology, and were treated in accordance with the principles prevailing in the latter. Church dogmas were also political axioms, and Bible quotations had the validity of law in any court (vol. 10, p. 412).” If medieval intercourse required a

334

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

universal medium of intercourse, it took the form of Jesus Christ and his incarnate clerics, especially those who came into direct contact with people. Regarding this, Marx said ironically, “An example in the religious sphere is Christ the mediator between God and man — mere instrument of circulation between them—becomes their unity, God-man, and as such becomes more important than God; the saints more important than Christ; the priests more important than the saints (vol. 28, p. 257).” People’s lives were united with politics, and politics was united with religion. Mental intercourse throughout the Middle Ages was extremely poor, monotonous, and inhuman. In fact, this was one of the most declining stages in history for the dependency form of people engaged in intercourse.

16.1.4 Asiatic Society Asiatic society existed before the nineteenth century, prior to Marx and Engels’s study of Eastern society, including China. That was another social form of dependency. In 1853, Engels first raised the issue of Asia’s mode of production, and Marx then conducted a series of arguments. Marx believed that “[t]he natural laws of the Asiatic, the ancient, or the feudal mode of production were essentially different (vol. 34, p. 236).” A distinctive feature of this social form was the emperor being the sole owner and the sole symbol of power. There was no private ownership like Western Europe. Engels once said, “The absence of landed property is indeed the key to the whole of the East (vol. 39, p. 339).” This resulted in a special situation in which the social and mental exchanges in Asia were highly centralized, and all officials and people depended on the emperor alone. When talking about China, Marx said, “Just as the Emperor was wont to be considered the father of all China, so his officers were looked upon as sustaining the paternal relation to their respective districts (vol. 12, p. 94). […] But this patriarchal authority, the only moral link embracing the vast machinery of the State, has gradually been corroded by the corruption of those officers, who have made great gains by conniving at opium smuggling. (vol. 12, p. 94).” Any means of intercourse under this form of intercourse fully served the supreme power to maintain this mental connection, such as papermaking, engraving, post, etc. Since Di Bao was the newspaper of the emperor and the emperor could not be wrong, Marx sarcastically said, “Instead of a defective censorship whose full effectiveness you yourselves regard as problematic, give us a perfect press to whom you have only to give an order and a model of which has been in existence for centuries in the Chinese state (vol. 1, p. 126).” The high degree of political centralization was also manifested in public projects (including communication projects). Marx said, “The communal conditions for real appropriation through labour, such as irrigation systems (very important among the Asian peoples), means of communication, etc., then appear as the work of the higher unity—of the despotic government poised above the lesser communities (vol. 28, p. 401).” This kind of engineering construction was not economically significant.

16.1 The Dependency Form of People Engaged in Intercourse

335

Marx quoted: ‘The Great Wall of China’ is a project that willfully abused human labor. In simple cooperation it is only the amount of human force which produces the effect. The place of the one individual with two eyes, etc., is taken by a many-eyed, many-armed, etc., monster. Hence the gigantic works of the Roman armies. The great public works of Asia and Egypt. Here, where the state spent the revenue of the whole country, and had the power to set in motion great masses of people (vol. 30, p. 259). In a large-scale material movement, large-scale mental activities were also required, but it was boring and cyclical, and always in a low stage that could not be developed. The economic foundation of Asia society was a solid combination of agriculture and handicraft industry. It bound people tightly to the land, and the scope of people’s intercourse was extremely narrow. Marx took India and China as examples of this situation and explained how the economic base caused the strong dependence of people on the commune. He wrote, “In the Oriental form, this loss is hardly possible, except as a result of wholly external influences, since the individual member of the commune never enters into so independent a relation to it that he could lose his (objective, economic) tie with it. He is firmly rooted. This is also inherent in the union of manufacture and agriculture, of town (in this instance the village) and country (vol. 28, p. 418).” This combination of agriculture and handicraft industry created a solid structure within society and limited the scope of human interaction to a very small range, making it very difficult to interact with people within from the outside. After the Western powers opened China’s gateway, they expected a large world trade market. However, they ignored the characteristics of the Chinese economy. After examining these situations, Marx pointed out, “the consuming and paying powers of the Celestials have been greatly overestimated. With the present economical framework of Chinese society, which turns upon diminutive agriculture and domestic manufactures as its pivots, any large import of foreign produce is out of the question (vol. 16, p. 32).” Peoples within this economic structure rarely established contact with the outside world because “In the self-sustaining unity of manufacture and agriculture on which this form is based, conquest is not so essential a condition as where landed property, agriculture, predominate exclusively (vol. 28, p. 417).” In ethnic intercourse, there wasn’t any wider social connection like that of the oceanic and nomadic people. In fact, confinement itself was the condition for its existence. In such a stagnated society, the value of people was extremely low, and there was no individual independence in intercourse. Marx quoted, “We see mighty coral reefs rising from the depths of the ocean into islands and firm land, yet each individual depositor is puny, weak and contemptible (vol. 30, p. 259). […] In simple cooperation it is only the amount of human force which produces the effect. The place of the one individual with two eyes, etc., is taken by a many-eyed, many-armed, etc., monster. Hence the gigantic works of the Roman armies. The great public works of Asia and Egypt. Here, where the state spends the revenue of the whole country, it has the power to set in motion great masses of people. (vol. 30, p. 259).” Even in a stable normal state, the combination of agriculture and handicraft industry was enough to form the basis of oriental autocracy. According to Marx, this

