Richard N. Hunt, The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels. I: Marxism and Totalitarian Democracy, 1818–1850 (Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974), xiv + 363 pp.

J. Seigel
{"title":"Richard N. Hunt, The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels. I: Marxism and Totalitarian Democracy, 1818–1850 (Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974), xiv + 363 pp.","authors":"J. Seigel","doi":"10.1017/S0097852300015902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Richard N. Hunt's The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels the first of two promised volumes is an exhaustively researched and painstakingly argued brief for a position that is becoming increasingly popular: that Marx and Engels were democrats. Despite all appearances they favored neither dictatorship nor minority revolution, but limited themselves to tactics in which violence would be kept at a minimum, and in which the rule of the proletariat was always equated with the democratic rule of the majority. In this first volume Hunt aims his thesis against the view associated with Jacob Talmon, that Marxism was a form of \"totalitarian democracy.\" Having separated Marx and Engels from this tradition (whose existence, apart from them, he does not question) in volume one, Hunt promises to distinguish them from later nineteenth century social democracy in volume two. Marx and Engels occupied a position between the elitism of the former and the reformism of the latter, making them in Hunt's phrase, \"hard-headed democrats.\" Beginning with an account of \"totalitarian democracy\" in the form of Blanquist revolutionary theory, Hunt shows that neither Marx nor Engels passed through this position on their way to proletarian communism. Marx came to communism through Hegelian radical liberalism and \"true democracy\" while Engels came to communism directly from the revolutionary democracy of Borne and Heine. In the process the two men evolved differing theories of the state, Marx's emphasizing the domination exercised by a despotic bureaucracy over the whole of civil society, Engels' the class nature of all political rule. (The two conceptions reflected German and English conditions, respectively.) The political future envisioned in the two men's intellectual partnership hence emphasized both the integration of political functions into social life and the elimination of class society. Behind this vision lay a \"profound commitment to humanist and egalitarian values\" which was sometimes obscured by Marx and Engels' later \"scientific\" vocabulary but which never lost its hold on their action or thought. They gave their aiiegiance to oniy two possible revolutionary strategies, revolution by a developed proletarian majority in no need of dictatorial education to prepare them for political rule, or, in less advanced conditions, revolution by an alliance of proletarians with the other \"majority classes\" peasants and artisans to establish a democratic regime within which the proletarian majority would have time to emerge. Despite their willingness to ally with Blanquist revolutionaries during 1850, Marx and Engels never really embraced the Blanquist strategy of minority revolution and educational dictatorship. The famous \"March Circular\" of 1850, in which Marx and Engels called for resolute action \"to make the revolution permanent\" in case the \"bourgeois democrats\" gained power in the coming upheaval, Hunt discounts as the result of a momentary compromise between the two friends and Blanquist members of the Communist League. Marx and Engels \"were obliged to eat humble pie,\" and recommend actions they never really favored. Hunt disposes similarly of the troubling prediction in The Communist Manifesto that the bourgeois revolution in Germany would be \"but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution\"necessarily the work of a minority given backward German conditions. Marx and Engels included this phrase as","PeriodicalId":363865,"journal":{"name":"Newsletter, European Labor and Working Class History","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1975-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Newsletter, European Labor and Working Class History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0097852300015902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Richard N. Hunt's The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels the first of two promised volumes is an exhaustively researched and painstakingly argued brief for a position that is becoming increasingly popular: that Marx and Engels were democrats. Despite all appearances they favored neither dictatorship nor minority revolution, but limited themselves to tactics in which violence would be kept at a minimum, and in