What do you think?
Rate this book
Foundations #23
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
"The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" is one of Karl Marx' most profound and most brilliant monographs. It may be considered the best work extant on the philosophy of history. On the 18th Brumaire (Nov. 9th), the post-revolutionary development of affairs in France enabled the first Napoleon to take a step that led with inevitable certainty to the imperial throne. The circumstance that fifty and odd years later similar events aided his nephew, Louis Bonaparte, to take a similar step with a similar result, gives the name to this work-"The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte."
104 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1852
About the author
Karl Marx
2,955 books5,288 followersWith the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote
The Communist Manifesto
(1848) and
Das Kapital
(1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 312 reviews
January 24, 2022
Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon = Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte = The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl Marx
The essay discusses the French coup of 1851 in which Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte assumed dictatorial powers. It shows Marx in his form as a social and political historian, treating actual historical events from the viewpoint of his materialist conception of history.
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is one of Karl Marx' most profound and most brilliant monographs. It may be considered the best work extant on the philosophy of history. On the 18th Brumaire (Nov. 9th), the post-revolutionary development of affairs in France enabled the first Napoleon to take a step that led with inevitable certainty to the imperial throne. The circumstance that fifty and odd years later similar events aided his nephew, Louis Bonaparte, to take a similar step with a similar result, gives the name to this work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز سی و یکم ماه می سال1974میلادی
عنوان: هجدهم برومر (نهم نوامبر) لوئی بناپارت؛ اثر: کارل مارکس؛ مترجم محمد پورهرمزان؛ مشخصات نشر بیجا، بینام، سال1353، در110ص، عکس، نمونه، چاپ دوم، موضوع فرانسه - تاریخ - کودتا، سال1851میلادی؛ انقلاب ماه فوریه، سال1848میلادی، جمهوری دوم، سال1848میلادی - تا سال1852میلادی؛ از نویسندگان آلمان - سد19م
ادامه ی اثر دیگر «کارل مارکس»، با عنوان: «مبارزه طبقاتی در فرانسه از سال1848میلادی تا سال1850 یلادی» است؛ «هجدهم برومر لوئی بناپارت»، یکی از بزرگترین آثار: «کارل مارکس»، نویسنده و متفکر بزرگ سده ی نوزدهم میلادی «آلمان»، است، که برای نخستین بار در سال1858میلادی به چاپ رسیده است
موضوع کتاب: کودتای روز دوم ماه دسامبر، سال1851میلادی «لوئی بناپارت (لوئی بناپارت برادرزاده ی ناپلئون بناپارت بودند)» در «فرانسه» است؛ آن کودتا، به حیات جمهوری دوم «فرانسه»، پایان بخشید؛ «لوئی بناپارت»، در آنروز مجلس مقننه، و شورای دولتی را، با کودتا منحل کرد؛ از آنجایی که «ناپلئون اول» نیز، در روز «هجدهم برومر (روز نهم ماه نوامبر سال1799میلادی)»، از ماههای نامگذاری شده، پس از انقلاب کبیر «فرانسه»، علیه انقلاب «بورژوازی»، کودتا کردند؛ برادرزاده ی وی نیز، در ایامی نزدیک به سالروز آن روز، دست به کودتا زدند، «مارکس» واژه ی «هجدهم برومر» را، به جای واژه ی «کودتا» به کار برده اند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 05/02/1400میلادی؛ 03/11/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
The essay discusses the French coup of 1851 in which Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte assumed dictatorial powers. It shows Marx in his form as a social and political historian, treating actual historical events from the viewpoint of his materialist conception of history.
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is one of Karl Marx' most profound and most brilliant monographs. It may be considered the best work extant on the philosophy of history. On the 18th Brumaire (Nov. 9th), the post-revolutionary development of affairs in France enabled the first Napoleon to take a step that led with inevitable certainty to the imperial throne. The circumstance that fifty and odd years later similar events aided his nephew, Louis Bonaparte, to take a similar step with a similar result, gives the name to this work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز سی و یکم ماه می سال1974میلادی
عنوان: هجدهم برومر (نهم نوامبر) لوئی بناپارت؛ اثر: کارل مارکس؛ مترجم محمد پورهرمزان؛ مشخصات نشر بیجا، بینام، سال1353، در110ص، عکس، نمونه، چاپ دوم، موضوع فرانسه - تاریخ - کودتا، سال1851میلادی؛ انقلاب ماه فوریه، سال1848میلادی، جمهوری دوم، سال1848میلادی - تا سال1852میلادی؛ از نویسندگان آلمان - سد19م
ادامه ی اثر دیگر «کارل مارکس»، با عنوان: «مبارزه طبقاتی در فرانسه از سال1848میلادی تا سال1850 یلادی» است؛ «هجدهم برومر لوئی بناپارت»، یکی از بزرگترین آثار: «کارل مارکس»، نویسنده و متفکر بزرگ سده ی نوزدهم میلادی «آلمان»، است، که برای نخستین بار در سال1858میلادی به چاپ رسیده است
موضوع کتاب: کودتای روز دوم ماه دسامبر، سال1851میلادی «لوئی بناپارت (لوئی بناپارت برادرزاده ی ناپلئون بناپارت بودند)» در «فرانسه» است؛ آن کودتا، به حیات جمهوری دوم «فرانسه»، پایان بخشید؛ «لوئی بناپارت»، در آنروز مجلس مقننه، و شورای دولتی را، با کودتا منحل کرد؛ از آنجایی که «ناپلئون اول» نیز، در روز «هجدهم برومر (روز نهم ماه نوامبر سال1799میلادی)»، از ماههای نامگذاری شده، پس از انقلاب کبیر «فرانسه»، علیه انقلاب «بورژوازی»، کودتا کردند؛ برادرزاده ی وی نیز، در ایامی نزدیک به سالروز آن روز، دست به کودتا زدند، «مارکس» واژه ی «هجدهم برومر» را، به جای واژه ی «کودتا» به کار برده اند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 05/02/1400میلادی؛ 03/11/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
March 14, 2012
I'd like to specify before launching into my review of this excellent work of analysis that I'm neither a Marxist nor even someone on the Left (though I once was). I do still grant and appreciate the role of economic conditions and relations in conditioning what occurs in politics, culture, law, and religion, but I don't see the economic sphere as determining, or even as predominating, the other dimensions of human existence.
That's actually one of the lessons that comes through in this brilliant little text: economics, class interests, and class consciousness play roles in - but don't fully explain or predict - what happens in politics. What I particularly like about the mind of Marx seen in this essay is that history, economics, struggle, etc. are NOT deterministic. There is some room for individual decisions and motivations, for the person just as much as a political community to be a place of competing interests which have to make their claims.
In fact, you could say that there's three main lessons Marx teaches here. If the first is the one just noted, the second is that it is inherent to human beings and culture that when they are launching forth into something new, something radical, something revolutionary, they inevitably grope around for historical analogies, idealized precedents, dramatic roles, as it were, within which to locate themselves, their own actions and intentions, their rivals, allies, or enemies, even the basic situation being faced.
The third lesson is one about liberal democracies, the workings of politics in them, and a particular danger always lurking unrealized (or in our own time, usually misfigured) in the play of power and ideology. Put very succinctly, it is that when ideologically-driven interests are fully engaged in the sort of conflict that pulls at the very fabric of society, becoming plays and ploys for power, carried out to implement this or that set of goals beyond mere power, all of the competing factions are at a disadvantage with respect to the party or person which fundamentally just aims after power.
The story that Marx narrates exemplifies these lessons. A word of warning, though: without some understanding of post-Revolutionary French politics and culture, it can be quite difficult to make sense out of some of the developments and parties within the story. For example, the "Radicals" in French parlance are really those who are still trying to continue the several-decades-past program of the French Revolution, essentially a party of bourgeois interests, looking for political change, but focused on rights of property, commerce, production, anti-clerical and anti-monarchic, but certainly not "radical" in the sense that an American reader might expect.
The situation as Marx depicts it is one in which competing parties, each driven by their own class-interests and class-consciousness -- which will keep them, of course, from engaging in anything more than alliances of expediency, unable to seek any genuinely common good together -- are engaged in struggle with each other, carried out partly through elections and the power that electoral victories bring, through their involvements with important institutions or significant portions of French society, through public opinion and at times through force.
Each group is willing -- indeed at times eager -- to use what power they have against their perceived opponents and for the remaking of a society in clear crisis along their ideal lines. Put very bluntly, each group wants to gain power, in order to use power to attain ends which are themselves beyond power. They regard power instrumentally. And, this struggle opens the door for someone who sees things quite differently, Napoleon III -- who Marx depicts as interested in power for its own sake, not laboring under the sorts of restraints or illusions holding back the other players on the political stage.
