Until now, it was assumed that the Democratic Review, a magazine published in London by J. Gurney, a prominent figure in the English labor movement, one of the leaders of the left wing of Chartism, published only one article by F. Gurney. Engels. However, a study of the materials of this journal suggests that Engels ' collaboration in the Democratic Review was of a broader nature.
F.'s friendly relations Engels and J. Gurney were established when he joined the Union of Communists. At the beginning of 1849. they corresponded almost regularly. F. Engels, who lived in Switzerland, received information from London about the state of affairs in England. Gurney, in turn, turned to him for advice, particularly on the tactics of the proletarian struggle. And although Engels ' letters to Garni have not been preserved, from the latter's reply letters (they are stored in the Central Administration of the IML under the Central Committee of the CPSU), one can imagine what questions were raised in the correspondence. In the spring of 1849, Gurney decided to publish a newspaper and turned to Engels for help. "I want it," Garni wrote on March 19, " to be the organ of European democracy. I want you to send out your weekly correspondence."1 . On March 28, he asked Engels: "... can I count on you at the right moment? " 2 Engels apparently promised to send correspondence to London, for in a letter dated May 1, Gurney, responding to Engels ' letter of April 6, informed him that a monthly magazine would be published instead of the proposed newspaper. "You kindly promised me your help," he wrote , " and now I ask you to fulfill that promise... Choose what topic you want... it might be better if you sent something about German politics or continental politics in general.
I consider it absolutely necessary that something from you should appear in every issue. " 3
The Democratic Review of British and Foreign Politics, History and Literature magazine it was published for a little over a year (June 1849-September 1850). Defining his position, the publisher stated in the first issue that the revolutionary movement in Europe would be covered on the pages of the magazine. "The struggle of democracy against the usurping class," he wrote, " is also taking place on the continent, so affairs on the continent will usually occupy a significant part of the Review... By doing so, the magazine will expose the low press of England - the most vile and deceitful press in Europe, which distorts the reports of meetings and slanders the red Republicans and communists of the continent. " 4 However, at first the magazine failed to pay proper attention to these stories. Marx, who had been living in London since August 1849, was then preoccupied with the organizational affairs of the Communist League and could not cooperate in the new Chartist body. Besides, he didn't know enough English yet, and Gurney didn't know German. Engels arrived in London from Switzerland around November 10, and from that time was able to establish closer contact with the revolutionary wing of the Chartist party.
Did he fulfill his promise to work with the Democratic Review when he arrived in London? Absolutely. Already in March 1850, an article written by him specifically for the English reader, "The question of the ten-hour working day", was published, which dealt with the problem of legislative restrictions on the working day in England (the article was signed: "F. E.") .5
1 "The Harney Papers", edited by. Frank Gees Black and Rence Metivier Black. International Institute of Social History. Assen. 1969, p. 250.
2 Ibid., p. 252.
3 Ibid., p. 254.
4 "Democratic Review", 1849, VI, pp. 3, 5.
5 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, pp. 238-244.
page 204
But even in the January issue there was a special section of messages from France and Germany. In it, until August 1850, 11 correspondence (4 from Germany and 7 from France) were published under the signature "From our own correspondent", which, in our opinion, also belong to F. P. Tolstoy. To Engels. The first three, entitled "Letters from Germany," are dated December 18, 1849, January 20, and February 18, 1850. They are devoted to exposing the machinations of reaction, criticizing the liberal bourgeoisie, and analyzing the doctrines of bourgeois democracy; much attention is paid to the problems of federalism. All three correspondences deal with the immediate revolutionary outlook, and the author insistently emphasizes the inevitability of the imminent onset of a new, revolutionary era. This position, as we know, was very characteristic of Marx and Engels, who passionately expected a revolution in the near future. In other words, the correspondence covered the range of issues that Marx and Engels were raising at the time. Special attention in the "Letters from Germany" was paid to the problem of the unity of the country. At the same time, their author, in full accordance with the position of the Union of Communists, justified the slogan of a united and democratic German republic.
In determining the authorship of "Letters from Germany", their comparison with the works of Marx and Engels written in that period is of great importance, along with the analysis of their content. It is especially important to compare the texts of correspondence with the works of the founders of scientific socialism, published after the publication of "Letters from Germany", since the latter circumstance excludes the possibility of borrowing ideas or formulations from these works. Letters from Germany reveals numerous textual similarities with the later works of Marx and Engels. Thus, in the first correspondence, the assessment of the political situation in Germany by the end of 1849, both in terms of meaning and text, almost completely coincides with the assessment given by Marx and Engels in their joint "First International Review" written in January - February 1850, published in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung Revue. However, the main argument in favor of the authorship of F. Engels still has the ideological side, the meaning of the article, and its main conclusion: "The confusion that has arisen as a result of all attempts to transform Germany into a federal state clearly proves that any such plan will be fruitless, impracticable, and reckless, and that since Germany is a country of very high civilization, its state structure can only be realized as a result of the fact that in the form of a German republic, united and indivisible, democratic and social. " 6 It is well known that apart from the German Communists led by Marx and Engels, not a single political party in Germany stood on the platform of the struggle for a "united and indivisible, democratic and social" German Republic.
