Zeb have been talkin about that the american press is heavily biased to the left and it seems
that this goes way back to the 1800`s, when no other than Karl Marx was the Europeen correspondent for the Republican paper the New York Tribune. I found many old articles written by Marx and Engels for the Abolishonist paper the New York Tribune.
They are about everything from the British elections in the 1850-1860
s period, the civil war in America, the current affairs of the europeen continent at the time. Now I know most here think Marx was an filthy man( me not included ), but I think that many will find this interresting regardless( especially Sexmaxhine who has an appetit for anything that smells of history ). I will therefor post some of the articles here and since the election was just over I will start with Marxs summary and thoughts of a british election from 1850`s. Enjoy.
" Karl Marx in the New York Tribune 1852
The Elections in England. â?? Tories and Whigs
Source: Marx Engels On Britain, Progress Publishers 1953;
Written: by Marx, London, August 6, 1852;
First Published: in the New York Daily Tribune of August 21, 1852;
Transcribed: by Andy Blunden.
The results of the General Election for the British Parliament are now known. This result I shall analyze more fully in my next letter.
What were the parties which during this electioneering agitation opposed or supported each other?
Tories, Whigs, Liberal Conservatives (Peelites), Free Traders, par excellence (the men of the Manchester School, Parliamentary and Financial Reformers), and lastly, the Chartists.
Whigs, Free Traders and Peelites coalesced to oppose the Tories. It was between this coalition on one side, and the Tories on the other, that the real electoral battle was fought. Opposed to Whigs, Peelites, Free Traders and Tories, and thus opposed to entire official England, were the Chartists.
The political parties of Great Britain are sufficiently known in the United States. It will be sufficient to bring to mind, in a few strokes of the pen, the distinctive characteristics of each of them.
Up to 1846 the Tories passed as the guardians of the traditions of Old England. They were suspected of admiring in the British Constitution the eighth wonder of the world; to be laudatores temporis acti, enthusiasts for the throne, the High Church, the privileges and liberties of the British subject. The fatal year, 1846, with its repeal of the Corn Laws, and the shout of distress which this repeal forced from the Tories, proved that they were enthusiasts for nothing but the rent of land, and at the same time disclosed the secret of their attachment to the political and religious institutions of Old England.
These institutions are the very best institutions, with the help of which the large landed property â?? the landed interest â?? has hitherto ruled England, and even now seeks to maintain its rule. The year 1846 brought to light in its nakedness the substantial class interest which forms the real base of the Tory party. The year 1846 tore down the traditionally venerable lionâ??s hide, under which Tory class interest had hitherto hidden itself. The year 1846 transformed the Tories into Protectionists. Tory was the sacred name, Protectionist is the profane one; Tory was the political battle-cry, Protectionist is the economical shout of distress; Tory seemed an idea, a principle; Protectionist is an interest.
Protectionists of what? Of their own revenues, of the rent of their own land. Then the Tories, â?? in the end, are Bourgeois as much as the remainder, for where is the Bourgeois who is not a protectionist of his own purse? They are distinguished from the other Bourgeois, in the same way as the rent of land is distinguished from commercial and industrial profit. Rent of land is conservative, profit is progressive; rent of land is national, profit is cosmopolitical; rent of land believes in the State Church, profit is a dissenter by birth. The repeal of the Corn Laws of 1846 merely recognized an already accomplished fact, a change long since enacted in the elements of British civil society, viz., the subordination of the landed interest under the moneyed interest, of property under commerce, of agriculture under manufacturing industry, of the country under the city…
Could this fact be doubted since the country population stands, in England, to the townsâ?? population in the proportion of one to three? The substantial foundation of the power of the Tories was the rent of land. The rent of land is regulated by the price of food. The price of food, then, was artificially maintained at a high rate by the Corn Laws. The repeal of the Corn Laws brought down the price of food, which in its turn brought down the rent of land, and with sinking rent broke down the real strength upon which the political power of the Tories reposed.