336

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

authoritarian system “must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies (vol. 12, p. 132).” Once the society became unstable, this kind of peaceful and timid people might go to the other extreme and bring all kinds of destructive results. In this regard, he wrote, “We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan (vol. 12, p. 132).” Marx’s report on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom’s capture of Ningbo is a good illustration of this. A soldier said that he liked his profession because “I take what I like; if there is any resistance, then— and he made the gesture with his hand of cutting off a head. And this is his manner of speech. A human head means no more than a head of cabbage to a Taiping (vol. 19, p. 217).” In a large unified country where ideology tends to be singular, even the lowest person is close to the upper class in certain concepts, and he neither values his personality nor the personality of others. As Asia moved nearer to the world, it became necessary to break the closed state of Asia society. However, in this way, the old society could only face extinction. Taking China as an example, Marx said, “Complete isolation was the prime condition of the preservation of Old China. That isolation having come to a violent end by the medium of England, dissolution must follow as surely as that of any mummy carefully preserved in a hermetically sealed coffin, whenever it is brought into contact with the open air (vol. 12, p. 95).” Engels also foresaw that. He said, “One thing is certain, that the death-hour of Old China is rapidly drawing nigh (vol. 15, p. 282).” They sympathized with China’s suffering when it was plundered by external powers, but what they saw from watching China’s experience was the challenge that the European market economy posed to Asiatic society. From the perspective of world intercourse, they calmly viewed the dying struggle of ancient China and thought that this was the dawn of a new era in Asia.

16.2 The Dependency Form of Objects in Intercourse The dependency form of the objects of intercourse refers to the society of the modern market economy. It had gotten rid of all kinds of artificial dependence relationships, opened up people’s horizons, and helped everyone to achieve equality and freedom in terms of commodities (objects). In this way, people formed general contacts and established comprehensive contacts, but at the same time, they paid a new price for obtaining comprehensive contacts, namely “alienation of intercourse”. Intercourse and the alienation of intercoursal market economy and society had always been in this contradictory movement.

