David Leopold, Zhang Wencheng (Trans.): Karl Marx and British Socialism

"English Socialism," as used in this text, refers specifically to the socialism of Robert Owen and the Owenite movement. In the literature on Marx, these are often overlooked; even when mentioned, they are usually dismissed as part of "utopian" socialism. Furthermore, many well-known accounts of the development of Marx's thought offer little-to-no mention of the profound influence his English environment had on his research, despite Marx living in London for over 30 years. Some have even suggested that Marx was an isolated German thinker whose social circle was small and almost entirely composed of fellow exiles; they argue he focused his political activities and theoretical research entirely on Continental Europe, possessing only a superficial understanding of Britain, and that his life there had a negligible impact on his thought. For instance, Isaiah Berlin argued that "Marx lived in his own mainly German world... almost entirely unaffected by his surroundings."

Although Lenin, in his discourse on the sources and component parts of Marxism, argued that Marx combined the three previously independent national traditions of "German philosophy, English political economy, and French socialism" into a "perfectly harmonious" whole, he restricted the English influence on Marxism solely to the scope of Marxist economic thought in the strict sense. In reality, the development of Marx’s thought was rooted in various aspects of British politics and culture, and this article attempts to expand and deepen our understanding of these dimensions. In particular, I oppose the following views: that Britain had no real influence on Marx’s thought; that Britain only influenced Marx’s economic thought in the strict sense; and that France was the only country to exert a significant socialist influence on Marx. I contend that British politics and culture had a broad and significant impact on Marx’s life and work, and that several perspectives in his thought were specifically influenced by English socialism.

I. The Significant Influence of British Politics and Culture on Marx

Below, I first provide a brief overview of the areas of British politics and culture that influenced Marx’s life and work, before conducting a more in-depth examination of one of these areas: English socialism.

First, British and especially Scottish political economy was vital to the evolution of Marx’s economic thought in the strict sense, with the research of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and many others exerting a certain influence. Importantly, Marx’s Capital was a contribution to—or more accurately, a critique of—this classical economic tradition. Moreover, the English influence on him did not stop there.

Second, the works of Smith, Adam Ferguson, William Robertson, and John Millar are considered likely influences on Marx’s sociological and historical theories. In his early reflections on the theory of history, Marx explicitly praised these Scottish thinkers for being the first to provide a "materialist basis" for historical research by writing "histories of civil society, commerce, and industry."

Third, Marx maintained numerous connections with the Chartist movement ^[1]. These links included: political cooperation with the left-wing Chartists; personal friendships with Chartist leaders; the reproduction of Chartist ideas in his analysis of contemporary British politics; participation in Chartist demonstrations; and the publication of his own works in Chartist periodicals.

Fourth, for a decade (1852–1862), Marx wrote for the New-York Daily Tribune, then the world's most widely circulated newspaper, explaining British politics and society to a North American audience. His articles covered every aspect of Britain: high politics (general elections, parliamentary affairs, and foreign policy); economic conditions (factory legislation, strikes, and economic crises); and broad social and cultural issues (the death penalty, class structure, and the role of the clergy). Marx himself authored approximately 372 articles, with another 15 written by Engels. These articles were initially translated from German, but starting in February 1853, Marx was able to write in English.

Fifth, Marx’s long-term struggle against the British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Henry Palmerston deserves separate mention. Marx accused Palmerston of combining an increasingly reactionary foreign policy with growing Caesarism in domestic affairs. This criticism led Marx into contact with David Urquhart, an eccentric writer, diplomat, and independent MP. Aside from the issue of Palmerston, many of Urquhart’s views were "diametrically opposed" to Marx’s. However, Marx used materials from Urquhart’s writings and reached the same conclusion: that Palmerston had been bought off by Russian autocracy.

Sixth, while Marx was not famous in Britain during his lifetime, his reputation grew due to his participation in the International Workingmen's Association (IWA). A profile in the magazine Modern Thought confirmed that "as one of the most important organizers and directors of the 'International Workingmen's Association,' his name is most familiar to readers of British newspapers." Literature related to the First International ^[2] typically focuses on Marx’s struggle against Continental European anarchism, but it also concerned itself with British domestic issues, including free trade, the Irish question, land nationalization, working hours, child labor, strike venues, and the "wages fund" theory (which Marx opposed). Many of Marx’s works were published under the auspices of the First International; Value, Price and Profit (1865) was his address to the General Council of the Association, which also published his The Civil War in France (1871).