Gaining the support of the Army, itself an venerable French institution with multiple roles, different ideological resonances, but also a keen conception of the need for some social order in the face of external threats, Bonaparte steers the different political factions against each other -- none of them realizing that what he intends not only does not align with their interests but ultimately entirely negates them -- preparing the way for his rise to complete power, a military-backed autocracy.
Bonaparte and the Army themselves were not immune to the temptation of historical mimesis Marx points out -- numerous enough parallels suggested themselves. You might say that one of the ways the various competing parties went wrong was in not seeing what historical analogy they were actually acting within -- they thought they were involved in a very different game than the one it turned out they were in fact playing.
A last note: One of my areas of work is study of totalitarian movements. The standard Marxist interpretation of Fascism and National Socialism -- long acknowledged as oversimplistic and on some counts just dead-wrong -- has been to see the Facist/NS organizations as coming from the "naturally conservative" petit bourgeoisie and as being essentially tools of big capital, tools which then turned on their makers or handlers. When reading the 18th Brumiare, it is hard not to see parallels that could have led to a much better, more accurate understanding of Fascism/NS if orthodox Marxists had thought through this rich work.
But this is, and has been, one of those works by Marx that does present problems for Marxists and Marxism -- perhaps that's why it's one of his best.
That's actually one of the lessons that comes through in this brilliant little text: economics, class interests, and class consciousness play roles in - but don't fully explain or predict - what happens in politics. What I particularly like about the mind of Marx seen in this essay is that history, economics, struggle, etc. are NOT deterministic. There is some room for individual decisions and motivations, for the person just as much as a political community to be a place of competing interests which have to make their claims.
In fact, you could say that there's three main lessons Marx teaches here. If the first is the one just noted, the second is that it is inherent to human beings and culture that when they are launching forth into something new, something radical, something revolutionary, they inevitably grope around for historical analogies, idealized precedents, dramatic roles, as it were, within which to locate themselves, their own actions and intentions, their rivals, allies, or enemies, even the basic situation being faced.
The third lesson is one about liberal democracies, the workings of politics in them, and a particular danger always lurking unrealized (or in our own time, usually misfigured) in the play of power and ideology. Put very succinctly, it is that when ideologically-driven interests are fully engaged in the sort of conflict that pulls at the very fabric of society, becoming plays and ploys for power, carried out to implement this or that set of goals beyond mere power, all of the competing factions are at a disadvantage with respect to the party or person which fundamentally just aims after power.
The story that Marx narrates exemplifies these lessons. A word of warning, though: without some understanding of post-Revolutionary French politics and culture, it can be quite difficult to make sense out of some of the developments and parties within the story. For example, the "Radicals" in French parlance are really those who are still trying to continue the several-decades-past program of the French Revolution, essentially a party of bourgeois interests, looking for political change, but focused on rights of property, commerce, production, anti-clerical and anti-monarchic, but certainly not "radical" in the sense that an American reader might expect.
The situation as Marx depicts it is one in which competing parties, each driven by their own class-interests and class-consciousness -- which will keep them, of course, from engaging in anything more than alliances of expediency, unable to seek any genuinely common good together -- are engaged in struggle with each other, carried out partly through elections and the power that electoral victories bring, through their involvements with important institutions or significant portions of French society, through public opinion and at times through force.
Each group is willing -- indeed at times eager -- to use what power they have against their perceived opponents and for the remaking of a society in clear crisis along their ideal lines. Put very bluntly, each group wants to gain power, in order to use power to attain ends which are themselves beyond power. They regard power instrumentally. And, this struggle opens the door for someone who sees things quite differently, Napoleon III -- who Marx depicts as interested in power for its own sake, not laboring under the sorts of restraints or illusions holding back the other players on the political stage.
Gaining the support of the Army, itself an venerable French institution with multiple roles, different ideological resonances, but also a keen conception of the need for some social order in the face of external threats, Bonaparte steers the different political factions against each other -- none of them realizing that what he intends not only does not align with their interests but ultimately entirely negates them -- preparing the way for his rise to complete power, a military-backed autocracy.
Bonaparte and the Army themselves were not immune to the temptation of historical mimesis Marx points out -- numerous enough parallels suggested themselves. You might say that one of the ways the various competing parties went wrong was in not seeing what historical analogy they were actually acting within -- they thought they were involved in a very different game than the one it turned out they were in fact playing.
A last note: One of my areas of work is study of totalitarian movements. The standard Marxist interpretation of Fascism and National Socialism -- long acknowledged as oversimplistic and on some counts just dead-wrong -- has been to see the Facist/NS organizations as coming from the "naturally conservative" petit bourgeoisie and as being essentially tools of big capital, tools which then turned on their makers or handlers. When reading the 18th Brumiare, it is hard not to see parallels that could have led to a much better, more accurate understanding of Fascism/NS if orthodox Marxists had thought through this rich work.
But this is, and has been, one of those works by Marx that does present problems for Marxists and Marxism -- perhaps that's why it's one of his best.
October 30, 2022
A book in which Karl Marx tells us about and explains the "behind the scenes" of the Coup d'Etat of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte on December 2, 1851.
Marx relates to us chronologically through his eyes and stamina, as poetic as it is scathing, as Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte will have "prepared" his coup through the roots of French society and of "political society".
That reading gives a revival to history that someone could read in history textbooks, details, and Marx bias. Here, no subjectivism. Through his metaphors and literary accumulations, we read what is happening before his eyes and with his mind.
In short, this work is appreciated more for its literary than historical quality. Besides, I found Marx almost timid in this work.
Marx relates to us chronologically through his eyes and stamina, as poetic as it is scathing, as Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte will have "prepared" his coup through the roots of French society and of "political society".
That reading gives a revival to history that someone could read in history textbooks, details, and Marx bias. Here, no subjectivism. Through his metaphors and literary accumulations, we read what is happening before his eyes and with his mind.
In short, this work is appreciated more for its literary than historical quality. Besides, I found Marx almost timid in this work.
July 25, 2017
دوستانِ گرانقدر، این کتاب تاریخی - سیاسی، که از آثار مشهورِ <کارل مارکس> میباشد، در مورد <لوئی بناپارت> برادر زادهٔ ناپلئون بناپارت مشهور است که چگونه در سال 1848 به عنوانِ رئیس جمهور فرانسه برگزیده شد و مهمتر از همه آنکه: چگونه توانست با کمک نیروهای پشت پرده، در سال 1851 کودتا کرده و مجلس فرانسه را منحل کند و به عنوان پادشاهی رسیده و خود را ناپلئون سوم بنامد
در زمان خواندنِ این کتاب بارها جمهوری اسلامی را با رویدادهایی که در فرانسهٔ آن زمان پیش آمد مقایسه میکردم، و همین موضوع برایم جالب بود و حاکم جمهوری اسلامی و نمایندگان بی بخار و بیخرد و راهزنِ ایران را با فرانسهٔ آن دوران مقایسه میکردم
امّا نکتهٔ قابل توجه در این کتاب نوعِ بیانِ سرشار از توهین و فحاشی هایِ پی در پی از سویِ <کارل مارکس> خواندن این کتاب را حساستر و جذابتر میکند... البته باید به تاریخ و سیاست قدری علاقه داشته باشید و اطلاعات تاریخی داشته باشید تا بتوانید کتاب را بخوانید
در زیر دو مورد از جالبِ توجه ترین نوشته های این کتاب و نظر مارکس را برای شما عزیزان مینویسم.... شما نیز میتوانید مقایسه کنید با ایران حالِ حاضر
------------------------------------------
بناپارت دائم از سویِ جمعیتِ " 10 دسامبر " همراهی میشد...این جمعیت در سال 1849 توسط رئیس شهربانیِ پاریس تأسیس شده بود و ژنرال پیات، دوستِ صمیمیِ بناپارت در رأس آن بود.... به بهانهٔ تأسیس یک انجمن نیکوکاری، "لومپن" های پاریسی را در شاخه های مخفی سازمان جا داده بودند.. از هرزه گردهای پاریسی که معلوم نبود درآمد زندگی آنها از کجاست! و اصل و نسبشان نیز از آن بدتر، گرفته.. تا ته مانده هایِ فاسدِ بورژوازی، ولگرد، سرباز اخراجی، زندانی محکوم به اعمال شاقه و تازه از حبس آزاد شده، کلاه بردار، شیاد، گدایِ سرِ گذر، جیب بُر، شعبده باز، قمار باز، پا انداز، مالک روسپی خانه، حمال، عریضه نویسِ دمِ درِ پست خانه، ویولن زن سرِ کوچه، کهنه فروش، چاقو تیز کن، فقیر دمِ در و خلاصه تمامی این بی سر و سامان ها، در بینِ جمعیتِ " 10 دسامبر" بودند... نامِ این جمعیت، " جمعیتِ نیکوکاری" بود که تمامِ اعضایِ آن همچون بناپارت، در خود این نیاز را احساس میکردند که باید برای خودشان و به ضررِ ملتِ زحمتکش، نیکوکاری کنند.... دوستان عزیزم این جمعیت به بسیج و سپاه امروزی در ایران شباهت ندارد؟ بدون تردید، شباهت دارد
******************
بورژوازی دستگاه آموزش و پرورش را به کشیشان سپرد، و حالا میبینید که تعلیم و تربیتِ فرزندانِ خودِ او بازیچهٔ دستِ کشیشان شده است... بورژوازی مردم را بدونِ هیچ محاکمه ای به تبعید فرستاد، و حالا نوب��ِ به خودِ اوست که بدونِ محاکمه به تبعید برود... او به کمکِ نیرویِ انتظامی هر نوع حرکت را از مردم و جامعه سلب کرد، و حالا قدرتِ دولتِ بناپارت هر نوع حرکتِ آنها را سلب میکند... بورژوازی از فرط عشق به کیفِ پول، علیه سیاستمداران و ادیبانِ خود قیام کرد، و حالا میبینید که نه تنها سیاستمداران و ادیبانش برکنار شده اند، بلکه کیفِ پولشان نیز دستِ خودشان نیست.. ضمن آنکه دهانش بسته و قلمهایشان شکسته است.... آنها فریاد میزدند: گمشو، حرف نزن، آرام باش... حالا به آنها میگویند : گمشو، حرف نزن و آرام باش
بله عزیزانم... تاریخ همیشه تکرار شدنی��ت... سرنوشت بچه های این سرزمین و مدرسه ها به دستِ مذهبی هایِ بیخرد و موهوم پرست و عرب پرست افتاده است، کتاب های درسی سرشار از احادیث پوچ و دروغین از علی و حسین و جعفر صادق و دیگر بیابان�� هاست و مانع حرف زدن و آزادی مردم با زور شده اند و پول مردم را در موسسه ها و بانک های کثیف میدزدند و چپاول میکنند و اگر کسی دم بزند با چوب و زنجیر بر سرش میزنند... روزی میرسد که آنها در زیر پای مردم له میشوند... دیر یا زود این اتفاق روی میدهد و جای فرار از آن نیست.... بله عزیزانم، این عرب پرستان، با آن مجلس نمایشی و جمهوری دروغین خود، همچون خاندان سلطنتی بناپارت ها، نمایندهٔ بیداری نیستند، بلکه نمایندهٔ موهوم پرستی و خرافات و بیخردی این مردمِ بیچاره هستند... اینها نمایندهٔ داوریِ این مردم نیستند، بلکه نمایندهٔ پیشداوریِ این مردم ساده لوح میباشند... اینها نمایندهٔ آینده نیستند، بلکه نمایندهٔ گذشتهٔ تازیانِ بیابانی و غارتگر و نمایندهٔ امام زمان خیالی و مهدی موهوم هستند و بس
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برای شما خردگرایان مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
در زمان خواندنِ این کتاب بارها جمهوری اسلامی را با رویدادهایی که در فرانسهٔ آن زمان پیش آمد مقایسه میکردم، و همین موضوع برایم جالب بود و حاکم جمهوری اسلامی و نمایندگان بی بخار و بیخرد و راهزنِ ایران را با فرانسهٔ آن دوران مقایسه میکردم
امّا نکتهٔ قابل توجه در این کتاب نوعِ بیانِ سرشار از توهین و فحاشی هایِ پی در پی از سویِ <کارل مارکس> خواندن این کتاب را حساستر و جذابتر میکند... البته باید به تاریخ و سیاست قدری علاقه داشته باشید و اطلاعات تاریخی داشته باشید تا بتوانید کتاب را بخوانید
در زیر دو مورد از جالبِ توجه ترین نوشته های این کتاب و نظر مارکس را برای شما عزیزان مینویسم.... شما نیز میتوانید مقایسه کنید با ایران حالِ حاضر
------------------------------------------
بناپارت دائم از سویِ جمعیتِ " 10 دسامبر " همراهی میشد...این جمعیت در سال 1849 توسط رئیس شهربانیِ پاریس تأسیس شده بود و ژنرال پیات، دوستِ صمیمیِ بناپارت در رأس آن بود.... به بهانهٔ تأسیس یک انجمن نیکوکاری، "لومپن" های پاریسی را در شاخه های مخفی سازمان جا داده بودند.. از هرزه گردهای پاریسی که معلوم نبود درآمد زندگی آنها از کجاست! و اصل و نسبشان نیز از آن بدتر، گرفته.. تا ته مانده هایِ فاسدِ بورژوازی، ولگرد، سرباز اخراجی، زندانی محکوم به اعمال شاقه و تازه از حبس آزاد شده، کلاه بردار، شیاد، گدایِ سرِ گذر، جیب بُر، شعبده باز، قمار باز، پا انداز، مالک روسپی خانه، حمال، عریضه نویسِ دمِ درِ پست خانه، ویولن زن سرِ کوچه، کهنه فروش، چاقو تیز کن، فقیر دمِ در و خلاصه تمامی این بی سر و سامان ها، در بینِ جمعیتِ " 10 دسامبر" بودند... نامِ این جمعیت، " جمعیتِ نیکوکاری" بود که تمامِ اعضایِ آن همچون بناپارت، در خود این نیاز را احساس میکردند که باید برای خودشان و به ضررِ ملتِ زحمتکش، نیکوکاری کنند.... دوستان عزیزم این جمعیت به بسیج و سپاه امروزی در ایران شباهت ندارد؟ بدون تردید، شباهت دارد
******************
بورژوازی دستگاه آموزش و پرورش را به کشیشان سپرد، و حالا میبینید که تعلیم و تربیتِ فرزندانِ خودِ او بازیچهٔ دستِ کشیشان شده است... بورژوازی مردم را بدونِ هیچ محاکمه ای به تبعید فرستاد، و حالا نوب��ِ به خودِ اوست که بدونِ محاکمه به تبعید برود... او به کمکِ نیرویِ انتظامی هر نوع حرکت را از مردم و جامعه سلب کرد، و حالا قدرتِ دولتِ بناپارت هر نوع حرکتِ آنها را سلب میکند... بورژوازی از فرط عشق به کیفِ پول، علیه سیاستمداران و ادیبانِ خود قیام کرد، و حالا میبینید که نه تنها سیاستمداران و ادیبانش برکنار شده اند، بلکه کیفِ پولشان نیز دستِ خودشان نیست.. ضمن آنکه دهانش بسته و قلمهایشان شکسته است.... آنها فریاد میزدند: گمشو، حرف نزن، آرام باش... حالا به آنها میگویند : گمشو، حرف نزن و آرام باش
بله عزیزانم... تاریخ همیشه تکرار شدنی��ت... سرنوشت بچه های این سرزمین و مدرسه ها به دستِ مذهبی هایِ بیخرد و موهوم پرست و عرب پرست افتاده است، کتاب های درسی سرشار از احادیث پوچ و دروغین از علی و حسین و جعفر صادق و دیگر بیابان�� هاست و مانع حرف زدن و آزادی مردم با زور شده اند و پول مردم را در موسسه ها و بانک های کثیف میدزدند و چپاول میکنند و اگر کسی دم بزند با چوب و زنجیر بر سرش میزنند... روزی میرسد که آنها در زیر پای مردم له میشوند... دیر یا زود این اتفاق روی میدهد و جای فرار از آن نیست.... بله عزیزانم، این عرب پرستان، با آن مجلس نمایشی و جمهوری دروغین خود، همچون خاندان سلطنتی بناپارت ها، نمایندهٔ بیداری نیستند، بلکه نمایندهٔ موهوم پرستی و خرافات و بیخردی این مردمِ بیچاره هستند... اینها نمایندهٔ داوریِ این مردم نیستند، بلکه نمایندهٔ پیشداوریِ این مردم ساده لوح میباشند... اینها نمایندهٔ آینده نیستند، بلکه نمایندهٔ گذشتهٔ تازیانِ بیابانی و غارتگر و نمایندهٔ امام زمان خیالی و مهدی موهوم هستند و بس
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برای شما خردگرایان مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
December 24, 2008
Just the best piece of political analysis ever written.
