introduction first international
Introduction
Following the “1848-1849 revolutions,” which witnessed the greatest and widespread revolutionary uprisings in European history, the Communist League was dissolved. The fact that the organization was disbanded by its own founders was a disaster in itself. However, the developments that led to this were not something to brag about!
A comprehensive and flawless list of prominent militants of the Communist League was seized, along with information and documents regarding their correspondence and travel, by Wilhelm Stieber[1], the notorious agent of Bismarck who was not directly infiltrated into the organization himself. Certain revelations before and after the trial in Cologne further aggravated the gravity of this situation.
İn an effort to somewhat rectify the situation faced by his comrades in the Cologne trial, Marx became convinced that the dissolution of the organization would be appropriate, and he managed to persuade the others to agree to this liquidation plan. As a result, the Communist League, which had become the first international communist organization, assumed this name in 1847 and published its manifesto in early 1848. However, with the acceptance of Marx’s proposal for dissolution, it faded into history in a rather unbraggable manner in November 1852.
The years that followed the early closure of this organization, which was established with the anticipation of the revolutionary wave that shook Europe and claimed to lead the uprisings, were relatively quiet compared to that wave of revolution. However, they also witnessed significant developments on a global scale.
These years saw the development of the republican movement for unity in Italy (1859), the disintegration of the Austrian Empire, the outbreak of the American Civil War (1861), and the national resistance of oppressed Poles under Tsarist Russia (1863).
Meanwhile, the American Civil War was on the agenda of the British working class due to its direct impact on the British textile industry caused by the scarcity of cotton, which led to a relative decrease in employment opportunities. The effects of the previous movement against the Corn Laws[2] were still being felt, and the issue of cotton shortage further exacerbated the situation. Particularly, difficulties and unemployment were increasing in the textile industry.
At the same time, the experiences and information transmitted to the revolutionary public opinion in Europe through the activities of many European revolutionaries and immigrant workers who had migrated to America after the defeat of the 1848 revolutions and actively participated in the struggle for the abolition of slavery in the ongoing Civil War created a special affinity between the working class and this issue.
Furthermore, the Italian question, which was already on the agenda of the European labor movement, was followed with particular interest among the refugees in London due to Garibaldi’s second visit to London in 1864 (the first being in 1854) and the presence of Mazzini there. In fact, the Polish and Italian issues occupied the agenda more than the Irish issue, which had manifested itself through the Young Ireland movement in 1848.
During this time, significant developments also took place in Russia. In 1861, serfdom was abolished, and between 1861 and 1863, there were numerous peasant uprisings and contentious student demonstrations. The number of participants in the peasant rebellions reached and exceeded thousands. It was also during this time that the first secret revolutionary-democratic organizations were established. The Zemlya y Volya (Land and Freedom) organization, led by Herzen, Chernyshevsky, and Ogarev, was founded at this time. Lenin referred to this period of the Russian revolutionary movement (1861-1895) as the “pre-proletarian period” or the “bourgeois-democratic period.”
Alexander Herzen, who should be considered one of the intellectual fathers of the populist movement in Russia, had been in London since 1852, and there was many visitors and guests. Giuseppe Garibaldi was among them as well.
In France and Germany, where the revolutionary movement was most violently suppressed during the wave of revolutions in 1848-1849, it was believed that the revolutionary seeds would be completely eradicated due to the heavy repression. However, that was not the case. It was evident that the stagnation in the labor movement would not be permanent and that the movement would find other channels. Particularly, the development of spontaneous labor movements and the significant growth of the strike weapon, unlike in previous periods, marked this era. Therefore, it cannot be said that the period following the 1848 revolutions was an absolute period of stagnation.
During the same years, we can observe movements towards organizing a workers’ party in Germany under the leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, as well as various organizational attempts among political refugees in London. It is also worth noting the rapid development of trade unions and strikes, especially in England and France, and the emergence of the first instances of trade union solidarity between French and British workers.
In France, since August 1791, strikes and work stoppages, in other words, strikes, were prohibited under the pretext of not hindering those who wanted to work. The first strikes in Europe also began to increase precisely in the period when it was believed that the revolutionary movement within the working class was completely suppressed after 1848. From 1850 onwards, strikes became significantly more prevalent, reaching a record level in 1864. Throughout this year, there were 500 recorded strikes in Britain. Among them, the most significant were the strikes of the miners, which broke out in several regions in 1852 and involved 30,000 workers, and were entirely based on working conditions and union demands. In France, the strikes in the stone quarries in 1849 and the simultaneous strikes in several ports in 1852 were particularly noteworthy. The strike of weavers in Lyon, which erupted a month after the St. Martin’s Hall meeting, would escalate into a major uprising where many workers were killed.
