Karl Marx and Leo Tolstoy: Prophets of Anarchism An Analysis of Theory and Practice Abstract: Karl Marx and Leo Tolstoy never met each other, yet within their social criticisms, there is a component of anarchism. This paper asks if Marx’s and Tolstoy’s anarchistic ideas be better understood if we think of them as a form of social prophecy. This paper establishes a three component set of criteria. I analyze Marx and Tolstoy on three criteria: prophetic revelation, revolutionary doctrine, and positive action towards an anarchistic society. Marxist texts analyzed include his essay on Alienated Labor, The German Ideology, Theses on Feuerbach, Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, and The Civil War in France. Tolstoyan texts analyzed include The Kingdom of God is Within You, What Then Must We Do, as well as the essays Church and State and The End of an Age In addition to primary texts, I also incorporate an analysis of secondary scholarly research as well as correspondence. This paper concludes by assessing the strengths and weakness of each of Marx and Tolstoy’s prophetic criteria. Moreover, it concludes by an observation on the benefits and disadvantages of simultaneously assessing the practice and theory in terms of prophecy. Ultimately, it concludes by determining Marx and Tolstoy’s theories of anarchism become less understood if we regard them as social prophets since the breadth of information on both theory and practice is too large to practically to be understood comprehensively. Note: There are various references to the Marx-Engels Collected works throughout this paper. This has been abbreviated at MECW for the sake of convenience. P age | 2 Leo Tolstoy and Karl Marx never met each other. Born ten years apart from one another, the likelihood of these men reading each other’s works is fairly low, so their effects on each other’s writing can be considered negligible. Nonetheless, the writings of both philosophers display anarchistic characteristics. Albeit for different ends, both Tolstoy and Marx advocated the removal of a centralized state and “some form of non-governmental cooperation between free individuals.” (Woodcock 2004: 14) Although Karl Marx is most renowned for his theories of political economy and the division of labor, there is an anarchistic component to his theory of the state and revolution. Marx’s anarchism derives from the dialectical method of analysis he uses to analyze the progression of society. Tolstoy’s anarchism derives from his interpretation of religion and how the State’s – specifically the Russian Empire’s – cooption of religion is anathema. In order to gain a greater understanding of Marx and Tolstoy’s theories of anarchism, this paper asks if Marx’s and Tolstoy’s anarchistic ideas be better understood if we think of them as a form of social prophecy. Significantly, Marx and Tolstoy assumed the role of prophets with their creation and application of their concepts of anarchism. By assessing their theories and practice under a framework of social prophecy, we can assess how Marx and Tolstoy placed their theories of anarchism into practice. By putting social theory into practice, one actually utilizes sociological perspectives to actively change society. There are several criteria which we can consider through which we can analyze the theories and actions of Marx and Tolstoy to accurately assess whether or not they were in fact prophets. A sociological view of prophets is not simply a person who has a vision of the future; this paper suggests a three-part criterion for determining whether one is a prophet. Firstly, a prophet has a moment or process of revelation whereby they see a fatal error in the functioning of society. Secondly, a prophet provides a doctrine serving two purposes: explaining the development of society up to the present, as well as the eschatological future course for society. Within the context for Marx and Tolstoy, eschatological refers to the references to impending revolution in their theories. The third prophetic P age | 3 criterion sets social prophets apart from their social critic counterparts. This criterion involves taking active and positive steps to pursue an active realization of this social vision. This paper begins by defining prophets and anarchism then proceeds to discuss the writings and actions of Marx and Tolstoy within this context. I will analyze Marx and Tolstoy on three criteria: revelation, doctrine, and action. I will start with Marx and then analyze Tolstoy on these three axes. In addition to primary texts, I also incorporate an analysis of secondary scholarly research as well as correspondence. Ultimately it concludes Marx and Tolstoy fulfill each of these criteria and thusly deserve to be recognized as prophets of anarchism. As such, it would be an injustice to disregard these men as mere social critics, but as social reformers in the truest sense of the term. Defining Prophets: Religious Roots I derive my three-part prophetic criterion from research conducted by various academics on prophets from a religious studies perspective. Gerald T. Sheppard and William E. Herbrechtsmeier provide a brief overview of various prophetic criteria and history in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Firstly, all prophets “conceived their activity as a result of divine commission.” (Jones 2005: 7425) Prophets have been given a mission by a deity. Secondly, since the