Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:32:46.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Introduction and Critical Reception of Marxist Thought in Britain, 1850–1900*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Kirk Willis
Kirk Willis
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An economic theory implies an ethical system, a political purpose, and a psychological hypothesis. Throughout almost the entire nineteenth century in Britain laissez-faire capitalism, with its concomitant values of personal thrift and industry, parliamentary government, and promise of social mobility through self-improvement, was triumphant. Many, if not most, Englishmen believed that the classical political economists had discovered and formulated the ‘laws of political economy’ in the same ineluctable manner that Isaac Newton had determined the laws of physics. ‘To many’, as G. Kitson Clark has written, the political economists ‘were the best minds in the country whose teaching it was folly to question and disastrous to disobey’. However much Englishmen might deplore the social and human consequences of the operation of the ‘laws of political economy’, most were convinced that opposition to those ‘laws’ was futile.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 417 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

1 Clark, G. Kitson, Churchmen and the condition of England 1831–1885 (London, 1973), p. 290Google Scholar.

2 Ibid.

3 Mackenzie, W. Douglas, ‘The socialist agitation’, Westminster Review, CXXXIII (May 1890), 495Google Scholar.

4 See, for example, Beer, Samuel H., British politics in the collectivist age (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; McKibbin, Ross, The evolution of the Labour Party 1880–1900 (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar; Pelling, Henry, The origins of the Labour Party 1880–1900 (2nd edn, Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar; and Pierson, Stanley, Marxism and the origins of British socialism: the struggle for a new consciousness (Ithaca, 1973)Google Scholar.

5 Among others see Cole, Margaret, The story of Fabian socialism (Stanford, 1961)Google Scholar; Fremantle, Anne, This little band of prophets (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; McBriar, A. M., Fabian socialism and English politics 1884–1918 (Cambridge, 1962)Google Scholar; Pease, Edward R., The history of the Fabian Society (2nd edn, London, 1925)Google Scholar; Ricci, David M., ‘Fabian socialism: a theory of rent as exploitation’, Journal of British Studies, ix (Nov. 1969), 105–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarUlam, B., Philosophical foundations of British socialism (Cambridge, Mass., 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wolfe, Willard, From radicalism to socialism: men and ideas in the formation of Fabian socialist doctrines, 1881–1889 (New Haven, 1975)Google Scholar.

6 Jones, Peter d' A., The Christian Socialist revival 7877–1914 (Princeton, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Collns, Henry, ‘The Marxism of the Social Democratic Federation’, Essays in Labour History 1886–1914 (eds. Briggs, Asa and Saville, John, London, 1971), pp. 47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gould, Frederick J., Hyndman: prophet of socialism, (London, 1928)Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, E. J., Revolutionaries (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Hulse, James W., Revolutionists in London (Oxford, 1970)Google Scholar; Lee, H. W., and Archbold, E., Social-democracy in Britain (London, 1935)Google Scholar; Jarman, T. L.Socialism in Britain (London, 1972)Google Scholar; Pierson, Stanley, ‘Ernest Belf ort Bax: 1854–1926. The encounter of Marxism and late Victorian culture’, Journal of British Studies, XII (Nov. 1972), 39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar and his Marxism and the origins of British socialism (Ithaca, 1973)Google Scholar; Tsuzuki, Chushichi, H. M. Hyndman and British socialism (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar and The life of Eleanor Marx 7855–1898 (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar; and Thompson, E. P., William Morris: romantic to revolutionary (London, 1955)Google Scholar.

8 The only study of the critical reception of Marxist thought in Britain which has yet appeared is Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘Dr Marx and the Victorian critics’, Labouring men (London, 1964), pp. 239–49Google Scholar.

9 Butler, C. Violet review of Capital, volume 2, Economic Journal, XVII (Dec. 1902), 560Google Scholar.

10 Rae, John, ‘The socialism of Karl Marx and the Young Hegelians’, Contemporary Review, XL (Oct. 1881), 585Google Scholar.

11 ‘Yet the writings of Marx are hardly better known in this country than those ot Confucius,’ continued Rae, ‘and it is doubtful whether, outside of a few Radical clubs in London, the English proletariate [sic] so much as know his name’. Ibid, p. 586. For an excellent account of Marx's life and political activities in England see McLellan, David, Karl Marx: his life and thought (New York, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 H. M. Hyndman, one of Marx's earliest English disciples and founder of the Marxist Social Democratic Federation, wrote in his autobiography that in the early 1880s in England ‘at most, a few ill-printed copies of the famous Communist Manifesto done into English…could be found by searching for them in the most advanced revolutionary circles’. Hyndman, Henry Mayers, The record of an adventurous life (New York, 1911), p. 205Google Scholar.

13 The French translation of Capital, prepared by Joseph Roy with Marx's active collaboration, itself appeared in instalments from 1872 to 1875. For information on To-Day see Tsuzuki, Chushichi, H. M. Hyndman and British socialism (Oxford, 1961), pp. 56, 60, 61–2Google Scholar and his The life of Eleanor Marx 1855–1898 (Oxford, 1967), pp. 102Google Scholar, 108–110, 112–13, 118 and 146.

14 The April issue contained several pages of chapter 23, ‘The serfdom of work’. The June issue presented a translation of several sections of chapter 10, ‘The lordship of wealth’. Today, 1 (Apr. 1883), 57–68Google Scholar and Today, 1 (June 1883), 145–50Google Scholar.

15 Today, iv n.s. (Oct. 1885 through May 1889). Hyndman's biographer, Chushichi Tsuzuki, states that the translation was probably made from the French edition. Tsuzuki, , Hyndman and British socialism, p. 60Google Scholar.

16 A second edition of the translation appeared in 1896.

17 The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was translated by DeLeon, Daniel and published in New York in 1898Google Scholar. The poverty of philosophy was translated, by Quelch, Harry. An English translation of both volumes two and three of Capital, prepared by Untermann, E., was published in Chicago in 1907, but volume two was immediately issued by a London publisherGoogle Scholar. Finally, the Critique of political economy, translated by Stone, N. I., was printed in London in 1904Google Scholar.

18 Harney and Engels met for the first time in the autumn of 1843. For a study of their friendship and correspondence see Cadogan, Peter, ‘Harney and Engels’, International Review of Social History, x (1965), 66–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 For information on Harney the best works are Schoyen, A. R., The Chartist challenge: a portrait of George Julian Harney (London, 1958)Google Scholar and the chapter on Harney in Cole, G. D. H., Chartist portraits (London, 1941)Google Scholar. Engels began writing for the Northern Star in November 1843 and became a regular contributor in November 1844. For an example of his articles see F. Engels, P. Gigot and K. Marx, ‘Address of the German Democratic Committee of Brussels to Mr. Feargus O'Connor’, Northern Star, 25 July 1846 and F. Engels, ‘Speech of Dr. Karl Marx on Protection, Free Trade, and the Working Classes’, Northern Star, 9 Oct. 1847. A complete list of Marx's and Engels's publications in England is to be found in Maxmilien Rubel, Bibliographic des oeuvres de Karl Marx avec en appendice un répertoire des oeuvres de Friedrich Engels (Paris, 1956)Google Scholar.

20 Harney had befriended the Polish émigrés who had arrived in England after the failure of the abortive 1831 rising. He joined the Polish Democratic Association and persuaded Marx to present a speech to one of their meetings. That speech, ‘Poland and the democratic mission of Chartism’, appeared in the Northern Star, 4 Dec. 1847.

