The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850

Fransız Üçlemesi #1

by Karl Marx

The present work was written while the events analyzed were still in progress. It is, as Frederick Engels says, "Marx's first attempt, with the aid of his materialist conception, to explain a section of contemporary history from the given economic situation." The work has long been considered a class in historical materialism as applied to current events, having withstood the test of later and fuller analyses. This edition includes in full Engels' famous Preface of 1895, in which he assessed Socialist strategy and tactics for the previous fifty years.


Cover: From a lithograph by H. Daumier symbolizing the reactionaries of the period.

Genres: History, Politics, Philosophy, France, Nonfiction, Theory, Sociology

158 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1850

About the author

With 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...

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 3 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، در سالِ 1847 زورگوییِ حکومت، و جنایتهایِ دینداران، دخالتهایِ کلیسا، گرانی، افزایشِ بیکاری و کاهشِ دستمزدها، همه و همه سببِ نارضایتیِ مردم و کارگران و کشاورزان بود... حکومت اجازهٔ برپاییِ راهپیمایی و گردهمایی را به مردم نمیداد... و تمامی این موارد به قیام و بحرانِ سیاسی در جای جایِ خاکِ "فرانسه" تبدیل شد و دیگر جایی برایِ <لویی فلیپ> و حکومتِ وی باقی نمانده بود
--------------------------------------------
‎زمانی که پاشاه <لویی فیلیپ> گریخت و کارگرانِ فرانسوی اسلحه بدست در سنگرها میجنگیدند و مراکزِ حساس و مهم را به تصرفِ خویش درمی آوردند، اپوزیسیونِ بورژوایی که سازمان یافته تر بود، یک حکومتِ موقت تشکیل داد تا زمامِ امور را در تحتِ کنترل بگیرد... این حکومت حتی تا ظهرِ 25 فوریه نیز طبقِ خواستِ مردم پیش نرفته بود، و جمهوری را اعلام نکرد، بلکه زیرِ فشارِ کارگران، ناگزیر به پذیرش آن گردید... تا ظهرِ 25 فوریه هنوز جمهوری اعلام نشده بود و در عوض تمامی وزارت خانه ها میانِ عناصرِ بورژواییِ حکومتِ موقت، میانِ ژنرال ها، بانکداران و وکلایِ دادگستریِ ناسیونال، تقسیم شده بود... ولی کارگران اینبار استوار و پایدار بودند تا نگذراند به مانندِ سالِ 1830 کلاه سرشان برود.. آنها حاضر بودند مبارزه را آغاز کرده و جمهوری را به نیرویِ سرنیزه، تحمیل نمایند... <راسپای> با این پیام روانهٔ شهرداری شد: به نامِ پرولتاریایِ پاریس به حکومتِ موقت فرمان داده میشود که جمهوری را اعلام نماید.. اگر این دستور تا دو ساعتِ دیگر عملی نگردد، <راسپای> با دوهزار تن از انقلابیون، بازهم بازخواهد گشت... مهلتِ دو ساعته هنوز به سر نرسیده بود که بر در و دیوارِ پاریس واژه هایِ پُر شکوهِ تاریخی نقش بست: جمهوری فرانسه! آزادی، برابری، برادری! ...... اینگونه بود که پرولتاریا با قدرت، مُهرِ خود را بر انقلابِ فرانسه زد و حکومتی موقت تشکیل شد
*****************
‎هدفِ فوریِ حکومتِ موقت این بود که از فشارِ مستقیمِ کارگران بَر خود بکاهد، آنها را از مقرِ حکومتِ موقت، جایی که روزانه هزاران کارگر در برابرِ آن دست به تظاهرات میزدند دور کند و به دنبالِ <لویی بلان> و کاخِ لوکزامبورگ بفرستد که کمیسیون میبایست جلساتِ خود را در آنجا تشکیل دهد... بدین ترتیب نمایندگانِ طبقهٔ کارگر از مقرِ حکومتِ موقت تبعید شدند و بخشِ بورژواییِ حکومتِ موقت، قدرتِ واقعیِ دولتی و زمامِ امورِ اداری را کاملاً در دست گرفت و در کنارِ وزارت خانه هایِ مالیه، تجارت و خدماتِ عمومی، بورس و بانک، یک کنیسهٔ سوسیالیستی بنا گردید که عده ای حرام زاده و فریبکار همچون خاخام هایِ اعظم و اسقف ها، <لویی بلان> و <آلبر>، متعهد بودند تا سرزمینِ موعود (ارض موعود) را کشف کنند، عهدِ جدید را بشارت دهند و پرولتاریایِ پاریس را مشغول گردانند
*****************
‎حکومتِ موقت برایِ تأمینِ مخارجِ خود یک مالیاتِ 45 سانتیم ای، بر هر فرانک وضع کرده بود و این عمدتاً باری بر دوشِ کشاورزان بود، در تبلیغاتِ خود آن را نتیجهٔ کارگاه هایِ ملی و ولخرجی کارگران معرفی کرده بود.. بورژوازی در میانِ کشاورزانِ بیچاره این ایده را جا انداخته بود که مخارجِ کارگاه هایِ ملی بر عهدهٔ کشاورزان میباشد، تا بدین روش کشاورزان را در مقابلِ کارگران قرار دهد... اگر انقلابِ 1789 با رهاییِ کشاورزها و دامپروران از مالیاتِ فئودالی آغاز شد، انقلابِ 1848 بخاطرِ به خطر نیانداختنِ سرمایه و نگهداری و حفظِ ماشینِ دولتی، آغازش را با یک مالیاتِ جدید و سخت، به روستانشینان اعلام نمود.... از این لحظه به بعد، جمهوری دیگر برایِ کشاورزانِ فرانسوی، به معنایِ مالیاتِ 45 سانتیم بود و پرولتاریایِ پاریس در نظرش در حکمِ نوعی ولخرجی بود که به خرجِ او، جا خوش کرده بود