eighth century BCE, there was a unique progression of prophets chronicling their oracles. (Jones 2005:7424) Historians have debated the cause for this development; however they are in consensus about its effects. Documented oracles allowed for prophets to “disseminate their written oracles among various groups with whom [they] originally had no connection.” (Jones 2005: 7425) Thirdly, prophets “helped both to maintain and to reform religious tradition.” Thus, prophets attempt to actively change pre-existing or create completely new schools of belief. (Jones 2005: 7426) From these three points I derive my criteria of revelation, doctrine, and action. P age | 4 Defining Anarchism: Proudhon’s natural right argument George Woodcock, author of Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements defines anarchism, “as a system of social thought, aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society and particularly – for this is the common element uniting all its forms – at the replacement of the authoritarian state by some form of non-governmental cooperation between free individuals.” (Woodcock 2004: 14) There two similar yet differing theoretical approaches to anarchism: a liberty-based approach and community-based approach that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In order to illustrate these two approaches, I will discuss an exchange of letters between Karl Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon starting on May 5, 1846. On his 28th birthday, Marx sent a letter to Proudhon requesting he participate in open multi-national correspondence with various European socialists. This was Marx’s attempt to induct Proudhon into the Communist Correspondence Committee, a loosely-structured organization formed by Marx and Engels for the purposes of creating the foundations for “an international proletarian party.” (MECW vol. 38 1975: 574) Moreover, Marx adds to his letter, “And when the moment for action comes, it will clearly be much to everyone’s advantage to be acquainted with the state of affairs abroad as well as at home.” This is a clear allusion to impending revolution advocated by Marx and other communist thinkers. (MECW vol. 38 1975: 39) Proudhon crafts a reply where he initially agrees to engage in correspondence. However, near the end of letter, he states: I applaud with all my heart your thought of bringing all opinions to light; let us carry on a good and loyal polemic; let us give the world an example of learned and far-sighted tolerance, but let us not, merely because we are at the head of a movement, make ourselves the leaders of a new intolerance, let us not pose as the apostles of a new religion, even if it be the religion of logic, the religion of reason. (Woodcock 1977: 139) emphasis added Moreover, Proudhon replies to Marx’s allusion of revolution by stating he himself was not in favor of such actions. He writes, “we should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform, P age | 5 because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, to arbitrariness, in brief, a contradiction.” (Ibid) In order to elucidate Proudhon’s meaning, I will continue his reply: I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. (Woodcock 1977: 139-140) emphasis added Proudhon’s differentiation of the meaning of property to French and German socialists also serves as a method of differentiating between two mainstreams of anarchist thought. Proudhon, the Frenchman, limits his analysis of property as a matter of “liberty or equality.” In What is Property published in 1840, Proudhon discusses the strange nature of property in regards to its failure to not resemble the other natural rights of liberty, equality, and fraternity guaranteed by the declaration of rights of 1793. (Proudhon 1994: 37) To Proudhon, the right to property “is as sacred as [his] person; it is in [his] blood.” (Ibid) \ Proudhon grounds his anarchism in the protection of fundamental individual rights, such as property. Marx, in opposition, grounds his anarchistic beliefs within a notion of a self-governing community. Marx had already published The German Ideology in 1844, where he presents a comprehensive summation of his theories on property as well as the trajectory of history. As will be explained later, Marx’s notion of anarchism grounds itself in the notion of a furthering of society. Conversely, classical anarchistic thinkers, such as Proudhon and Tolstoy, see anarchism as the ultimate end for society. Revelation: Goodbye Law, Hello Revolution Two events in Karl Marx compose his revelation of the fatal error in the functioning of society: his initial forays into Hegelian philosophy while a student at Berlin and his time spent in Paris. In 1837 at age 29, Marx wrote a letter to his father while studying law at the University of Berlin. Within this P age | 6 letter, Marx updates his father on the progress of his studies on law as well as telling him about his burgeoning interest in Hegelian philosophy. He writes: I had read fragments of Hegel's philosophy, the grotesque craggy melody of which did not appeal to me. Once more I wanted to dive into the sea, but with the definite intention of establishing that the nature of the mind is just as necessary, concrete and firmly based as the nature of the body. My aim was no longer to practice tricks of swordsmanship, but to bring genuine pearls into the light of day. (MECW vol. 1 1975: 18) By no longer