Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - Graduation thesis - What do you think of Marx's article "Debate on Illegal Logging Law" written at the age of 24?
What do you think of Marx's article "Debate on Illegal Logging Law" written at the age of 24?
Marx's "The Sixth Rhine Provincial Assembly Debate (Part III)" commented on the debate on forest theft law in the provincial assembly. This is an "extremely important real life problem". (Marx: Debate of the Sixth Rhine Provincial Assembly (the third paper), Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1, pp. 135. ) In this article and subsequent articles, such as Defending Mo Ze Journalists, Marx openly defended the interests of the politically and socially oppressed poor.

At that time, Germany was in the primitive accumulation of capital stage. One of the main forms of German primitive accumulation of capital is that the landlord class plunders the forests, grasslands and land previously used by farmers. Farmers cut down trees everywhere to oppose robbery. 1836, among all the 200,000 criminal cases in Prussia,150,000 cases were related to illegal logging and stealing birds, that is, 3/4.

At the Sixth Rhine Provincial Parliament, there was a heated debate on the so-called "forest theft". Representatives of the landlord class and the emerging bourgeoisie resolutely safeguarded the interests of forest owners in the provincial assembly, demanding that all illegal logging be severely punished, and even demanding that the act of picking up dead branches be treated as "illegal logging".

Marx used the debate record of the provincial Council to expose the class nature of the forest owner's self-interest and the provincial Council's protection of the interests of the exploiters. It is pointed out that the nature of forest owners is "stupid, vulgar, calculating and selfish". For their own interests, on the one hand, they distinguish between axes and saws, and those who demand that saws be used instead of axes to cut trees are punished more severely; On the other hand, we confuse picking up dead branches and stealing trees, and demand that those who pick up dead branches should also be convicted of "theft". They sacrificed people's rights for the rights of young trees, and for the dead branches, they did not hesitate to "cut down many innocent poor people from the living moral trees and throw them into the hell of crime, shame and poverty as dead trees." (Marx: Debate of the Sixth Rhine Provincial Assembly (the third paper), Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1, pp. 137. )

Marx resolutely defended "the interests of the politically and socially oppressed poor" (ibid., p. 14 1- 142). ), against depriving people of the right to use public trees. He pointed out that the poor have been using natural products for centuries, which is their customary right. This kind of customary right is completely legal, and it is more powerful than law. The use of trees by the poor is one of these customary rights. Therefore, prohibiting the poor from using trees is to damage their customary rights, that is, naked deprivation. He insisted on retaining the customary rights of the poor, "but not limited to the customary rights of a certain place, but the inherent customary rights of the poor in all countries." (ibid., p. 142. )

Marx pointed out that the laws of hierarchical countries serve the interests of the exploiting classes by analyzing the debate on the law of stealing forests. In hierarchical countries, "the law not only recognizes their legal rights, but also often recognizes their unreasonable desires." (ibid., p. 144. Hierarchical state is only a tool for big private owners to rule and plunder people, and private interests are the soul of state organs. All state organs are just the ears, eyes, hands and feet of big private owners, spying, peeping, evaluating, guarding and arresting, and running around for the interests of big private owners. (See Marx: Debate on the Sixth Rhine Provincial Assembly (Part III) and Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1, pp. 160. )