What, then, are they trying to do now? To maintain a political power, the social foundation of which has ceased to exist. And how can this be attained? By nothing short of a Counter-Revolution, that is to say, by a reaction of the State against Society. They strive to retain forcibly institutions and a political power which are condemned from the very moment at which the rural population found itself outnumbered three times by the population of the towns. And such an attempt must necessarily end with their destruction; it must accelerate and make more acute the social development of England., it must bring on a crisis.
The Tories recruit their army from the farmers, who have either not yet lost the habit of following their landlords as their natural superiors, or â?? who are economically dependent upon them, or who do not yet see that the interest of the farmer and the interest of the landlord are no more identical than the respective interests of the borrower and of the usurer. They are followed and supported by the Colonial Interest, the Shipping Interest, the State Church Party, in short, by all those elements which consider it necessary to safeguard their interests against the necessary results of modern manufacturing industry, and against the social revolution prepared by it.
Opposed to the Tories, as their hereditary enemies, stand the Whigs, a party with whom the American Whigs have nothing in common but the name.
The British Whig, in the natural history of politics, forms a species which, like all those of the amphibious class, exists very easily, but is difficult to describe. Shall we call them, with their opponents, Tories out of office? or, as continental writers love it, take them for the representatives of certain popular principles?
In the latter case we should get embarrassed in the same difficulty as the historian of the Whigs, Mr. Cooke, who, with great naÃ¯vÃ©tÃ© confesses in his â??History of Partiesâ?? that it is indeed a certain number of â??liberal, moral and enlightened principlesâ?? which constitutes the Whig party, but that it was greatly to be regretted that during the more than a century and a half that the Whigs have existed, they have been, when in office, always prevented from carrying out these principles. So that in reality, according to the confession of their own historian, the Whigs represent something quite different from their professed-liberal and enlightened principles.â??
Thus they are in the same position as the drunkard brought up before the Lord Mayor who declared that he represented the Temperance principle but from some accident or other always got drunk on Sundays.
But never mind their principles; we can better make out what they are in historical fact; what they carry out, not what they once believed, and what they now want other people to believe with respect to their character.
The Whigs as well as the Tories, form a fraction of the large landed property of Great Britain. Nay, the oldest, richest and most arrogant portion of English landed property is the very nucleus of the Whig party.
What, then, distinguishes them from the Tories? The Whigs are the aristocratic representatives of the bourgeoisie, of the industrial and commercial middle class. Under the condition that the Bourgeoisie should abandon to them, to an oligarchy of aristocratic families, the monopoly of government and the exclusive possession of office, they make to the middle class, and assist it in conquering, all those concessions, which in â?? the course of social and political development â?? have shown themselves to have become unavoidable and undelayable. Neither more nor less.
And as often as such an unavoidable measure has been passed, they declare loudly that herewith the end of historical progress has been obtained; that the whole social movement has carried its ultimate purpose, and then they â??cling to finality.â?? They can support more easily than â??the Tories, a decrease of their rental revenues, because they consider themselves as the heaven-born farmers of the revenues of the British Empire. They can renounce the monopoly of the Corn Laws, as long as â?? they maintain the monopoly of government as their family property. Ever since the â??glorious revolutionâ?? of 1688 the Whigs, with short intervals, caused principally by the first French Revolution and the consequent reaction, have found themselves in the. enjoyment of the public offices.
Whoever recalls to his mind this period of English history, will find no other distinctive mark of Whigdom but the maintenance of their family oligarchy. The interests and principles which they represent besides, from time to time, do not belong to the Whigs; they are forced upon them. by the development of the industrial and commercial class, the Bourgeoisie. After 1688 we find them united with the Bankocracy, just then rising into importance, as we find them in 1846, united with the Millocracy.
The Whigs as little carried the Reform Bill of 1831, as they carried the Free Trade Bill of 1846. Both Reform movements, the political as well as the commercial, were movements of the Bourgeoisie. As soon as either of these movements had ripened into irresistibility; as soon as, at the same time, it had become the safest means of turning the Tories out of office, the Whigs stepped forward, took up the direction of the Government, and secured to themselves the governmental part of the victory.
In 1831 they extended the political portion of reform as far as was necessary in order not to leave the middle class entirely dissatisfied; after 1846 they confined their Free Trade measures so far as was necessary, in order to save to the landed aristocracy the greatest possible amount of privileges. Each time they had taken the movement in hand in order to prevent its forward march, and to recover their own posts at the same time.
It is clear that from the moment when the landed aristocracy is no longer able to maintain its position as an independent power, to fight, as an independent party, for the government position, in short, that from the moment when the Tories are definitively overthrown, British history has no longer any room for the Whigs. The aristocracy once destroyed, what is the use of an aristocratic representation of the Bourgeoisie against this aristocracy?
It is well known that in the middle ages the German Emperors put the just then arising towns under Imperial Governors, â??advocati,â?? to protect these towns against the surrounding nobility. As soon as growing population and wealth gave them sufficient strength and independence to resist, and even to attack the nobility, the towns also drove out the noble Governors, the advocati.
The Whigs have been these advocati of the British Middle Class, and their governmental monopoly must break down as soon as the landed monopoly of the Tories is broken down. In the same measure as the Middle Class has developed its independent strength, they have shrunk down from a party to a coterie.
It is evident what a distastefully heterogeneous mixture the character of the British Whigs must turn out to be: Feudalists, who are at the same time Malthusians, money-mongers with feudal prejudices, aristocrats without point of honor, Bourgeois without industrial activity, finality â?? men with progressive phrases, progressists with fanatical Conservatism, traffickers in homeopathical fractions of reforms, fosterers of family â?? nepotism, Grand Masters of corruption, hypocrites of religion, Tartuffes of politics.
The mass of the English people have a sound aesthetical common sense. They have. an instinctive hatred against everything motley and ambiguous, against bats and Russellites. And then, with the Tories, the mass of the English people, the urban and rural proletariat, has in common the hatred against the â??money-monger.â?? With the Bourgeoisie it has in common the hatred against aristocrats. In the Whigs it hates the one and the other, aristocrats and Bourgeois, the landlord who oppresses, and the money lord who exploits it. In the Whig it hates the oligarchy which has ruled over England for more than a century, and by which the People is excluded from the direction of its own affairs.
The Peelites (Liberals and Conservatives) are no party, they are merely the souvenir of a partyman, of the late Sir Robert Peel. But Englishmen are too prosaical, for a souvenir to form, with them, the foundation for anything but elegies. And now, that the people have erected brass and marble monuments to the late Sir R. Peel in all parts of the country, they believe they are able so much the more to do without those perambulant Peel monuments, the Grahams, the Gladstones, the Cardwells, etc.
The so-called Peelites are nothing but this staff of bureaucrats which Robert Peel had schooled for himself. And because they form a pretty complete staff, they forget for a moment that there is no army behind them. The Peelites, then, are old supporters of Sir R. Peel, who have not yet come to a conclusion as to what party to attach themselves to. It is evident that a similar scruple is not a sufficient means for them to constitute an independent power.
Remain the Free Traders and the Chartists, the brief delineation of whose character will form the subject of my next.
- Manchester School: A school of English bourgeois economists, Free Traders, who stood for freedom of trade and non-interference by the government with private enterprise. The manufacturers of Manchester played a particularly active part in this school. in the hypocritical appeals they addressed to the popular masses against the privileges of the aristocracy the Free Traders were safeguarding merely the interests of the industrial and trading bourgeoisie.
â??What they demand,â?? Marx wrote, â??is the complete and undisguised ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, the open, official subjection of society at large under the laws of modern, bourgeois production, and tinder the rule of those men who are the directors of that production. By Free Trade they mean the unfettered movement of capital, â??reed from all political, national and religious shackles.â?? The Manchestrians were very moderate in their opposition to the aristocracy and entered into a compromise with them to combat jointly all independent political activity on the part of the working-class.
People who laud the past.
American Whigs: A political party known as the Whigs was founded in the United States in 1832. It represented a bloc of bourgeois elements in the north-eastern states with southern planters who were interested in promoting American industry by means of developing the plantation system. In 1852 the party split on the issue of extending slavery to new western states. The left wing formed the nucleus of the bourgeois Republican Party, which sought to confine slavery to the southern states, while the right wing constituted the Democratic Party, which favoured territorially unrestricted slavery.
Marx-Engels Archive | Marx-Engels on England | New York Tribune"