*****************
‎با فرمانِ 21 ژوئن کمیسیون اجرایی، که بر طبقِ آن، متجاوز از صدهزار کارگر عضو کارگاه هایِ ملی، از کار بیکار شده و اخراج میشدند، برایِ کارگران راهی جز این باقی نمانده بود که یا از گرسنگی بمیرند و یا به خیزش و شورش بر علیهِ ستیزِ دولتِ تازه بر سرِ کار آمده برخیزند.... بورژوازی، پرولتاریایِ پاریس را مجبور به شورش کرد... روز 22 ژوئن، بیش از صد هزار تن از مردم و کارگرانِ بیچاره، در اعتراض به اقداماتِ نابخردانه و زورگویانهٔ بورژوازی و حکومتِ تازه تشکیل شده، در مرکزِ پاریس جمع شدند... گروهی از کارگران به سویِ کاخِ لوکزامبورگ به حرکت درآمدند که حال مقرِ کمیسیونِ اجرایی و لویی بلان شده بود... پاسخی که به مردمان گرسنه و ندار و کارگرانِ بیکار داده شد، این بود که: تصمیمِ کمیسیونِ اجرایی باید صد در صد، اجرا شود. یا به ایالت هایِ دیگر میروید، یا شما را به زور میفرستیم
‎کارگران در شرق و جنوبِ شرقیِ پاریس، سنگربندی کردند.. ظهرِ 23 ژوئن، حملهٔ حکومت به مردم و کارگران آغاز شد... کارگران مقاومت کردند و حکومت عقب نشینی کرد... با این حمله، جنگِ داخلی در سرتاسرِ پاریس زبانه کشید و به دیگر شهرها نیز رسید
‎دوستانِ خردگرا و گرامی، در روزِ 26 ژوئن، قیامِ این کارگرانِ آزاده و دلاور، سرکوب گردید... در این قیام، 15 هزار تن از کارگران کشته شدند ... بورژوازی به دستورِ سردمدارانِ کثیفِ دینی و مذهبی، کارگرانِ بازداشت شده و اسیر را بدونِ محاکمه و دادگاهی، به گلوله بستند.. کارگران را با بی رحمی تمام شکنجه داده و سلاخی کردند.... زنده یاد ویکتور هوگو، در موردِ این شورش و خیزشِ کارگران و مردم، میگوید: در روزهایِ ژوئن، تمدن با روش هایِ وحشی گری و بربریّت، از خود دفاع نمود
‎مارکس در این مورد مینویسد: پرولتاریا، تازه پس از شکست اش به این حقیقت ایمان آورد که کوچکترین بهبود در وضعش در محدودهٔ جامعهٔ بورژوایی، خیالی بیش نیست و این تخیل اگر بخواهد به خود واقعیت بخشد، جنایت تلقی خواهد شد.. آنها دریافتند که انقلاب کردند و پادشاه و سلطنتش را نابود کردند، ولی کسانی با انقلاب آنها به قدرت رسیدند که از پادشاه بدتر بوده و سرزمینشان را با زورگویی و دزدی، به غارت برده و به نابودی کشانده اند... پرولتاریا به جایِ خواست هایی که به کمکِ آنها میکوشید از جمهوری فوریه آوانس بگیرد، خواست هایی که ظاهراً پُر شور و حرارت، ولی در محتوا تنگ نظرانه و گذشته از آن بورژوایی بودند، آوازِ جنگِ دلیرانه و انقلابی را سر داد: سرنگونیِ بورژوازی- دیکتاتوریِ طبقهٔ کارگر
--------------------------------------------
‎عزیزانم، آگاهی از چگونگیِ انقلابهای مردم در جای جای این کرهٔ خاکی، برایِ جوانانِ سرزمینمان بسیار ارزشمند است... شما میتوانید به یاریِ خواندنِ کتاب، از تاریخ درس گرفته و بدبختی و بیچارگیِ این دهه ها و روزهایِ مردمانِ سرزمینمان را با دیگر سرزمینهایی که در گذرِ زمان دستخوشِ خیزش و شورش قرارگرفته اند را بسنجید
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ خردگرا مفید بوده باشه... بازهم در موردِ خیزش و شورش هایی که در تاریخ روی داده است، برایتان ریویو خواهم نوشت
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[Luís · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karl Marx's work The Class Struggles in France from 1848 to 1850 is a series of articles under the common title From 1848 to 1849. It gives a materialist explanation of an entire period of French history and elaborates on the most important theses of the revolutionary tactics of the proletariat. Based on the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle of the masses, Marx developed his theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in The Class Struggles in France. Demonstrating the need for the conquest of political power by the working class, Marx uses the expression "dictatorship of the proletariat" for the first time and describes the political, economic, and ideological tasks of this dictatorship. Furthermore, Marx formulates in this work the idea of ​ the working class's idea with the peasantry under the leadership of the working class. The initial plan of the work The Class Struggles in France included four articles: "The Defeat of June 1848", "The 13th of June 1849", "Consequences of the 13th of June on the Continent", and "The Present Situation in England." However, only three articles emerged. The questions of the influence of the events of June 1849 and the situation in England were clarified in other pieces in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, particularly in the international reports written jointly by Marx and Engels. In editing Marx's work in 1895, Engels introduced a fourth chapter devoted to clarifying French events, subtitled "Third International Commentary." Engels also gave this chapter, "The Abolition of Universal Suffrage in 1850".

