Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:41:25.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Critique of Lajos Kossuth1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

John Komlos
John Komlos
Affiliation:
Rossevelt University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Marx and Kossuth—plus a Police Informer
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 15 , January 1979 , pp. 62 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The debate was sparked by Lajos Lukács, who suggested that Kossuth's alliance with Napoleon III in 1859 was aimed at consolidating the political hegemony of the Magyar nobility and bourgeoisie. Subsequently György Szabad defended Kossuth's politics while in exile, particularly his role in the Austro-Sardinian War of 1859 and immediately thereafter, as viable and rational. In continuing the debate, Lukács contended that Kossuth's plans for liberating Hungary were unrealistic and had degenerated into a reactionary cause by the 1860's. Marx's opinions of Kossuth were basically kept out of the discussion, although Lukács did cite several unfavorable passages. Zoltán Horváth introduced a dispassionate intermediary position in the debate, but he criticized Kossuth for his illusions even after the signing of the Armistice of Villafranca. He maintained that Kossuth either should have accepted the amnesty and returned home to fight for the attainment of the maximum possible political concessions or else withdrawn from political activities. See Lukács, Lajos, “Garibaldi és Kossuth 1860–61-ben” [Garibaldi and Kossuth in 1860–1861], Századok, Vol. XCII, No. 1 (1958), pp. 119–145Google Scholar; György Szabad, “Kossuth 1860/61-es politikájának jellemzése [Characterization of Kossuth's Politics in 1860–1861], ibid., Vol. XCIII, No. 1 (1959), pp. 172–173; Lajos Luákcs, “Kossuth emigrácios politikájáról. II” [On Kossuth's Politics in Exile], ibid., Vol. XCV, No. 2 (1961), pp. 370–385; György Szabad, “Kossuth 1860/61-es politikájának jellemzéséról. II” [Characterization of Kossuth's Politics in 1860–1861, Part II], ibid., Vol. XCV, No. 6 (1961), pp. 922–936; Zoltán Horváth, “Kossuth Lajos emigrácios politikájának értékelése” [An Evaluation of Lajos Kossuth's Politics in Exile], ibid., Vol. XCVII, No. 1 (1963), pp. 157–164; Lajos Lukács, “Kossuth emigrácios politikájának idealizásáról” [On the Idealization of Kossuth's Politics in Exile], ibid., Vol. XCVII, No. 4 (1963), pp. 844–858; György Szabad, “Észrevétel Horváth Zoltán ‘Kossuth Lajos emigrácios politikájának értékelése’ c. irására” [Comments on Zoltán Horváth's Article, “An Evaluation of Kossuth's Politics in Exile”], ibid., p. 843; and Ede Toth, “A Kossuth emigrácios politikájáról folytatott vita eredményeiről” [The Results of the Debate over Kossuth's Politics in Exile], ibid., Vol. XCVIII, No. 4 (1964), pp. 763–771.

3 Molnár, Erik (ed.), Magyarország története [A History of Hungary] (2 vols., Budapest: Gondolat, 1971), Vol. I, p. 525;Google ScholarRévai, József, Marxizmus, Nepiesség, Magyarság [Marxism, Populism, the Hungarian People] (4th ed., Budapest: Szikra, 1955), pp. 149, 167, 184, and 238Google Scholar; Új Magyar Lexikon [New Hungarian Encyclopedia] (7 vols., Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 1962), Vol. IV, p. 217;Google ScholarTársulat, Magyar Történelmi (ed.), Emlékkönyv Kossuth Lajos Szüuletésének 150. évfordulojéra [Memorial Volume on the 150th Anniversary of Lajos Kossuth's Birth] (2 vols., Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1952), Vol. I, pp. 173,Google Scholar 285, 313, and 451; Vol. II, pp. 135,441, and 524; Sovetskaia istoricheskaia entsiklopedica [Soviet Historical Encyclopedia], Vol. VIII (Moscow, 1965), p. 15;Google ScholarKarl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei [The Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels] (35 vols., Budapest, 1957–72), Vol. XXIX, p. 704,Google Scholar n. 707; Obermann, Karl, Die ungarische Revolution von 1848/49 und die demokratische Bewegung in Deutschland (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971), p. 38;Google ScholarAverbuch, R.A., A Magyar Nép Szabadságküzdelme 1848–49-ben [The Struggle for Freedom of the Hungarian People in 1848–1849], translated from Russian by József Perényi (Budapest:Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970), p.58;Google ScholarMód, Aladár, “Marx und die ungarische Geschichte,” Ada Historica, Vol. II, No. 3, pp. 217–248.Google Scholar