Seventh, Marx’s social circle in London was not a closed "Little Germany." For instance, Marx became good friends with Edward Spencer Beesly, a British Positivist, trade unionist, and Professor of History at University College London. Marx spoke highly of a "truly excellent speech" Beesly delivered at a trade union mass meeting they both attended, of Beesly’s thinking skills as a historian "in the best sense of the word," and of his character as a "very capable and brave man." In 1867, Marx presented Beesly with the first volume of Capital. Since Beesly could not read German, Marx sent him the French translation in installments. They also collaborated on publishing Beesly’s authoritative account of the history of the First International in the Fortnightly Review and worked together to help Paris Commune exiles in London.

Eighth, British cultural life exerted a massive and far-reaching influence on Marx, especially in terms of literature. It is impossible to fully understand Marx’s works without an appreciation for the vast array of literary citations, analogies, and imagery they employ. Literature provided a medium without which it is difficult to imagine Marx formulating or elucidating his theoretical views. Anyone browsing Marx’s works will quickly discover the astonishing breadth of literary works with which he was familiar and frequently quoted.

II. Marx’s Evaluation of English Socialism

(1) Marx’s Early Interest in English Socialism

The discourse on the three sources of Marxism holds that, insofar as Marx was influenced by various existing socialisms, the most important was French socialism, rather than that of any other country. However, there is little evidence in Marx’s writings to support this claim; instead, two pieces of evidence confirm that Marx began paying attention to English socialism before moving to London.

In 1848, Marx, along with Engels and Moses Hess, attempted to translate and publish a series of works by foreign socialist authors. The original intention was to help contemporary Germans correct their regrettable and inexcusable ignorance regarding various foreign (non-German) variants of socialism. This project was eventually abandoned, but before it was, as Engels noted, they had already decided to include Owen among the first authors to be published, as someone who could "provide the Germans with the most material and was closest to our principles."

Marx criticized contemporary Germans, particularly the "true socialists" ^[3], for viewing foreign socialism only as a purely French phenomenon, even believing that no socialism existed in England. To this, Marx and Engels mockingly remarked: "If Thomas More, the Levellers, Owen, Thompson, Watts, Holyoake, Harney, Morgan, Southwell, Goodwyn Barmby, Greaves, Edmonds, Hobson, and Spence heard... that they were not communists, they would be greatly startled, perhaps startled enough to turn in their graves."

This is an interesting list of writers and activists, demonstrating that Britain possessed a remarkable socialist genealogy, and what is particularly striking is the extent to which it was dominated by Owen and his supporters. Of the list comprising 13 individuals and one group, nine belong to this broad genealogy: Owen, William Thompson, John Watts, George J. Holyoake, John M. Morgan, Charles Southwell, John G. Barmby, James P. Greaves, and Thomas R. Edmonds.

The above evidence shows that in the mid-1840s, Marx lamented German ignorance of foreign socialism, expressed appreciation for Britain's long and unique socialist history, and promoted the claims of the Owenites and their supporters.

(2) Marx’s Positive Appraisal of Robert Owen

Marx held Owen in high esteem, regarding him as an outstanding pioneer and a "truly strong man" who would draw "new strength" from any setback. Marx seemed to largely concur with Engels’ view that Owen’s name was linked to "every social movement and every real advance of the workers in England." Marx did not know Owen personally but heard him speak on at least two occasions. Marx attended a speech given by Owen on his 80th birthday and remarked: "The old man, though stubborn in his ideas, is humorous and very kindly." He also listened to Owen’s remarks at a subsequent meeting of the Society of Arts and Crafts, where Owen refuted the notion that philanthropic measures alone could solve the problems inherent in a socially divided class society.