[Pablo · Rating 3 out of 5]

De los tres libros de Marx sobre las revoluciones de Francia entre 1848 y 1870, probablemente éste sea el menos interesante de leer por si mismo. A diferencia del 18 Brumario, o la Guerra Civil en Francia, este libro solo tiene sentido leerlo con conocimientos previos de la situación tratada.
Hay varias reflexiones que pueden ser de interés, pero al ser un libro de un hecho tan contingente, todas están muy limitadas por su contexto.

[Callie M · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is obviously a work of great historical importance, marking the first time that Marx applied his method of materialist analysis to revolutionary events.

But, phew! It was a difficult read!

Marx is writing for contemporaries and assumes a lot of background knowledge. It is exciting to be stood alongside Marx as he grapples with events and makes his discoveries... but the pace is exhausting! I am hoping to read "Eighteenth Brumaire" soon, which I have heard distills the conclusions drawn out over these articles.

The key points Marx highlights are: the inability of the petty bourgeois radicals to break with the bourgeoisie; the working class were only held back by the lack of an independent party/program; the leaving of the bourgeois state intact allowed the counter revolution to regroup, consolidate, and repress; the bourgeoisie are willing to discard democracy and legality as soon as they no longer serve their interests.

Worth a read, but don't be misled by the number of pages - this is a tough one!

[Zapato · Rating 3 out of 5]

Con perlitas, pero muy denso, me haría falta bastante más conocimiento del contexto y de las fuerzas y personajes políticos de la época para sacarle todo el partido.

Aún así, dos cosas muy interesantes a destacar, no tanto por el detalle concreto sino por ver la forma en que Marx y Engels analizan la realidad política de su tiempo.

Por un lado, viendo las fuerzas políticas como representación de intereses de las diferentes clases y fracciones de clase, y la forma en que estas se alían. Por la importancia de la independencia política del proletariado, que puede aliarse con otros sectores en ciertos momentos pero debe tener claro que en último término es la única clase interesada en defender la democracia y llevarla hasta sus ultimas consecuencias, y proponer un modelo de sociedad distinto al de la burguesía. Y por cómo ante ese peligro revolucionario los partidos de las clases dominantes son perfectamente capaces de dejar de lado sus diferencias de matiz y intereses sectoriales para confluir en un gran Partido del Orden que defienda sus intereses conjuntos como clase burguesa contra el proletariado.

