The Second and Third Internationals

For at least forty years after Marx’s death this fundamental link between Marxism and the self-emancipation of the working class was taken as a given by virtually everyone who considered themselves a Marxist. It was reasserted on numerous occasions by Engels during the twelve years that he survived Marx.

At least at a verbal level it formed a cornerstone of the leading party of the Second International, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). Thus the Erfurt Programme of 1891, by which the party shed its previous compromises with the Lassalleans, as- serted that:

“This social transformation [from capitalism to socialism] amounts to the eman- cipation not only of the proletariat, but of the entire human race, which is suffer- ing from current conditions. But it can only be the work of the working class” (Erfurt Programme 1891).

And, in his lengthy popular gloss on the programme, The Class Struggle written in 1892, the SPD’s leading Marxist theoretician, Karl Kautsky devoted much attention to the development and political role of the proletariat (Kautsky 1892, particularly sections II and V).

The volte-face of the SPD into supporting its own government in 1914 raises the question of whether all of this was simply lip-service. But we should note two things in this context. First until 1914 this lip service was accepted at face value by, amongst others, Lenin. Second within the SPD there was a substantial left current (see Schorske 1955) many of whom were later to be founders of the German Communist Party, including Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin and Franz Mehring. One can scarcely accuse them of simply paying lip-service to the revolutionary self- emancipation of the working class.

Rosa Luxemburg, in particular, wrote some of the most powerful works of the pre- World War 1 period on the self-activity of the proletariat as a preparation for its revolu- tionary self-emancipation, most famously Reform and Revolution, written in response to Eduard Bernstein’s revisionism, and The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions, commenting on the spontaneous strike waves in the 1905 Russian rev- olution and their relevance for German Social Democracy (Luxemburg 1900; 1906).

Amid a huge upsurge in working-class self-activity in Europe after the First World War the call of the Bolsheviks to break from the compromised Social Democratic par- ties, and form new revolutionary Communist Parties in a new revolutionary Communist International met with a huge and enthusiastic response. Here it was clear that the self- emancipation of the proletariat was an essential, very likely the essential, component of Marxism.

Two quotes from the period, one from towards its beginning, one from towards its end, from thinkers who have subsequently been (misleadingly) grouped into the dis- tinctly academically-oriented construct “Western Marxism” (Anderson 1976, 25-26) bear this out. First the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, writing in 1919 in relation to the factory councils of Turin:

538 Peter Goodwin

CC-BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons License, 2018. “The socialist State already exists potentially in the institutions of social life char- acteristic of the exploited working class. To link these institutions, co-ordinating and ordering them into a highly centralized hierarchy of competences and pow- ers, while respecting the necessary autonomy and articulation of each, is to cre- ate a genuine workers’ democracy here and now – a workers’ democracy in effective and active opposition to the bourgeois State, and prepared to replace it here and now” (Gramsci 1919, 65)

Second the Hungarian Communist Georg Lukács writing in 1924 the opening of his little book Lenin:

“Historical materialism is the theory of the proletarian revolution. It is so because its essence is an intellectual synthesis of the social existence which produces and fundamentally determines the proletariat: and because the proletariat strug- gling for liberation finds its clear self-consciousness in it” (Lukács 1970, 9). 4. Who Were the Proletariat and What Were They Supposed to Do?

Given that the proletariat was so central to Marx and Engels’ thought from the mid- 1840s onwards what precisely did they understand by the proletariat? First it should be understood that from the beginning they used “proletariat” and “working class” in- terchangeably. As Engels put it explicitly in March 1845 in his preface to The Condition of the Working Class in England: “I have continually used the expressions working- men (Arbeiter) and proletarians, working-class, propertyless class and proletariat as equivalents” (Engels 1845, 304).

This flexibility of usage persisted in the work of both Engels and Marx, and of sub- sequent Marxists. But alongside that early flexibility, there was a clear conception of who that proletariat/working class was. Engels makes the point explicitly – this time in his Principles of Communism, a catechism-like presentation of many of the ideas soon to be incorporated in the Communist Manifesto:

“Question 2: What is the proletariat?

Answer: The proletariat is that class of society which procures its means of live- lihood entirely and solely from the sale of its labour […] whose whole existence is dependent on the demand for labour, hence […] on the fluctuations resulting from unbridled competition. The proletariat […] is, in a word, the working class of the nineteenth century.

Question 3: Then there have not always been proletarians?

Answer: No. Poor folk and working classes have always existed […] But such poor, such workers who live under the conditions just stated, that is proletarians, have not always existed, any more than competition has always been free and unbridled” (Engels 1847, 341).

So, for Marx and Engels, the proletariat consisted of those who lived by selling their labour (or rather, as the pair were soon to refine their economic terminology, their la- bour power) under capitalism. Even this wide definition clearly excludes peasants and other true petty-bourgeois (those who owned their own means of production). In most of their writings, Marx and Engels went further, implicitly narrowing down this broader definition to urban workers and assuming that these were concentrated in factories. So

tripleC 16(2): 535-545, 2018 539

CC-BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons License, 2018. excluded from the “core” proletariat were agricultural labourers and the then not at all insignificant category of domestic servants.

Various remarks in Marx’s economic writings make further exclusions but also ex- plicitly assert some important (at least to subsequent debates) inclusions. So excluded were wage workers directly employed by government (since, for Marx, they did not produce surplus-value). But explicitly included were service workers (i.e. workers pro- ducing non-material goods) and “white collar” workers (Marx gives the example of a teacher in a private school) and workers in distribution (Draper 1977b, 34-35). As Hal Draper observes, these economic qualifications and clarifications, on the one hand separate Marx’s view of the proletariat, from the caricature of “dirt splattered, horny- handed blue collar toilers”, but on the other hand they leave one with the apparently perverse result that “an editorial supervisor of the Encyclopedia Britannica may be a proletarian while a Navy Yard shipfitter is not” (Ibid., 35-36). But these are not only “extreme” examples, they were also, in Marx’s time fairly uncommon ones.

With the benefit of hindsight, two observations need to be made about these con- ceptions of the proletariat:

First, on either a broader or a narrower definition the proletariat were a distinct mi- nority in Marx’s time in Western Europe and North America, never mind on a world scale. Major “developed” Western European economies (for instance France) retained a majority or near majority agricultural sector, dominated numerically by peasant pro- prietors, until the Second World War. But the corollary of this is that from the time that Marx “discovered” the proletariat in the mid-1840s, the proletariat on any definition un- questionably continued to grow – in Europe and North America until well into the se- cond half of the twentieth century, and in Asia, most notably and dramatically in China, until the present day.

Second, the niceties that Marx’s economic enquiries drew or explicitly didn’t draw about the boundaries of the proletariat were not of a great deal of social or political importance until well into the second half of the twentieth century. The proletariat or working class, both objectively and subjectively, were by and large manual, by and large urban, and if they satisfied these two criteria behaved exactly like proletarians even if they were in direct state employment. In hindsight Marx certainly greatly exag- gerated the communist consciousness of the Silesian weavers’ revolt of 1844 in his contemporaneous polemic, or a writing a few months later similarly exaggerated when he said that “a large part” of the English and French proletariat was already conscious of its historical role. But with equal hindsight we can also say that for over a hundred years after Marx (and Engels) “discovered” the proletariat, proletarians organised and struggled in large numbers, and in very significant numbers numerically dominated mass parties which proclaimed themselves Marxist, like the German SPD before the First World War and the European Communist Parties after it.