Read
July 6, 2020این کتاب را در شرایطی خواندم که حق مطلب دربارهاش ادا نشد. به همین دلیل خودم را آنقدرها شایسته این نمیدانم که دربارهاش اظهار نظر کنم و یا به آن امتیاز بدهم. در نتیجه فعلا به چند نکته بسنده میکنم:
اول اینکه اگر با تاریخ قرن ۱۸ و ۱۹ فرانسه تا حدودی آشنایی داشته باشید، احتمالا ارتباط بهتری با کتاب برقرار خواهید کرد. هرچند این حرف به این معنا نیست که اگر با تاریخ فرانسه آشنایی ندارید، سراغ این کتاب نروید.
دوم، علیرغم تکجملههایی که مارکس مثلا شرایط مادی طبقاتی را علت و قدرت سیاسی و ادبی را معلول در نظر میگیرد، سیر کلی کتاب نشان میدهد که مارکس یک اقتصادگرای محض نیست و بر تأثیر و تأثر متقابل عوامل شکلدهنده به رویدادهای تاریخی صحه میگذارد، هرچند در میزان اهمیت هریک از این عوامل در دیدگاه مارکس، میتوان مناقشه کرد.
سوم، روند بعضی جریانات در کتاب، ناخودآگاه مرا به یاد وضعیت امروز خودمان در ایران میاندازد. مثلا فدا کردن منافع بلندمدت طبقاتی به پای منافع کوتاهمدت شخصی و یا آنجا که بناپارت «دلش میخواهد کل فرانسه را بدزدد تا بعد آن را به خود فرانسه هدیه کند.»
اول اینکه اگر با تاریخ قرن ۱۸ و ۱۹ فرانسه تا حدودی آشنایی داشته باشید، احتمالا ارتباط بهتری با کتاب برقرار خواهید کرد. هرچند این حرف به این معنا نیست که اگر با تاریخ فرانسه آشنایی ندارید، سراغ این کتاب نروید.
دوم، علیرغم تکجملههایی که مارکس مثلا شرایط مادی طبقاتی را علت و قدرت سیاسی و ادبی را معلول در نظر میگیرد، سیر کلی کتاب نشان میدهد که مارکس یک اقتصادگرای محض نیست و بر تأثیر و تأثر متقابل عوامل شکلدهنده به رویدادهای تاریخی صحه میگذارد، هرچند در میزان اهمیت هریک از این عوامل در دیدگاه مارکس، میتوان مناقشه کرد.
سوم، روند بعضی جریانات در کتاب، ناخودآگاه مرا به یاد وضعیت امروز خودمان در ایران میاندازد. مثلا فدا کردن منافع بلندمدت طبقاتی به پای منافع کوتاهمدت شخصی و یا آنجا که بناپارت «دلش میخواهد کل فرانسه را بدزدد تا بعد آن را به خود فرانسه هدیه کند.»
December 1, 2018
«يصنع الناس تاريخهم بيدهم، لكنهم لا يصنعونه على هواهم، إنهم لا يصنعونه في ظروف يختارونها هم بأنفسهم، بل في ظروف يواجَهون بها، وهي معطاة ومنقولة لهم من الماضي. إن تقاليد جميع الأجيال الغابرة تجثم كالكابوس على أدمغة الأحياء، وعندما يبدو هؤلاء منشغلون فقط في تحويل أنفسهم والاشياء المحيطة بهم، في فترات الأزمات الثورية على وجه التحديد، نراهم يلجؤون في وجل وسحر إلى استحضار أرواح الماضي.. لكي يمثلوا مسرحية جديدة على مسرح التاريخ العالمي..»
كتب كارل ماركس هذا الكتاب بين كانون أول 1851 وآذار 1852 ونشر في مجلة «Die Revolution » في نيويورك.
يقدم من خلاله ماركس نقد لاذع ، وساخر لمجريات التاريخ الفرنسي، منذ ( شباط 1851) والذي يؤرخ للانقلاب الثاني بقيادة لويس بونابرت؛ الذي يشغل من 10 كانون الأول 1848 منصب رئيس الجمهورية الفرنسية : فقد جرى حل الجمعية التشريعية ومجلس الدولة ، واعتقال عدد كبير من النواب ، وإعلان الأحكام العرفية في 32 مقاطعة، ونفي زعماء الاشتراكيين والجمهوريين من فرنسا. وفي 14 كانون الثاني 1852، أقر دستور جديد بحصر السلطة كلها في يدي الرئيس؛ وفي كانون الأول 1852 نودي بلويس بونابرت إمبراطور فرنسا باسم نابليون الثالث.
ومن الكتب أو المؤلفات التي تناولت الموضوع عينه والتي ظهرت في نفس زمن هذا الكتاب تقريباً، وهي جديرة بالاهتمام من وجهة نظر كارل ماركس : (نابليون الصغير) لفيكتور هوغو، و(الانقلاب) لبرودون.
يشرح لنا ماركس هنا وبشكل موجز ومبسط المرحلة الرمادية من تاريخ فرنسا كما أطلق عليها، بكل ما اكتنفها من صراعات بين حزب النظام والسلطة التنفيذية، بين سيادة البرجوازية وسيادة الديمقراطية البرجوازية الصغيرة، بين الديمقراطية والفوضى البروليتارية، بين الجمهورية البرلمانية وبونابرت، وبين كل هذا الجنون والجموح على السلطة وعرش فرنسا وما تخللها من اضطراب ونزاع وانقلاب بين مختلف فئات وأركان الشعب الفرنسي .
الكتاب جميل للمهتمين بهذه المرحلة التاريخية الفاصلة والقاصمة لظهر فرنسا .
كتب كارل ماركس هذا الكتاب بين كانون أول 1851 وآذار 1852 ونشر في مجلة «Die Revolution » في نيويورك.
يقدم من خلاله ماركس نقد لاذع ، وساخر لمجريات التاريخ الفرنسي، منذ ( شباط 1851) والذي يؤرخ للانقلاب الثاني بقيادة لويس بونابرت؛ الذي يشغل من 10 كانون الأول 1848 منصب رئيس الجمهورية الفرنسية : فقد جرى حل الجمعية التشريعية ومجلس الدولة ، واعتقال عدد كبير من النواب ، وإعلان الأحكام العرفية في 32 مقاطعة، ونفي زعماء الاشتراكيين والجمهوريين من فرنسا. وفي 14 كانون الثاني 1852، أقر دستور جديد بحصر السلطة كلها في يدي الرئيس؛ وفي كانون الأول 1852 نودي بلويس بونابرت إمبراطور فرنسا باسم نابليون الثالث.
ومن الكتب أو المؤلفات التي تناولت الموضوع عينه والتي ظهرت في نفس زمن هذا الكتاب تقريباً، وهي جديرة بالاهتمام من وجهة نظر كارل ماركس : (نابليون الصغير) لفيكتور هوغو، و(الانقلاب) لبرودون.
يشرح لنا ماركس هنا وبشكل موجز ومبسط المرحلة الرمادية من تاريخ فرنسا كما أطلق عليها، بكل ما اكتنفها من صراعات بين حزب النظام والسلطة التنفيذية، بين سيادة البرجوازية وسيادة الديمقراطية البرجوازية الصغيرة، بين الديمقراطية والفوضى البروليتارية، بين الجمهورية البرلمانية وبونابرت، وبين كل هذا الجنون والجموح على السلطة وعرش فرنسا وما تخللها من اضطراب ونزاع وانقلاب بين مختلف فئات وأركان الشعب الفرنسي .
الكتاب جميل للمهتمين بهذه المرحلة التاريخية الفاصلة والقاصمة لظهر فرنسا .
August 25, 2016
excellent work of history; went into this knowing essentially nothing of the Bonaparte the nephew or 19th century France post-Restoration and feel as if I've come out with a decent base knowledge of events. Marx excellently elucidates his often oversimplified theories of capitalism and historical materialism here, hashing out some of the idiosyncrasies of bourgeois rule in the particular context. i believe a focus on the particular (actors, events and contexts) as opposed to the basic structural is something lacking in a lot of Western Marxists and he gives a strong demonstration of what that should look like.
July 16, 2017
Classic. Doubly relevant with the contemporary fascist upsurge
May 25, 2020
هجدهم برومر لوئی بناپارت کتابی است که شهرت کمتری در میان کتاب های کارل مارکس دارد اما یک تحلیل سیاسی تاریخی فوق العاده در مورد کودتای ۱۸۵۱لوئی بناپارت است که مارکس در این میان تحلیل های طبقاتی خود را نیز وارد آورده است . در ابتدا کتاب جمله ای را می گوید که اساس کتاب را بر آن بنا نهاده است.
رویداد های تاریخی بار نخست به شکل تراژدی و بار دوم به شکل کمدی نمایان می شوند.