This generous appraisal of Owen himself by Marx is noteworthy. Such generosity is consistent with his differentiated treatment of "utopian" socialism (of which English socialism is a variant): distinguishing between the first generation of utopian socialists (including Owen) and the second and subsequent generations (including the later Owenites). Marx believed the views of these two groups were roughly the same, but that the latter committed errors that the former did not. The ideas of the first generation of socialists, including Owen, were formed in the historical environment of the turn of the 18th to the 19th century—an environment sufficient to provoke socialist criticism, but which inevitably led such criticism to be seriously misunderstood. However, the second and subsequent generations could not use the historical inevitability of the first generation's errors as an excuse, because conditions had changed significantly, yet they still "clung to the old views of their teachers."

(3) Marx’s Critique of English Socialism

Marx’s disagreements with English socialism can be divided into two aspects: first, the disagreement over whether socialism could be depicted ^[4]; and second, disagreements regarding the role of the proletariat, the historical conditions of socialism, and the necessity of class struggle.

First, the most significant divergence between Marx and British socialism lies in whether one should draw blueprints for a future society, which involves a constituent element of "utopianism"—namely, the question of the absolute necessity of socialist design. British socialists endorsed the seemingly plausible non-Marxist view that, in order to achieve their goals, socialists must provide a detailed and persuasive account not only of the defects of the contemporary social world but also of the institutional structure and spiritual character of the future socialist alternative. While Marx acknowledged the necessity of a detailed and persuasive critique of contemporary society, he opposed drawing "blueprints" for the socialist future. Specifically, Marx maintained that: first, utopian schemes exclude future possibilities in an undemocratic manner (the normative argument); second, utopian schemes presuppose a degree of predictive accuracy that is impossible to achieve (the epistemological argument); and finally, utopian schemes are redundant because the optimal solutions to human social and political problems are immanent in the course of history (the empirical argument). In Marx’s words, socialists should play the role of the historical "midwife"; they do not design schemes for a future socialist society, but rather liberate those "elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant." ^[5] In short, Marx did not primarily critique Owen and other "utopians" for the inappropriate or irrational content of their future "blueprints," but rather critiqued them for believing that we have an absolute need for "blueprints" at all.

Second, Marx believed that the Owenite attitude toward the proletariat was "paternalistic." (This is because while the "paternalistic" attitude of the Owenites was characteristic of utopian socialists, it was not an inherent constituent part of utopianism itself.) Marx leveled various critiques against British socialists, arguing that they viewed the proletariat only as "the most suffering class" and failed to recognize its potential as an active and powerful collective force, thereby treating the proletariat as the object rather than the subject of social transformation. This accusation carries some weight when applied to Owen and his most loyal followers, as their political advocacy was openly and unabashedly "paternalistic." For instance, at a public meeting in 1817, Owen expressed surprise upon learning that "those who are uneducated and ignorant" actually expected him to listen to their views on the "relief and improvement" measures he had proposed. Owen tended to view management within transitional settlements as an activity requiring specialized expertise—knowledge that, at the time, could only be found among members of the middle class who had already directed extensive business practices in the old society. However, Marx’s accusation does not apply to the broader Owenite movement, which offered substantial resistance to "paternalism." A practical example is Manea Fen ^[6] near Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, which existed from 1839 to 1841 as an Owenite community explicitly committed to democratic self-governance, defying the "paternalistic" norms dominant in the movement. A theoretical example is Thompson, who insisted that once a community began operating, all its laboring members must have a voice in the direction of the community’s development, because only by allowing them to discuss and arrange their own collective affairs could the "industrious classes" develop the skills and character of self-governance.

Third, Marx considered Owenite socialism to be "ahistorical." That is to say, the Owenites failed to realize that the conditions for socialism are not perennially present, but emerge only at a specific stage of human history. The utopians were depicted as socialist visionaries who viewed socialism not as the result of historical development, but as the result of a man of genius who might have appeared at any time.

Fourth, Marx believed that Owenite socialism was "anti-political." This includes three elements: the general view that utopian writers like Owen positioned themselves outside and considered themselves superior to class antagonisms; a reluctance to participate in the struggle against the government as a machinery of rule (hence Owenite opposition to the Chartist movement ^[7]); and a preference for ineffective "experimental methods" rather than revolutionary means.