Therefore, it would not be accurate to think that the political climate was completely stagnant as the year 1864 approached. Although not uprisings against the state, the struggles and union battles between capitalists and workers, as well as the first union organizations and strikes, increased significantly during this year.
Nevertheless, despite all these movements, it cannot be said that there was the same level of revolutionary organization within the working class after the dissolution of the Communist League, following the intensity and widespread nature of the preceding wave of 1848-49. It is not incorrect to say that there was a relatively stagnant period, especially in terms of the efforts of revolutionaries to organize. However, this does not imply absolute silence and inertia. It simply indicates that the subjective factor had been weakened and lost its impact compared to the 1848 period.
The relative silence that followed this period on the revolutionary front is primarily related to the liquidation of the Communist League, rather than objective developments. It is also related to the failure to establish the “Universal Association of Communist Revolutionaries” after its demise.
Due to the lack of an international communist leadership., during this period, while there was some movement in the labor movement and the activities of revolutionary elements continued to some extent, the influence of communists and revolutionaries on these actions was relatively limited. In other words, leading up to the St. Martin’s Hall meeting in 1864, where the Communist League was crowned with the Communist Party Manifesto and the initiative of the “Universal Association of Communist Revolutionaries,” Marx, Engels, and their closest supporters, who were responsible for this initiative, did not participate in any organizational endeavors after the failure of this initiative. The real silence and stagnation were more prevalent on this front.
However, it is not entirely true to say that there was no new international organizational initiative following the dissolution of the Communist League. Although Marx played a role in the liquidation of the Communist League, it is not entirely accurate to say that he immediately isolated himself and withdrew from any organizational activities.
In 1850, Marx, Engels, and their comrades, along with some British Chartists and French Blanquists, made an organizational initiative called the “Universal Association of Communist Revolutionaries.” Although it dissolved within the same year and never materialized in practice, it can be said that this short-lived and unsuccessful initiative served as a political and ideological reference point. This initiative, with its international and revolutionary character, aimed to emphasize continuity by reiterating the slogan of the Communist Party Manifesto, “Workers of the World, Unite!” The reasons for its dissolution should be examined in more detail in the future. Nonetheless, this initiative is evidence that Marx and his comrades did not immediately withdraw after the wave of 1848-49.
However, for nearly 12 years, Marx and his comrades did not participate in various initiatives that emerged during that time. Perhaps that is why they could not exert enough influence during the process of the First International. However, the fact that Marx and his comrades did not personally participate does not mean that there were no other organizational initiatives. On the contrary, a series of various organizational initiatives, large or small, short or long-lived, continually emerged among the political refugees in London at least. Some of these will be discussed in more detail later on.
Marx and his comrades indeed experienced a period of silence and stagnation following the dissolution of the last organization they were involved in, the “Universal Association of Communist Revolutionaries.”
Neverthless it is evident that Marx made significant progress in writing Capital largely through his personal efforts (without forgetting the contributions of his wife Jenny, his daughters, and their assistant Helene Demuth!).
During this period, Marx lived in a state of almost complete isolation from political movements and organizational initiatives, partly due to health issues. From 1863 to the end of 1864, he relied on a small number of letters he wrote to Engels and a few other close individuals. However, during this time, most of the Das Kapital, the work he focused intensively on, had been completed.
As a result, with the maturity of his intense and exhausting theoretical preparation and the relative improvement of his economic situation (largely thanks to Engels’ contributions[3]), Marx, despite his still fragile health, was once again looking for opportunities for organizational activity as he approached the year 1864.
At that time, the need for an international initiative was increasingly felt, driven by global developments. This explains why there were ongoing organizational efforts even though Marx, Engels, and their comrades had withdrawn themselves from the scene. Of course, it was not possible for an international organization to emerge out of thin air when Marx suddenly reappeared.
Indeed, at that time, London was not just a place where migrant workers sought refuge. Similar to its previous role for Paris, it had become a major center where political refugees from various parts of Europe sought shelter. The loss of Paris as a refuge for political refugees was partly due to Louis Bonaparte, who declared himself emperor through a coup after being elected as the president and closed France’s doors to this influx of political refugees. On the contrary, France had become a country that exported political refugees. However, another factor that determined the gathering in London was the fact that after the wave of revolutions in 1848, Belgium and Switzerland, with concerns similar to France, imposed a ban on political asylum and closed their doors particularly to political refugees. As for Germany, it was already busy capturing or chasing all political militants.
Thus London gradually became a center where an increasing number of political refugees gathered. According to official records of the British government, in 1853, out of the political refugees in Great Britain, 2,500 were Polish, 260 were German, and 1,000 were French nationals. By 1863, developments in Italy and Poland (and to some extent, Russia) also contributed to the increase in these numbers.
Marx himself had sought refuge in London since the early 1850s. However, after the stillborn initiative of the short-lived Universal Association of Communist Revolutionaries, he chose to focus all his energy on Capital. He showed no interest in various organizational initiatives.
Nevertheless, among the political refugees in London, there was an ongoing search for a new organization, despite previous failed or unrealized attempts. In fact, the presence of a series of organizational initiatives reflects this situation. Interestingly, many of these initiatives were led by Polish refugees.
However, it is worth noting that these organizations were mostly confined to the political refugees in London and had limited resonance in their home countries. They can be seen as refugee organizations that, although they had echoes in other countries, remained primarily active in London. Marx did not engage with any of these initiatives.
Thus, London began to emerge as a center where an increasing number of political refugees gathered. According to official records of the British government, in 1853, there were 2,500 Polish, 260 German, and 1,000 French political refugees in Great Britain. By 1863, developments in both Italy and Poland (and to some extent in Russia as well) caused these numbers to increase.
Marx himself was one of those who sought refuge in London since the early 1850s. However, after the short-lived Universal Association of Revolutionary Communists essentially stillborn, he chose to focus all his energy on “Capital” and showed no interest in various organizational initiatives.
However, especially among the political refugees in London, there was a constant search for new forms of organization, contrary to previous failed or unrealized attempts. In fact, the existence of a series of organizational initiatives there is an expression of this situation. Interestingly, Polish refugees were at the forefront of all these initiatives.
However, most of these organizations were established almost entirely among the refugees in London, and they remained only there. Although they may have had echoes in other countries, they can be considered as refugee organizations that did not receive much response in their own homelands. Marx did not show interest in any of them.
However, in 1864, he would put an end to this attitude of distancing himself. When he explained to Engels how he came to the decision to no longer reject the proposal he received and to break his decision to keep himself away from such initiatives, he stated that it was no longer possible to refuse and believed that the time had come to break his decision to distance himself from such initiatives. This statement is evidence of the existence of independent initiatives.
Clearly, this decision and change in attitude were very beneficial.
***
In this book, we will examine the developments in the major centers of the world in the years following the dissolution of the Communist League and the failure of the “Universal Association of Revolutionary Communists” after the wave of revolutions in 1848-49. We will briefly recall the economic and political climate that prevailed in London during the process preceding the establishment of the First International and the organizational initiatives that were seen in this context. Thus, it will be possible to better understand the climate in which the meeting at St. Martin’s Hall in 1864 took place. It can also shed light on the composition of the community around this meeting.
In this way, it will be possible to understand not only that the First International did not come out of nowhere but also where it differed from other little-known initiatives that preceded it.
In this book at hand, a brief history of this period will be discussed with the aim of demonstrating it. For example, the lesser-known and much smaller organization called the “Revolutionary Commune,” which resembled the Communist Union in terms of its political nature, is noteworthy, as it preceded the First International. Another initiative that clearly aimed to be international is also mentioned. All of these will be briefly touched upon.
Clearly, after the Universal Association of Revolutionary Communists, which emerged and disappeared in France, the Revolutionary Commune was established in London, almost entirely consisting of French revolutionary exiles there.
In contrast, a year after the Revolutionary Commune, another initiative with an international perspective emerged. Its name was the “International Committee.” Revolutionary Commune militants also had some form of contact with this initiative. However, contrary to its association with France, this second organization remained exclusively in London. The militants of these small organizations actively participated in both the “International Association” established before the First International and were among those present at the establishment of the International Workingmen’s Association.
In any case, it is useful to note that among the political refugees in London at that time, there was a series of different and somewhat significant (which will not be discussed in this book) organizational initiatives, both in Paris and elsewhere. In this way, it becomes easier to see that the First International did not emerge like a flash of lightning in a dark night.