21 McLellan, David, Karl Marx: his life and thought (New York, 1973), p. 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 One important article contributed by Engels at this time was a presentation of the seventeen demands of the German Communist party, which had been promulgated by Marx and Engels in Paris a few weeks after the February revolution. ‘Manifesto of the Red Republicans of Germany’, Democratic Review (July 1849), pp. 66–70Google Scholar.

23 Harney's biographer attributes the split to ‘the maddening catholicity of Harney's editorial policy’. Schoyen, A. R., The Chartist challenge: a portrait of George Julian Harney (London, 1958), p. 213Google Scholar. Marx's most recent biographer agrees: ‘The immediate cause of their estrangement was Harney's indiscriminate enthusiasm for the various refugee groups in London who could all rely on getting their views published.’ McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 259Google Scholar.

24 The Times, 2 Sept. 1851Google Scholar.

25 Andreas, Bert, Le Manifesto Communiste de Marx et Engels: histoire et bibliographie 1848–1918 (Milano, 1963), p. 29Google Scholar.

26 Wilson, John Croker, ‘Revolutionary literature’, Quarterly Review, LXXXIX (Sept. 1851), 491–543Google Scholar.

27 ‘In the early 1850s Jones, unlike Harney, emphasised the doctrines of class struggle, the incompatibility of interests between capital and labour, and the necessity of the conquest of political power by the working class.’ McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 260Google Scholar. ‘It is as one of the greatest of the early English socialists,’ writes John Saville, ‘and the one who most nearly approached a Marxist position, that Ernest Jones will be remembered by the Labour Movement of today.’ Saville, John, Ernest Jones: Chartist (London, 1952), p. 82Google Scholar.

28 McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 261Google Scholar. For a complete list of Marx's contributions to Jones's papers see Rubel, Bibliographie des oeuvres de Karl Marx.

29 Harrison, Royden, Before the socialists: studies in Labour and politics 1861–1881 (London, 1965), p. 21Google Scholar.

30 Saville, , Ernest Jones, p. 237Google Scholar and McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 261Google Scholar. A review of the second German edition of Das achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte appeared in the Westminster Review, xcm (Jan. 1870), 128–9Google Scholar. Jones did print a summary of the Eighteenth Brumaire in the People's Paper for 11 and 18 Dec. 1852.

31 McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 265Google Scholar, and Rubel, , Bibliographic, p. 103Google Scholar.

32 Eleanor Marx Aveling collected and published Revolution and counter-revolution; or, Germany in 1848 (London, 1896)Google Scholar and The Eastern Question: a reprint of letters, written 1853–56, dealing with the events of the Crimean war (London, 1897)Google Scholar. Both books were widely reviewed. For example, Revolution and counter-revolution in the Westminster Review, CXLVI (Sept. 1896), 348Google Scholar and The Eastern Question in the Westminster Review, CXLVIII (Dec. 1897), 707Google Scholar and in the. English Historical Review, XIII (Jan. 1898), 190CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 The best work on the International, Marx and English participation therein is Henry Collins and Chimen Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour movement: years of the First International (London, 1965)Google Scholar and Collins, Henry, ‘The English branches of the First International’, Essays in Labour history (rev. edn, eds. Briggs, Asa and Saville, John, London, 1967), pp. 242–75Google Scholar.

34 Although its headquarters were in London, the leading English newspapers reported few of the International's activities in detail other than the major congresses. Only one article about the International, written by the Positivist Edward Spencer Beesly with Marx's assistance, appeared in a major review before the Commune. Beesly, Edward Spencer, ‘The International Working-Men's Association’, Fortnightly Review, VIII n.s. (1 Nov. 1870), 517–35Google Scholar. The most important regular source of information about the International was the Bee-Hive, a working-class newspaper founded by George Potter, whichserved as the official organ for the International and was in its time themost influential newspaper of the labour movement. Collins, and Abramsky, , Marx and British Labour, pp. 55 and 69Google Scholar.

35 Although he attended the organizational meeting of the International as one of several invited ‘distinguished exiles and friends of the people’, Marx played no part in the establishment and organization of the International. This was not, however, the belief of Marx's later critics. He was believed to have organized and to have directed the International from the very first. At that time, the fall of 1864, Marx was labouring strenuously over the manuscript of the first volume of Das Kapital. He had deliberately entered a period of political quiescence, but broke this self-imposed exile to attend the 28 September meeting. Gradually, Marx, with his enormous and intimidating erudition, powers of creative thought, political acumen, and enormous capacity for sustained hard work, established ‘an almost unchallenged intellectual ascendancy over the General Council’. Collins, and Abramsky, , Marx and British Labour, p. vGoogle Scholar.

36 Collins, , ‘English branches of the First International’, p. 248Google Scholar.

37 Rubel, , Bibliographic, p. 182Google Scholar and McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 400Google Scholar.

38 McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 401Google Scholar.

39 In the minds of a great many Englishmen the International was believed to have caused the revolution and the Commune. For example, ‘Iitde as we saw or heard openly of the influence of the “International,” it was in fact the real motive force whose hidden hand guided, with a mysterious and dreaded power, the whole machine of the Revolution. In short, the League planned and ordered the movements which the Commune carried out.’ E.B.M., , “The Commune of 1871’, Fraser's Magazine, III n.s. (June 1871), 802Google Scholar. ‘There is a bookseller's shop in High Holborn. It is in every sense an unpretending establishment… An inscription above it calls it “The Reformer's Library” … There are sights more hunted after by mere sightseers. There are edifices linked with many an historic narrative or fable. Yet we would venture to set that undistinguished shop above more than one palace and monument. For there are the headquarters of a society whose behests are obeyed by countless thousands from Moscow to Madrid, and in the New World as in the Old, whose disciples have already waged desperate war against one government, and whose proclamations pledge it to wage war against every government - the ominous, the ubiquitous International Association of Workmen.’ The Tablet, 15 July 1871. There were Englishmen who approved of the Commune. For a discussion of their views see Harrison, Royden (ed.), The English defence of the Commune (London, 1971)Google Scholar and his ‘Marx, Engels and the British response to the Commune’, Revolution & reaction: the Paris Commune 1871 (eds. Hicks, John and Tucker, Robert, Amherst, 1973), pp. 96–110Google Scholar.

40 See, for example, Betham-Edwards, Matilda, ‘The International Working-Men's Association’, Fraser's Magazine, XII n.s. (July, Aug. and Sept. 1875), 72–87, 181–94Google Scholar, and 300–11; Cecil, Robert, ‘The Commune and the Internationale’, Quarterly Review, CXXXI n.s. (Oct. 1871), 290–307Google Scholar; Greg, W. R., ‘The condition of French polities’, Fraser's Magazine, III n.s. (May 1871), 541–54Google Scholar and ‘Suum Cuique: the Moral of the Paris catastrophe’, Fraser's Magazine,IV n.s. (July 1871), 541–34Google Scholar; Hobart, Baron, ‘The International and the Manchester School’, Fortnightly Review, XI n.s. (1 Feb. 1872), 191–5Google Scholar; Marshall, Frederic, ‘A history of the Commune of Paris’, Blackwood's Magazine, CX n.s. (July 1871), 118–36Google Scholar; Mazzini, Joseph, ‘The Commune in Paris’, Contemporary Review, XVIII n.s. (June 1871), 307–18Google Scholar; Stigard, William, ‘The Commune of Paris’, Edinburgh Review, CXXXIV n.s. (Oct. 1871), 263–90Google Scholar; and Wilson, John, ‘The Labour movement, abroad and at home’, Quarterly Review, CXXXVII n.s. (July 1874), 83–99Google Scholar.