From the above perspective, Marx attempted to summarize and evaluate the contributions of the Owenites fairly, but his latter three critiques failed to encompass the complexity and diversity of Owenite theory and practice. My response may seem overly rationalistic; after all, Marx was engaged in constant political struggle with political rivals rather than writing papers for a university seminar. Therefore, perhaps we can interpret these critiques as doing more to propagate Marx's own views than those of British socialism. Marx was highlighting the differences between the two to draw attention to the unique elements of his own perspective, thereby emphasizing the importance of proletarian self-emancipation, historical understanding, and political participation in his theory and practice.

III. The Influence of British Socialism on Marx

Regarding Marx’s more positive evaluations of British socialism, I believe Owen and Owenism exerted a positive (rather than negative) influence on Marx in the following five areas.

First, Marx valued and was influenced by the critical dimension of Owen’s writings, believing that Owen’s attacks on existing society provided useful material. In some cases, Owen may have been just one of several theoretical sources for certain ideas. For example, he was not the only one to believe that private property hindered social progress, nor was he the only one to attack the selfish, instrumental personality promoted by economic competition. However, elsewhere Marx explicitly cited Owen’s views with approval. For instance, he acknowledged their shared observation of the alienated character of contemporary labor. In the Grundrisse ^[8], Marx excerpted several passages from Owen describing how workers were robbed of their health by monotonous and excessive labor, and he drew our attention to their fall into despair and profligacy due to being deprived of leisure time. Marx also agreed with Owen’s attack on contemporary society’s treatment of humans as instruments; specifically, Owen’s observation that workers were not only treated as machines but, more accurately, as "secondary and subordinate" machines (the capitalists’ protection of the physical and mental health of the direct producers did not even match their care for inanimate wood and metal). Marx believed that Owen’s status as a former factory owner provided these views with additional persuasiveness. Marx’s view of Owen in this regard is well-founded.

Second, Marx valued and was influenced by the Owenites and their supporters—including John Francis Bray, John Gray, Thomas Hodgskin, Thompson, and Edmonds. However, their description of exploitation (unlike Ricardo’s, but like Smith’s) was based on "unequal exchange" (which Marx, of course, opposed, as he insisted that exploitation occurs in the sphere of production, not in the sphere of circulation or exchange). Marx seemed to approve of several threads in Owenite political economy: first, their shared focus on the problem of exploitation (not merely on poverty or individualism); second, their emphasis on class antagonism (believing the basis of antagonism to be property relations); and third, their belief in the explanatory priority of the economy over politics (that for the improvement of the material condition, the distribution of property rather than the form of government is of vital importance). It seems reasonable to suggest that these core elements in the works of Hodgskin, Thompson, and Bray reinforced similar ideas in Marx.

Third, Marx valued and was influenced by Owen’s vision of socialism. Given Marx’s advice that socialists should exercise restraint and not "write recipes for the cook-shops of the future," ^[9] this might seem unlikely. However, Marx occasionally hinted at the form of a future socialist society, and in doing so, praised certain features of Owen’s substantive vision. Owen’s description of socialism might lack the poetry and imagination of Fourier ^[10], but it nonetheless contained "anticipations and wonderful descriptions of the new world." For example, Owen exerted two possible influences on Marx: first, Owen aimed to eliminate the "antithesis between town and country" caused by capitalist development in his proposed experimental settlements; second, Owen’s practice in the experimental schools at New Lanark ^[11] (perhaps even more striking because it involved more institutional detail) revealed the "germs of the education of the future" (combining mental and physical education for "children over a certain age" with limited participation in manual labor). In these and other respects, Marx’s vision of socialism embodied certain Owenite goals and institutional means.

Fourth, Marx valued and was influenced by Owen’s role in the history of the development of "materialism." In The Holy Family, Marx directly stated that what he called "materialism" coincided intellectually with "British socialism and communism." In particular, Marx linked the socialist position to a broadly realist view of scientific knowledge, believing that scientific knowledge comes from the "sensuous world and experience in the sensuous world." Based on this understanding, materialism and socialism were seen to share the same views regarding "the benevolent nature of man and the equal intelligence of men, the omnipotence of experience, habit, and education, the influence of external circumstances on man, the great importance of industry, the justification of enjoyment, etc." Marx emphasized the close relationship between French "materialism" and British socialism; the former valued the influence of "education" on shaping people, while the latter sought to make the social environment more "civilized." Education here refers not only to schooling but also to the broader formative influences created by our social environment. Marx believed that, seen historically, this influence began with Claude Helvétius (French materialism) and passed through the mediation of Jeremy Bentham to Owen. British socialism inherited this focus on social importance and developed these "materialist" views into an explicit socialist direction.