16.2 The Dependency Form of Objects in Intercourse

337

16.2.1 The Civilized Role of Capital Marx’s “objects” mainly referred to capital or its specific forms of currency and commodities. When people’s intercourse depends on things, regardless of material or mental, they would still derive a strong sense of motivation and be eager to develop the breadth and depth of intercourse. This was a revolutionary change in intercourse, and Marx and Engels conducted many theoretical arguments on this change. Capital has created a complete system in two ways. On the one hand, capital created a universal labor system; on the other hand, it created a useful system that universally utilizes natural attributes and human attributes. Therefore, all labor is to create value; science is also manifested as an embodiment of the universal usefulness system. Marx pointed out, “it is only capital which creates bourgeois society and the universal appropriation of nature and of the social nexus itself by the members of society. Hence the great civilising influence of capital; hence its production of a stage of society compared to which all previous stages seem merely local/developments of humanity and idolatry of nature (vol. 28, pp. 336–337). […] It is this same tendency which makes capital drive beyond national boundaries and prejudices and, equally, beyond nature worship, as well as beyond the traditional satisfaction of existing needs and the reproduction of old ways of life confined within long-established and complacently accepted limits (vol. 28, p. 337). […] Capital is destructive towards, and constantly revolutionises, all this, tearing down all barriers which impede the development of the productive forces, the extension of the range of needs, the differentiation of production, and the exploitation and exchange of all natural and spiritual powers (vol. 28, p. 337).” From his concluding remarks, it can be seen that in the form of dependence of objects, the possibility of all social members participating in mental intercourse for the first time arose. In the fall of 1848, Engels observed the process of this civilization’s action on the road in exile. He talked extensively with the residents of the French countryside and recorded his insights and experiences. He wrote, “At every step I found the gayest company, the sweetest grapes and the prettiest girls; for here, where there is a small town always within three hours travel, where the population has a great deal of contact with the outside world by virtue of their trade in wine, here a certain degree of sophistication prevails, and no one assumes this sophistication more rapidly than the womenfolk, for they derive the most immediate and striking benefits from it (vol. 7, p. 528). […] On the contrary, she knows only too well that it is to the town, to the absence of arduous labour, to civilisation and its hundred aids to cleanliness and arts of toiletry that she owes the perfecting of her charms (vol. 7, p. 528).” As far as this relationship between capital and civilization is concerned, Marx agreed that “Wade is indeed right in this sense when he equates capital with civilisation (vol. 29, p. 22).” In terms of mental production and intercourse, the civilized role of capital was manifested in the merciless inclusion of the principles of the commodity economy, thereby breaking the privileged system of mental production and intercourse during the period of human dependence. The situation at this time is as Engels said, “as people were no longer living in a world empire such as the Roman

338

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

Empire had been, but in a system of independent states dealing with each other on an equal footing and at approximately the same level of bourgeois development (vol. 25, p. 98).” Since mental production and intercourse were included in the scope of ordinary commodities, mental products, and mental intercourse, the behavior itself became a consumer. In this sense, Marx regarded celebrity speeches, pastor sermons, teacher lectures, actor performances, doctor diagnosis and treatment, and other forms of mental interaction as commodity consumption behaviors that are no different from bread and milk. For example, the work of newspapers and periodicals, from authors to readers, had formed a fairly complete commodity exchange relationship. Marx wrote for the newspaper himself, “For we have, of course, now reached the stage at which we regard any English newspaper merely as an emporium and it matters not a rap in which of these emporia we display our ‘articles’, supposé they are not tampered with (vol. 39, p. 405).” The utility of telecommunications transmission itself has also become a special form of goods. According to Marx, “[t]his useful effect also entertains the very same relations to consumption that other commodities do (vol. 36, p. 62).” Intercoursal activities that cannot be separated from the human body usually appear as commodities. This is a product provided in the form of services, for “the producer of these services the services rendered are commodities (vol. 31, p. 14).” The commodity form played an intermediary role in turning the privilege of mental intercourse into the universal rights of the people. This is because the premise of the exchange of commodities was to treat commodities as the products of labor and confer equal status onto the exchangers, as well as use equivalent items for exchange. Once the exchange of information was carried out according to these three points, the previous privilege of mental intercourse had no place to take root. When drafting the Communist Manifesto in 1847, Marx wrote in his notebook that “all so-called higher kinds of labour, intellectual, artistic, etc., have been turned into articles of commerce and have thereby lost their old sanctity. What a great advance it was that the entire regiment of clerics, doctors, lawyers, etc., hence religion, law, etc., ceased to be judged by anything but their commercial value (vol. 6, p. 436).” Universal mental intercourse requires the people involved to have basic cultural knowledge and the capital of intercourse to be objectively contributive to the popularization of culture. Marx argued about this kind of civilization trend brought about by capital. He said, “With the development of capitalist production—and therefore of civilization (vol. 33, p. 162) […] because the preliminary training, the acquisition of the knowledge of reading, writing, arithmetic and commercial matters in general, language skills, etc., becomes ever quicker with the progress of science, and can be reproduced more easily, more universally and more cheaply, the more the capitalist mode of production predominates, and therefore science and methods of teaching are directed to practical ends (vol. 33, p. 163);” Even the state had to compulsorily popularize cultural education in the form of laws. Marx and Engels fully affirmed the long struggle of the British people to popularize education in national legislation.