41 Beesly, Edward Spencer, ‘The International Working-Men's Association’, Fortnightly Review, VIII n.s. (1 Nov. 1870), 529–30Google Scholar.

42 Smith, Goldwin, ‘The Labour movement’, Contemporary Review, XXI (Jan. 1872), 234Google Scholar. ‘I detest all conspiracy’, Smith continued, ‘whether it be that of Ignatius Loyola, or that of Karl Marx.’

43 Greg, W. R., ‘The proletariat on a false scent’, Quarterly Review, CXXXII (Jan. 1872), 133Google Scholar.

44 Mazzini, Joseph, ‘The International: addressed to the Working Class’, Contemporary Review, xx (July 1872), 155Google Scholar.

45 Howell, George, ‘The history of the International Association’, Nineteenth Century, IV (July 1878), 25 and 34–5Google Scholar.

46 For a study of British views of Germany see Kennedy, P. M., ‘Idealists and realists: British views of Germany, 1864–1939’, Royal Historical Society Transactions, fifth ser. XXV, 137–56Google Scholar.

47 An example of how Marx became known through his connexion with German socialism is to be found in Moritz Kaufmann's Utopias. As he wrote in the preface, ‘The special interest taken in the sudden development of Modern Socialism, owing to recent developments in Germany, has induced the author to collect…’ Kaufmann, , Utopias; or, Schemes of social improvement from Sir Thomas More to Karl Marx (London, 1879), p. vGoogle Scholar.

48 Ludlow, J. M., ‘Ferdinand Lassalle, The German Social-Democrat’, Fortnightly Review, v n.s. (1 Apr. 1869), 453Google Scholar. In another passage Ludlow stated, ‘indeed Lassalle is said to owe to Karl Marx the whole of his doctrines on social subjects’. Ibid. pp. 428–9

49 Macdonnell, John, ‘Karl Marx and German socialism’, Fortnightly Review, XVII n.s. (1 Mar. 1875), 382–91Google Scholar.

50 In 1874 Moritz Kaufmann published Socialism: its nature, its dangers, and its remedies considered. This work was not original, however. It was based on Schaffle's, A. E. F., Kapitalismus und socialisms. For a discussion see below p. 434Google Scholar.

51 Macdonnell, John, ‘Karl Marx and German socialism’, Fortnightly Review, XVII n.s. (1 Mar. 1875), 384Google Scholar. Macdonnell observed, rightly, ‘I have good reason to doubt whether they [Zur Kritik and Das Kapital] are much known here, or whether most educated Englishmen are aware of their influence abroad.’ Ibid. p. 383.

52 Ibid. p. 385.

53 Marx did not, of course, possess such control over the German socialist movement, but he was repeatedly portrayed to English readers as the true leader of German socialism. For Marx's actual relationship with German socialism see Morgan, Roger, The German social democrats and the First International 1864–1872 (Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar.

54 Leslie, T. E.Cliffe, ‘The history of German political economy’, Fortnightly Review, XVIII n.s. (1 July 1875), 99Google Scholar. The reference to Marx quoted above is the only mention of Marx in the article. It was reprinted in Cliffe Leslie's Essays in moral and political philosophy (Dublin, 1879Google Scholar) and his Essays in political economy (Dublin, 1888).

55 Tuttle, Herbert, ‘Parties and politics in Germany’, Fortnightly Review, XXI n.s. (1 May 1877), 676–93Google Scholar and Fawcett, Henry, ‘The recent development of socialism in Germany and the United States’, Fortnightly Review, XXIV n.s. (1. Nov. 1878), 605–15Google Scholar.

56 Stebbing, William, ‘Primitive property and modern socialism’, Edinburgh Review, CXLVIII n.s. (July 1878), 87Google Scholar.

57 Montefiore, Leonard A., ‘liberty in Germany’, Nineteenth Century, V n.s. (Feb. 1879), 280Google Scholar.

58 Rae, John, ‘Ferdinand Lassalle and German socialism’, Contemporary Review, XXXIX n.s. (June 1881), 921–43Google Scholar and ‘The socialism of Karl Marx and the Young Hegelians’, Contemporary Review, XL (Oct. 1881), 585–607Google Scholar. Rae reviewed books on ‘Political economy’ and ‘Social philosophy’ for the Contemporary Review throughout the 1870s and 1880s. He also published many articles on socialism, most of which appeared in the Contemporary Review. One of the most important of these was a two-part study of‘state socialism’, from which the following passage is taken: ‘The revolutionary Socialists of the Continent, for instance, areanimated by as vigorous a spirit of self-interest and an even more bitter class antagonism than a trade union or a land league. They fight for a particular claim of right - the utterly unjustifiable claim to the whole product of labour - and they propose to turn the world upside down by a vast scheme of social reconstruction in order to get their unjust, delusive, and mischievous idea realized.’ ‘State socialism’, Contemporary Review, LIV (Sept. 1888), 378–9Google Scholar.

59 Kaufmann, Moritz, ‘German socialism’, Fortnightly Review, XXXVI n.s. (1 Dec. 1884), 768–79Google Scholar and ‘French socialism’, National Review, X (Nov. 1887), 355–75Google Scholar. The October1882 Westminster Review presented a short but excellent discussion of German socialism which included a succinct presentation of the Marxian theory of value. Anon., , ‘Socialism’, Westminster Review, CXVIII (Oct. 1882), 175–80Google Scholar.

60 The most important and best known of these works were: Adler, George, ‘The evolution of the socialist programme in Germany (1863–1890)’, Economic Journal, I (Dec. 1891), 688–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anon., , ‘Revolution and counter-revolution’, Westminster Review, CXLVI (Sept. 1896), 340–8Google Scholar; Sir Chirol, Ignatius Valentine, ‘The internal crisis in Germany’,Edinburgh Review, CLXXXVI (Oct. 1897), 505–42Google Scholar; Dawson, William Harbutt, German socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle: a biographical history of German socialist movements during this century (London, 1888Google Scholar) and Bismarck and state socialism; an exposition of the social and economic legislation of Germany since 1870 (London, 1890)Google Scholar; Guyot, Yves, ‘Socialism in France: its present and future’, Nineteenth Century, XXXIV (Dec. 1893), 860–74Google Scholar; Kennard, Mira H., ‘Ferdinand Lassalle’, Nineteenth Century, XXX (Sept. 1891), 361–79Google Scholar; Lafargue, Paul, ‘Socialism in France from 1876 to 1896’, Fortnightly Review, LXII n.s. (1 Sept. 1897), 445–58Google Scholar; Laveleye, Emile de, ‘The European Terror’, Fortnightly Review, XXXIII n.s. (1 Apr. 1883), 548–61Google Scholar; Magnus, Laurie, ‘Recent home-politics in Germany’, Blackwood's Magazine, CLIX (Apr. 1896), 627–38Google Scholar; and Russell, Bertrand, German social democracy (London, 1896)Google Scholar.