4 Engels, Friedrich “Der magyarische Kampf,” in Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 01 13, 1849, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Müuvei, Vol. VI, p. 157.Google Scholar Engels praised Kossuth by calling him the “greatest man of 1848.” See “Preussischer Steckbrief gegen Kossuth,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 01 28, 1849, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Müuvei, Vol. VI, pp. 188–189.Google Scholar At a workers' meeting in Rhein-Mühlheim, Engels proposed a toast to “Kossuth and the Hungarians.” See “Demokratischer Bankett,” in Neue Rheinische Zeitung, as reprinted in Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VI, p. 568.Google Scholar He defended the Hungarian revolution in “Die Kolnische Zeitung iiber den magyarischen Kampf” (see Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 02 18, 1849, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VI, pp. 293–297)Google Scholar and gave a description of the military aspects of the revolution in Hungary in the May 19th, 1849, issue of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (see Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VI, pp. 494–502).Google Scholar

5 Engels, Friedrich, “Der magyarische Kampf,” in Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 01 13, 1849, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VI, pp. 157–167.Google Scholar It should be noted, however, that Engels defended the Slavs for participating in the Prague uprising and chided the Germans for permitting Windischgrätz to suppress the uprising. See his “Der Prager Aufstand,” in Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 0618, 1848, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. V, pp. 72–73.Google Scholar

6 Engels to Marx, Manchester, 04 3, 1851, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVII, pp. 216–217.Google Scholar Engels particularly wanted to look at Kossuth's and Görgey's memoirs before writing an account of the revolution. A year later, after reading Görgey's memoirs, he found all except the military descriptions “contemptible” and formed a rather low opinion of Görgey's character, although he still believed that Görgey “stood above all” his associates. Engels concluded that his original descriptions of the war in Hungary were basically correct. See Engels to Marx, Manchester, July 6, 1852, ibid., Vol. XXVIII, p. 78. A Slovak writer noted the problems involved in procuring adequate information about the Hungarian revolution when he wrote that the Slovaks saw the revolution “from within while Engels saw it from a distance.” Vladimir Minác in Kultúrny Zivol, as cited by Erzsébet Andics in “Revizio alá kell-e venniink Marx és Engels nézeteit az 1848–49-es Magyar forradalomról?” [Need One revise Marx and Engels' Views on the Hungarian Revolution of 1848–1849?], in 1848–49. Tanulmányok [1848–1849. Essays] (Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó, 1968).

7 Engels, Friedrich, “Revolution and Counter-Revolution,” in the New York Daily Tribune, 04 9, 1852, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VIII, p. 62.Google Scholar

8 Marx, Karl, “Patrons and Vagrants,” in Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XIV, p. 507.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., p. 513.

10 Engels remarked that Alexandre Ledru-Rollin, Louis Blanc, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Kossuth believed that all they needed to install themselves in power in the several republics of Europe was to borrow sufficient money from America. Engels, Friedrich, “A kommunisták szövetsége történetéhez” [On the History of the Communist League], London, 10 8, 1885, in Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VIII, p. 575.Google Scholar Bourgeois revolutionaries perhaps did attribute undue power to the potential of money as an instrument of revolution. In a sense, the importance of money, the symbol of bourgeois power, as land had been for the aristocracy, was overvalued by Kossuth and Mazzini. It turned out to be difficult to “buy” a revolution. Addressing himself to this attitude, Marx ironically asked, “Why shouldn't there be a corporation for the ‘advancement of the revolution?’” He provided the answer by asserting that waging a revolution is not the same as building a railroad. One needs more than money for the former. Ibid., pp. 607–608.

11 In reference to Italy, Marx noted that the middle classes “reckon with such fearful exactness the expenses and losses which the revolution has occasioned … that it is absolutely impossible to think of a revolutionary movement being commenced by Italy.” Marx, Karl, “Movements of Mazzini and Kossuth—League with Louis Napoleon-Palmerston,” New York Daily Tribune, 10 18, 1852, p. 5.Google Scholar

12 Marx, Karl, “Revue Mai bis Oktober,” in Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-ökonomische Revue, 05-10, 1850, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VII, pp. 427–428.Google Scholar

13 Marx to Marr, October 26, 1851, in Bebel, August and Bernstein, Eduard (eds.), Der Briefivechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx 1844 bis 1883 (Stuttgart: J.H.W. Dietz, 1919), p. 264;Google Scholar Engels to Marx, Manchester, October 27, 1851, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVII, p. 345.Google Scholar Apparently Marx and Engels had previously discussed Kossuth in a negative manner, for Engels added: “Another person we did not misjudge.”