The second "Letter from Germany" is devoted to the political and social situation of the largest countries of the German Union - Austria and Prussia. The author mercilessly castigates the military despotism of Austria, which "becomes more and more unbearable every day." 7 The destruction of press freedom, mass repressions, including public floggings, and the flourishing system of political surveillance - all this is hypocritically covered up by the existence of "local constitutions" that have lost all meaning. The correspondence provides an in-depth analysis of the country's difficult financial situation, which the author considers to be the basis for the inevitable revolutionary upsurge in the future. Even more sharply he criticizes the reactionary actions of King Frederick William IV of Prussia, especially the new Prussian constitution, which preserved the privileges of the nobility and the prerogatives of the royal power. In its structure, content, political orientation, range of ideas and facts, the correspondence is very similar to the abbreviated version of the "First International Review".
The greatest semantic and textual similarities with the works of Marx and Engels are found in the third "Letter from Germany", which analyzes the internal political situation of Prussia and the foreign policy of the Holy Alliance powers. The description of the episode connected with Frederick William IV's taking the oath of allegiance to the constitution in the Letter from Germany and the First International Review, as well as in other documents of Marx and Engels, is given not only from an identical angle, but also contains textual coincidences:
6 "Democratic Review", 1850, I, p. 318.
7 "Democratic Review", 1850, II, p. 357.
page 205
"Letter from Germany"
First International Review
"...that he is a " man of honor.".. gives his word only on one condition: so that he can rule under this constitution. " 8
The "man of honor" swore allegiance to the Constitution on the condition that he "will be given the opportunity to rule under this constitution." 14
There are even more coincidences in the presentation of the question of the possibility of military actions of the Holy Alliance against France. This applies, in particular, to forecasts regarding the possible path of aggression. Speaking of the main goal - an attack on France, the author of the Letter from Germany predicts that the campaign may begin first against Switzerland or Turkey, and only then against France .9 Marx and Engels also suggested in their review that an attack on France "will be preceded by sabotage" against these countries. 10
In August 1850, the Democratic Review published a fourth correspondence from Germany, entitled " The Schleswig-Holstein War." It clearly shows and justifies the idea that the revolutionary party is striving for a firm unification of the large nationalities artificially divided into small states , and therefore for the reunification of Italy and Germany above all; in addition, it is about granting independence to the Hungarian and Polish nations, which the author calls "large and equal in strength". like French, English, German, Italian"11 . It is well known that Marx and Engels most resolutely supported the revolutionary struggle of Poles and Hungarians in 1848-1849. Very interesting is the thesis of the author of the correspondence that "the war in Schleswig was the only revolutionary war that Germany ever waged" 15 . It coincides not only in meaning, but also textually with the assessment of this event in the works of Karl Marx and Franz Liszt. Engels 16 .
From January to August 1850, the Democratic Review published a series of correspondence under the heading "Letters from France." They were closely related to each other compositionally and ideologically. From their text, it is quite clear that they all belong to the pen of one author. We will confine ourselves to the analysis of three correspondences dealing with the important problems of the class struggle of that epoch. In a letter dated January 21, 1850, an analysis of the situation in the French countryside, especially the mood of the peasantry, was given, which is presented not just from the positions of Marx and Engels, but almost textually coincides with the corresponding passages from Marx's "Class Struggle in France". In particular, in both works, the results of elections in the Gar department are completely identical.
Text from "Democratic Review"
From Marx's text
"This department, as you know, is the oldest stronghold of the "white" legitimists. It was the site of the most terrible massacres of Republicans in 1794 and 1795 ...it was the hotbed of the "white terror" in 1815, when Protestants and liberals were openly killed... So the department had to choose a deputy to replace the deceased legitimist, and as a result, a huge majority voted for a completely red candidate. " 12
The revolution in the mood of the peasantry "was reflected on December 20, 1849, in the election of krasny to replace the deceased legitimist deputy of the Department of Gare, that promised land of legitimists, the scene of the most terrible reprisals against Republicans in 1794 and 1795, the main focus of the terreur blanche [white terror] of 1815, where liberals and Protestants were openly killed" 17.
Other correspondence from France13 covered the results of the parliamentary elections of March 10, 1850, which ended in an undisputed victory for the Democratic-Socialists.-
8 "Democratic Review", 1850, III, p. 397.