61 A typical expression of this concern with the expansion of the electorate and its potential conversion to socialism appeared in this passage from an anonymous article in the Westminster Review of January 1886: ‘On the eve of this great change in the political life of this country, at a moment when the power which has hitherto beenin the hands of the owners of property is about to be placed unreservedly in those hands which are empty, it is not unimportant that we should consider what will be the probable course of legislation, and to inquire what use the people will make of their power… We have given the working classes the instrument of exaction: will they be moderate and let our capitalists keep the half of what they may possess? A demand has already been made on them for the whole. Socialists see distinctly that the political power is with the people, and they intend to use that power to carry out a few extensions of the principle of the Poor Law… That we think is a significant sign of the times. That the far more cogent and thorough viewsof Marx, Rodbecker [sic], and Engels, now that they are being popularized by such writers as Hyndman and Gronlund, will meet with as complete a welcome from the new voters, in whose hands are the issues of life and death for this nation, cannot, we think, be doubted.’ Anon., , ‘'Socialismand legislation’, Westminster Review, cxxv (01. 1886), 3, II and 21–2Google Scholar.

62 Mill, John Stuart, ‘Thornton on Labour and its claims’, Fortnightly Review, v n.s. (1 May and 1 June 1869), 505–18 and 680–700Google Scholar.

63 Bladen, Vincent, From Adam Smith to Maynard Keynes: the heritage of political economy (Toronto, 1974), p. 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Sidgwick, Henry, The principles of political economy (London, 1883), p. 1Google Scholar.

65 Hutchison, T. W., A review of economic doctrines 1870–1929 (Oxford, 1953), p. 14Google Scholar. For Jevons and marginal utility, see Robbins, Lionel, ‘The place of Jevons in the history of economic thought’, The Manchester School, VII (1936), 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in his The evolution of modern economic theory (London, 1970), pp. 169–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bladen, , Adam Smith to Maynard Keynes, pp. 322–57Google Scholar; Hutchison, , Review of economic doctrines, pp. 28–49Google Scholar, Keynes, Jonn Maynard, Essays in biography (New York, 1963), pp. 255–309Google Scholar; Jevons, W. Stanley, ‘The future of political economy’, Fortnightly Review, xx n.s. (1 Nov. 1876), 617–31Google Scholar and The theory of political economy (London, 1871)Google Scholar.

66 Further, at this time historicism entered into English economics. The most ardent economic historicists were members of two groups: the Irish school - most importantly T. E. Cliffe Leslie and J. K. Ingram - and the economic historians - led by J. E. Thorold Rogers, Arnold Toynbee and William Cunningham. See Coats, A. W., ‘The historicist reaction in English political economy 1870–90’, Economica, n.s. XXI (May 1954), 143–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hutchison, , Review of economic doctrines, pp. 18–22Google Scholar.

67 See below, pp. 440–42.

68 Anon., ‘Social philosophy’ Westminster Review, CXIII (January 1880), 67Google Scholar.

69 Anon., ‘Socialism’ Westminster Review, CXVIII (October 1882), 175–6Google Scholar. In 1880 the American Howard Coghill published his Anessay on communism and socialism (Oxford, 1880)Google Scholar, but this work was not reviewed in any major journal and appears to have remained virtually unknown.

70 Gronlund, Laurence, The cooperative commonwealth in its outlines: an exposition of modern socialism (Boston, 1884) pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

71 Schaffle, Albert, Kapitalismus und sociaiismus (Tubingen, 1870)Google Scholar and Kaufmann, Moritz, Socialism: its nature, its dangers, and its remedies considered (London, 1874)Google Scholar.

72 Schaffle, Albert, Die quintessenz des sociaiismus (Gotha, 1877)Google Scholar. In 1892, the year of the fourth edition of his translation of the Quintessence of socialism, Bosanquet also translated Schaffle's, , The impossibility of social democracy; being a supplement to‘The quintessence of socialism’ (London, 1892)Google Scholar. This supplement was, however, 419 pages.

73 For most of the 1870s and 1880s, de Laveleye wrote regular columns on French and German politics for the Contemporary Review. Perhaps his best known article was ‘The European Terror’, Fortnightly Review, XXXIII n.s. (1 Apr. 1883), 548–61Google Scholar, in which Marx's connexion with German socialism was discussed in some detail. For additional information on de Laveleye see Lambert, Paul, ‘Emile de Laveleye (1822–1892)’, History of Political Economy, II (Fall 1970), 263–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Laveleye, Emile de, Socialism of to-day, trans. Orpen, Goddard H. (London, 1884)Google Scholar. The popularity of this translation was enhanced substantially when Orpen wrote a final chapter on ‘Socialism in England’. It was advertised: ‘Mr. Orpen has largely added to the importance of this work by giving the first comprehensive account ever published of Socialism in England’. Also popular was de Laveleye The elements of political economy, trans. Pollard, A. W. (London, 1884)Google Scholar.

75 On Bohm-Bawerk and the Austrian School see Hutchison, , Review of economic doctrines, pp. 165–79Google Scholar.

76 In Bohm-Bawerk's lifetime three editions of Kapital und kapitalzins appeared, all in the original German. After his death, in 1914, an unchanged fourth edition was published. There were originally two volumes, the general title of which was Kapital und kapitalzins. The specific title to the first volume, which appeared in 1884, was Geschichte und kritik der kapitalzins-theorien. The specific title to the second volume, which was published in 1889, was Positive theorie des kapitales. In 1890 William Smart prepared a translation of the first volume of the first edition under the title Capital and Interest; notice that he used the general title which Bohm-Bawerk adopted, rather than the specific title which covered the first volume, namely, History and critique of interest theories. In 1891 Smart translated volume two of the first edition, under the specific title, Positive theory of capital. For volume one he used the general title; for volume two, the specific title.

77 Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von, Karl Marx and the close of his system, trans. Macdonald, Alice M. (London, 1898)Google Scholar. For an excellent discussion of the history of the debate that Marx and the close of his system has generated, see Sweezy, Paul M., Karl Marx and the close of his system (ed.), (New York, 1966), pp. v-xxxGoogle Scholar.

78 In 1877 Otto Weydemeyer published an English translation of Johann Most's popular pamphlet, Capital and labour, which was a summary of Capital. Most, Johann, Kapital und arbeit; ein popularer auszug aus ‘Das Kapital’ von Karl Marx (Chemnitz, 1873)Google Scholar. See also Adler, Georg, Die grundlagen der Karl Marx'schen kritik der bestehenden volkwirthschaft (Tubingen, 1887)Google Scholar; Menger, Anton, Das recht auf den vollen arbeitsertag (Stuttgart, 1892)Google Scholar, translated into English, by M. E. Tanner with an introduction by Foxwell, H. S., as The right to the whole produce of labour (London, 1899)Google Scholar; Roscher, Wilhelm, Geschichte der national-oekonomik in Deutschland (Miinchen, 1874)Google Scholar; and Wagener, Adolph, Die akademische nationaldkonomie und der socialismus (Berlin, 1895)Google Scholar.

79 Pelling, Henry(ed.), The challenge of socialism (2nd edn,London, 1968) p. 3Google Scholar. The word ‘socialist’ first appeared in 1827 in the Co-operative Magazine, an organ of the Owenite movement. Ibid. p. 2.