14 Marx to Engels, London, January 24, 1852, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVIII, p. 11.Google Scholar

15 Engels to Marx, Manchester, October 27, 1851, ibid., Vol. XXVII, p. 345.

16 Kossuth's open letter to Thornton Hunt in the Globe, London, October 28, 1851, as published in Jánossy, Dénes, A Kossuth Emigració Angliában es Amerikában 1851–1852 [Kossuth's Emigration to England and America, 1851–1852] (2 vols., Budapest: A Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1940–48), Vol. I, p. 713.Google Scholar

17 Dánial Irányi advised Kossuth that the editors of the Paris daily, the National, evinced embarrassment over Kossuth's demeanor and pledged themselves to withdraw their support unless Kossuth retracted his statement. Irányi suggested that Kossuth should participate in the meeting because he did not think it advisable to “sacrifice the support of the lower classes” “for the sake of the bourgeoisie.” He believed that the enthusiasm of the “ruling castes” for Kossuth might decline somewhat if he participated in the Chartist meeting, but this would not be crucial. Irányi to Kossuth, Paris, October 29, 1851, Jánossy, A Kossuth Emigració Angliában és Amerikában, Vol. I, pp. 717–719.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., pp. 114–115. See also Gammage, G.R., The History of the Chartist Movement (London, 1864), p. 378.Google Scholar

19 Jones, Ernest Charles, “What is Kossuth?” in Notes to the People, Vol. II, p. 604.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., p. 887.

21 Ibid., pp. 604–605.

22 Ibid., p. 604.

23 Ibid., p. 606.

24 Marx to Ebner, Hermann, London, 12 2, 1851, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVII, p. 565.Google Scholar Andics misquoted this passage to support the contention that Marx did not agree with Jones' attacks on Kossuth. See Andics, “Revizio aiá kell-e vennünk Marx és Engels nézeteit az 1848–49-es Magyar forradalomról,” p. 472. Révai interpreted it correctly. See his Marxizmus, Nepiesség, Magyarság, p. 170.

25 “Marx to Ebner, Hermann, London, 12 2, 1851,Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVII, p. 565.Google Scholar

26 Marx, “Patrons and Vagrants,” p. 508.

27 Komlos, John H., Louis Kossuth in America, 1851–1852 (Buffalo, N.Y.: Program in East European and Slavic Studies, State University of New York, College at Buffalo, 1973), pp. 140–145.Google Scholar

28 Marx, “Patrons and Vagrants,” p. 510.

29 Marx to Engels, London, February 4, 1852, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVIII, p. 18.Google Scholar

30 Ibid.,

31 Marx to Engels, London, May 6, 1852, ibid., p. 62.

32 Marx was informed about the attempted “rapprochement” from Paris by Bertalan Szemere. Szemere had been the Hungarian minister of interior during the revolution. Since he was a strong critic of Kossuth's activities in exile, people have tended to discount Marx's criticism on this score as biased. György Szabad, Kossuth and the British Balance of Power Policy (1859–1861), p. 16. An exception is Révai. See his Marxizmus, Nepiesség, Magyarsdg, p. 188.

33 Marx, Karl, “Movements of Mazzini and Kossuth—League with Louis Napoleon-Palmerston,” New York Daily Tribune, 10 19, 1852, p. 5.Google Scholar See also Marx to Engels, London, August 30, 1852, in Bebel, and Bernstein, , Der Briefwechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx, Vol. I, p. 339.Google Scholar

34 Marx, Karl, “Kossuth, Mazzini, and Louis Napoleon,” as printed in Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VIII, p. 377.Google Scholar

35 Marx to Adolph Cluss, London, December 7, 1852, ibid., Vol. XXVIII, p. 532; Marx to Gustav Zerffi, London, December 22, 1852, ibid., p. 538. Marx published the essence of Kossuth's reply in his “A Reply to Kossuth's ‘Secretary,’“ in the January 4th, 1853, issue of the New York Times Daily Tribune. See ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 460.

36 Kossuth had previously requested a meeting with Marx through János Bangya, who later was discovered to be an Austrian spy after he had expropriated a copy of Marx's manuscript under the pretext of having it published. Since Bangya had a letter of introduction from Kossuth, the affair further eroded whatever esteem Marx may have had left for him. Engels to Joseph Weydemeyer, Manchester, April 12, 1853, ibid., Vol. XXVIII, p. 544. See also Rosdolskyj, R., “Karl Marx und der Polizeispitzel Bangya,” International Review for Social History, Vol. II (1937), pp. 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Engels to Marx, Manchester, September 24, 1852, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVIII, p. 136.