wishing to “practice tricks of swordsmanship,” Marx does not wish to analyze philosophy for the purpose of mere intellectual exercise. Rather, by bringing “genuine pearls into the light of day,” Marx wishes to utilize philosophy for the purpose of revealing genuine truths about the progress and future course of society. Thus, his initial affinity to Hegel’s philosophy marks the point where Marx has the means necessary to prophesize on the future state of society. Marx’s arrival in Paris in 1843 is a true turning point in his progression towards becoming a full- blown prophet. He arrived in Paris with two intents: starting a new periodical, the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, and gaining a comprehensive understanding as to why the French revolution ultimately failed. (Berlin 1963: 85-86) The revolutionaries in 1789 sought to remove the ancient regime, yet ultimately a similar governmental system of empire was established only 10 years later. (Price 2005: 150) Thus, Marx immersed himself in any sort of literature he could find pertaining to the revolution. By conducting this research in Paris, Marx also became exposed to the ideas of French socialism that were of the fashion at the time. (Berlin 1963: 82) Thus, Marx begins to incorporate the notions of idealistic French socialism into his Hegelian approach of analyzing society. (Berlin 1963: 87) This is most evident in his 1844 selection from his economic manuscripts on Alienated Labor. This manuscript shows Marx’s notion of the fatal flaw within society: the dehumanizing and dissocializing condition of the working class. P age | 7 Within Alienated Labor, Marx’s relentless critique of the dehumanizing effects of capitalism begins with the simple economic fact that the worker becomes worth less the more he produces. (MECW vol. 3 1975: 271) From this starting point, Marx argues how capitalistic forces within society unnaturally force men into working in order to live, where ideally men should live to work as natural “species beings”. In addition, the forced labor an individual endures systematically alienates the worker from his fellow workers as well as him or herself. In order to break from this systematic process of alienation, an “emancipation of labor” must occur that will bring about true equality amongst proletarian and bourgeoisie alike. Marx states the emancipation of labor does not only free workers from the inhumane situation they are bound to, but “in the emancipation of the laborer is contained universal human emancipation.” (MECW vol. 3: 280) His reasoning for this "universality is that the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are nothing but modifications and consequences of this relation.” (Ibid) Marx writes this manuscript in 1844, yet he explicates this claim further with his dialectical development of society in The German Ideology written in 1845. Marx regarded the condition of the worker as abjectly intolerable and, as such, set about building a philosophical framework that could be used as a guide for remedying this situation and bringing humanity back to its natural state. Marx’s revelation involves two parts; his decision to reread Hegel’s philosophy and his time spent in Paris. It can already be witnessed in the letter to his father in 1937 that he wished to use philosophy as more than just an intellectual exercise. Marx sees philosophy as an instrument he can use to “bring genuine pearls of truth into the light of day.” Moreover, his time in Paris allowed him to be an extremely intellectually stimulating environment where idealistic theories of French socialism were the norm. Thus, it is not surprising Marx wrote his essay on alienated labor in Paris. His writings on the estrangement of labor mark the point where Marx deems the condition of the worker, and by extension P age | 8 society, wholly intolerable. Thus, his subsequent writings on the historical progression of class divisions provide a prophetic explanation how society reached its current state. Moreover, in regards to the anarchistic element to his writings, Marx develops a theory linking the state, or civil society, to bourgeois capitalistic interests. Therefore, in order to eliminate class, the state must be eliminated as well. Marx’s Doctrine: Theses X and XI, Historical Materialism, and Aufhebung Marx builds his theory of anarchism with an application of Hegel’s dialectic. He used the ongoing processes of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis as a means to analyze the past, resulting from Hegel’s belief that the philosophy could only be used to define actions in hindsight. This is illustrated with his comment in the preface to Elements of the Philosophy of the Right that “when philosophy paints its grey in grey, a shape of life has grown old, and it cannot be rejuvenated, but only recognized, by the grey in grey of philosophy; the owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the onset of dusk.” (Hegel: 1991 23) In opposition to Hegel, Marx believes philosophy must be used for the furthering of society. Theses X and XI of his Theses on Feuerbach illustrate Marx’s intent to transform philosophy from passive analysis to active prognosis of society. (X) The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society or socialized humanity (XI) The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is, to change it (MECW vol. 6 1975: 8) Marx’s intent with thesis XI