80 Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘Karl Marx and the British Labour movement’ in his Revolutionaries (London, 1955) p. 96Google Scholar.

81 Ibid.

82 Thompson, E. P., William Morris: romantic to revolutionary (London, 1955) p. 315Google Scholar. Hyndman remembered that in the 1880s, ‘It is not too much to say, indeed, that the whole movement was dead so far as Great Britain was concerned’. Hyndman, , Record of an adventurous life, p. 205Google Scholar.

83 For a discussion of these years see the appropriate sections of Lee, H. W. and Archbold, E., Social-democracy in Britain (London, 1935)Google Scholar; Pelling, Henry, The origins of the Labour party 1880–1900 (2nd edn, Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar; Pierson, Stanley, Marxism and the origins of British socialism: the struggle for a new consciousness (Ithaca, 1973)Google Scholar; Thompson, William Morris; and Tsuzuki, Hyndman and British socialism and Eleanor Marx.

84 See Smith, Warren Sylvester,The London heretics 1870–1914 (London, 1967)Google Scholar.

85 Clark, Kitson, Churchmen and the condition of England, p. 311Google Scholar.

86 Anon., ‘Socialism in America’, Fraser's Magazine, XI n.s. (Apr. 1875), 511Google Scholar.

87 Fawcett, Henry., ‘The recent development of socialism in Germany and the United States’, Fortnightly Review, XXIV n.s. ( 1 Nov. 1878), 607 and 610Google Scholar.

88 Morley, John., ‘Review of the Month’, Macmillan's Magazine, XIAX (Jan. 1884), 231Google Scholar. John Rae, writing in the February 1884 Contemporary Review, shared Morley's perception - even to the point of repeating the same metaphor: ‘A ripple of socialism has just been passing over England’. Contemporary Review, XLV (Feb. 1884), 295Google Scholar.

89 Anon ‘Socialism and legislation’, p. 4Google Scholar.

90 Mackenzie, , ‘The socialist agitation’, p. 495Google Scholar.

91 Although this activity is well known and has been treated in detail by several historians, two efforts which especially emphasized the propagation of Marx's doctrine specifically should be noted. E. Belfort Bax contributed two important expositions of Marxist theory to Modern Thought, a progressive magazine founded by Foulger, J. C.., ‘Modern socialism’, Modern Thought, I (Aug. 1879), 150–3Google Scholar and ‘Leaders of modern thought: Karl Marx’, Modern Thought, III (Dec. 1881), 349–54Google Scholar. To-Day, as mentioned above, presented a serialized translation of the first ten chapters of Capital, as well as many other articles on Marxist thought.

92 Rubel, , Bibliographie, p. 18Google Scholar.

93 McLellan, , Karl Marx, p. 353Google Scholar.

94 Carmichael, Joel, Karl Marx: the passionate logician (New York, 1967), p. 214Google Scholar.

95 Rubel, , Bibliographic, p. 14. My translationGoogle Scholar.

96 The review was written by Engels himself. Engels, F., Zur kritik des politische oekonomie, Das Volk, 6 and 20 Aug. 1859Google Scholar. For information on Das Volk see Bach, I., ‘Karl Marx und die Londoner zeitung “Das Volk” (1859)’Google Scholar, in Aus der geschichte des kampfes von Marx und Engeb fiir die proletarische partei (Berlin, 1961)Google Scholar.

97 Saturday Review, xxv (18 Jan. 1868), 97Google Scholar.

98 Contemporary Review, VII (June 1868), 317Google Scholar.

99 The response in Germany and France was little better. A second German edition was not published until 1872, a third in 1883, and a fourth in 1890. The first translation of Dos Kapitai appeared in 1872 —into Russian by Nicholai Danielson. A French translation, prepared by Joseph Roy, appeared in instalments from August 1872 to May 1875. Rubel, , Bibliographie, p. 18 and pp. 171–2Google Scholar.

100 Marx, of course, greatly admired Darwin and believed himself to be accomplishing the same thing for economics that Darwin had done for biology. Marx, in fact, instructed Engels to state publicly that Das Kapitai ‘proves that contemporary society economically considered, is pregnant with a new higher form…[and] shows socially the same universal process of change which was proved in the natural sciences by Darwin’. Quoted in Shlomo Avineri, ‘From hoax to dogma: a footnote on Marx and Darwin’, Encounter (Mar. 1967), p. 31Google Scholar.

101 The Saturday Review critic alluded to this anonymity in his comment that Marx's ‘facts and illustrations, moreover, are chiefly derived from the social circumstances of England, where he appears to have resided for some years’. Saturday Review, xxv (18 Jan. 1868), 97Google Scholar.

102 Contemporary Review, VIII (June 1868), 317Google Scholar.

103 Hutchison, , Review of economic doctrines, pp. 14–49Google Scholar.

104 Anon., ‘Contemporary literature’, Westminster Review, CXXVIII (Apr. 1887), 121–2Google Scholar. This was a review of the first English edition of Capital.

105 ‘Capital’, Athenaeum (5 Mar. 1887), pp. 313–14Google Scholar; ‘Contemporary literature’, Westminster Review, CXXVIII (Apr. 1887), 121–2Google Scholar; ‘“Capital,” by Marx, Karl’, Westminster Review, CXXVIII (Dec. 1887), 1079–89Google Scholar; ‘Karl Marx on Capital’, Saturday Review, LXIII (25 June 1887), 924–5Google Scholar; ‘Social philosophy’, Contemporary Review, LII (NOV. 1887), 754–5Google Scholar. See also National Reformer (7, 14, 21 Aug. 1887)Google Scholar. Rae, John, writing in the Contemporary Review, reviewed the second volume of Das Kapital in January 1886Google Scholar: ‘The present volume has neither the importance nor the interest of its predecessor…its results are of little scientific or even controversial value.’ Rae, , ‘Contemporary records’, Contemporary Review, XLIX (Jan. 1886), 146Google Scholar.

106 The Bellamy Library was published in London by W. Reeves. From 1893 to 1908 it underwent four editions.

107 Anon., ‘Socialism’, Westminster Review, CXVIII (Oct. 1882), 178Google Scholar. Rae, John, reviewing Hyndman's Historical basis of socialism in England, stated that ‘Marx's doctrine of surplus value [is] the single doctrine of the school’. Rae, , ‘Social philosophy’, Contemporary Review, XLV (Feb. 1884), 296Google Scholar. The Reverend Philip H. Wicksteed asserted, ‘The key-stone of the arch is the theory of value adopted by Marx’. Wicksteed, ‘The Jevonian criticism of Marx: a rejoinder’, To-Day, m n.s. (Apr. 1885), 178Google Scholar.

108 Oldham, Alice, ‘The history of socialism’, National Review, xvi (Jan. 1891), 637Google Scholar.

109 Anon., ‘Contemporary literature’, Westminster Review, CXXVIII (Apr. 1887), 121Google Scholar. This argument was repeated in Seymour, H., The fallacy of Marx's theory of surplus value (London, 1897)Google Scholar.

110 Russell, Bertrand, German social democracy (London, 1896), p. 17Google Scholar.

111 Shaw, George Bernard, ‘Karl Marx and “Das Kapital’”, National Reformer (7 Aug. 1887)Google Scholar. Reprinted in Ellis, R. W. (ed.), Bernard Shaw and Karl Marx: a symposium (New York, 1930), p. 107Google Scholar. The question of the Fabian Society's reaction to Marx has been much discussed. The two best studies are McBriar, A. M., Fabian socialism and English politics 1884–1918 (Cambridge, 1962)Google Scholar and Wolfe, Willard, From radicalism to socialism: men and ideas in the formation of Fabian socialist doctrines 1881–1889 (New Haven, 1975)Google Scholar.