38 Marx to Marr, March, 1853, Bebel, and Bernstein, , Der Briefwechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx, Vol. I, p. 391.Google Scholar

39 Marx, Karl, “Forced Emigration—Kossuth and Mazzini—The Refugee Question—Election Bribery in England—Mr. Cobden,” in New York Daily Tribune, 03 22, 1853, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VIII, p. 528.Google Scholar

40 Marx, Karl, “Kossuth and Mazzini—Prussian Police—The Austro-Prussian Commercial Treaty—The Times and the Refugees,” in New York Daily Tribune, 04 4, 1853, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VIII, p. 53.Google Scholar

41 Marx to Marr, March, 1853, Bebel, and Bernstein, , Briefwechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx, Vol. I, p. 391.Google Scholar After Szemere informed Marx of the authenticity of the manifesto, Marx commented: “Kossuth is as false as he is cowardly.” Marx to Engels, London, February 23, 1853, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVIII, p. 200.Google Scholar Engels' opinion was the same: “I cannot think of anything more cowardly and wretched than Kossuth's letters.” Engels to Marx, Manchester, March 9, 1853, ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 510.

42 Marx, Karl, “The Attack of Francis Joseph—The Milan Riot—British Politics—Disraeli's Speech—Napoleon's Will,” in New York Daily Tribune, March 8, 1853, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. VIII, p. 510.Google Scholar

43 In this context, Engels quoted Hegel's statement,' “from nothing with nothing to nothing.' Engels to Marx, Manchester, February 11, 1853, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXVIII, p. 199.Google Scholar Molnár implies that Marx criticized only Mazzini in this context. See his Magyarország Története, Vol. II, p. 42.Google Scholar

44 “Celui-là est absolutement mort, après cela.” Marx to Marr, London, February 11, 1853, Bebel, and Bernstein, , Briefwechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx, Vol. I, p. 33.Google Scholar

45 Fbr details, see my article on “Louis Kossuth's Activities during the Second War of Italian Independence,” East European Quarterly, Vol. XI (1978), No. 1, pp. 43–63.Google Scholar

46 His lectures induced Marx to comment that “Mr. Kossuth thoroughly degenerated into a traveling lecturer, disseminating the same stupidity in different provinces of England and Scotland.” Marx to Ferdinand Lasalle, London, February 4, 1859, in Mayer, Gustav (ed.), FerdinandLasalle, Nachgelassene Briefe undSchriften, Vol. III (Stuttgart: Verlagsbuchhandlung J. Springer, 1923), p. 143.Google Scholar

47 Karl Marx, “Kossuth and Louis Napoleon,” New York Daily Tribune, September 24, 1859.

48 Karl Marx, “The News from the War,” in ibid., July 8, 1859, and Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XIII, p. 398.Google Scholar

49 Klapka was a leading general in the 1848–1849 Hungarian War of Independence. In 1859 he and Laszlł Teleky joined Kossuth on the Hungarian National Committee.

50 Karl Marx, “Spree und Mincio,” in Das Volk, June 25, 1859, as printed in Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XIII, p. 388.Google Scholar

51 Marx to Engels, London, May 27, 1859, ibid., Vol. XXIX, p. 422.

52 Karl Marx, “Kossuth and Louis Napoleon,” New York Daih Tribune, September 24, 1859.

53 Szemere to Marx, Paris, November 2, 1859, as cited in Sándor Mallér, “Marx és Szemere” [Marx and Szemere], Századok, 1956, p. 687. See also Marx, , “Patrons and Vagrants,” in Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XIV, p. 514.Google Scholar

54 Marx to Bertalan Szemere, London, September 26, 1859, Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XXIX, p. 590;Google Scholar Marx to Lasalle, London, May 8, 1861, Mayer, , Ferdinand Lasalle, Nachgelassene Briefe und Schriften, Vol. III, p. 362.Google Scholar

55 Marx, , “Patrons and Vagrants,” in Karl Marx és Friedrich Engels Művei, Vol. XIV, p. 515.Google Scholar

56 Ibid. I have suggested that Kossuth was not an “autonomous political being.” See my Louis Kossuth in America, p. 23.

57 György Lukács, “Rosa Luxemburg: Tömegsztrajk” [Rosa Luxemburg: General Strike], in Történelem és osztálytudat (Budapest: Magveto, 1971), pp. 178–179.Google Scholar