There was an ideological/political transmission chain between Marx, Engels, and their comrades with the Communist Union and the First International. Organizations such as the Revolutionary Commune and the International Committee carried the breath of the French revolutionary tradition on the one hand and the audacity to establish an international organization on the other hand to the International Workingmen’s Association, the First International. Therefore, it is useful to briefly mention these organizations when discussing the initiatives preceding the establishment of the First International. They are briefly reminded in the book at hand.
The unnamed first international, the Communist Union, and its party manifesto were discussed in the first book of this series. In this book, which discusses the history and important turning points of the “International Workingmen’s Association,” known as the “First International,” the historical framework of the establishment of this international is examined. In the appendices of the book, documents and minutes related to some lesser-known discussions concerning the dissolution and liquidation of this international, particularly the Communist Union’s Universal Association of Revolutionary Communists, which could not be established and sustained after the liquidation of the Communist Union, are also included.
Finally, in order to reflect the observations regarding another national issue that was neglected for many years, the Irish issue, which emerged from a meeting of the First International, we have included some documents in the appendices.
However, in order not to limit the history of the First International to a mere transmission of documents, it was necessary to separately address the decisive political development behind the liquidation of this international. We have done so. The aforementioned reminder is about the relationship between the Paris Commune and its defeat and the First International.
The Fate of the Paris Commune Determined the Fate of the First International
The First İnternational’s statutes (constitution) began with this statement: “The economic emancipation of the working class is the great aim to which every political movement should be subordinate.” The same International also embraced Marx’s assessment/address regarding the Paris Commune, which stated that the Commune was the “political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of labor.”
Therefore, it doesn’t require much effort to conclude that just like any political movement, the First International should be subordinate to the Paris Commune. In fact, this is a deduction made by the First International itself through its own words.
It is a well-known fact that many militants of the First International, from various countries, embraced death for the same cause “in the fraternal unity” during the Paris Commune. Thus, establishing a causal relationship between the First International and the Paris Commune is not a forced interpretation. There have been many who have done so. Lenin, for instance, emphasized this by stating, “The cause of the Commune is the cause of the social revolution, the cause of the complete political and economic liberation of the toilers. This cause belongs to the whole world proletariat.” Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the fate of both the Paris Commune and the First International while keeping this connection in mind.
Many agree that the Paris Commune failed due to a leadership weakness. But wasn’t the First International there at that time, claiming to fulfill that very mission? Moreover, wasn’t it present not just as an external factor but also within the very essence of the Commune?
Clearly, the issue should not be attributed to the absence of a revolutionary leadership but rather to the failure of an existing revolutionary leadership to fulfill its role. In that case, the emphasis should be on the shortcomings of the existing leadership, rather than the absence of leadership. The key to solving the equation lies here.
Moreover, what is at stake here is not just understanding the fate of the Paris Commune. The failure of the Commune has also been a decisive factor in determining the fate of the First International, which should bear the responsibility for that failure. To be honest, the First International, by failing to fulfill its claimed mission and assumed responsibility, in a way rendered itself unnecessary. Naturally, there is an inevitable price to pay for such responsibility. It is essential to draw lessons from this experience, especially for the present and future.
Neverthless, it is widely argued and accepted that the First International disbanded due to internal conflicts within its own structure and, particularly, the destructive factional activities of the Socialist Democracy Alliance, led by Bakunin’s supporters. It is true that such divisive and destructive activities occurred.
However, it is also true that the Alliance was expelled due to these activities and in accordance with the International’s constitution. This means that the General Council did its part in this regard. But the real question arises precisely at this point, and although it may not be openly acknowledged, the answer is evident: the First International and the General Council, despite expelling the Bakuninists due to their factional activities, failed to provide leadership to the French revolution of 1871 and the first proletarian dictatorship that emerged as its result. It is important not to overlook this emphasis. Leading a struggle does not necessarily mean crowning it with victory.
However, it is a fact that political movements that are focused on victory and believe in it tend to avoid taking responsibility for failures. Sometimes, unfortunately, leadership means clearly accepting responsibility for failure and defeats. It is a fact that political movements claiming leadership often tend to avoid this responsibility. This, in a sense, is a reflex to evade self-criticism. However, political leadership learns not only from past successes but also from its own failures, mistakes, and shortcomings. It is from these failures that the most valuable lessons are learned.