Por otro, extrayendo valiosas lecciones también de la derrota, que serán decisivas en el futuro para llevar cada estallido revolucionario un paso más allá que el anterior. Sin los aprendizajes que saca aquí, no se entiende la Comuna de París, sin los que saca la Comuna de París, no se entiende la Revolución Rusa, y sin los que debemos sacar de la Revolución Rusa no será posible ir más allá de sus límites en el próximo ciclo revolucionario.


Ah, y al prólogo de Engels publicado años después le doy un 9. Y no le doy un 10 porque fue censurado, haciéndole parecer en algunos párrafos más legalista de lo que realmente es. En él, no defiende lo que algunos oportunistas, apoyándose en ciertos fragmentos precisamente censurados por el propio oportunismo en su publicación y por los que el propio Engels protestó, dicen que defiende (una estrategia parlamentaria). Defiende que la estrategia marxista es una estrategia de paciencia, que su principal tarea en épocas "pacíficas" es esa lenta labor de educación y organización de las masas, sin la que no es posible que una "situación revolucionaria" se convierta realmente en "revolución".

[Berend Vendel · Rating 5 out of 5]

And after nearly two centuries of being led astray, the middle classes are today still the idiots of history

[Olive Rickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good historical background for thinking about how the communists formulated their political programme namely class independence and why independent organisation was a necessity.

[Patrick Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

While finding this work fairly difficult by Marx due to the history contained and being not too familiar on mid 19th century French history. However, it provides a great insight into Marx’s historical, philosophical and economic thought - especially the commentary on peasants is fascinating. Another good aspect of this was Marx didn’t generalize the proletariat- and kept it to the Paris proletariat, English proletariat etc. as typically the generalization of the proletariat can be a downfall in some Marxist texts as the proletariat differs from the Global north to the Global south evidently.

[Michael’ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably he best example of Historical Materialism applied in the works of Marx, or anywhere else for that matter. If historians wrote like this today Geert Mak would be delighted. The only problem is that I know very little about the era so it was somewhat difficult to follow.

[Mehmet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Siyasal Marx'ı kavradığımız, tarihsel materyalist methodun en yakıcı siyasal gündemlere nasıl uygulandığını gördüğümüz ve bu methodun soyutlama yeteneği ile günümüze ışık tuttuğumuz bir eser.

[Voyager · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent overview of the 1848 French Revolution from the onlooking perspective of Marx, consisting of articles written at the time by Marx, and with an excellent introduction by Engels.

"The Class Struggles in France" offers a masterful example of how historical materialism is to be applied, comparing the farcical struggles in the 1848 French Republic and its revolution, the struggle by the socialists to transform theirs into a proletarian revolution, including lessons of extreme importance on the nature of the state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and transformation of society to communism.

Perhaps one of the essential books on the study of the events of 1848-50, offering a series of accounts from the time, from Marx's articles written during those days, and a brilliant demonstration of the application of materialism to historical analyses.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disgustingly well written

[Karlo Mikhail · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book Marx wields historical materialism to examine a section of history for the first time, particularly the class struggles in France from 1848 to 1850. Significant for its contributions to the Marxist armoury on proletarian revolution and the class basis of strategy and tactics, specifically on the need for the working class to win over the intermediate classes to its side.

This volume also includes Engels' famous preface. He pronounces the death of the putschist and premature barricades as a strategy of revolt and emphasizes the need to maximize the parliamentary struggle in preparation for the future insurrection.

In this classic work of historical materialism, Marx is as sharp as ever.

[Alessandro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marx in questo libro esegue un'analisi storica del periodo che va dal 1848 al 1850 in Francia, mettendo in risalto le problematiche economiche, sociali e politiche che hanno portato alle ribellioni e ai cambiamenti di quegli anni.

La struttura politica Francese messa in discussione dal 1789 durante la rivoluzione, viene nuovamente toccata 50 anni dopo a causa della nuova formazione di classi sociali che si formano e vanno contro il proletariato del tempo.

Un libro che permette di comprendere quali sono state le motivazioni e gli intrighi di una nazione e un periodo che ha segnato la storia, tramite un'analisi dettagliata che va oltre le semplici apparenze.