Fifth, Marx valued and was influenced by Owen’s role in the history of the cooperative movement. In the Inaugural Address of the International Working Men's Association (1864), Marx regretted certain trends in recent British social and political history, including the decline of the Chartist movement and broader working-class militancy. In this context, he pointed out where brighter hopes lay: the legislative victories of the "political economy of the working class" (including the Ten Hours Act and the British Factory Acts); and more importantly, the development of the cooperative movement (especially producer cooperatives). Marx's views on cooperatives were complex; in his words, cooperatives were "the first pockets of the new within the old." On the one hand, Marx did not believe that socialism would emerge as a result of the gradual expansion of producer cooperatives; he believed that if left to individual workers' initiative, they would only play a marginal role in the capitalist economy. On the other hand, Marx insisted: "The value of these great social experiments cannot be overrated." In particular, he believed that "by deed instead of by argument, they have shown" that productive forces do not depend on class divisions, and that "production on a large scale, and in accord with the behests of modern science, may be carried on without the existence of a class of masters employing a class of hands." Therefore, even if cooperatives took a limited form at present, they were a proof of concept. They actually proved that such effective non-capitalist economic arrangements were feasible and confirmed that "hired labor" was a historical phenomenon "destined to pass away." In this context, Marx readily acknowledged the origins of the movement, insisting that "the seeds of the cooperative system were sown by Robert Owen."

IV. Marx's Channels for Obtaining Information on British Socialism

I believe that Marx was deeply influenced by British socialism, and that this influence began at a very early stage. To confirm this influence, it is not enough merely to find close textual links between Marx's thought and British socialism; one must also identify the potential "mechanisms" of this influence—that is, the "channels" through which Marx was, or could have been, influenced by Owenite thought. This is no longer a question after Marx settled in London (from 1849 onwards), as he then had every opportunity to acquaint himself with British socialism. However, the situation was quite different in the mid-1840s, when Marx was living in the Belgian capital. Marx's life in exile in Brussels was both a specific formative stage in his intellectual development and perhaps the least understood period of his life. The three years from February 1845 to March 1848 represent a "genuine black hole" in our knowledge of Marx. It is sometimes forgotten entirely; some commentators even suggest that after leaving Paris, Marx "began a second life in exile in England." Contrary to this, I contend that during his exile in Brussels, Marx accessed vital information regarding British socialism through three channels: his close friendship with Engels; his research trip to Manchester; and his friendship with Georg Weerth.

(1) Engels was the first, and perhaps clearest, channel for Marx's information on British socialism.

Engels served as the first channel for Marx’s knowledge of British socialism. Since this is obvious, and because I have written previously on Engels' engagement with British socialism, I will provide only a brief introduction here. However, a "brief" account cannot reflect the importance of this potential influence; that is, Engels' influence on Marx was quite substantial. I use the word "potential" because, at the time, Engels and Marx lived in close proximity, and there is little documentary evidence such as correspondence. Most people recognize Engels as a latent influence on Marx during this period but remain largely unaware of the extent and significance of the young Engels' familiarity with British socialism. In this regard, the most important factor was Engels' first extended stay in the "Cottonopolis" ^[12] of Manchester (December 1842 – August 1844). At the time, he was receiving commercial training at Ermen & Engels, a firm specializing in the production of cotton sewing thread, whose Manchester factory and offices were owned by Engels' father. Manchester was, in fact, the center of the Industrial Revolution in the world's most industrialized nation, providing Engels with an unprecedented opportunity to pursue his interests: observing the social impact of emerging capitalism and the resulting political struggles. Engels' focus on British socialism was serious and sustained. Indeed, during this period, he could be described as a supporter of and participant in the Owenite movement, with which he politically identified.