در این کتاب بار نخست کودتا ناپلئون (اول)
و بار دوم کودتای لوئی بناپارت است.
رویداد های تاریخی بار نخست به شکل تراژدی و بار دوم به شکل کمدی نمایان می شوند.
در این کتاب بار نخست کودتا ناپلئون (اول)
و بار دوم کودتای لوئی بناپارت است.
January 20, 2017
Finished this on the day of Trump's inauguration - apposite.
February 27, 2022
(Grad school notes on the book from 1993 below)
Theory Overview: "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" by Karl Marx
Using the events of French history beginning with the February Revolution of 1848 through the victory of Louis Napoleon and the establishment of the Second Empire in December 1851, Marx shows how the relationships between the classes and class fractions contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state.
Essential Definitions
proletariat: the urban workers who were mostly responsible for the February revolution.
republican bourgeois: republican minded bourgeois, writers, lawyers, officers and officials that owed its influence to the personal antipathies of the country against Louis Philippe, to memories of the old republic, to the republican faith of a number of enthusiasts, above all, however, to French nationalism..." (p.27).
petty bourgeois: lower level capitalists, like shopkeepers etc.
lumpenproletariat: the unemployed, rag pickers, thieves, ex-convicts.
democratic republicans: intellectuals, clergy, some petty bourgeois
legitimists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Bourbons, under whose previous rule big landed property ruled.
Orleanists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Orleans, under whose rule high finance, large scale industry, large scale trade governed.
dialectics: the ability to see conflict between things as a creative source to an outcome (or several outcomes); the thesis is in conflict with an antithesis-- the result is a synthesis, in which parts of both thesis and antithesis are present.
Central Thesis:
Marx began this book as a collection of weekly articles, covering the period of February 1848-1852. What he saw in the political turmoil of France in those years was the emergence of a capitalist state caused by the intense class struggle during this period.
In February 1848, the proletariat along with the republican bourgeois overthrew the Orleanist monarchy and established a provisional government, intending wide electoral reform. This is the first period, referred to as the social republic. Meanwhile, the capitalists and monarchists were busy planning and organizing support from petty bourgeois, the rural poor and the lumpenproletariat with ideas and slogans that blurred class distinctions and interests ("Property, family, religion and order").
In May 1848, the National Assembly emerged from the election to represent the nation (although the rural poor and lumpenproletariat lost representation in the government with this election) and reduce the revolution to a bourgeois scale. The proletariat recognized this and rose up, only to be crushed by the rest of the classes. This period of Constituent assembly changed the system from a class based to a regional/geographically based system. The leaders of the proletariat revolution were removed and a period of exclusive rule by the bourgeois republicans began. A state of siege on Paris was declared while the bourgeois republicans worked to get rid of the democratic petty bourgeois from the government, further restrict voting and create a constitution which retained the same administration and judiciary systems, the same army and created a separate legislative and executive branch. The bourgeois republicans begin to push out the democratic republicans and replace them with pure republicans. At this point freedom is only a legal term-- you have it as long as you don't impinge on the freedom of others.
December 10, 1848 Louis Bonaparte was elected president and the republican bourgeois were "thrust aside by the mass of bourgeoisie", mainly the Legitimists and Orleanists (both royalists) which united in the name of capital and the party of Order. By May 1849 the constituent assembly is replaced by the Legislative National Assembly and begins the period of the constitutional (or parliamentary) republic. Bonaparte and the party of Order work together to drive out the rest of the petty bourgeois who were at that point realizing that their interests were closer to the workers (than with the Legitimists or Orleanists). Through its parliamentary dictatorship, the party of Order further restricts voting (abolishing universal suffrage). The two factions of the party of Order start fighting with each other for power-- passing laws to increase the legitimacy of capitalism and neglecting to pass laws to check the executive branch. Bonaparte took advantage of the situation and regularly blackmailed the government for more money, took control of the army and organized the lumpenproletariat into his own private army (the Society of December 10th).
There was an attempt to fuse the Orleanist and Legitimist groups together which failed and resulted only in further fractionalization of the party of Order. The fractionalization becomes more apparent, especially in the press. Louis Bonaparte appears to be the sole presence of reason and order and in December 1851 stages a coup d'etat which marks the end of the parliamentary period and bourgeois control. Louis is determined to maintain power at all costs and the bourgeois decide to put up with him as long as their interests are protected. Thus begins the "Second Empire" which lasts until 1870.
Author's Summary
Changes in class relations cause changes in state structure; because of the conflicts of interest that separate classes and class fractions, causing class struggle, Louis Bonaparte was able to rise to power. And, the capitalist class appears to be willing to put up with dictatorship as long as their interests are protected.
CRITIQUE
Conceptually, this case study suits his theory of class relations and the development of the capitalist state as we discussed in readings earlier this semester. Marx actually saw what was going on and was able to stand back and see what the different actors were, how and why they did certain things and what the results were. His concept of class is based on production-- classes exist on the continuum of owner to worker to unemployed. The classes have different interests and motivations, (although the non-owner classes don't always recognize their common interests) which is the cause of class struggle. Class struggle causes the constant changes in government. In the end, Marx diagnoses the disease as capitalism and prescribes the evolution to revolution as the cure.
The substance of the theory is well supported by the evidence actually observed by Marx. The basic ideas-- seen in action and presented as the underlying reality of the historical/political events -- make sense. Marx got the ideas of how the capitalist state is developed and established by watching it happen. By using dialectics he accurately describes the dynamics of the situation. All the events (coups, legislation, class struggle etc.) are all interrelated and all contribute to one thing-- the establishment of the capitalist state. This also shows that hindsight is a wonderful tool for political and social analysis.
Since Marx did use dialectics, it could be argued that the different combinations of the factors that contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state in France in the 19th c. might result in something else. After all, dialectics is when thesis and antithesis meet, resulting in synthesis, which is neither one nor the other but a combination of the two-- so couldn't the different contributing factors be recombined to a different outcome?
Summary
Writing a memo on this book has been somewhat difficult given the instruction to begin with a quote from the book and to analyze Marx's argument. The 18th Brumaire is essentially a case study, and any quote I could have picked wouldn't have allowed me to really analyze Marx's argument, only part of the historical situation he describes.
In the letter following the main work, Marx says that "1) the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
Marx has effectively shown the relations of classes in a particular historical period, as well as the dictatorship of the proletariat which occurred relatively early in the Revolution of 1848. However, as Marx had the benefit of hindsight to mold the events of the Revolution of 1848 into his dialectical perspective, we can see that the transition to the abolition of classes is long overdue. At this point, it seems as though capitalism itself is the inevitable end. The capitalist state seems to be able to establish itself rather quickly compared to the time it is taking for the revolution which will result in abolition of classes to occur.
While Marx had a pessimistic view about people in general, he was ultimately an optimist and expected a socialist revolution which would end exploitation and establish an egalitarian society.
Questions:
1. Is the abolition of classes to inevitably follow the dictatorial capitalist state?
2. The case study of the Revolution of 1848 meshes perfectly with Marx's hypotheses on class struggle and the growth of capitalism. Are his theories mainly significant to the period of time in which they were formed or can they truly be applied to current situations?
Theory Overview: "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" by Karl Marx
Using the events of French history beginning with the February Revolution of 1848 through the victory of Louis Napoleon and the establishment of the Second Empire in December 1851, Marx shows how the relationships between the classes and class fractions contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state.
Essential Definitions
proletariat: the urban workers who were mostly responsible for the February revolution.
republican bourgeois: republican minded bourgeois, writers, lawyers, officers and officials that owed its influence to the personal antipathies of the country against Louis Philippe, to memories of the old republic, to the republican faith of a number of enthusiasts, above all, however, to French nationalism..." (p.27).
petty bourgeois: lower level capitalists, like shopkeepers etc.
lumpenproletariat: the unemployed, rag pickers, thieves, ex-convicts.
democratic republicans: intellectuals, clergy, some petty bourgeois
legitimists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Bourbons, under whose previous rule big landed property ruled.
Orleanists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Orleans, under whose rule high finance, large scale industry, large scale trade governed.
dialectics: the ability to see conflict between things as a creative source to an outcome (or several outcomes); the thesis is in conflict with an antithesis-- the result is a synthesis, in which parts of both thesis and antithesis are present.
Central Thesis:
Marx began this book as a collection of weekly articles, covering the period of February 1848-1852. What he saw in the political turmoil of France in those years was the emergence of a capitalist state caused by the intense class struggle during this period.
In February 1848, the proletariat along with the republican bourgeois overthrew the Orleanist monarchy and established a provisional government, intending wide electoral reform. This is the first period, referred to as the social republic. Meanwhile, the capitalists and monarchists were busy planning and organizing support from petty bourgeois, the rural poor and the lumpenproletariat with ideas and slogans that blurred class distinctions and interests ("Property, family, religion and order").
