What do you think?
Rate this book
Tarihte Zorun Rolü
s/t: A study of Bismarck's policy of blood and iron
Friedrich Engels’in Die Rolle der Gewalt in der Geschichte, 1887-1888 [1895-1896] adlı yapıtını, Seyhan Erdoğdu İngilizcesinden (The Role of Force in History -A Study of Bismarck’s Policy of Blood and Iron- Translated by Jack Cohen, edited and with an introduction by Ernst Wangermann, Lawrence & Wishart, London 1968) dilimize çevirdi ve kitap Tarihte Zorun Rolü -Bismarck’ın Kan ve Zulüm Politikası Üzerine Bir Çalışma adı ile Sol Yayınları tarafından Ekim 2011 (Birinci Baskı: Kasım 1974; İkinci Baskı: Haziran 1979; Üçüncü Baskı: Kasım 1992) tarihinde Ankara’da Kuban Matbaacılık’ta bastırıldı.
Friedrich Engels’in Die Rolle der Gewalt in der Geschichte, 1887-1888 [1895-1896] adlı yapıtını, Seyhan Erdoğdu İngilizcesinden (The Role of Force in History -A Study of Bismarck’s Policy of Blood and Iron- Translated by Jack Cohen, edited and with an introduction by Ernst Wangermann, Lawrence & Wishart, London 1968) dilimize çevirdi ve kitap Tarihte Zorun Rolü -Bismarck’ın Kan ve Zulüm Politikası Üzerine Bir Çalışma adı ile Sol Yayınları tarafından Ekim 2011 (Birinci Baskı: Kasım 1974; İkinci Baskı: Haziran 1979; Üçüncü Baskı: Kasım 1992) tarihinde Ankara’da Kuban Matbaacılık’ta bastırıldı.
127 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1888
8 people are currently reading
253 people want to read
About the author
Friedrich Engels
1,915 books1,578 followersGerman social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on
The Communist Manifesto
in 1848 and on numerous other works.
With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).
Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...
With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).
Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 25, 2020
A lively book that combines three chapters from the Anti-Dühring with a separately written essay on how German unification under Prussian domination executed by Bismarck came about and the many complicated steps leading up to that.
The three chapters from the Anti-Dühring analyze the relationship between political force and economic factors. In this portion of the book, Engels decisively refutes the idea that political force is independent of all other factors. Political power rests on the balance of economic and social forces in a society. What Engels does here is dismantle Dühring's shallow theory that sees only the surface; Engels by contrast examines the entire social structure.
That philosophical discussion is followed by a later-written text centered on, as the book's subtitle says, "A study of Bismarck's policy of blood and iron" — a practical example of political force resting on economic factors and the interplay of contending classes, particularly the tensions between Prussia's Junkers (the aristocracy) and the emerging German bourgeoisie.
This is a most valuable work on Germany's unification under Bismarck, extending from the 1840s to the 1870s. Here we see Engels, the historian and expert on military matters, not only Engels the political activist. This is an outstanding example of applying historical materialism to understanding the dynamics of one of the most important political developments of 19th century Europe. Engels explains not only the ever shifting alliances among the larger European powers and the relations among the German states outside Prussian control that Bismarck skillfully navigated, but the geopolitical reasons underlying those repeated shifts among the European powers.
The book's editor does an admirable job of inserting frequent footnotes to explain the obscure historical references sometimes mentioned by Engels in the text. A reader familiar with at least the basics of 19th century German history should have little or no problem following all this, but someone without such knowledge might sometimes experience some difficulty, although the text is written in a lively and accessible popular style.
The three chapters from the Anti-Dühring analyze the relationship between political force and economic factors. In this portion of the book, Engels decisively refutes the idea that political force is independent of all other factors. Political power rests on the balance of economic and social forces in a society. What Engels does here is dismantle Dühring's shallow theory that sees only the surface; Engels by contrast examines the entire social structure.
That philosophical discussion is followed by a later-written text centered on, as the book's subtitle says, "A study of Bismarck's policy of blood and iron" — a practical example of political force resting on economic factors and the interplay of contending classes, particularly the tensions between Prussia's Junkers (the aristocracy) and the emerging German bourgeoisie.