First, Engels attended Owenite lectures and other activities. In January 1840, Robert Owen had inaugurated the Manchester Hall of Science ^[13], located just a ten-minute walk from Engels' place of work. We know that Engels frequently attended various meetings, including popular Sunday lectures, and he identified Owen's follower John Watts as a particularly important speaker at an early stage.

Second, Engels read British socialist literature extensively. For instance, most of Engels' knowledge of North American communitarian settlements was derived from the Owenite publication The New Moral World and the letters of John Finch. He collected a large number of Owen's works that were difficult to find at the time (and later "impossible to obtain again"), which were unfortunately lost during the political and personal upheavals of 1848–1849.

Third, during this period, Engels regularly contributed to The New Moral World, primarily providing Owenite readers with information regarding socialism on the European continent. His contributions included news reports as well as weightier articles, such as "Progress of Social Reform on the Continent" (October and November 1843) and "Rapid Progress of Communism in Germany" (December 1844, March and May 1845).

Fourth, Engels had some interaction with leading members of the Owenite movement outside of Manchester. For example, it was through personal contact with Goodwyn Barmby that Engels was able to make a scholarly correction to an earlier article he had published in The New Moral World, which criticized an article in The Times regarding communism on the continent. In that critique, Engels had mistakenly questioned Benjamin Constant, and Barmby provided materials regarding the various views of the Abbé Constant ^[14].

Fifth, Engels promoted British socialism to a German-speaking audience. For example, in his "Letters from London" (May–June 1843) published in The Swiss Republican (Der Schweizerische Republikaner), he claimed that the Owenites were "more principled and more practical" than their French counterparts. Engels recommended Owenite publications, especially those "persuasive economic essays," and noted their eagerness for translations of literature that "respectable" publishers shunned (mentioning names such as Rousseau, Holbach, and Strauss). British socialism was considered to have the greatest influence among the lower middle class and the proletariat; in addition to praising the vigor and humor of the Owenites, Engels lauded their determination to move beyond mere republicanism toward "social transformation."

Sixth, Engels was at that time full of enthusiasm for communitarianism (though he would soon abandon it), placing particular value on the Owenite experiments in settlement. At this point, Engels believed—not without some hesitation—that the success of communitarianism at the time proved the feasibility of socialism.

(2) The 1845 Manchester research trip was the second channel for Marx’s information on British socialism.

In the summer of 1845 (arriving July 12 and likely departing August 21), Marx and Engels visited Britain together, spending most of those six weeks in Manchester. Manchester interested Marx for at least three reasons: first, its location at the heart of the Industrial Revolution; second, its excellent library facilities; and third, the presence of Engels as a knowledgeable local guide (the city featured prominently in Engels' recently published work The Condition of the Working Class in England, which had made a deep impression on Marx).

Marx and Engels conducted their research primarily at Chetham's Library, purportedly the oldest public library in the English-speaking world. They spent a considerable amount of time there. In May 1870, after returning to Manchester, Engels wrote to Marx, recalling how they had "worked diligently" in the library twenty-four years earlier. This research trip produced nine volumes of the Manchester Notebooks, which occupy two volumes in the fourth section of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2 IV/4 and MEGA2 IV/5). They reflect Marx's interest in classical political economy—including excerpts from the works of Thomas Tooke, John R. McCulloch, John Stuart Mill, and others—and also confirm his burgeoning attention to and understanding of British socialism.

Marx read the works of Owen, the Owenites, and their supporters, filling nine volumes of notes. These nine volumes consist of eight volumes of Manchester Notebooks and one volume of Brussels Notebooks. All notes were written in a mixture of German and English.