112 Russell, , German social democracy, p. 17Google Scholar. Wicksteed also strongly argued against Marx's elimination argument in his ‘Das Kapital: A Criticism’, To-Day, III n.s. (Mar. 1885).

113 Russell, , German social democracy, p. 17Google Scholar.

114 Rae, John, Contemporary socialism (London, 1884), p. 156Google Scholar.

115 Wicksteed, Philip H., ‘Das Kapital: a criticism’, To-Day, III n.s. (Mar. 1885)Google Scholar, reprinted in Ellis, (ed.), Shaw and Marx, pp. 34–5 and 40Google Scholar. ‘Marx is therefore wrong’, asserted Wicksteed in one of his strongest passages, ‘in saying that when we pass from that in which the exchangeable wares differ (value in use) to that in which they are identical (value in exchange), we must put their utility out of consideration, leaving only jellies of abstract labour. What we really have to do is to put out of consideration the concrete and specific qualitative utilities in which they differ, leaving only the abstract and general quantitative utility in which they are identical.’ Ibid. p. 36.

116 Ibid. p. 42.

117 Wicksteed, , ‘Jevonian criticism of Marx: a rejoinder’, p. 178Google Scholar.

118 Ibid.

119 Oldham, , ‘History of socialism’, p. 638Google Scholar. Oldham wrote in another passage:‘But I think Marx's theory of the value of commodities being determined by the labour they cost to produce is still less true. Value is not a property residing in things. It is a relation existing between things and the individuals who need them, and it depends fundamentally and chiefly on utility, which involves the wants of the consumer as much as the nature of the commodity.’ Ibid.

120 Flint, Robert, Socialism (London, 1895), p. 143Google Scholar. ‘It is impossible’, insisted Flint, ‘to eliminate from the determination of value the elements of use, demand, rarity, limitation, and to fix it exclusively by quantity or duration of labour.’ Ibid. p. 126.

121 Anon., ‘Karl Marx on capital’, Saturday Review, LXIII (25 June 1887), p. 924Google Scholar.

122 Butlin, Francis, ‘Reviews’, Economic Journal, v (June 1895), 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123 Quoted in Mallock, W. H., Socialism and social discord (London, 1896), p. 19Google Scholar.

124 Anon., ‘Marx's theory of surplus value’, Journal of Political Economy, in (Mar. 1895), 218–19Google Scholar. Beatrice Potter argued against Marx in her The co-operative movement in Great Britain: ‘He ignores an all-important factor in the exchange value of commodities - 1 mean the demands of the market representing the manifold wants, the changing desires, and shifting fancies of the whole body of consumers.’ What is necessary is a ‘full realization of utility as a determining factor in value’. Potter, Beatrice, The co-operative movement in Great Britain (2nd edn, London, 1893), p. 49Google Scholar. Other discussions of Marx's failure to recognize the theory of marginal utility are to be found in Russell, , German social democracy, pp. 15–28Google Scholar; Flint, , Socialism, pp. 136–56Google Scholar; and both of Wicksteed's To-Day articles.

125 Anon., ‘Socialism and legislation’, p. 23Google Scholar.

126 Ibid. p. 27.

127 Mallock was a vigorous opponent of socialism and a prolific writer whose articles appeared in nearly every leading English review. He was, however, liable to use ‘socialism’ in a very broad and often confused sense and mixed together elements of Utopian and Marxian socialism as if they were indistinct. Of all of Mallock's works see especially Labour and the popular welfare (London, 1896)Google Scholar, Property and progress (London, 1884)Google Scholar, Socialism and social discord (London, 1896)Google Scholar and A critical examination of socialism (London, 1907)Google Scholar. The best study of Mallock's thought is Ford, D. J., ‘W. H. Mallock and socialism in England, 1880–1918’, Essays in anti-Labour history (ed. Brown, Kenneth D., London, 1974), pp. 317–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 Russell, , German social democracy, pp. 17–28Google Scholar. For Alfred Marshall's objection to Marx, which is very short, see his Principles of economics (2nd edn, London, 1895), pp. 668–9Google Scholar. The essence of his argument is this: ‘It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory after allowance has been made for the wear-and-tear of the machinery, is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and the subordinate managers, and of the capital employed.’ This argument was a favourite one of Marx–s critics. See Oldham, , ‘History of socialism’, pp. 637–9Google Scholar; Flint, , Socialism, pp. 136–56 and 183–201Google Scholar; Graham, William, Socialism new and old (London, 1891), pp. 189–204Google Scholar; Kaufmann, , Utopias, pp. 259–92Google Scholar; Potter, , Co-operative movement, pp. 48–9Google Scholar; and Anon., ‘“Capital,” by Karl Marx’, Westminster Review, CXXVIII (Dec. 1887), 1079–89Google Scholar.

129 This critic continued, ‘thus we see that capital can create value. That the services capital renders are genuine work, and deserve interest (the wages for this work), is equally dear.’ Anon., ‘“Capital,” by Karl Marx’, p. 1085Google Scholar.

130 Kirkup, Thomas, History of socialism (3rd edn, London, 1906), p. 155Google Scholar.

131 Melville, R. D., ‘The present socialist position’, Westminster Review, CXLVI (NOV. 1896), 55Google Scholar.

132 Huxley, T. H., ‘Capital - the mother of labour’, Nineteenth Century, xxvn (Mar. 1890), 531–2Google Scholar. See, as well, Brodrick, George C., ‘Fallacies of modern socialism’, National Review, xrx (May 1892), 305–6Google Scholar; Anon., ‘“Capital,” by Karl Marx’, pp. 1079–89Google Scholar; and Anon, ‘Karl Marx on capital’, p. 924Google Scholar. John Macdonnell offered this brief critique of Marx: ‘Those who are under the spell of Karl Marx's teaching will probably not be affected by any reasons; and as for those who do not agree with him, they will probably think the fallacies too crude to merit much criticism. English students of political economy will consider his analysis of production somewhat puerile, and will, I presume, be of opinion that Karl Marx's assumptions with respect to the part played by labour in the production of wealth are of an astounding character. They will perceive that at all stages capital is as essential to production as labour; and that it is an economical fiction to suppose that capital assists a workman up to a certain hour of the day, while after that time he trusts to his limbs alone. They will read, with amusement and amazement, Karl Marx's remarks on money, his gibes and sneers at the abstinence of the capitaist, and the right to be remunerated for saving.’ Macdonnell, , ‘Karl Marx and German socialism’, p. 391Google Scholar.

133 Smith, Goldwin, ‘The Labour movement’, p. 235Google Scholar. The economist M. W. Middleton, reviewing Eleanor Marx Aveling's edition of Value, price, and profit, insisted that ‘there are certain fallacies which make the book entirely unsound as economic argument’. ‘The first of these’, Middleton explained, ‘is distortion of price, which must obviously have its origin in the desires of the community, and which, within essential limitations, determines wages - not the reverse. It is represented by Marx rather as a device for lowering wages! Again, the efficiency of the labourer from the employer's point of view, and the latter's interest in increasing it, are absolutely ignored as a modifying factor in the rivalry between Labour and Capital. Also the economic functions of capital are depreciated, no direction of labour allowed for, and no solidarity of interests between the two parties acknowledged’. Middleton, M. W., ‘Reviews’, Economic Review, ix (July 1899), 417Google Scholar.