16.2 The Dependency Form of Objects in Intercourse

339

Due to the popularization of culture, the mass media has become a symbol of civilization. Marx put “the worker’s participation in higher, including spiritual, pleasures, agitation for his own interests, subscription to newspapers, attending lectures, educating his children, developing his taste, etc., his only share in civilisation, which distinguishes him from the slave, is economically possible only by his extension of the range of his enjoyments in times of good business, that is at the times when saving is possible to a certain degree (vol. 28, p. 216)” He commented on Russian soldiers’ newspaper reading behavior, saying, “At any rate it is a sign of civilisation that Russian soldiers should read newspapers and be ‘irritated’ by newspaper reports (vol. 14, p. 309).” The universal labor system created by capital forms an intangible coercive force that required production to go far beyond the narrow purpose of self-sufficiency, to earn free time outside of sustaining life and social reproduction, and to engage in mental activities and interactions. In this sense, Marx said, “In so far as it is capital’s compulsion which enforces on the great mass of society this labour over and above its immediate needs, capital creates civilisation; performs a socio-historical function. With this there is created society’s industriousness in general (vol. 30, p. 196),” With free time, it meant the expansion and deepening of mental activities and interactions. This is because “[i]n relation to the whole of society, the production of disposable time [can] also [be considered] as the creation of time for the production of science, art, etc. (vol. 28, p. 328).” Under the dependency form of objects in intercourse, people may not be limited by utilitarian purposes and instead, consider mental development, enjoyment, and intercourse. In this sense, Marx said, “Hence it is instrumental, malgré lui, in creating the means of social disposable time, of reducing labour time for the whole of society to a declining minimum, and of thus setting free the time of all [members of society] for their own development (vol. 29, p. 94).” Of course, what was provided here was only a possibility, but it was enough to make Marx and Engels think about a more profound problem-the comprehensive development of man.

16.2.2 Alienation in Intercourse Capital opened the way for the socialization of human material and mental interactions, but also brought new problems. This is the alienation in intercourse. In 1843, Moses Heβ and Engels first raised this question, and later, Marx made a comprehensive argument. In 1844, Engels discovered that under the new conditions of universal intercourse, there was universal isolation. He pointed out, “because private property isolates everyone in his own crude solitariness, and because, nevertheless, everyone has the same interest as his neighbour, one landowner stands antagonistically confronted by another, one capitalist by another, one worker by another (vol.3, p. 432).”