1. Volume 2 of the Manchester Notebooks contains excerpts from the final third of T. R. Edmonds' Practical Moral and Political Economy.
2. Volume 4 of the Manchester Notebooks contains excerpts from all six chapters of William Thompson's An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness.
3. Volume 6 of the Manchester Notebooks contains extensive excerpts from John Francis Bray's Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy.
4. Volume 6 of the Manchester Notebooks contains excerpts from Robert Owen's Essays on the Formation of the Human Character, a book that reprinted the four essays Owen first published in 1812.
5. Volume 6 of the Manchester Notebooks contains excerpts from Owen's Lectures on the Marriages of the Priesthood, which included Owen’s 1835 lectures and an appendix of excerpts regarding the marriage system of the New Moral World (in which he emphasized that his critique of marriage was only a critique of marriage without affection).
6. Volume 6 of the Manchester Notebooks contains excerpts from Owen's Six Lectures Delivered in Manchester, which explored his views on the formation of individual character, the key points of his critique of the immoral old world, and his discussion of how individuals in the future society would possess a nobler character and a higher status.
7. Volume 6 of the Manchester Notebooks contains excerpts from Owen's "Address to the Association of All Classes of All Nations," published in May 1837. This address was published as an appendix to the Six Lectures Delivered in Manchester, so these two sets of excerpted notes are continuous.
8. Volume 7 of the Manchester Notebooks contains excerpts from Owen's The Book of the New Moral World. This work is a somewhat dry and lengthy compilation of Owen's writings, presenting his theoretical system in seven parts. Marx took notes on the first four parts: "The Rational System of Society, Founded on Demonstrable Facts, Developing the Constitution and Laws of Human Nature and of Society," "The Explanations of the Elements of the Science of Society, or the Social State of Man," "The Explanation of the Conditions Requisite for Human Happiness, Which Will Be Ultimately Secured to All under the Rational System of Society," and "The Explanation of the Rational Religion."
9. Volume 6 of the Brussels Notebooks contains excerpts from John Watts' The Facts and Fictions of Political Economists. These notes were written by Marx in Brussels in 1845 and relate to new materials Marx had collected in Manchester.

MEGA2 published the Manchester Notebooks in 2018 and is awaiting a comprehensive critical response. They are regarded as a "starting point" for Marx's unfinished and perhaps impossible-to-finish project of Capital. I do not deny, as Lucia Pradella insists, that they constitute part of—rather than merely the starting point of—Marx’s narrative of the critique of political economy. However, choosing only a small number of these authors and focusing on a narrow interpretation of political economy might lead one to overlook Marx's extensive interest in Owen and the Owenite literature of this period.

(3) Georg Weerth was the third channel for Marx’s information on British socialism.

Weerth was a German-born poet, writer, businessman, and communist who first met Marx in 1845 and joined Marx (and Engels) in Brussels the following year. Weerth’s life was brief and tumultuous. Known for his poetry and satirical prose, he was a commercial agent whose business spanned Europe, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. He actively participated in the 1848 Revolutions and was imprisoned for three months for mocking the conservative politician Felix Lichnowsky under the pseudonym of the "famous Knight Schnapphahnski" ^[15]. After the failure of the 1848 Revolutions, Weerth suffered a creative crisis and began to devote more energy to business activities and his personal life. He died of illness in Havana, Cuba, in 1856, at the age of only 34. His works were primarily published in short-lived radical journals. It was not until a century later, in 1958, when the German Democratic Republic published the landmark five-volume Collected Works of Weerth (Weerths Werke) edited by Bruno Kaiser, that Weerth was "rediscovered."

Even those who have heard of Weerth ^[16] are often unaware of the extent of his knowledge of and involvement in British socialism. In this context, the period when Weerth first worked as a commercial clerk in Bradford, Yorkshire—then the global center of the worsted wool industry—is of great significance. Weerth lived there from December 1843 to April 1846, subsequently establishing close ties with the town and returning regularly. He was part of a wave of German immigrants drawn by the economic opportunities of the booming textile trade, and he soon came to regard Bradford as an excellent vantage point for understanding the costs of humanity’s early industrialization and the struggle of workers to escape them.

Weerth’s interest in the Bradford working class was not a matter of bookish curiosity. He later commented: "I spent the most fruitful years of my life among the British workers, and my memory of them is very profound."

Weerth possessed a considerable amount of knowledge regarding and engagement with British socialism. Bradford was a center of Owenism and a stronghold of the Chartists. He attended meetings of the Rational Society and read the journal The New Moral World. Furthermore, he visited the Owenite settlement in Hampshire known as "Harmony" ^[17] and then went to London to call upon Owen himself. Weerth’s interest in and understanding of British socialism are most clearly demonstrated in two manuscripts—one on the history of radicalism from 1780 to 1832 and another on the history of Chartism from 1832 to 1848 (which were not published in full until 1958). The latter offers an extensive and compelling discussion of British socialism, covering Owen’s life, character, and ideas, as well as his reforms at New Lanark and his "Harmony" settlement.