This is a most valuable work on Germany's unification under Bismarck, extending from the 1840s to the 1870s. Here we see Engels, the historian and expert on military matters, not only Engels the political activist. This is an outstanding example of applying historical materialism to understanding the dynamics of one of the most important political developments of 19th century Europe. Engels explains not only the ever shifting alliances among the larger European powers and the relations among the German states outside Prussian control that Bismarck skillfully navigated, but the geopolitical reasons underlying those repeated shifts among the European powers.
The book's editor does an admirable job of inserting frequent footnotes to explain the obscure historical references sometimes mentioned by Engels in the text. A reader familiar with at least the basics of 19th century German history should have little or no problem following all this, but someone without such knowledge might sometimes experience some difficulty, although the text is written in a lively and accessible popular style.
July 27, 2025
A masterful analysis of leadership of a class, class leadership over other classes, the positioning of states against others, and the determinants of state form in this process. It presents a narrative of Bismarck's unification of Germany as a case study in how reconfigurations of politics and strategy occur in history. Engels' treatment of political-economic social relations and interests is a key part of the text, the text being intended as a part of Anti-Duhring. A crucial concept in a materialist conception of politics, the balance of forces, is affirmed in the analysis. Here Engels the historian and military strategist is on display: a strategic approach to politics requires a materialism which is confident to make assessments of the balance of forces. On this, it's notable against accusations of determinism that the political-economic is not the total, but more like the beginning (and the end) of the story. Strategic politics also requires an understanding of political-economic factors as being the material of action rather than the end of analysis. It's striking how much Engels considers political and strategic competition between states in the narrative. Even personal character plays a role when situated in historical context. There's a lot to take here from how Engels wields important concepts in Marxism.
A passage characteristic of the text:
"A brilliant career lay before our Brandenburg Junker, if only he had the courage and sense to help himself to it. Had not Louis Napoleon become the idol of the bourgeoisie precisely because he dispersed their parliament while raising their profits? And did not Bismarck possess the same business talents which the bourgeois admired so much in the false Napoleon? Was he not attracted to his Bleichröder as much as Louis Napoleon to his Fould? Was there not in 1864 a contradiction in Germany between the bourgeois representatives in the Chamber, who, out of stinginess, wanted to reduce the service term, and the bourgeois outside, in the National Association, who demanded national action at any cost, action for which an army was essential? Was it not a contradiction quite similar to the one that existed in France in 1851 between the bourgeois in the Chamber who wanted to keep the power of the President in check and the bourgeois outside who wanted peace and quiet and a strong government, peace and quiet at any cost — a contradiction which Louis Napoleon solved by dispersing the brawlers in parliament and giving peace and quiet to the mass of the bourgeois? Were not things in Germany much more assuredly in favour of a bold move? Had not the plan for the reorganisation been supplied ready-made by the bourgeoisie, and were not the latter themselves calling loudly for an energetic Prussian statesman who would carry out their plan, expel Austria from Germany and unite the small states under Prussia’s supremacy? And if this demanded that the Prussian constitution be treated a bit roughly, that the ideologists in and outside the Chamber be pushed aside according to their deserts, was it not possible to rely on universal suffrage, just as Louis Bonaparte had done? What could be more democratic than to introduce universal suffrage? Had not Louis Napoleon proved that it was absolutely safe — if properly handled? And did not precisely this universal suffrage — offer the means to appeal to the broad mass of the people, to flirt a bit with the emerging social movement, should the bourgeoisie prove refractory?"