In May 1848, the National Assembly emerged from the election to represent the nation (although the rural poor and lumpenproletariat lost representation in the government with this election) and reduce the revolution to a bourgeois scale. The proletariat recognized this and rose up, only to be crushed by the rest of the classes. This period of Constituent assembly changed the system from a class based to a regional/geographically based system. The leaders of the proletariat revolution were removed and a period of exclusive rule by the bourgeois republicans began. A state of siege on Paris was declared while the bourgeois republicans worked to get rid of the democratic petty bourgeois from the government, further restrict voting and create a constitution which retained the same administration and judiciary systems, the same army and created a separate legislative and executive branch. The bourgeois republicans begin to push out the democratic republicans and replace them with pure republicans. At this point freedom is only a legal term-- you have it as long as you don't impinge on the freedom of others.
December 10, 1848 Louis Bonaparte was elected president and the republican bourgeois were "thrust aside by the mass of bourgeoisie", mainly the Legitimists and Orleanists (both royalists) which united in the name of capital and the party of Order. By May 1849 the constituent assembly is replaced by the Legislative National Assembly and begins the period of the constitutional (or parliamentary) republic. Bonaparte and the party of Order work together to drive out the rest of the petty bourgeois who were at that point realizing that their interests were closer to the workers (than with the Legitimists or Orleanists). Through its parliamentary dictatorship, the party of Order further restricts voting (abolishing universal suffrage). The two factions of the party of Order start fighting with each other for power-- passing laws to increase the legitimacy of capitalism and neglecting to pass laws to check the executive branch. Bonaparte took advantage of the situation and regularly blackmailed the government for more money, took control of the army and organized the lumpenproletariat into his own private army (the Society of December 10th).
There was an attempt to fuse the Orleanist and Legitimist groups together which failed and resulted only in further fractionalization of the party of Order. The fractionalization becomes more apparent, especially in the press. Louis Bonaparte appears to be the sole presence of reason and order and in December 1851 stages a coup d'etat which marks the end of the parliamentary period and bourgeois control. Louis is determined to maintain power at all costs and the bourgeois decide to put up with him as long as their interests are protected. Thus begins the "Second Empire" which lasts until 1870.
Author's Summary
Changes in class relations cause changes in state structure; because of the conflicts of interest that separate classes and class fractions, causing class struggle, Louis Bonaparte was able to rise to power. And, the capitalist class appears to be willing to put up with dictatorship as long as their interests are protected.
CRITIQUE
Conceptually, this case study suits his theory of class relations and the development of the capitalist state as we discussed in readings earlier this semester. Marx actually saw what was going on and was able to stand back and see what the different actors were, how and why they did certain things and what the results were. His concept of class is based on production-- classes exist on the continuum of owner to worker to unemployed. The classes have different interests and motivations, (although the non-owner classes don't always recognize their common interests) which is the cause of class struggle. Class struggle causes the constant changes in government. In the end, Marx diagnoses the disease as capitalism and prescribes the evolution to revolution as the cure.
The substance of the theory is well supported by the evidence actually observed by Marx. The basic ideas-- seen in action and presented as the underlying reality of the historical/political events -- make sense. Marx got the ideas of how the capitalist state is developed and established by watching it happen. By using dialectics he accurately describes the dynamics of the situation. All the events (coups, legislation, class struggle etc.) are all interrelated and all contribute to one thing-- the establishment of the capitalist state. This also shows that hindsight is a wonderful tool for political and social analysis.
Since Marx did use dialectics, it could be argued that the different combinations of the factors that contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state in France in the 19th c. might result in something else. After all, dialectics is when thesis and antithesis meet, resulting in synthesis, which is neither one nor the other but a combination of the two-- so couldn't the different contributing factors be recombined to a different outcome?
Summary
Writing a memo on this book has been somewhat difficult given the instruction to begin with a quote from the book and to analyze Marx's argument. The 18th Brumaire is essentially a case study, and any quote I could have picked wouldn't have allowed me to really analyze Marx's argument, only part of the historical situation he describes.
In the letter following the main work, Marx says that "1) the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
Marx has effectively shown the relations of classes in a particular historical period, as well as the dictatorship of the proletariat which occurred relatively early in the Revolution of 1848. However, as Marx had the benefit of hindsight to mold the events of the Revolution of 1848 into his dialectical perspective, we can see that the transition to the abolition of classes is long overdue. At this point, it seems as though capitalism itself is the inevitable end. The capitalist state seems to be able to establish itself rather quickly compared to the time it is taking for the revolution which will result in abolition of classes to occur.
While Marx had a pessimistic view about people in general, he was ultimately an optimist and expected a socialist revolution which would end exploitation and establish an egalitarian society.
Questions:
1. Is the abolition of classes to inevitably follow the dictatorial capitalist state?
2. The case study of the Revolution of 1848 meshes perfectly with Marx's hypotheses on class struggle and the growth of capitalism. Are his theories mainly significant to the period of time in which they were formed or can they truly be applied to current situations?
August 25, 2007
This piece is a demonstration of a social scientist's theoretical evolution over time. For my first couple years in college, I was unsure of my theoretical standing. On my good days, I believe in the good of humanity and anarchy in its true sense; on bad days, I know people are terrible and am a communist even though democracy is still probably the most plausible (if it actually worked).
Then I began reading Marx fully, not just the required segments. I realized that this piece is the mile-marker of his writing. He may have began believing in the possibility of true revolution but became disillusioned. Jaded even. But reading the change in his tone and growth of ideas over time makes me feel much better about my teeter-tottering beliefs.
Then I began reading Marx fully, not just the required segments. I realized that this piece is the mile-marker of his writing. He may have began believing in the possibility of true revolution but became disillusioned. Jaded even. But reading the change in his tone and growth of ideas over time makes me feel much better about my teeter-tottering beliefs.
January 26, 2016
Some eerie similarities with the current state of events in Brazil
September 4, 2015
Idiosyncratic and often tough to follow but ultimately valuable as an example of Marx's historical method. Sometimes loses focus or doesn't really make itself clear - there were quite a few sentences that seemed to be missing a clause, a few times he describes a class acting against its class interest as if it's normal, some other stuff I should have noted down. The last couple sections are the best, I think, although I might just have been in a better mood reading them. He often assumes knowledge of events which is a bit annoying.
At the same time, it does give an interesting perspective, gives a useful idea of class analysis and does provide a decent amount of information on the era. It contains a few bits of brilliance too.
It's quite possible that my reading of this was terrible, I'll admit I didn't read it under the best of circumstances. I recommend reading if you're a Marxist, anyway. I'll end with one of my favourite Marx quotes which are the opening words.
2 years later: I really really want to read this again sometime. The first chapter has made a massive impact on me and I think of some of the quotes over and over. It's massively influenced how I view a lot of politics and it's inspiring and good. I dunno. I think I underrated it last time
At the same time, it does give an interesting perspective, gives a useful idea of class analysis and does provide a decent amount of information on the era. It contains a few bits of brilliance too.
It's quite possible that my reading of this was terrible, I'll admit I didn't read it under the best of circumstances. I recommend reading if you're a Marxist, anyway. I'll end with one of my favourite Marx quotes which are the opening words.
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
2 years later: I really really want to read this again sometime. The first chapter has made a massive impact on me and I think of some of the quotes over and over. It's massively influenced how I view a lot of politics and it's inspiring and good. I dunno. I think I underrated it last time
January 25, 2023
This is Marx at his most poetic. A stunning account of the rise of Napoleon III from a standpoint that does more to elucidate the mechanism of historical materialism than it does to account for one mere revolution in its own right. Marx assumes a hefty knowledge of the events in France from the reader, and this is in my view an error on his part - as such, many of the allusions will fly over the first time reader's head, and the onslaught of French names are often not explained in their context. This is the only thing preventing me from giving this book 5 stars, although I hope to come back to it and give it that highest rating after learning more about the period from other sources. Immensely quotable work, especially in the first and last chapters, this book provides a way for understanding how the working class can be co-opted by reactionary elements.
August 17, 2018
Il cesarismo populista, che tentazione per tutti i tangheri! Unto del popolo, uomo del destino, incarnazione della volontà degli elettori... sentite le somiglianze? Gli elettori, gli eletti dal popolo, dalla "ggente". Luigi Bonaparte che conquista il sommo potere democratico e ci si istalla indefinitivamente per sfuggire i creditori e la prigione per debiti, comprando voti e promettendo mari e monti a tutti, e alla fine cambiando la costituzione dello stato si autonomina imperatore, vi ricorda qualcuno? Mamma mia! Ma non impariamo niente dalla storia?