Nevertheless, the real secret behind the First International becoming dysfunctional and subsequently, with a decision, self-liquidating lies precisely here. Just as an empty sack cannot stand upright, the First International who could not provide a leadership to the Paris Commune, therefore, it could be easily and swiftly dissolved with a decision. The key lesson to be drawn lies here.
Those communist revolutionaries who claim to uphold the legacy of the First International should begin by doing what it failed to do or could not do. Indeed, one of the requirements of claiming ownership and identification is to start by saying, “We made mistakes, we failed.”
On the other way some may still try to shift the primary responsibility onto the Proudhonists and others; they have never been in short supply. Moreover, they may have their own valid and correct assessments. However, fundamentally, it is unacceptable for those who claim to have been established with the purpose of providing leadership to such a revolution, as clearly stated, like the First International, and those who claim to uphold its legacy, to absolve themselves of responsibility and seek it elsewhere.
In this case, it must be stated clearly: behind the dissolution of the First International lies not only internal conflicts and factional activities but, more importantly, its failure to provide leadership to the 1871 revolution in France. The fact that Marx made the most accurate and instructive analysis of this significant historical experience does not change this reality.
Since no one can be held more accountable for the shortcomings of others, regardless of how justified they may be, the important and valuable observations made by other movements about their mistakes and shortcomings, while always instructive and useful, cannot be used as an excuse for the First International to evade its own responsibilities.
In this regard, it must be emphasized that the defeat of the Paris Commune was also the defeat of the First International. This defeat was a decisive political factor in the dissolution of the First International. It is not possible to avoid taking responsibility for this defeat and escape the consequences of that responsibility.
Therefore, it is necessary to say with emphasis that the First International, by failing to provide leadership to the Paris Commune and by not having the courage to take primary responsibility for its defeat, in a sense, became susceptible to dissolution. In other words, the reason behind its self-liquidation without any objection lies in this fact. The price of avoiding self-criticism, to some extent, has been pulling its own rope.
Therefore, it is important to avoid explaining the weakening and dissolution of the First International solely through internal conflicts and factional activities without acknowledging that there was a political defeat behind this situation. On the contrary, it is necessary to emphasize that there was a political defeat behind these circumstances, rather than attributing the fate of the First International to the errors and flaws of other currents such as the Proudhonists, the Blanquists, and so on. The first condition for embracing this legacy is to consider these errors and flaws as our own.
That is why in the book you have in your hands, the Paris Commune is presented not merely as an episode mentioned in passing, but as a separate and significant topic. The book has been approached from this perspective, and further details of this assessment will be presented in the following pages.
***
In this context, after the mentioned transfers, the book you have in your hands will briefly showcase which important issues were treated and which decisions were made in the congresses of the First International. Furthermore, attention will be drawn to the debates that preceded the dissolution of this international, and an examination will be made into the reasons and manner in which the First International was closed, shedding light on these matters. Thus, insights will be provided on what lessons can be drawn from this experience.
It should be noted in advance that the most significant aspect of all these developments and discussions throughout this process relates to two gaps found in the Communist Party Manifesto. These are the role of the revolutionary vanguard in proletarian revolution and how the solution to the national question can intersect with proletarian internationalism.
Clearly, these gaps have been decisive in determining the fate of both the Communist League and the International Workingmen’s Association, as well as various initiatives in between. The closure of this gap was achieved through the Communist International. However, the book at hand remains within the limited framework of the development and fate of the First International.
The demonstration of how the Second International failed to fill this gap completely will be the subject of the third book in the series. In this context, it is important to examine what was inherited and developed from the past and what was not inherited in order to understand the betrayal of the Second International.
In this regard, the book will address why and how the thread connecting the First International and the Communist International was severed during the process of the Second International.
Finally, in the fourth book of the series, it will be examined how the end of that red thread was reconnected with the Communist International. In that book, the reasons and significance of the first four congress documents of the Communist International as a reference and fundamental source will also be presented. Just as it is necessary to have a grasp of human anatomy to understand the anatomy of monkeys/humanoids, this rupture and continuity relationship can only be understood through an examination of this important and pivotal turning point.
Therefore, it is also important to delve into the relationship between the closure of the Communist League and the First International by their founders and the liquidation of the Communist International. This topic will be addressed in the fifth book titled “From the Turning Point Where the Red Thread Was Severed to the Liquidation of the Communist International.” The examination of the documents from the fifth, sixth, and seventh congresses of the Communist International, as well as the documents related to the decision of the Communist International Executive Committee (ECCİ) for its liquidation, will be the subject of this book.