which the rule of the proletariat was always equated with the democratic rule of the majority. In this first volume Hunt aims his thesis against the view associated with Jacob Talmon, that Marxism was a form of "totalitarian democracy." Having separated Marx and Engels from this tradition (whose existence, apart from them, he does not question) in volume one, Hunt promises to distinguish them from later nineteenth century social democracy in volume two. Marx and Engels occupied a position between the elitism of the former and the reformism of the latter, making them in Hunt's phrase, "hard-headed democrats." Beginning with an account of "totalitarian democracy" in the form of Blanquist revolutionary theory, Hunt shows that neither Marx nor Engels passed through this position on their way to proletarian communism. Marx came to communism through Hegelian radical liberalism and "true democracy" while Engels came to communism directly from the revolutionary democracy of Borne and Heine. In the process the two men evolved differing theories of the state, Marx's emphasizing the domination exercised by a despotic bureaucracy over the whole of civil society, Engels' the class nature of all political rule. (The two conceptions reflected German and English conditions, respectively.) The political future envisioned in the two men's intellectual partnership hence emphasized both the integration of political functions into social life and the elimination of class society. Behind this vision lay a "profound commitment to humanist and egalitarian values" which was sometimes obscured by Marx and Engels' later "scientific" vocabulary but which never lost its hold on their action or thought. They gave their aiiegiance to oniy two possible revolutionary strategies, revolution by a developed proletarian majority in no need of dictatorial education to prepare them for political rule, or, in less advanced conditions, revolution by an alliance of proletarians with the other "majority classes" peasants and artisans to establish a democratic regime within which the proletarian majority would have time to emerge. Despite their willingness to ally with Blanquist revolutionaries during 1850, Marx and Engels never really embraced the Blanquist strategy of minority revolution and educational dictatorship. The famous "March Circular" of 1850, in which Marx and Engels called for resolute action "to make the revolution permanent" in case the "bourgeois democrats" gained power in the coming upheaval, Hunt discounts as the result of a momentary compromise between the two friends and Blanquist members of the Communist League. Marx and Engels "were obliged to eat humble pie," and recommend actions they never really favored. Hunt disposes similarly of the troubling prediction in The Communist Manifesto that the bourgeois revolution in Germany would be "but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution"necessarily the work of a minority given backward German conditions. Marx and Engels included this phrase as
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理查德·n·亨特,《马克思和恩格斯的政治思想》。1:马克思主义和极权民主,1818-1850(匹兹堡,匹兹堡大学出版社,1974年),14 + 363页。
理查德·n·亨特的《马克思和恩格斯的政治思想》是他承诺出版的两卷书中的第一部,这本书对马克思和恩格斯是民主主义者的观点进行了详尽的研究和精心的论证,这一观点正变得越来越流行。尽管表面上看,他们既不赞成专政,也不赞成少数人的革命,而是把自己的策略局限于把暴力控制在最低限度,把无产阶级的统治始终等同于多数人的民主统治。在第一卷中,亨特的论点是反对雅各布·塔尔蒙的观点,即马克思主义是一种“极权民主”形式。亨特在第一卷中将马克思和恩格斯从这一传统中分离出来(他不质疑马克思和恩格斯的存在),并承诺在第二卷中将他们与十九世纪后期的社会民主主义区分开来。马克思和恩格斯处于前者的精英主义和后者的改良主义之间,用亨特的话来说,他们是“头脑冷静的民主主义者”。亨特从布朗基主义革命理论形式的“极权民主”开始,表明马克思和恩格斯在通往无产阶级共产主义的道路上都没有经过这个位置。马克思是通过黑格尔的激进自由主义和“真正的民主主义”走向共产主义的,而恩格斯则是直接从伯恩和海涅的革命民主主义走向共产主义的。在这一过程中,两人发展出了不同的国家理论,马克思强调专制官僚对整个市民社会的统治,恩格斯强调一切政治统治的阶级性。(这两个概念分别反映了德国和英国的情况。)因此,在两人的思想伙伴关系中设想的政治未来既强调了政治功能与社会生活的整合,也强调了阶级社会的消除。在这一愿景的背后,是一种“对人文主义和平等主义价值观的深刻承诺”,这种承诺有时被马克思和恩格斯后来的“科学”词汇所掩盖,但从未失去对他们行动或思想的控制。他们只支持两种可能的革命策略,一种是由发达的无产阶级多数进行革命,而不需要接受专政教育来为政治统治做准备;另一种是,在不那么先进的条件下,由无产者与其他“多数阶级”农民和手工业者结成联盟,建立一个民主政权,使无产阶级多数有时间在其中出现。尽管马克思和恩格斯在1850年愿意与布朗基主义革命者结盟,但他们从未真正接受布朗基主义的少数民族革命和教育专政战略。在1850年著名的“三月通函”中,马克思和恩格斯呼吁采取坚决行动“使革命永久化”,以防“资产阶级民主派”在即将到来的动乱中掌权,亨特认为这是两位朋友与共产主义同盟的布朗基派成员之间短暂妥协的结果。马克思和恩格斯“不得不忍气吞声”,并建议采取他们从未真正赞成的行动。亨特同样在《共产党宣言》中提出了一个令人不安的预言,即德国的资产阶级革命“不过是紧接着的无产阶级革命的前奏”,鉴于德国落后的条件,它必然是少数人的工作。马克思和恩格斯把这个短语称为
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bronterre O'Brien's Correspondence with Thomas Allsop: New Evidence on the Decline of a Chartist Leader John H. M. Laslett and Seymour Martin Upset, eds., Failure of a Dream ? Essays in the History of American Socialism (Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1974) Bronterre O'Brien's Correspondence with Thomas Allsop: New Evidence on the Decline of a Chartist Leader Revolutionary and Counter-Revolutionary Thought in Habsburg Hungary, 1914–1918 International Approaches to the Study of Labor History
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1