Weerth’s description of his visit to the "Harmony" settlement (roughly in the summer of 1844) appropriately blends generous reporting with impartial criticism, while portraying Owen as a respectable and compassionate man. However, Weerth’s theoretical investigations are most noteworthy, particularly his critique of Owen’s naive political methods (especially Owen’s belief that rational argument and moral appeals would always prevail) and his sophisticated explanation for the failure of communitarian experiments (depicting capitalism as a structural system of domination and arguing that non-self-sufficient settlements cannot evade economic imperatives).

There are few mentions of Weerth in Marx’s writings. However, Weerth was a good friend of Marx and was likely a channel through which Marx learned about British socialism during his exile in Brussels. (In fact, an extant letter from Weerth dated December 25, 1845, confirms that they discussed Owenism). It is possible that Weerth met Marx in 1845 through an introduction by Engels (Engels and Weerth having become good friends while working in Manchester and Bradford respectively). The following year, Weerth arranged with his employer to move from Bradford to the Belgian capital to live near Marx and Engels (from 1846 to 1848). Weerth first joined the Communist Correspondence Committee and later became a member of the Communist League, frequently acting as a courier for these groups during his business travels. In 1848, Weerth joined Marx’s editorial board in Cologne, taking charge of a column in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (from June 1848 to May 1849). After 1848, although Weerth adjusted his political and non-political life, he remained friends with Marx. They met again particularly when Weerth returned to Europe. In 1852, they spent time together in London. In 1855, Weerth made his final visit and saw Marx.

In September 1856, Marx wrote: "The news of Weerth’s death shocked me so much I simply could not believe it." Marx attempted to publish an obituary in the German press and helped Weerth’s family collect his writings, though without success. A year later, Marx told a journalist: "To this day, we still feel the grief of Weerth’s passing." Marx was fond of neither false sentimentality nor the written expression of emotion (even for the deceased). Against this backdrop, it is striking to see him periodically refer to Weerth in his correspondence over the following decade as a "dear friend," describing his death as "an irreparable loss," and calling him "our never-to-be-forgotten and rare friend Weerth," "our friend Weerth who died so tragically young," and so on.

V. Conclusion

British politics and culture exerted a major influence on Marx’s life and work; in particular, his knowledge of and engagement with British socialism were more extensive and active than is generally recognized. This article opposes the attempt to reduce Owen and Owenism to a generic "utopian socialism," a characterization that Marx decisively rejected at the time.

Marx’s own respect for Owen is evident, consistent with his view that utopian socialism should be treated with "chronological" distinction. His differences with British socialism were mainly manifested in disagreements over whether socialism could be pre-sketched, as well as the role of the proletariat, the historical conditions for socialism, and the necessity of class struggle. The positive influence of British socialism on Marx’s thought is seen in the attention and importance he accorded to Owen and the Owenites in the following areas: the Owenite perspective of social critique (including Owen’s discourse on alienated labor); Owenite political-economic theory (including the emphasis by members of that school on exploitation, class antagonism, and the primacy of property rights); the Owenite socialist vision (including Owen’s educational initiatives and his ambition to eliminate the distinction between town and country); Owenite materialist thought (the socialist view regarding the significance of the social environment in shaping the individual); and the Owenite support for the cooperative movement (which provided a tangible demonstration of the viability of non-capitalist modes of production).

As early as the mid-1840s, prior to his exile in London, Marx took pride in his knowledge of British socialism and criticized the relative superficiality and ignorance of his German contemporaries. During his exile in Brussels, Marx’s understanding of British socialism was most likely acquired through three channels: his friendship with Engels; his research trip to Manchester; and his friendship with Weerth.

(Author: David Leopold, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford; Compiler/Translator: Zhang Wencheng, Institute of Party History and Literature of the CPC Central Committee) (Originally published in Nineteenth-Century Prose, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2022. The translation has been abridged and subheadings added by the translator.)

Web Editor: Tongxin Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends (《国外理论动态》), No. 4, 2022.