340

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

In other words, competition caused people to behave contrarily to their interactions, which became the new isolation. Two years later he and Marx said, “Competition separates individuals from one another, not only the bourgeois but still more the workers, in spite of the fact that it brings them together. Hence it is a long time before these individuals can unite, apart from the fact that for the purpose of this union—if it is not to be merely local—the necessary means, the big industrial cities and cheap and quick communications, have first to be produced by large-scale industry. Hence every organised power standing over against these isolated individuals, who live in conditions daily reproducing this isolation, can only be overcome after long struggles. To demand the opposite would be tantamount to demanding that competition should not exist in this definite epoch of history, or that the individuals should banish from their minds conditions over which in their isolation they have no control (vol. 5, p. 75).” This strange intercourse phenomenon was due to the social division of labor and private ownership. The division of labor made it necessary for people to establish contact, and thus produced what Marx called “[t]he pressure of general demand and supply upon each other provides the connection between the mutually indifferent individuals (vol. 28, p. 95).” However, this connection is not for other parties, but for actual interests that are not entirely natural. This kind of interest created mistrust in people, who then keep secrets from each other, and this caused the relationship between people to become very indifferent. This way, “[t]he individuals appear to be independent (this independence, which altogether is merely an illusion and should more correctly be called unconcern, in the sense of indifference), appear to collide with each other freely, and to exchange with each other in this freedom (vol. 28, p. 100);” People have created the material conditions for universal intercourse, which in turn prevented people from realizing intercourse. However, it was precisely the contradiction of intercourse and alienation, which greatly stimulated the rapid expansion of information circulation in the market economy and society. Marx explained the whole process quite completely, he wrote, “since the general interconnection and absolute interdependence in production and consumption grows simultaneously with the independence of consumers and producers and their indifference to each other; since this contradiction leads to crises, etc., simultaneously with the development of this estrangement there are attempts to abolish it on its own ground: current price lists, exchange rates, communication between commercialists by letters, telegrams, etc. (the means of communication of course develop simultaneously), by means of which each individual provides himself with information on the activities of all others and seeks to adjust his own activity accordingly. (In other words, although the demand and supply of all proceeds independently of all, each seeks to inform himself of the general state of demand and supply; and this knowledge influences their action (vol. 28, p. 98).” People’s intercourse was controlled by things, which became the basic reason for alienation in intercourse. Under this invisible control, regardless of whether the party was conscious or not, in fact, he was only in a situation where the form was ‘free’ and yet not actually free. According to Marx, “This type of individual freedom is therefore, at the same time, the most sweeping abolition of all individual freedom

16.2 The Dependency Form of Objects in Intercourse

341

and the complete subjugation of individuality to social conditions which assume the form of objective powers, indeed of overpowering objects—objects independent of the individuals relating to one another (vol. 29, p. 40).” Marx could not help but suffered from his own wisdom. For example, in order to live, he had to write for The New York Daily Tribune, which contradicted his purpose in life. Nevertheless, he had to do it. In this regard, he wrote, “I find perpetual hackwork for the newspapers tiresome. It is time-consuming, distracting and, in the end, amounts to very little. However independent one may think oneself, one is tied to the newspaper and its readers, especially when, like myself, one is paid in cash. Purely learned work is something totally different (vol. 39, p. 367).” In this regard, Marx and Engels used philosophical language to make an argument. They posited that “The collision consists precisely in the fact that what is expected of my ability [Vermögen] is different from what it is capable of doing, e. g., it is demanded of my ability to write verses that it should make money out of these verses. My ability is expected to produce something quite different from the specific product of this special ability, viz., a product depending on extraneous conditions which are not subject to my ability (vol. 5, p. 407).” So far, the alienation in intercourse can be summarized by the following three points that Marx said. First, “In the current price lists, in which all values are measured in money, it seems as though the independence of the social character of things from persons, and also the trading activity conducted on this basis of estrangement in which the general relations of production and exchange appear to the individual, to all individuals, subject the things once again to the individuals (vol. 28, p. 97).” In this case, people’s intercourse was, but their grasp and understanding of the intercourse was unclear. Second, “for the first time a social process appears as a social nexus in opposition to the individuals (vol. 29, p. 426).” In this case, the entire social connection overrides the individual in intercourse, and the individual becomes helpless in the overall social communication. Third, the extent and the universality of development of the capacities in which this kind of individuality became possible presupposed precisely the production on the basis of exchange value, which, along with the universality of the estrangement of individuals from themselves and from others, now also produces the universality and generality of all their relations and abilities (vol. 28, p. 99). In this situation, people experienced their own needs and the influence of others everywhere, which limited the overall development of the individual’s spirit. Alienation in intercourse is an inevitable stage in the development of human mental intercourse. Alienation and the overcoming of alienation drove people’s exchanges to expand and diversify. In 1857, Marx talked about the effect of information dissemination and general statistics on eliminating alienation in intercourse. He said, “Although all this does not abolish the estrangement in the context of the existing point of view, it does bring about relations and connections which entail the possibility of overcoming the old standpoint.) (The possibility of general statistics, etc.) (vol. 28, p. 98)” In Marx’s prediction, can we not see some characteristics of the modern information society?