134 ‘“That Socialism would never work because it forgets that men are too selfish and ignorant to be able to enter into and carry on the vast cooperative state that it would require.” This is to many the supreme objection against Socialism.’ Bliss, W. D. P., A handbook of socialism (London, 1895), p. 192Google Scholar.

135 Anon., ‘Contemporary literature’, Westminster Review, cxxxix (Feb. 1893), 201Google Scholar.

136 Anon., ‘Socialism and legislation’, p. 21Google Scholar. Spencer Walpole made this comment about the benefits England had received from following the precepts of Adam Smith: ‘Yet the prejudice of the public and the private interests of individuals have alike given way before his arguments. Trade, which he found in chains, has been wholly set free from the shackles which fettered it; and the achievement - the greatest, perhaps, which has ever been accomplished by a single writer - almost justifies Buckle's panegyric [that, next to the Bible, the Wealth of Nations was the most important book ever written], and entitles us to regard Adam Smith as one of the chief benefactors of modern England.’ Walpole, Spencer, ‘Modern economies’, Edinburgh Review, CLXXIII (Jan. 1891), 241–2Google Scholar.

137 Hodgson, W. Earl, ‘An economic cure for socialism’, National Review, xrv (Jan. 1885), 624Google Scholar.

138 Stebbing, , ‘Primitive property and modern socialism’, p. 83Google Scholar.

139 Rae, , ‘State socialism’, pp. 224–5Google Scholar.

140 Nicholson, J. Shield, ‘A plea for orthodox political economy’ National Review, VI (Dec. 1885), 563Google Scholar.

141 Anon., ‘Socialism and legislation’, p. 4Google Scholar.

142 Oldham, , ‘History of socialism’, p. 645Google Scholar. Oldham continued, ‘I think it is indisputable that the main cause of our present abundant and skilful production is the dependence of the workers on it for their livelihood, and the direct responsibility and reward attainable by each.’ Ibid.

143 Brodrick, , ‘Fallacies of modern socialism’, p. 301Google Scholar.

144 Ball, James, ‘“Modern socialism” criticized’, Modem Thought, I (Sept. 1879), 174Google Scholar.

145 Anon, ‘Socialism in America’, Fraser's Magazine, xci (Apr. 1875), 520Google Scholar. ‘The world only exists’, asserted the barrister and economist Sir Bernard Mallet, ‘by reason of the steady and unresting toil of the vast majority of human beings, and any teaching which weakens either the power and desire to work, or the motive for accumulation, may easily become a serious danger to human progress.’ Sir Mallet, Bernard, ‘Facts for the Fabian socialists’, MacmiUan's Magazine, LXI (Mar. 1890), 354Google Scholar.

146 Brodrick, , ‘Fallacies of modern socialism’, p. 301Google Scholar. William Stebbing claimed that ‘the whole tendency and principle’ of the German socialist organization ‘is to commit suicide of their individual volition’. ‘The insidious principle’, he maintained later, ‘underlies the whole Socialist movement, that, as a Hungarian delegate expressed it at Ghent, what workmen should aim at is “social liberty,” not “individual liberty.” Modern civilisation loves both, but social liberty, to be worth the name, must rest on individual liberty. So-called social liberty, which has not this foundation, is another name for the aristocracy of a coterie, whether inspired by a Lassalle or a Marx… [Schemes such as Marx's] are to be deprecated especially for this reason, that they relax the sense of self-dependence, and encourage men to look elsewhere than to their own energy for the working out of their own welfare… The motto of Social Democracy is social liberty, not individual liberty; it must be shown that the only safe principle of modern civilisation is “social liberty because individual liberty’”. Stebbing, , ‘Primitive property and modern socialism’, pp. 91–3Google Scholar.

147 Hirst, F. W., ‘Individualism and socialism’, Economic Review, vm (Apr. 1898), 228Google Scholar. James Ball insisted ‘The truth is that man cannot be unselfish if he will. All the forces of nature-let us rather say, all the will of God-is against his being so.’ Ball, , ‘“Modern socialism’ criticized’, p. 174Google Scholar.

148 Anon., ‘Socialism and legislation’, p. 4Google Scholar.

149 Ibid. p. 28. Alice Oldham made the same point: ‘Under no really Socialist State does it seem possible to give to each worker the incentive of feeling that his reward depends on his own exertions. The stimulus that at present keeps our production at a high level would be withdrawn. There would be relaxation of labour over the whole field of industry, die disastrous effects of which cannot be over-estimated. I cannot, indeed, imagine how a Socialistic State could for a moment compete with other non-Socialist nations around it. Oldham, , ‘History of socialism’, p. 647Google Scholar. Henry Fawcett put the matter quite blundy, ‘Even the slightest assault upon the principle of individual responsibility may exert a most disastrous influence.’ Fawcett, , ‘Development of socialism’, p. 615Google Scholar.

150 ‘There is one fatal aspect of the question to which reference must be made,’ declared one critic, ‘and that is the way in which Socialists and Radicals lose sight of the real facts of human nature. Because certain of our best men can be unselfish in a low sense and selfish only in a high one, it is assumed that altruism or self-sacrifice may be made a basis of social relations…[Marx's English followers] ignore the fact that human nature is selfish.’ Anon., ‘Socialism and legislation’, p. 31Google Scholar. F. M. Budin, reviewing William Morris and Belfort Bax's Socialism: its growth and outcome, stated: ‘If our authors could point out one human passion which in any society, from die beginning of history to the present day, has been overcome, or which, being temporarily crushed, has not had its reaction, we might believe this to be a whole truth, and not a half-truth, and that individuals will cease to be guided by selfish considerations. If diey could point to us a society in which for any length of time all the members were agreed as to the wisest course to be adopted for the welfare of the community, we might believe that a socialistic state could supersede party government.’ Budin, F. M., ‘Reviews’, Economic Review, IV (Apr. 1894), 292–3Google Scholar.

151 Stebbing, , ‘Primitive property and modern socialism’, p. 89Google Scholar. The eminent economist James Bonar concluded, ‘The development of the individual members of society is die chief end of society itself, and of die State which is its articulate representative head. To secure diis end, die necessary outward conditions must be assured to each member of society; and, as long as human nature remains as it has been in all history, so long there will be need for a State to do this work. But, as each individual must himself use the opportunities, so assured to him, in his own way, diere must be (in no narrow sense of the word) individual liberty secured to him. The future may bring with it changes in the statute laws of property, in order to bring it within reach of every one, as a condition of development. As long as diere is room kept open for personal and moral freedom, originality, and every kind of individual variation, die world of mankind will not be losers.’ Bonar, James, Philosophy and political economy (London, 1893), pp. 394–5Google Scholar.

152 Stebbing continued, ‘a world which, if realized, would differ from this of ours in more essential matters than in the mere absence of private capitalists. It would be a world in which individuals would not fashion society, but society would fashion the individual. Personal initiative would be sternly repressed, lest it should be the commencement of a distinction between one man and another, leading on to distinctions between one class and another class. The arms to oppose these conspiracies for turning the earth into a barrack must be sought in the instinct of individuality to be found in all classes, the working class, as well as the bourgeoisie.’ Ibid. p. 90.

