About book The Eighteenth Brumaire Of Louis Bonaparte (2005)
"The parliamentary republic, in its struggle against the revolution, found itself compelled to strengthen the means and the centralization of governmental power with repressive measures. All revolutions perfected this machine instead of breaking it. The parties, which alternately contended for domination, regarded the possession of this huge state structure as the chief spoils of the victor".Karl Marx wrote this book, on an entirely different event 52 years later, It dealt with the 2 December 1851 coup, and as a result, on 2 December 1852, President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte became Napoleon III, Emperor of the French., who was Napoleon's nephew. Marx implies to the connection between to the two events by saying:"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."In the preface to the second edition, Marx said it was the intention of the work to:"demonstrate how the class struggle in France created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part." So why didn't the Paris proletariat rise in revolt after December 2?"The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France’s poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class.""Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself"."Historical tradition gave rise to the French peasants’ belief in the miracle that a man named Napoleon would bring all glory back to them. And there turned up an individual who claims to be that man because he bears the name Napoleon, in consequence of the Code Napoleon, which decrees: “Inquiry into paternity is forbidden.” After a twenty-year vagabondage and a series of grotesque adventures the legend is consummated, and the man becomes Emperor of the French. The fixed idea of the nephew was realized because it coincided with the fixed idea of the most numerous class of the French people"."The bourgeoisie itself has violently strengthened the imperialism of the peasant class; it has preserved the conditions that form the birthplaces of this species of peasant religion. The bourgeoisie, in truth, is bound to fear the stupidity of the masses so long as they remain conservative, and the insight of the masses as soon as they become revolutionary"."Obviously the bourgeoisie now had no choice but to elect Bonaparte. When the Puritans of the Council of Constance [1414-18] complained of the dissolute lives of the popes and wailed about the necessity for moral reform, Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly thundered at them: “Only the devil in person can still save the Catholic Church, and you ask for angels.” Similarly, after the coup d’état the French bourgeoisie cried out: Only the Chief of the Society of December 10 can still save bourgeois society! Only theft can still save property; only perjury, religion; bastardy, the family; disorder, order!"
Il n’y a aucun doute, si la doctrine matérialiste de Marx ne peut être appliquée partout sans susciter quelques doutes, sa puissance heuristique s’impose lorsqu’il est question d’expliquer les variations dans la qualité de son écriture. En effet, alors que ses analyses faites en France font état d’un esprit dialectique très fin et à l’ironie fertile, celles qu’il produira dans la misère à Londres montrent toujours une intelligence exceptionnelle, mais leur style est désormais d’une lourdeur assommante, complètement dénuée de finesse et d’ironie, présentant des analyses non plus sur le mode hypothétique, mais comme des vérités absolues. Engels y trouve tout de même, dans la préface, l’utilisation d’une « loi » : cette fameuse « grande loi du mouvement historique, loi selon laquelle toutes les luttes historiques…ne sont, en fait, que l’expression plus ou moins nette des luttes des classes sociales » (p.64). Mais c’est vraiment à ce Marx au meilleur de sa forme que nous avons affaire ici, puisque Marx traite plutôt ici la lutte des classes sociales comme une hypothèse théorique puisqu’il la met à l’épreuve. (p.65) Bref, pour en arriver au fait, Marx développe ici un embryon de pensée que l’on pourrait qualifier de manière anachronique, de « structuralisme social » puisqu’il décrit la manière dont une « superstructure d’impressions, d’illusions, de façons de penser et de conceptions philosophiques » (p.104) résultant d’une condition particulière est intégrée par les individus comme des acquis personnels.Pour prendre quelques exemples particuliers, Marx parle ainsi des membres de la bourgeoisie de la manière suivante : « leur cerveau ne peut dépasser les limites que le petit-bourgeois ne dépasse pas … dans sa vie, …ils sont théoriquement poussés aux … problèmes et aux … solutions auxquels son intérêt matériel et sa situation sociale [les] poussent » (p.105). L’individualisme est également un trait caractéristique de la classe bourgeoise selon Marx qui, lorsqu’il se trouve suffisamment marqué, peut entraîner certains de ses membres à l’aliénation de classe (p.150-151). Marx décrit aussi merveilleusement l’aliénation de la classe des royalistes, qui, croyant défendre leurs intérêts, ferment « opiniâtrement à leurs rois bannis les portes par lesquelles ils pouvaient rentrer » (p.159).Et cette structure de valeur permet à une société de se couper complètement des univers des autres classes, comme on le voit dans la description que Marx donne des intérêts non égoïstes de la petite bourgeoisie française qui se croit vraiment la mieux placée pour connaître les intérêts de la France entière (p.107-108).Ainsi, Marx ne se limite pas au clivage existant entre le capital et le prolétariat, mais doit avoir recours à d’autres clivages comme ceux entre la campagne et la ville par exemple (p.92). Il expose aussi qu’une classe peut parfois se fondre en une autre par sa description de l’embourgeoisement de l’aristocratie (p.105).D’autre part, Marx montre très clairement l’influence des circonstances commerciales sur la mobilisation politique. Lorsque l’économie va bien, personne ne veut agir, lorsque ça va mal, il est préférable que la politique se produise sans heurt, sinon, on y cherchera un coupable avec suffisamment d’angoisse pour s’en inventer un. Enfin, comme Tocqueville, Marx décrit la dépendance grandissante envers l’appareil d’État (p.121), décrivant l’appareil d’État comme un « effroyable corps parasite…dont le travail est divisé et centralisé comme dans une usine » (p.186-187) qui « anéantit les échelons aristocratiques intermédiaires placés entre la masse du peuple et le pouvoir d’État » (p. 194). Et c’est cet État, par l’impôt très lourd qu’il entraîne nécessairement, qui détruit les liens entre la paysannerie et Bonaparte (p.196).Ceci étant dit, c’est avec optimisme que Marx décrit cette centralisation mécanique de l’État de manière si apocalyptique puisqu’il juge qu’il s’agit d’un passage obligé pour « dégager à l’état pur l’opposition du pouvoir d’État vis-à-vis de la société » (p.196). Évidemment, il n’avait pu prévoir qu’on ferait de cet État un ersatz de la providence...