is fairly straight forward and does not require any further explanation. Thesis X addresses the division between politicized society and what Marx calls “human society.” “Old Materialism” analyzed society from a primarily limited political science perspective concerning itself with regime changes. Marx’s new materialist standpoint, however, analyzes society from a holistic sociological perspective that regards the economic development of society as base from which all else P age | 9 grounded. With the new materialism, Marx intends to remove the distinction between state-oriented civil society and “human society.” In concrete terms, Marx analyzes the development of history as the development of private property. By analyzing the development of private property, Marx develops a theory on the progressively complex division of labor. This starkly different historiographical approach allows Marx to show how society inevitably will develop towards a distributive communistic society, not before undergoing a phase of anarchism. In The German Ideology, Marx applies the dialectic to the development of private ownership in order to show how society progressed. The development of private ownership also coincides with the development of the division of labor within society. Marx writes: The various stages of development in the division of labor are just so many different forms of ownership, i.e. the existing stage in the division of labor determines also the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of labor (MECW vol. 6 1975: 32) The previous passage describes Marx’s notion of historical materialism; the excerpt how every detail within society can be explained as a result of the economic means of production. Marx provides three different stages in the development of the private property: tribal, ancient, and feudal. In the tribal stage, the division of labor “is still very undeveloped…therefore, limited to an extension of the family: patriarchal chieftains, below them the members of the family, finally slaves.” (MECW vol. 6 1975: 33) This is due to the primarily agricultural form of production within this stage of ownership. In the following ‘ancient’ stage of production, the state is created “especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest; and which is still accompanied by slavery.” (Ibid) When society develops into the feudal stage of ownership, “property…consisted on the one hand of landed property with serf labor chained to it, and on the other of the personal labor if the individual who with his small capital commands the labor of journeyman.” (MECW vol. 6 1975: 34) Marx demonstrates since the first tribal stage of ownership, there has always been a ‘slave’ class of individuals. The existence of this class has been perpetual within society; change has only been in name only. The title of slave applies equally P age | 10 to peasant serf and urban laborer. Thus, society further develops in terms of its material means; it remains as static as it once was in the tribal stage. Moreover, Marx writes the following about the emergence of civil society. The word “civil society” [Bürgerliche Gesellschaft] emerged in the eighteenth century, when property relationships had already extricated themselves from the ancient and medieval communal society. Civil society as such only develops with the bourgeoisie; the social organization evolving directly out of production and commerce, which in all ages forms the basis of the State and of the rest of the idealistic superstructure, has, however, always been designated by the same name. (MECW vol. 6 1975: 89) As can be seen in this passage, the development of civil society mirrors class relationships. The bourgeoisie is progression of the master/slave relationship from the tribal and ancient forms of private property. Most importantly, the final portion of this passage states the “social organization evolving directly out of production and commerce” is analogous to “State and the rest of the idealistic superstructure.” As such, the state was created out of necessity to perpetuate the pre-existing master/slave relationship within society. Therefore, the state’s explicit purpose is to guarantee the interests of the ruling class. Now knowing how Marx establishes his theory of the state, we must now analyze how he goes about eliminating it. Shlomo Avineri defines Marx’s term he uses in regards to the disestablishment of the state as Aufhebung: abolishment or transcendence. (Avineri 1968: 203) Coincidentally, Aufhebung is also a term used within the Hegelian dialectic.1 Put simply, Aufhebung is the unofficial fourth part of the dialectic after synthesis and before thesis. Thus, the anarchism within Marx’s theory is merely a transition phase. Marx details how the state reaches Aufhebung in Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State. Here, he writes about voting in civil society stating “the election is the immediate, direct relation civil society to the political state.” (MECW vol. 3: 121) Moreover, when all members of society possess the ability to vote, no one class of people has more political power than another. Thus when all 1 “Aufhebung: something or some position is negated or cancelled; we transcend that something or position in this act of cancelling; but in that act of surpassing, what is cancelled is also preserved, contained as a necessary condition of the transcending move. (Desmond 1986: 95)