153 Alfred Marshall admitted, ‘The strength of Rodbertus’ and Marx's sympathies with suffering must always claim our respect.’ Marshall, Alfred, Principles of economics, p. 669Google Scholar. Alice Oldham commented, ‘But if Socialism in its entirety is not practicable, we must not forget the debt we owe to Socialists. We see in them a line of men who, from Robert Owen to Karl Marx and the Socialists of our own day, have been, amidst all errors, men of keen insight and conspicuous ability, men filled with the noblest sympathy for suffering, with a passion for justice and right, who have given up every lesser pleasure in the pursuit of the ideal they believed in. Socialism has, moreover, supplied the most valuable criticism we have of our present society; it has immeasurably helped forward the development of the higher ethical feelings, and all that is good in society; it has pointed out to us the true sources of evil, and the true reforms. It is to the reforms unceasingly and eloquently insisted upon by Socialism that all our hopes are turned to-day, and which are, we trust and pray, slowly being realised.’ Oldham, , ‘History of socialism’, pp. 648–9Google Scholar.

154 Smith, Goldwin, ‘The Labour movement’, p. 234Google Scholar. ‘I detest all conspiracy,’ Smith continued, ‘whether it be that of Ignatius Loyola, or that of Karl Marx.’ Ibid. Bertrand Russell urged the German socialists to learn from British history and follow the ‘opportunist tradition of British polities’, and, by doing so, ‘then Germany may develop peacefully, like England, into a free and civilised Democracy’. Russell, , German social democracy, pp. 152 and 162Google Scholar.

155 Holland, Bernard, ‘The report of the Labour Commission’, Edinburgh Review, CLXXX (Oct. 1894), 364Google Scholar.

156 Arnold Toynbee, arguing in this case against Henry George's Progress and poverty, insisted that state action should be taken only when voluntary action is impossible, ‘without undermining the old independence, that habit of voluntary association, of which we are justly proud, for if we undermine that - that pride which has made the English workman sacrifice everything to keep himself out of the workhouse, which has made workmen bind themselves together in Friendly Societies and Trades Unions and in Co-operative Societies - if we undermine that, then, it would be better to leave our works undone.’ Toynbee, Arnold, Progress and poverty (London, 1883), p. 24Google Scholar.

157 Toynbee, Arnold, Lectures on the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century in England (London, 1908), pp. 236–7Google Scholar. For an excellent discussion of Toynbee's thought see Richter, Melvin, The politics of conscience: T. H. Green and his age (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 287–91Google Scholar.

158 Kells, John, A history of political economy (New York, 1888), p. 244Google Scholar.

159 Phelps, L. R., ‘The wages of labour’, Edinburgh Review, CLXXI (Jan. 1890), 233Google Scholar.

160 Many English critics believed that the ‘English tradition of self-help’ would act as an antidote to socialism. ‘Socialism cannot take root in England so long as this faith in voluntary association continues’, wrote Henry Fawcett. Fawcett, , ‘Recent development of socialism’, p. 614Google Scholar. John Malcolm Ludlow believed that ‘our sturdy English habits of self-help will probably in the main hinder them [Marxist principles’ from doing much mischief. Ludlow, , ‘Ferdinand Lassalle’, p. 453Google Scholar. ‘No nation possesses such a heritage of political experience as ours’, observed the economist William Cunningham, ‘and none has yet attained to so much political wisdom: it is this that has prevented our impoverished masses from joining in the widespread cry for a total reorganization of our social system… There is about our present industrial managements an air of liberty and equality that is rather fascinating, and which commends [Marxism] to a not very hopeful will. Buyers and sellers are only guided by their own free will: no external compulsion is put upon them by foreign invaders or privileged classes.’ Cunningham, William, ‘The progress of socialism in England’, Contemporary Review, xxxrv (Jan. 1879), 245–6Google Scholar.

161 Kaufmann, Moritz, ‘The society of the future’, Contemporary Review, xxcvil (Apr. 1880), 638Google Scholar.

162 Pierson, Stanley, Marxism and the origins of British socialism (Ithaca, 1973), p. xiGoogle Scholar.

163 Henry Pelling has called ‘the general acceptance of the view that it is practicable in this country to achieve a transfer of power without resort to violence’, the most distinctive feature of British socialist thought in this century. Pelling, , (ed.), The challenge of socialism, pp. 9–10Google Scholar. Sidney Webb, speaking to the 1923 Labour Party Conference, stated that ‘we must always remember that the founder of British Socialism was not Karl Marx but Robert Owen, and that Robert Owen preached not “class war” but the doctrine of human brotherhood…’. Labour party annual conference Report, 1923, p. 180Google Scholar.

164 Ulam, Adam B., Philosophical foundations of English socialism (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 72–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Pierson, , Marxism and the origins of British socialism, pp. 112–39Google Scholar.

165 Ulam, , Philosophical foundations of English socialism, pp. 77Google Scholar.

166 Ibid.

167 See Collins, Henry, ‘The Marxism of the Social Democratic Federation’, Essays in Labour history 1886–1923 (eds. Briggs, Asa and Saville, John, London, 1971), pp. 47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noland, Aaron, The founding of the French socialist party (1893–1905) (Cambridge, Mass., 1956), pp. 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lidtke, Vernon L., The outlawed party: Social Democracy in Germany 1878–1890 (Princeton, 1966)Google Scholar; and Schorske, Carl, German Social Democracy: 7905–1917 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), pp. 1–27 and 88–115Google Scholar.

168 For a contrary view of the Fabians' influence see Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘The Fabians reconsidered’, Labouring men (London, 1964), pp. 250–71Google Scholar.

169 Zévaès, AlexandreDe l'introduction du Marxisme en France (Paris, 1947)Google Scholar. This is the classic work on the introduction of Marxist thought into France. See also Bernstein, Samuel, The beginnings of Marxian socialism in France (New York, 1933)Google Scholar; Noland, Aaron, Founding of French socialist party, pp. 1–34Google Scholar; Willard, Claude, Le mouvement socialiste en France (1893–1905): Les Guesdistes (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar; and Wohl, Robert, French communism in the making, 1914–1924 (Stanford, 1966), pp. 1–44Google Scholar.

170 Schorske, , German Social Democracy, pp. 1–27Google Scholar. An anonymous writer in the October 1879 Westminster Review made this comment about Bismarck's anti-socialist laws: ‘These powers have been unsparingly used, but Socialism still continues to advance. Nothing has been done or said to convince the labouring classes of Germany that the men who govern them understand the causes of their discontent, or sympathise with what is legitimate in their aspirations. Peel and Cobden have done more to keep Socialism out of England than all Prince Bismarck's police will do to keep it out of Germany.’ Anon., ‘Prince Bismarck’, Westminster Review, cxii (Oct. 1879), 229Google Scholar.

171 Lidtke, , The outlawed party, pp. 3–18Google Scholar and Schorske, , German Social Democracy, pp. 1–27Google Scholar.

172 Wohl, , French communism in the making, p. 2Google Scholar.

173 Richter, , Politics of conscience, p. 287Google Scholar.

174 Hyndman, H. M., ‘The bankruptcy of India’, Nineteenth Century, iv (Oct. 1878), 607Google Scholar.