Do You like book The Eighteenth Brumaire Of Louis Bonaparte (2005)?
Overall, a very dry read. It's mostly newspaper articles that Marx had written to cover the second French revolution. His detailed analysis of the tactics of Louis Bonaparte are very interesting in that Marx illuminates how centralized power has created a monster in political process that is highly tedious and difficult to manoeuvre.Overall, though it is a tedious read peppered every now and then with interesting insight into how complex political systems always hold pregnant within it the possibility of the New (i.e. creating/transforming the current complex system into something more authentic)!
—Sheldon L
Cronaca serrata e analisi illuminante del processo di dissoluzione che colpì la Seconda Repubblica francese (nata nel 1848) e ne provocò la morte sotto il colpo di Stato del dicembre 1851 di Luigi Bonaparte (l’impero sarà proclamato solo nel 1852).Marx descrive le forze in campo – “partito dell’ordine” (monarchici legittimisti e orleanisti: repubblicani controvoglia), borghesi repubblicani “puri”, Montagna democratica, proletariato… –, i loro conflitti, le fughe in avanti, i voltafaccia, le alleanze, le contraddizioni; le tensioni fra i rappresentanti parlamentari e le classi sociali che li hanno eletti, animate dai loro concreti interessi economici; e poi lo scontro fra potere legislativo e potere esecutivo.Il tutto incorniciato da ironia, immagini vivaci, battute e animato dalla straordinaria capacità di scolpire i protagonisti – singoli o gruppi – nei loro tratti essenziali (e talvolta caricaturali).Davvero affascinante la descrizione dello sviluppo in Francia dell’apparato di governo (esecutivo, pubblica amministrazione ecc.) e dell’importanza che esso acquista nella lotta per il potere.«Questo potere esecutivo, con la sua enorme organizzazione burocratica e militare, col suo meccanismo statale complicato e artificiale, con un esercito di impiegati di mezzo milione accanto a un altro esercito di mezzo milione di soldati, questo spaventoso corpo parassitario che avvolge come un involucro il corpo della società francese e ne ostruisce tutti i pori, si costituì nel periodo della monarchia assoluta […]. Ogni interesse comune veniva subito staccato dalla società e contrapposto a essa come interesse generale, più alto, strappato all’iniziativa individuale dei membri della società e trasformato in oggetto di attività del governo, a partire dai ponti, dagli edifici scolastici e dai beni comunali del più piccolo villaggio, sino alle ferrovie, al patrimonio nazionale e all’Università nazionale di Francia. […] Tutti i rivolgimenti politici non fecero che perfezionare questa macchina, invece di spezzarla. I partiti che successivamente lottarono per il potere considerarono il possesso di questo enorme edificio dello Stato come il bottino principale del vincitore».Nella persona di Luigi Bonaparte sarà proprio il potere esecutivo a trionfare sul parlamento.«Ma la rivoluzione va fino al fondo delle cose. Sta ancora attraversando il purgatorio. Lavora con metodo. Fino al 2 dicembre 1851 non ha condotto a termine che la prima metà della sua preparazione; ora sta compiendo l’altra metà. Prima ha elaborato alla perfezione il potere parlamentare, per poterlo rovesciare. Ora che ha raggiunto questo risultato, essa spinge alla perfezione il potere esecutivo, lo riduce alla sua espressione più pura, lo isola, se lo pone di fronte come l’unico ostacolo, per concentrare contro di essa tutte le sue forze di distruzione. E quando la rivoluzione avrà condotto a termine questa seconda metà del suo lavoro preparatorio, l’Europa balzerà dal suo seggio e griderà: Ben scavato, vecchia talpa!».Riflessione affascinante, oggi che il governo, sotto forma di welfare, burocrazia, servizi di sicurezza, è ovunque. Di forze rivoluzionarie che predichino con un minimo di credibilità e concretezza un’autonomia della società, il ritorno della vita in mano alla vita, non si vede però neanche l’ombra. Ma chissà che una talpa…
—Jacques le fataliste et son maître
From Rossana Rossanda's (founder of Il Manifesto) memoir--"I don't know how I came to the conclusion that it was the Communists who were most sure of what they were doing--or who told me, 'But Bafi is a Communist.' I was so ignorant that I marched straight up to him, between classes...'Someone said you are a Communist.' 'What are you looking for?' I told him about the leaflets I'd seen, about being confused, not knowing. 'Read these books. Come back when you have done so.' I ran to the railway station and opened the slip of paper on the train: Harold Laski, "Liberty in the Modern State" and "Democracy in Crisis;" Karl Marx, "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" and "The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850." A book by De Ruggiero, I think, Lenin, "State and Revolution." 'By S., anything you can find." Well, I might have left off The Eighteenth Brumaire unless you are REALLY interested in revolutionary France between Feb. 1848-Dec. 1851. But if you are REALLY interested in revolutionary France between Feb. 1848-Dec. 1851---and you're a Communist--this is the book for you.
—Cns