342

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

16.3 Forms of Comprehensive Development of People in Intercourse The form of the all-round development of the interacting person was the development trend that Marx and Engels showed based on the dependency form of the object in intercourse and the form of future social interaction envisaged by them. This social form had gotten rid of the restriction of human dependence and material dependence on intercourse and was characterized by the overall development of the individual. In this regard, they wrote, “The reality which communism creates is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals, insofar as reality is nevertheless only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals. Thus the Communists in practice treat the conditions created up to now by production and intercourse as inorganic conditions, without, however, imagining that it was the plan or the destiny of previous generations to give them material, and without believing that these conditions were inorganic for the individuals creating them (vol. 5, p. 81).” When drafting Communist Manifesto, Engels summarized the characteristics of this social form of intercourse as the following paragraph: To organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society (vol. 6, p. 96). The contradictions and conflicts of capital that made Marx see the characteristics of these future societies. To capture the surplus labor without restriction, capital must expand to all fields and fully develop its energy, including the energy for the development of human spiritual communication. So this has created the possibility of comprehensive development of people, and people have realized this possibility. Marx pointed out, “likewise the universality of intercourse, hence also the world market as basis. The basis as the possibility of the universal development of the individuals, and their actual development from this basis as constant transcendence of their barrier, which is/recognised as such, and is not interpreted as a sacred limit. The universality of the individual not as an imaginary concept, but the universality of his real and notional relations (vol. 28, pp. 465–466).” When people consciously got rid of the restrictions of the dependence relationship of things and strove to develop themselves comprehensively, they moved towards the future form of intercourse. Marx believed that in the future, mental intercourse was forced by the need for survival and the unconscious intercourse brought about by the psychological surface would give way to higher forms of intercourse such as human self-realization and mental enjoyment. Taking composition as an example, he said that composition was still serious and intense work at that time, but it was a kind of “the self-realisation of the individual (vol. 28, p. 530), […] of a scientific character and simultaneously general [in its application], and not the exertion of the worker as a natural force drilled in a particular way, but as a subject, which appears in the production process not in a merely natural, spontaneous form, but as an activity controlling all natural forces (vol. 28, p. 530). […] Their orientation to the object is

16.3 Forms of Comprehensive Development of People in Intercourse

343

the manifestation of the human reality, it is human activity and human suffering, for suffering, humanly considered, is a kind of self-enjoyment of man (vol. 3, p. 300).” The material advancement of the all-round development form of the individuals in contact was to eliminate the private possession of means of production, and each individual in the new society was the master of means of production. This required people to have the ability to control autonomous activities. Regarding the necessary condition of human personal quality, Marx and Engels wrote, “The all-round realisation of the individual will only cease to be conceived as an ideal, a vocation, etc., when the impact of the world which stimulates the real development of the abilities of the individual is under the control of the individuals themselves, as the communists desire (vol. 5, p. 292).” In other words, the new form of intercourse should also be accompanied by the development of the person’s own quality and should not initiate a revolution nor possess the means of production. The comprehensive development of the person and the true liberation of his personality would then naturally be realized. When demonstrating the abandonment of private ownership, Marx first thought of the liberation of people in terms of communication. He said, “The abolition of private property is therefore the complete emancipation of all human senses and qualities, but it is this emancipation precisely because these senses and attributes have become, subjectively and objectively, human (vol. 3, p. 300). […] Need or enjoyment has consequently lost its egotistical nature, and nature has lost its mere utility by use becoming human use. (vol. 3, p. 300).” In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels expressed the characteristics of communism as such, “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all (vol. 6, p. 506).” When it came to the inevitable kingdom of human development, Marx believed that the characteristic of this inevitable kingdom was “achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature (vol. 37, p. 807).” In the form of dependence on objects, labor time is a measure of wealth, and in the form of human development, free time (time of leisure) is the measure of wealth. Marx said, “Labour time as the measure of wealth posits wealth itself as based upon poverty, and disposable time only as existing in and through the opposition to surplus labour time (vol. 29, p. 94).” He noticed a passage from the German politician Will Schultz very early and wrote it in his notes, “To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs—they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment (vol. 3, p. 242).” When Marx wrote down this passage, the free time he considered was mainly related to mental creation and mental enjoyment. With free time, human labor did not have the nature of livestock, and it was possible for personality to develop freely. Due to the change in the scale of measuring wealth, man developed real protection as the subject of mental intercourse, and man no longer treated himself as a cell or attachment to the production process of the community as in the past. In regard to

344

16 The Three Social Forms of Intercourse

this, Marx said, “Free time—which is both leisure and time for higher activity—has naturally transformed its possessor into another subject (vol. 29, p. 97).” Since people truly become the main body of mental intercourse, material is no longer the main problem people entangle day and night, then, in the future society, mental intercourse, especially higher-level intercourse, will occupy the main position. In the past society, mental intercourse was basically just a dependency on social material production. Once entering the social form of comprehensive human development, the ruling class became redundant and became an obstacle to the new way of civilized intercourse. Engels predicted this, writing that “it is precisely this industrial revolution which has raised/ the productive power of human labour to such a high level that— for the first time in the history of mankind—the possibility exists, given a rational division of labour among all, of producing not only enough for the plentiful consumption of all members of society and for an abundant reserve fund, but also of leaving each individual sufficient leisure so that what is really worth preserving in historically inherited culture—science, art, forms of intercourse, etc.—may not only be preserved but converted from a monopoly of the ruling class into the common property of the whole of society, and may be further developed (vol. 23, pp. 324–325).” At that time, the relationship between people would also change. Marx wrote, “the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow (vol. 35, p. 90).” In the dependence relationship of people, the relationship between people is basically replaced by the relationship between the communities, so it is unclear; in the dependence relationship of objects, the relationship between people is covered by the relationship among objects. On the surface, they appear to be very close; but in fact, everyone is very isolated. The form of comprehensive development of human beings will eliminate the hazy and illusory shadows of human-to-human relations because, at this time, there is no longer a ruling class and class differences. Meanwhile, human personalities and talents are fully exerted, and the relationship between people will be established clearly on the basis of self-awareness. Marx and Engels did not intend to construct the final details of the future social and spiritual exchanges but pointed out the basic characteristics: the comprehensive development of human beings and their qualities, the new scale of free time, the demise of the ruling class, etc. The rapid development of mental intercourse in today’s world has confirmed to a large extent the scientific elements they had foreseen.

Reference Morgan LH (1877) Ancient society or researches in the lines of human progress from Savagery through Barbarism to civilization. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago

Postscript

The publication of the English version of this book was confirmed in 2015, and the translation work started in 2017. This book portrays the intercourse theories of Marx and Engels who lived in the nineteenth century and is based entirely on their works. There are many citations involving different languages. Many conceptual terms require the translator to be familiar with the background so as to accurately express them in English. The translator, Wendy Ashleigh Teo, who is familiar with English and German, has made great efforts to translate this book. In trying to maintain the consistency of the English translations of Marx and Engels’ works, we have referred to the English translations of their works in German, French and other languages, which are taken from the English version of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Collected Works (London: Lawrence and Wishart Electronic Book), in addition to the works originally published in English. As there are numerous differences in the arrangement of Marx and Engels’ published works in English, Chinese, German, and Russian, it is difficult to cross-check the sources for citations. Also, there are little to no English versions of Marx’s reading notes, and so, it is necessary to look into the original works published before the nineteenth century. Ms. Liao Jinying has overcome many difficulties to complete this work. Thanks to Wendy and Liao Jinying for their hard work in translation, and Wu Jingwei for her proofreading. Finally, I want to emphasize again: the connotation of the term intercourse as discussed by Marx and Engels is premised on the concept of “Verkehr”, which is far more extensive than the idea of contemporary “communication”. It includes commercial trade and transportation in the sense of capital circulation. It is a kind of human manipulation, which also refers to the exchange of information in the spiritual sense, such as the transmission of telegrams, messages, and letters, and also refers to sex between men and women. When Marx and Engels argued for “Verkehr”, they included the full meaning of the word, including but not limited to the material and

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 L. Chen, On the Mental Intercourse, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8595-8

345

346

Postscript

spiritual exchanges between individuals, social groups, nations, and nations. Their discussion of the intercourse phenomena is thus different from the macro-connotation of “communication” on many levels and in many aspects. Chen Lidan. 31st May 2021.