9 Ibid., p. 398.
10 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 235.
11 "Democratic Review", 1850, VIII, p. 119.
12 "Democratic Review", 1850, II, pp. 355- 356.
13 " Elections. "A glorious victory for the Reds. - The supremacy of the proletarians. - Despondency in the Party of order. - New plans, repressions and provocations in relation to the revolution " ("Democratic Review", 1850, IV, pp. 435-437).
14 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 234.
15 "Democratic Review", 1850, VIII, p. 120.
16 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. 5, p. 419; see also vol. 8, p. 58.
17 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 86.
page 206
the client block. The Democratic Review and later writings of Marx and Engels evaluated the position of the Holy Alliance after the elections in exactly the same way and in almost the same terms .18 However, the decisive argument in favor of the authorship of F. Engels ' correspondence presents us with the coverage of the question of the new alignment of class forces within the democratic coalition, of the change in their correlation from February 1848 to March 1850. Assessing the election results of March 10, 1850, Karl Marx wrote: "It was a general coalition against the bourgeoisie and the government, just like in February. But this time the proletariat was at the head of the revolutionary league." 19 The account of this story in the Letter from France runs as follows: "If the triumph of the Red Party is explained by the alliance of the petty-bourgeois class with the proletariat, then this alliance is based on completely different conditions than the short-term unification that led to the overthrow of the monarchy. At that time, it was precisely the small merchant and industrial class, the petty bourgeoisie, that gained the upper hand in the Provisional Government and, to an even greater extent, in the Constituent Assembly, and very soon eliminated the influence of the proletarians. Today, on the contrary, the workers are the leaders of the movement, and the petty bourgeoisie, equally oppressed and ruined by capital and rewarded with bankruptcy for the services rendered in June 1848, is forced to follow the advancing revolutionary proletariat."20
A letter from France, dated June 22, 1850, deals with the events surrounding the abolition of universal suffrage. The author concludes that " the people of Paris undoubtedly made a serious mistake in missing the opportunity to raise an insurrection provided by the abolition of universal suffrage."21 . For what reasons did the workers of the capital become passive at such a crucial moment? The author sees them in the fact that, firstly, the proletarians of Paris are no longer satisfied with the "socialist" systems that reject revolution; secondly, the workers of France no longer trust people who claim to lead their struggle, including even Barbez and Blanqui. The author expresses confidence that the French working people, "having begun to think independently, freed themselves from the old socialist views, will soon find socialist and revolutionary slogans that will express their needs and interests much more clearly than all that was invented for them by the authors of various systems and leaders-eloquent", and "the movement of the working class". it takes on a different, much more revolutionary character. " 22 This idea is extremely interesting: it formed the basis of the work "The Class Struggle in France".
Another article published in the "Democratic Review" suggests the participation of F. Engels in this edition. In April-June 1850, it published the article "Two Years of the Revolution". It was a translation of the first chapter of Karl Marx's new work, The Class Struggle in France, which had not yet been completed. Despite the large bills, the political orientation, the main ideas, the meaning of this brilliant creation were preserved and masterfully brought to the English reader, although the abbreviations were sometimes very significant. Consequently, we have not just translated passages from Marx's work, but a creative translation of it with the explicit goal of popularizing the views of the founder of scientific communism on the revolution of 1848 in France, its causes, driving forces, character, etc. among the Chartists. They kept up to date with French events, but also allowed us to understand the state of affairs in England itself. Although there is still no direct evidence that would indicate the author's name, one thing is certain, however: it could only be a person who was very close to Marx, who knew the course of his thoughts well and was able to comment on them, a person who deeply penetrated the events of English history and could consider them from a Marxist perspective. Among the friends and associates of Marx at that time, it is difficult to find anyone else who knew his ideas so thoroughly and thoroughly, spoke English and German so brilliantly, and was able to prepare this publication so quickly and well for publication. Engels. Therefore, it is logical to prev-
18 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 237.
19 Ibid., p. 93.
20 "Democratic Review", 1850, IV, p. 436.
21 "Democratic Review", 1850, VII, p. 77.
22 Ibid.
page 207
it should be noted that it was he who prepared the publication, translated and commented on it. Thus, familiarity with the content of articles about Germany and France published in the "Democratic Review", their textual analysis allows us to make a preliminary conclusion about their belonging to F. To Engels. In conclusion, let us recall that in the Central Committee's appeal to the Union of Communists in June 1850, Marx and Engels, speaking of the Central Committee's close and constant connection with the leaders of the revolutionary Chartist Party, wrote: "Its press organs are at our service." 23 At that time, as is well known, only one revolutionary chartist organ was published - the Democratic Review.
23 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 328.
page 208
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2023-2025, ELIBRARY.ORG.UK is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of the Great Britain |