A passage characteristic of the text:
"A brilliant career lay before our Brandenburg Junker, if only he had the courage and sense to help himself to it. Had not Louis Napoleon become the idol of the bourgeoisie precisely because he dispersed their parliament while raising their profits? And did not Bismarck possess the same business talents which the bourgeois admired so much in the false Napoleon? Was he not attracted to his Bleichröder as much as Louis Napoleon to his Fould? Was there not in 1864 a contradiction in Germany between the bourgeois representatives in the Chamber, who, out of stinginess, wanted to reduce the service term, and the bourgeois outside, in the National Association, who demanded national action at any cost, action for which an army was essential? Was it not a contradiction quite similar to the one that existed in France in 1851 between the bourgeois in the Chamber who wanted to keep the power of the President in check and the bourgeois outside who wanted peace and quiet and a strong government, peace and quiet at any cost — a contradiction which Louis Napoleon solved by dispersing the brawlers in parliament and giving peace and quiet to the mass of the bourgeois? Were not things in Germany much more assuredly in favour of a bold move? Had not the plan for the reorganisation been supplied ready-made by the bourgeoisie, and were not the latter themselves calling loudly for an energetic Prussian statesman who would carry out their plan, expel Austria from Germany and unite the small states under Prussia’s supremacy? And if this demanded that the Prussian constitution be treated a bit roughly, that the ideologists in and outside the Chamber be pushed aside according to their deserts, was it not possible to rely on universal suffrage, just as Louis Bonaparte had done? What could be more democratic than to introduce universal suffrage? Had not Louis Napoleon proved that it was absolutely safe — if properly handled? And did not precisely this universal suffrage — offer the means to appeal to the broad mass of the people, to flirt a bit with the emerging social movement, should the bourgeoisie prove refractory?"
May 24, 2022
Engels bu eserde Dühring'in "asli olan şey dolaylı bir iktisadi güçte değil, dolaysız siyasal zorda aranmalıdır" tezinin eleştirisini yapıyor. Siyasal zorun iktisadi koşullar tarafından belirlendiğini ve onun doğrudan sonucu olduğunu anlatıyor. Dühring'in düşüncesi ilginç bir şekilde bizim de aşina olduğumuz liberal "ceberrut devlet" tezini çağrıştırıyor. Türkiye tarihini okurken de sıkça karşılaştığımız bu tezin etik bir noktadan hareket ettiğini ve her türlü zor kullanımının etik dışı/olumsuz görüldüğü Dühring tarafından dile getiriliyor. Engels ise siyasal zorun iktisadi koşulların hizmetinde olduğunu ve yerine göre devrimci bir rol oynayabileceğini öne sürüyor. Engels, 1886-1887 yıllarında kaleme aldığı eserini yakın dönem Almanya (Prusya) tarihini materyalist bir yöntemle inceleyerek Bismark'ın Alman Birliği'ni sağlarken oynadığı Bonapartist rolü zor teorisinin iktisadi koşulların bir sonucu olduğunu açıklamak için kullanıyor. Eser Engels'in diğer yazılarının aksine fazla sürükleyici olmasa da diyalektik materyalist tarih okumasıyla Alman Birliği'nin sağlanma sürecine dair önemli bilgiler sunuyor.
June 10, 2021
قراءة عظيمة للمشهد السياسي الاوروبي. الترجمة فيها بعض الاشكالات لكنها بشكل عام جيدة
February 22, 2023
se me ha hecho un poco bola debo admitir
February 21, 2025
Kvalitetno kraće književno djelo o pregledu najznačajnijih geopolitičkih dešavanja u Zapadnoj Evropi u 19. vijeku, sa socijalističkog gledišta.
August 27, 2025
Não gostei deste livro e nem o acabei, li apenas cerca de 1/3 do livro.
Os assuntos abordados são secantes e desinteressantes. As relações militares, comerciais e políticas entre a Prússia, a Áustria, a Alemanha, a França e a Rússia no séc. XIX analisadas com demasiados detalhes não me parece que acrescentem algo ao estudo do marxismo, ainda para mais estando bastante datada a realidade analisada no livro.
Não obstante, de acordo com o prefácio, o capítulo deste livro seria o quarto da obra com o mesmo nome, sendo os primeiros 3 os que se encontram na segunda secção do livro "Anti-Duhring". Este livro sim, recomendo bastante, inclusive, o capítulo específico sobre as teorias da violência.
Os assuntos abordados são secantes e desinteressantes. As relações militares, comerciais e políticas entre a Prússia, a Áustria, a Alemanha, a França e a Rússia no séc. XIX analisadas com demasiados detalhes não me parece que acrescentem algo ao estudo do marxismo, ainda para mais estando bastante datada a realidade analisada no livro.
Não obstante, de acordo com o prefácio, o capítulo deste livro seria o quarto da obra com o mesmo nome, sendo os primeiros 3 os que se encontram na segunda secção do livro "Anti-Duhring". Este livro sim, recomendo bastante, inclusive, o capítulo específico sobre as teorias da violência.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews