Hi Tree of Judas, thanks for your comments. Certainly the chapter could have gone more into the existing proletarian currents of the time but I don't think it would change the basic argument. What is being argued is that there was a qualitative shift in Marx's viewpoint from radical democracy to communism; that he had hesitated in making this step because the existing communist currents were so confused and dogmatic; but he was able to make it ebcause he understood where the 'real movement' lay; that in making the shift he brought with him the acquisitions of the most advanced bourgeois philosophy and political economy but was able to turn both upside down and thus use them as weapons of the proletariat. Neither did he do this 'alone' but in the company of other communists and as part of an organised movement. This process is very far from a bourgeois ideologue 'transplanting' ideas into the proletariat, but perhaps that is how you view the whole marxist movement anyway.
Criticism of "Communism: not a nice idea but a material necessity," Chapter 2
But the chapter heading isn't "how Marx, after much deliberation, decided to choose a communist viewpoint", but "how the proletariat won Marx over to communism." I would expect that this claim be backed up by evidence of proletarian ideas, theories and actions prior and concurrent with Marx leading him towards the proletariat, not just by his word on the subject, and his own private critiques of Hegel and Feuerbach.
'How the proletariat won Marx to communism' is posed as a polemical answer to the usual idea that Marx invented the proletariat as the subject of communism, that 'communism' sprang out of the head of the genius Marx, which is contrary to his whole way of thinking. There is plenty of evidence that Marx took part in discussions with various communist groups and individuals - for example "while involved in editing the Rheinsiche Zeitung, he had attended the meetings of a discussion circle in the paper’s Cologne offices, animated by Moses Hess, who had already declared his support for communism". http://en.internationalism.org/ir/123_communism - an article which goes over some of teh same ground as the one discussed here and examines Marx's transition from radical democract tocommunist in 1843-44. The article also mentions discussions with Proudhon and of course Engels. Through these discussions there is a clear movement by Marx towards a communist standpoint, but he was unwilling to declare for communism on a superficial or dogmatic basis.
I'm feeling that we're talking at cross-purposes here, so let me illustrate what I mean through an example:
In Chapter 12, when the authors assert that "Engels` conception of socialist or communist society... was not his personal property" but rather "expressed all that was best in the Social Democratic parties", they don't just claim that he socialized with a bunch of members from the other parties, quote him --- and only him --- on the subject, then consider it settled; instead, they go to the trouble of providing evidence from three other contemporary theoreticians: August Bebel, William Morris and Karl Kautsky, quoting extensively from Bebel in the same chapter and the next, discussing Morris` work quite thoroughly (though without quoting him directly), and apologizing for deferring Kautsky to a later chapter. I would expect the same standard of evidence, nae, an even more exacting one, to be given to proving that Marx joined a living movement of the proletariat in Chapter 2, because unless that's settled, you might as well call the book "19th century Marxism" rather than "the 19th century worker's movement."
What can I say, I'm a negative kind of guy. I am in fact very close to finishing it (unfortunately I only really get to read on the bus, I'm down to the last chapter). I enjoyed reading it very much, and I will definitely use it as a handy time-line reference for communist development as well as further timely literature, but I still think it's lacking in extra-Marxist references (though it gets better in that sense towards the end), and it makes many implicit assumptions that vex me and may well deter the uninitiated. Chapter 2 is merely a symptom of this. I'm not sure if I'll have the time for a more thorough critique in the near future, though.
The arsenal of critiques of various other ideologies (individualist anarchism, feminism, ecologism, reformism etc.) is much appreciated, especially considering the limited scope inherent in the medium.
Do you have an answer to my critique, though?
Thanks for those comments. If your critique is that there is insufficient examination of the various communist currents which existed at the time Marx became a communist, then I can't disagree with you. The book is not meant to be the last word. If your critique is that Marxism is an example of bourgeois intellectuals bringing socialist 'ideology' to the masses, then I disagree with you and would like to discuss the question further. But the question is a much broader one than the specific influences on Marx in 1843-44. It's about the nature of proletarian consciousness.