Unfortunately, in the decision for the liquidation of the ECCİ, references are made to the liquidation of both the Communist League and the First International, and their liquidation is cited as a justification for the liquidation of the Communist International. Although there is currently no international following the line of the Communist International, the Second International, which rose from its ashes, still exists under the name “Socialist International” and continues to fight against communism.
Since the turn that became evident with the wave of the 1848 revolution, when the “bourgeois socialists” or opportunists brought bourgeois politics into the ranks of the proletariat, they have been present, never missing the opportunity to fight for their own interests and goals.
The first Communist Party and its Manifesto also emerged during the same turning point, with the claim to completely abolish the bourgeoisie’s rule along with all its means and instruments. In order to bury bourgeois society, on which bourgeois socialism feeds, once and for all, it must be eradicated along with all its institutions, primarily the guardian of the bourgeoisie, bourgeois dictatorship.
On this path, in order for the proletariat to become the main subject of history, there is a need for the political and organizational leadership of the “communist revolutionaries who have no interests other than the interests of the proletariat.” To achieve such leadership, the first step is to embark on the path by embracing the lessons of the Communist League and the First International.
In this regard, the theses and decisions of the first four congresses of the Communist International, where these lessons are recorded at the highest level, are the main guide. Because they represent the lessons of Bolshevism, which has led the most advanced practical breakthroughs on the same path. In this case, the duty of communist revolutionaries is to contribute to the emergence and adoption of this knowledge and preparation. The purpose of the book series that deals with this history and lessons is to contribute to the knowledge of communist militants who consider this duty as their own duty and to encourage them in this direction.
Referans Belge Yayınları
[1] “Wilhelm Stieber, who was nicknamed the “agent of Bismarck” and even the “king of spies,” is an important figure of the nineteenth century who has been the subject of many books. He pioneered the effective use of various intelligence methods such as forging documents and currency, infiltrating organizations and state institutions. Stieber conducted extensive operations in Austria, London, and Paris, and his methods and activities had a significant influence on the establishment and development of intelligence organizations in Europe, as well as the development of the Gestapo organization of the Nazi party, drawing inspiration from his methods. Stieber also made significant contributions to Prussia’s superiority over Austria. In the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, his efforts played a role in obtaining certain technical information about the French army (such as information about the “Chassepot,”), contributing to Prussia’s victory. Additionally, a forged telegram message produced by Stieber played a role in the early and unprepared declaration of war, leading to France’s defeat. Stieber’s intelligence gathering and the agents he used also played a significant role in preparing the case that led to the dissolution of the Communist League. Through his organization and agents, he facilitated the surveillance of Communist League militants’ correspondence and provided information about their identities, addresses, and various relationships. Therefore, the fate of the Communist League was linked to the existence of an exceptional intelligence organization with a high level of professionalism, rather than being solely attributed to the league’s amateur nature. It also played a role in the Bolsheviks’ success against the Okhrana in Russia. For more information about Stieber and the Communist League case, refer to Marx’s book “Revelations About the Communist Trials in Cologne” (December 1852) and Engels’ preface to the subsequent edition of this book (1885).”
[2] In the early nineteenth century, as a response to Napoleon’s blockade, a protectionist policy was implemented in England, which resulted in the banning of grain imports and led to an increase in grain prices. The purpose of the law was to protect and promote domestic producers. However, the outcome was an increase in grain prices, causing difficulties for both consumers and those involved in the grain trade. As a result of the “Corn Laws movement” that erupted, the law was repealed in 1846. However, during this period, the increase in rural-urban migration coincided with a decrease in bread prices, a decline in wages, the relative weakening of aristocracy in agriculture, and an acceleration of industrialization, leading to England’s increased opening to overseas countries. Marx stated the following regarding this matter: “The goal of the Anti-Corn Law League (ACLL) was the abolition of tariffs on grain imports. This brought them together with industrialists who supported the cause, as they anticipated that free grain imports would lead to a decrease in bread prices and, consequently, a decrease in wages.”
[3] Prior to this, Lion Philips, a wealthy tobacco merchant who was also sympathetic to socialist ideas provided financial support that contributed to Marx’s relatively comfortable living conditions. Lion Philips, who was married to Karl Marx’s aunt, was also the father of Anton and Gerard Philips, who founded the famous Philips company.
Referans Belge Yayınları 