Letto in una edizione mitica degli ER anni '70 alla fine degli anni '70. Riletto alcuni anni fa, al termine dell'Italia di Berlusconi. Che, poi, è finita realmente?
Letto in una edizione mitica degli ER anni '70 alla fine degli anni '70. Riletto alcuni anni fa, al termine dell'Italia di Berlusconi. Che, poi, è finita realmente?
November 13, 2019
It's probably not a good idea to attempt this long essay unless one is A) comfortable with the author's heavy, Germanic prose style, and B) familiar with the history of the short-lived, unlamented Second French Republic. Assuming both conditions pertain, the EIGHTEENTH BRUMAIRE repays the time invested in it; it contains some of Marx's bitchiest invective and concludes with a startling observation about the first French Revolution. (Namely, that its winners were not the bourgeoisie but the small farmers who acquired confiscated clerical and aristocratic lands, and who later became the conservative force that elected Louis Napoleon to the presidency and supported his coup d'etat.)
December 30, 2009
I really struggled with this - but I had downloaded it from manybooks.com and it didn't really have an introduction or notes - I think Marx is making many very clever asides and observations throughout which, due to my complete lack of knowledge of post-Nepoleon French politics, barely made a whizzing sound as they flew straight over my head. I'll have to track down a penguin edition of this or something that explains all his jokes.
May 31, 2020
في هذا الكتاب، اجتمع التاريخ مع الأدب والتحليل العميق والسخرية اللاذعة في نص بعيد عما عهد من جفاف كتابات ماركس، أو حتى الكتابات من هذا النوع التاريخي التحليلي. ولعل الفصل الختامي، السابع، مما يقرأ مرات ومرات، وكلامه فيه عن الفلاحين في فرنسا مما يمكن سحبه على المجتمعات الفلاحية بشكل عام، وكذلك تحليله لتطور شكل الدولة وتماهيها خاصة بعد انتكاسات الثورات. وفي كثير من المواضع يمكن للقارئ العربي أن يرى وكأن ماركس يتحدث عمّا جوبهت به ثوراتنا العربية من انقلابات الأنظمة المهترئة.
June 13, 2020
Tons of minutiae I didn’t understand, but one of the most interesting pieces I’ve read. Louis Bonaparte introduces chaos into order by playing the interest of different classes against themselves and eventually trying to appease them all at once as the single executive power.
May 12, 2024
"Per conto proprio gli uomini del partito dell’ordine non potevano contestare al presidente la facoltà costituzionale di destituire un generale. Essi smaniavano soltanto perché egli aveva fatto uso dei suoi diritti costituzionali in modo antiparlamentare. Ma non avevano proprio loro fatto continuamente uso delle loro prerogative parlamentari in modo anticostituzionale, specialmente nella soppressione del suffragio universale? Essi erano dunque tenuti a muoversi strettamente entro i limiti del Parlamento. E dovevano essere colpiti da quella particolare malattia che a partire dal 1848 ha infierito su tutto il Continente, il cretinismo parlamentare, malattia che relega quelli che ne sono colpiti in un mondo immaginario e toglie loro ogni senso, ogni ricordo, ogni comprensione del rozzo mondo esteriore; dovevano essere colpiti da quel cretinismo parlamentare mentre, dopo aver distrutto con le loro mani tutte le condizioni del potere del Parlamento, dopo esser stati costretti a distruggerle nella loro lotta con le altre classi, consideravano ancora le loro vittorie parlamentari vere vittorie "
August 4, 2023
The opening lines — "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." — go hard, but the book's not really about historical recurrence. Instead it's a case study Marx uses to demonstrate his materialist conception of history — his idea that history is driven by society's economic 'base' and not by its ideological 'superstructure,' which arises from the aforementioned base.
Marx explains the rise of Louis Bonaparte in 1848-1851 through this framework pretty well but so single-mindedly that he kind of reminded me of one of those guys on Twitter who has can only view every event ever through the lens of his one issue or hot take.
Marx explains the rise of Louis Bonaparte in 1848-1851 through this framework pretty well but so single-mindedly that he kind of reminded me of one of those guys on Twitter who has can only view every event ever through the lens of his one issue or hot take.
Read
July 22, 2021Creo que poco puedo aportar a los comentarios ya hechos sobre este libro, en el que personalmente he leído una suerte de pecado original burgués. La traición a su propia clase y a sus propias herramientas políticas con tal de salvaguardarse la muestra Marx con cierto tono condescendiente, aunque no deja de reírse un poco cuando tiene oportunidad. La exposición me ha parecido fantástica y muy inteligente el deshilar de los sucesos y fuerzas del breve período de la Segunda República francesa. Me quedo con la duda, con la nueva visión quizás, de qué implica esto para un capitalismo tan desgastado por sus propias traiciones y astucias poco astutas.
November 16, 2019
After reading understanding Marxism and not yet able to devote the necessary time and attention to Das Capital, I decided to read one of his shorter works to better understand Marx and his thought. I chose this text because Dr. Greg Salyer once suggested that it is Marx coming to terms with the failure of the French Revolution. I found this suggestion interesting and certainly positional for this pamphlet's collection of Marx's articles.
Indeed, Marx is trying to work through the French Revolution's failure, but his interest is perhaps more overwhelmingly the period following the revolution's failure and the decades that progressively lead to a sort of second play with a revolution in 1848 and the 1851 coup of Napoleon III, nephew of Napoleon I who famously seized power during the French Revolution: an event sometimes taken to be the Revolution's end if not dissolution. Marx famously connects these two events by recalling Hegel's remark that "all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice" before wittily adding that "he forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce". The parallel is as intriguing as it is obvious the French Revolution's end with Napoleon I is the tragedy that prefigures, or in Marx's thematic parlance "is conjured", by his nephew's somewhat parodic recasting of the role and France's second revolutionary failure. It seems to me not that Marx thought a second revolution viable, but that he believes this to be a farce that will provide a short-circuiting as "the revolution is thoroughgoing" (p. 316). For Marx, bourge revolutions are those which are heroic and pass with scintillation from success to success, but prole revolutions are those which constantly criticize themselves and return to their origins after destroying what they have built make a less paltry try (p. 303). If Marx is working through failure, he has not lost sight of success although he focuses on the bourge successes as failures that give Napoleons the ability to rise and seize power so quickly. While Marx admits the prole failure is that many believe in Bonaparte III as *their* representative as do the middle class within the bourgeoisie, he also holds that the success is the perfection of executive power in order to overthrow it as with the perfection of legislative power in order to overthrow it (p. 316).
I need to spend more time contemplating this text because it is dense and its arguments are well crafted with intriguing historical, economic, and social analyses. I can say that to those who feel the Communist Manifesto is the expression of Marx's philosophy and Marxism per se: "you have misunderstood". These pamphlets show Marx performing bringing his analyses and ideas to the public; they are not an exposition of his theories. They are incendiary and compelling, but they are not Das Capital' 3 volume economic critique. More to the point, I suggest anyone who reads the Communist Manifesto follow up with this text to better understand Marx's view of the state qua capitalism as well as its place in revolution. Lenin clearly had this text in mind when he suggested smashing the state as he appears to be quoting Marx: "All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it" (P. 316). Again, Marx does not believe the 1849 revolution is over, but perfecting its next target as executive power becomes isolated and vulnerable. At least according to Marx. The point being that Marx's thoughts on revolution and transition are being worked out in this text by examining the French revolution as tragedy and, more importantly it seems to me, as farce.
Intriguing and engaging read.
Indeed, Marx is trying to work through the French Revolution's failure, but his interest is perhaps more overwhelmingly the period following the revolution's failure and the decades that progressively lead to a sort of second play with a revolution in 1848 and the 1851 coup of Napoleon III, nephew of Napoleon I who famously seized power during the French Revolution: an event sometimes taken to be the Revolution's end if not dissolution. Marx famously connects these two events by recalling Hegel's remark that "all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice" before wittily adding that "he forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce". The parallel is as intriguing as it is obvious the French Revolution's end with Napoleon I is the tragedy that prefigures, or in Marx's thematic parlance "is conjured", by his nephew's somewhat parodic recasting of the role and France's second revolutionary failure. It seems to me not that Marx thought a second revolution viable, but that he believes this to be a farce that will provide a short-circuiting as "the revolution is thoroughgoing" (p. 316). For Marx, bourge revolutions are those which are heroic and pass with scintillation from success to success, but prole revolutions are those which constantly criticize themselves and return to their origins after destroying what they have built make a less paltry try (p. 303). If Marx is working through failure, he has not lost sight of success although he focuses on the bourge successes as failures that give Napoleons the ability to rise and seize power so quickly. While Marx admits the prole failure is that many believe in Bonaparte III as *their* representative as do the middle class within the bourgeoisie, he also holds that the success is the perfection of executive power in order to overthrow it as with the perfection of legislative power in order to overthrow it (p. 316).
