Carlyle and the Proletariat

After our discussion of Past and Present yesterday, I thought I would try to expand on some of the connections between Carlyle and Marx and Engles. We talked at some length in class about the effect of the French Revolution on the Victorians and their desire to avoid such a revolution. Gareth Stedman Jones points that “Among the many questions raised by the French Revolution of 1789, one in particular haunted the imagination of the nineteenth century: its violence” (1). It is partially this question of violence that prompted Carlyle as well as Marx and Engles to develop their philosophies of societal relationships. Yet somehow, they came to what seem like completely opposite conclusions. I would like to examine the similarities and differences and what is at stake in those.

The major point of contention between the two is the treatment of the working class. In Sartor Resartus, Carlyle asserts that “the God-given mandate, Work thou in Well-doing, lies mysteriously written, [. . .] in our hearts; and leaves us no rest, night or day, till it be deciphered and obeyed; till it burn forth, in our conduct, a visible, acted Gospel of Freedom” (98). Work and the “Annihilation of Self” are most important in maintaining one’s social responsibility (99). No one should rest until they discover the value of Work, and through that, they will be free. In Carlyle’s model, dedication to Work and Duty, this selflessness, fall under the leadership of the “Captains of Industry,” what Marx and Engles would call the bourgeoisie. Of course, Marx believes that those working should and eventually will overthrow these Captains of Industry. However, I think it is important to note the value that both men placed on Work. For both Marx and Carlyle, there is an emphasis on the wellbeing of the proletariat. Their work is vitally important to the proper functioning of society. They differ in how their wellbeing should be achieved, but what I think is at stake is the faith on which their ideologies rest.

I do not think it is impossible to look with hindsight at these two and claim that they put extraordinary amounts of faith in human beings, even considering what we have witnessed in the 20th century. Carlyle put enormous amounts of faith in those who already had power to not abuse it and attempt to attain more. Marx’s placement of faith in the working class itself, while we have seen today that it was perhaps misplaced because Communism has failed, was still perhaps better invested because he at least recognized that those who already had power would most certainly continue to abuse it for their own gain and believed that those without power would not treat it the same way. Both men desired a new societal structure that virtually eliminated the possibility of future violence because of the violence of revolution in the recent past.

History, then, is another point of contention between Carlyle and Marx. In Past and Present, Carlyle makes two points about history. First, that recent history (The French Revolution) was violent and an undesirable outcome for Britain. Second, medieval history, particularly the feudal system, was a good model for Victorian society to be based on. Marx agrees partially with the first point and completely disagrees with the second. Jones tells that, “Marx wrote [. . .] ‘the terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades” (14). Marx believed the Revolution was terrifying, but certainly necessary, and that if the proletariat did not rise up for one final revolution, these types of terrifying events would continue to happen in other parts of Europe. Concerning Carlyle’s second point, Marx saw feudalism for what it was, which is why I have difficulty understanding why Carlyle could not. Jones points out that Marx did “[owe] something of his conception of the role and activity of the proletariat to Carlyle” as indicated in a speech Marx gave in 1856 in which he spoke “of the ‘heroic struggles’ the English working class had gone through since the middle of the eighteenth century’” and goes on:

‘to revenge the misdeeds of the ruling class, there existed in the middle ages in Germany, a secret tribunal, called ‘‘the Vehmgericht’’ [sic]. If a red cross was seen marked on a house, people knew that its owner was doomed by the Vehm. All the houses of Europe are now marked with the mysterious red cross. History is the judge – its executioners the proletariat.’ (12)

The speech indicates two things regarding Marx’s conception of History’s role. First, it further emphasizes his ability to see the true nature of feudal society. Second, and more importantly, it describes the way in which Marx wanted to use medieval history as a model for his vision of society. The last statement is particularly haunting. History is to be used as a measuring stick for all the horrors committed against the common and helpless. But the proletariat, being common and helpless no more, will rise up to carry out History’s verdict.

Although Carlyle’s philosophy informs the view of the writers we are reading, I think it is important to recognize that Marx and Engels, based on their own study of Carlyle, come to a different conclusion about the role of the proletariat. I think that must have had some effect, perhaps later in the period, on Victorian writers, so it may be beneficial to revisit this discussion when we get there. Carlyle may have been the Father of the Victorians, but then Marx and Engles were certainly the Crazy Uncles.

Works Cited

Carlyle, Thomas. Past and Present. 1843. Prose of the Victorian Period. Ed. William E. Buckler. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958.
Carlyle, Thomas. Sartor Resartus. 1831. Prose of the Victorian Period. Ed. William E. Buckler. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958.
Stedman Jones, Gareth. “The Redemptive Power of Violence?: Carlyle, Marx and Dickens.” History Workshop Journal. 65 (Spring 2008): 1-22.