My critique is that the text itself is much more likely to convince the reader that Marx was a bourgeois transplant with self-serving delusions of proletarian attachment than a true expression of proletarian consciousness, unless said reader has already decided that Marx's thought is a shibboleth of proletarian theory.
Showing Marx in the context of contemporaries and immediate predecessors is essential to supporting the claim of this chapter, and to the whole thrust of the book. It's not something that should be deferred to further reading.
I just found the following book in a second-hand shop: Social Thought - The Forerunners 1789-1850 by G.D.H. Cole. This should provide me with the information I need in order to write a draft of how I think Chapter II should have looked like.
Have any of you heard of this book?
I'm afraid that this book wasn't of much help. Quite the contrary, reading it makes it a lot less likely, in my eyes, that Marx was anything but an upper-class opportunist riding the proletarian bandwagon, which isn't in itself sufficient to discredit either the validity of historical materialism as a method nor its utility as an instrument for and by the working class, but is very harmful to your case in Chapter II.
What I did find was at least one independent "discovery" of the class antagonism between property-owners and laborers (which wasn't obvious to St. Simon, for example), and of the exploitation inherent in wage labor as the source of all profit, by an obscure English theoretician named Charles Hall. This appeared in his book, The Effects of Civilisation, which was originally published in 1805. Also, the idea of the proletariat as a revolutionary force towards communism was definitely not invented by Marx.
It's also interesting that many of the ideas of today were discredited decades before Marx himself came to the scene. For example, using workers` coops as a means of competing with and ultimately defeating the capitalists, for example, was the practical solution to capitalism which juxtaposed itself to trade unionism around the 1830's, and its dismal failure took many of the British proletariat down with it.
But Marx never claimed to have invented the class struggle, or communism
Now as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat;[1] 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society (letter to Weydermeyer, 5 March 1852).
So despite the importance, to Marx, of the link he made between class struggle and the notion that it is "bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production", you claim that "Marx was....an upper-class opportunist riding the proletarian bandwagon, which isn't in itself sufficient to discredit either the validity of historical materialism as a method nor its utility as an instrument for and by the working class",
In other words, historical materialism was - as in Kautsky's theory - the invention of bourgeois intellectuals who then imported it into the proletariat. Which is why I thought that this discussion must really be about different conceptions of class consciousness.
The produce of the earth - all that is derived from its surface by the united application of labour, machinery, and capital, is divided among three classes of the community, namely, the proprietor of the land, the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation, and the labourers by whose industry it is cultivated. But in different stages of society, the proportions of the whole produce of the earth which will be allotted to each of these classes, under the names of rent, profit, and wages, will be essentially different ... To determine the laws which regulate this distribution is the principal problem in Political Economy ...
It's interesting to see the implicit recognition of the centrality of class conflict so baldly stated by a capitalist economist. Ricardo's analysis of rents as 'unearned income' was directly applied by Marx to profits/surplus value. I think that Marx's success at utilising the categories and assumptions of classical political economy to form a devastating critique of capital was central to the adoption, by later capitalist theologians, of neoclassical economics - in which class is decidedly absent.
I agree with that. Marx had considerable respect for the classical bourgeois political economists and always acknowledged his debt to them, while also understanding that they could never really see the whole picture of exploitation and capitalist crisis from the standpoint of the exploited class. Also that, following Marx, political economy became more and more apologetic in character, removing not only class but also the labour theory of value.
But Marx never claimed to have invented the class struggle, or communism
I guess I wasn't clear about what I meant. I meant that as a positive thing I got out of that book, as far as your argument and the depersonalizing of historical materialism are concerned: if Marx didn't invent exploitation as the source of profit, class antagonism and the proletariat as the tool for bringing capitalist production relations to an end, then he was won over to ideas that preceded him, and was in the process, rather than outside of it.