I need to spend more time contemplating this text because it is dense and its arguments are well crafted with intriguing historical, economic, and social analyses. I can say that to those who feel the Communist Manifesto is the expression of Marx's philosophy and Marxism per se: "you have misunderstood". These pamphlets show Marx performing bringing his analyses and ideas to the public; they are not an exposition of his theories. They are incendiary and compelling, but they are not Das Capital' 3 volume economic critique. More to the point, I suggest anyone who reads the Communist Manifesto follow up with this text to better understand Marx's view of the state qua capitalism as well as its place in revolution. Lenin clearly had this text in mind when he suggested smashing the state as he appears to be quoting Marx: "All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it" (P. 316). Again, Marx does not believe the 1849 revolution is over, but perfecting its next target as executive power becomes isolated and vulnerable. At least according to Marx. The point being that Marx's thoughts on revolution and transition are being worked out in this text by examining the French revolution as tragedy and, more importantly it seems to me, as farce.
Intriguing and engaging read.
October 12, 2020
Just finished and, gotta be honest. I struggled alot reading it. Especially having no idea of 19th century French political history I was caught off guard and had to research alot of background stuff while reading it. Overall the book is a splendid materialist analysis of what is now historical events but when Marx wrote it it was recent events. I really loved the first pages where some of the most basic ideas of historical materialism in general are grounded. Now on the next part:
I've seen alot of people both here and in general compare what Marx describes as Caesarism and also the rise of Luis Bonaparte with the rise of fascism in Europe. As far as i understood, unless im incorrect, marx describes the rise of luis bonaparte as the weakness, failure and self destructio of the bourgeoisie. Luis was not of the bourgeoisie, he did not represent big capital, he represented the lumpenproletariat. On the contrary, European fascism in italy and Nazism in germany represented the global big monopoly capital. The most wide and en mass privatisations of history till then happened under nazi germany as soon as hitler came to power. He represented the lumpen only through his words, I'd say to what Marx describes luis as a caricature and farce of the first Napoleon, european fascism is a double caricature of Luis Bonaparte because while in words hitler supported the lumpen when he got in power he showed his true face and by giving all weimar's state enterprises to either german, english, french and american businessmen. Fascism was a movement that did not destroy the ruling bourgeois class, it was the opposite. It was a movement of this big bourgeois class to sustain their power and extend it even more in the rise and fear of communism. So after reading the book i disagree with this comparison that is often made by people that the rise of Luis is similar or comparable with the rise of fascism.
I've seen alot of people both here and in general compare what Marx describes as Caesarism and also the rise of Luis Bonaparte with the rise of fascism in Europe. As far as i understood, unless im incorrect, marx describes the rise of luis bonaparte as the weakness, failure and self destructio of the bourgeoisie. Luis was not of the bourgeoisie, he did not represent big capital, he represented the lumpenproletariat. On the contrary, European fascism in italy and Nazism in germany represented the global big monopoly capital. The most wide and en mass privatisations of history till then happened under nazi germany as soon as hitler came to power. He represented the lumpen only through his words, I'd say to what Marx describes luis as a caricature and farce of the first Napoleon, european fascism is a double caricature of Luis Bonaparte because while in words hitler supported the lumpen when he got in power he showed his true face and by giving all weimar's state enterprises to either german, english, french and american businessmen. Fascism was a movement that did not destroy the ruling bourgeois class, it was the opposite. It was a movement of this big bourgeois class to sustain their power and extend it even more in the rise and fear of communism. So after reading the book i disagree with this comparison that is often made by people that the rise of Luis is similar or comparable with the rise of fascism.
November 10, 2020
Pontos centrais desta obra:
- Crítica de Marx aos camponeses parcelários franceses. O conservadorismo parece advir do isolamento, de não formular seus problemas e questões para além da unidade familiar da parcela. A falta de comunicação em razão da forma que assume a produção material da vida deste segmento os impede de se engajar, associar e almejar superar o capital. Há aqui uma ampla conexão com o debate sobre a produção do comum em Negri.
- Definição clara do que se define por pequena-burguesia. Classe que conjuga os interesses do proletariado e da burguesia. Tenta superar as contradições pela conciliação, pretendendo evitar ou mesmo superar a luta de classes. Fadada a fracassas e, quando percebe a derrota inevitável, se remove completamente de qualquer conflito concedendo a vitória a burguesia.
- Desprezo marxiano pelo lumpemproletariado, liderado pelo próprio Luis Bonaparte, unido na Sociedade 10 de Dezembro. O lumpem são os ladrões, charladões e rufiões da sociedade. Marx parece bem distante das teorias politicamente corretas da esquerda atual.
- A forma republicana e sua representatividade como uma estrutura capaz de unificar as dissidências burguesas. Tanto o Partido da Ordem - monarquista - se adequou bem a República por conseguir conjugar o poder dos apoiadores dos Bourbon (ligados a grande propriedade fundiária) com os Orleanistas (ligados ao grande comércio e finança). A República Francesa parlamentar era o governo da burguesia em bloco contra todas outras as classes.
- Como nota, acho interessante perceber como as questões jurídicas e institucionais caem por terra diante das relações reais de poder.
- Como aponta Marcuse, um pessimismo com a democracia e as organizações populares permeia o livro. Marx vê o proletariado apático após derrota de 1848. E os camponeses como uma força conservadora responsável por eleger o próprio Luis Bonaparte.
- Crítica de Marx aos camponeses parcelários franceses. O conservadorismo parece advir do isolamento, de não formular seus problemas e questões para além da unidade familiar da parcela. A falta de comunicação em razão da forma que assume a produção material da vida deste segmento os impede de se engajar, associar e almejar superar o capital. Há aqui uma ampla conexão com o debate sobre a produção do comum em Negri.
- Definição clara do que se define por pequena-burguesia. Classe que conjuga os interesses do proletariado e da burguesia. Tenta superar as contradições pela conciliação, pretendendo evitar ou mesmo superar a luta de classes. Fadada a fracassas e, quando percebe a derrota inevitável, se remove completamente de qualquer conflito concedendo a vitória a burguesia.
- Desprezo marxiano pelo lumpemproletariado, liderado pelo próprio Luis Bonaparte, unido na Sociedade 10 de Dezembro. O lumpem são os ladrões, charladões e rufiões da sociedade. Marx parece bem distante das teorias politicamente corretas da esquerda atual.
- A forma republicana e sua representatividade como uma estrutura capaz de unificar as dissidências burguesas. Tanto o Partido da Ordem - monarquista - se adequou bem a República por conseguir conjugar o poder dos apoiadores dos Bourbon (ligados a grande propriedade fundiária) com os Orleanistas (ligados ao grande comércio e finança). A República Francesa parlamentar era o governo da burguesia em bloco contra todas outras as classes.
- Como nota, acho interessante perceber como as questões jurídicas e institucionais caem por terra diante das relações reais de poder.
- Como aponta Marcuse, um pessimismo com a democracia e as organizações populares permeia o livro. Marx vê o proletariado apático após derrota de 1848. E os camponeses como uma força conservadora responsável por eleger o próprio Luis Bonaparte.
October 26, 2022
Me he aburrido que flipas leyéndolo, pero ya puedo decir que lo he leído para que no me quiten el carné de intelectualito. En este libro, nos encontramos con un Marx que hace una interpretación sobre los conflictos de clase y del papel del Estado en los mismos, la cual supera con creces a las interpretaciones simplistas que se suele hacer de su pensamiento. Está guapo, pero es un plomazo importante. Buenas noches mis sielas.
February 13, 2018
Güzel kitap. Fransa cumhuriyete geçti demokratikleşiyo mu falan derken bi tane adam var, popülist söylemlerle halk tarafından cumhurbaşkanı seçiliyo. Darbe yapıp bütün yetkileri kendinde topluyo, muhalefeti susturuyo, en son da meclisi kapatıp kendini imparator ilan ediyo. Fransa'yı savaşa sokuyo.
Savaşta yenilince kaçıp gidiyo, Paris Komünü kuruluyo vs. ama o kısımlar bu kitapta yok.
Ha bi de Marx köylüleri patatese benzetiyo.
Savaşta yenilince kaçıp gidiyo, Paris Komünü kuruluyo vs. ama o kısımlar bu kitapta yok.
Ha bi de Marx köylüleri patatese benzetiyo.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 312 reviews