Читать книгу Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution Vol V - Hal Draper - Страница 4

FOREWORD

This is the fifth in a projected six volume exposition of Marx and Engels’ political views which they never reduced to a coherent, all-encompassing, work on the lines of Capital; although Marx had intended a final volume on the State which, unfortunately, he never got around to starting.

The first three volumes, plus an addendum on The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” from Marx to Lenin, were the work of Hal Draper. The fourth volume, Critique of Other Socialisms was, with the exception of one appendix, in the form of a complete final draft on Hal Draper’s death in 1990. At the request of Monthly Review Press I completed that manuscript. The sixth, and last, volume will be ready shortly under the title The Road to Power.

The main question which needs to be addressed in this author’s forward is the relation of Hal Draper’s notes to the final product. There was no complete draft of any chapter. Some sections — the chapter on the Crimean War and Special Note D on the (mis)treatment of Engels’ so-called “last testament” practically wrote themselves because the notes were so complete. In addition, Draper outlined his views on the Crimean War and on the Franco-Prussian war in a chapter of his The Myth of Lenin’s “Revolutionary Defeatism.”

At the other extreme are the chapter of KMTR V on Bonaparte vs. Bismarck from 1859 to 1866 entitled Pulling the Plug, the special note on Rosdolsky, and the two notes on Marx and the American Civil War which are mine.

In between are the chapters on 1848 and 1870. Hal Draper wrote a long review in the socialist periodical Labor Action in 1958 which stated his basic view on Engels’ articles in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung on “Non-Historic Peoples” and my reading of the sources reinforced that view but Draper’s notes on this question, while extensive, are not in the form of a draft which states explicitly the thesis outlined in chapters one and two of this work. In the case of 1870, where I explain “Marx and Engels’ position on the Franco-Prussian War” by pointing out that there wasn’t one since they disagreed, Draper’s remarks in Myth state clearly that Marx and Engels arrived at a position after a period of thinking and rethinking and that Engels, but not Marx, considered critical support of “the German national movement” at one point. I think Draper would agree with my resolution of this problem but I cannot claim that he explicitly stated it. (EH)

THE COVER DESIGN

The cover design is based on a photograph of the volksmarine division of 1918. Originally a division of mutinous sailors (in Germany, as in Russia, the navy depended heavily on skilled, and unionized, workers who were overwhelmingly Social Democrats); this rebellious division gathered around itself militant workers throughout Berlin. Its dissolution by the Scheideman-Ebert government led to the uprising misnamed the Spartacist uprising.

I like the fact that this demonstration is led by a gent in a bowler hat. A sure sign of a skilled worker. Note also the marcher at the right who appears to be leaving the demonstration. Probably stopping off at the local to try and think it all through.

These are the people Engels was thinking of and addressing in the period covered by the last chapter of this book and the final special note.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to thank several people for their help with this project. Marty Lipow read the manuscript and his comments were very helpful. Professor John-Paul Himka, the translator of Roman Rosdolsky’s Engels and the “Nonhistoric” Peoples: The National Question in the Revolution of 1848, kindly provided me with a copy of Rosdolsky’s doctoral thesis which I found very helpful. I expect Professor Himka would disagree with at least some of my conclusions but he sent me a copy of this very interesting manuscript without asking how I intended to use it—a display of disinterested scholarship that is, unfortunately, rare these days. Professor David Smith of the University of Kansas and Andreja Zivkovic and Dragan Plavsic of Revolutionary History reviewed a first draft of this work. Their remarks were very helpful even if I didn’t always take their advice.

As is the usual custom I take full responsibility for all the errors of omission and commission which appear in this volume.

A NOTE ON STYLE

I have followed the convention of the earlier volumes of this work and used the degree mark “°” to mark off words, phrases, and even whole paragraphs of Marx and Engels’ translated writings which were in English in the original. The distinction between footnotes, relevant but digressive material which is placed at the bottom of the page, and reference notes, citings of sources and similar material which are listed at the end of the book, has been maintained. I have also left intact Draper’s translations which were done before the relevant volume of the English Collected Works appeared but have referenced those volumes after the quote. Most of the time the differences in translation are minor. Where I think a difference is significant I have pointed that out.

There is also a question of spelling. In order to avoid confusion, I have adopted the spelling used by the English translation of the collected works in cases where there exists more than one possible transliteration of foreign names and words—Jellachich and Tsar, for example, instead of Jellačič or Czar.

Finally, I have consistently used the pronoun ‘I’ to refer to the author. The alternative would be to follow the pronoun with initials in parentheses or to use the pronoun ‘we.’ The first is clumsy and the second pretentious. I have already explained how responsibility for authorship should be assigned and Hal Draper’s notes and drafts are in the collection of the library of the University of California at Davis along with his other papers and his library.

E Haberkern