The rest of your post I'll get to whenever. Too tired, double shift tomorrow, surprise family visit day after, etc.
So despite the importance, to Marx, of the link he made between class struggle and the notion that it is "bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production", you claim that "Marx was....an upper-class opportunist riding the proletarian bandwagon, which isn't in itself sufficient to discredit either the validity of historical materialism as a method nor its utility as an instrument for and by the working class",
The use of despite here is unwarranted: Marx made a connection between class struggle and the historical phases, and came to the conclusion that the proletariat is a winning horse to bet on in the following battles.
This is, as I say right after the segment you've quoted, "very harmful to your case in Chapter II".
My point here is that you seem to want to accept the validity of historical materialism but also seem to dispute the notion that "the theoretical conclusions of the communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes" as the Communist Manifesto puts it.
I see this as a false dichotomy between "ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer" and ideas that "merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes". Why can't they be both? To take an example from the physical sciences, the structure of benzene came to Friedrich August Kekulé, its discoverer, in a daydream:
wikipedia wrote:He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros).
Does that discredit the veracity of the structure? Do we dismiss the structure of benzene as mere daydream?
My point is that the distinction lies not in where the ideas came from, but in how they are tested, how their truth and relevance is discerned. This is what would make historical materialism a science rather than a mere ideology: that while it was invented and/or discovered by bourgeois ideologues --- and due to my further reading, I find it unlikely that you would be able to convince me otherwise --- it does, nevertheless, explain social reality.
If you say so. But should his theory have been dismissed outright just because he got it from a daydream?
Edit: You also owe me a few responses in another thread. Get to it! 
I'm reading this instead of the Abyss of Time thingie simply because I just couldn't help it. To the point:
Chapter 2 proclaims to show how the proletariat won Marx over to communism, and yet, aside from a rudimentary introduction of communist currents just prior and contemporary to Marx, spanning a mere paragraph at the beginning of the chapter, there is no discussion at all of anyone but Marx and his bourgeois predecessors.
The currents mentioned are "Cabet's utopian communism, the prolongation of the views outlined by Saint-Simon and Fourier", "Proudhon and his followers, forerunners of anarchism but who at that time were making a rudimentary attempt to criticise bourgeois economy from the standpoint of the exploited", "the... Blancquists who... were the hairs of Babeuf" and "the League of The Just, animated by Weitling." These philosophies either emenate from bourgeois predecessors (Cabet and Weitling from the Utopians, the Blancquists from Babeuf's elitist substitutionalism) or will result in flawed successors (most anarchist followers of Proudhon).
Marx is claimed to have conferred with Proudhon and Weitling (though mostly with Engels and Hess), and they are referred to as "theoreticians of the proletariat" in Marx's words, but this is not explained and their theories are not given an exposition, which is quite ridiculous considering how many excerpts are provided from Marx's various texts. The chapter shows at length that Marx claimed to have derived his philosophy from the proletariat, but it does not provide any outside evidence for it being an actual fact. Instead, it shows Marx's thought as a reaction to and a development of Hegel and Feuerbach, again, clearly bourgeois theories removed from the working class. The chapter does not clearly present to us any kind of "proletarian philosphy" to which Marx is won over, or which he develops; rather, it just repeatedly claims that one exists.
For all we can tell from this chapter, Marx shook hands with a bunch of proletarians, and claims to speak for their concrete realization (to which he, for some reason, is purview while most proletarians of his age are not), so he is proletarian. By that logic most bourgeois politicians are also legitimate acquisitions of the proletariat.
Within the book's historical perspective, there is a clear gap between Utopian socialism and Marxism, and while the book claims the contrary, there really is no indication of how Marx is anything but a bourgeois ideologue transplanting ideas into the proletariat, a view whose legitimacy is rejected in this same chapter as Kautskyian.