[Cool_guy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant examination of how class works in action. France had not yet (nor has any country, thus far) been divided through industrial capitalism into two opposing camps, the proletariat and the the industrial bourgeoisie. Instead, deep furrows ran through the elites - finance capital, industrial capital, big landowners etc; and all these perched atop an underclass of peasants and proletarians. Sandwiched in the middle, the petty bourgeoisie

[Leonardo]

Comentado en Sobre la Violencia Pág.185

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Essentially a more granularly-detailed account of the same events related in Marx’s more famous “Eighteenth Brumaire,” only without the benefit of hindsight (these essays were published before the Bonapartist coup that sparked the writing of the latter book).

I think that anyone besides Marx scholars would be better off sticking to the “Eighteenth Brumaire” and giving this one a pass. It’s fascinating to read “Class Struggles in France” to see how Marx’s views on revolution evolved over time (the young exile was more naively optimistic here than he would be just two years later following the coup and, with it, the decisive end of the ‘48 revolutions across Europe) but the level of detail here is a bit overwhelming for anyone not already familiar with the convoluted intrigues of the Second Republic. By contrast, “Eighteenth Brumaire” provides a more birds-eye analysis that is far more useful to contemporary readers looking for lessons and analytical methods that might be applied in other contexts (the main reason most people still read Marx today, after all). And of course, “Eighteenth Brumaire” is probably Marx’s best-written work from the standpoint of pure prose, whereas “Class Struggles in France” is a much more dry and occasionally tedious account, despite the odd flourish here and there (his sympathetic descriptions of the doomed worker-insurrectionists of June ‘48 being a particular standout).

I presume that most editions of this work will come with the Introduction that Engels wrote many years later (1895). Even if you're not going to read the main book, do make an effort to seek this essay out (you can find it online for free at places like the Marxists Internet Archive). In it, Engels gives a very valuable 50-year retrospective on the evolution of European revolutionary politics since the publication of "Class Struggles in France," including an admission that the young Marx had misjudged the maturity of conditions in his time. Among the highlights is the following, which I personally believe holds true even in our day:

"The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of the complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for with body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required..."

[Sebastián · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bueno, toda reseña que yo pueda llegar a escribir sobre un libro de Marx va a estar sesgada y adoctrinada por mi profunda fascinación a este hombre, su visión del mundo, la menra radical en que cambió una época presente y también venidera, a tal punto que nos interpela en 2024 (174 años después).

Como todo intelectual visagra del pensamiento hay que leerlo con herramientas y cuidados previos, la obra de Marx no es todo el Manifiesto Comunista y listo, hay discusiones internas yuxtapuestas, etapas más radicales y militantes, otras de inmanencia y pensamiento abstracto, escritos (como este) donde discurre en grandes eclosiones revolucionarias. involcurándose políticamente dentro de estas.

Cuando Marx en El Manifiesto Comunista habla de que en todas las épocas históricas hubieron dos grandes intereses contrapuestos, dos facciones, dos clases sociales, que son la burguesía y el proletariado, no está limitando su visión a un simplismo dicotómico. Al contrario, es un primer paso, una afirmación de caracter bastante abstracto (pero siempre fundado en las determinaciones de la historia) pero que funciona a modo de lente para comprender la realidad que se estudia. Claramente la teoría de clases de Marx no se agota en que existen dos clases y se terminó el cuento, La lucha de clases en Francia es un claro ejemplo de ello, como así también lo son La guerra civil en Francia y el Dieciocho Brumario de Luis Bonaparte. Todos estos son escritos que corresponden a análisis histórico-económicos, donde se baja a tierra la teoría y claramente podemos ver como surgen otras clases sociales que forman parte de un momento dado, como por ejemplo la pequeñoburguesía, la aristocracia financiera, los campesinos, el lumpenproletariado, entre muchos más.

Es por eso que escritos como La lucha de clases en francia son tan interesantes de leer, aparte del estilo atrapante de Marx relatando los eventos, da cuenta de la complejidad de la obra de este gran autor y como no todo da lo mismo ni es lo mismo. En fin, muerte a los republicanos del National, a los Borbones, Orleáns, Bonapartistas y los garcas de la burguesía, también a los desclasados y soretes de los campesinos, pequeño burgueses y lumpens.

[R · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was hard to get through due to my lack of background knowledge but I did it and I learned a lot. I enjoyed the jokes and sardonic tone, but I did not enjoy the unfortunate parallels between the political situation in mid-19th century France and America today. For example:

1. Peasant (or, in today's case, I guess I'd say petty bourgeois) (thinking about small farmers who keep being bought up by larger farms and truck drivers and so on) class being duped into buying into the system of capital because they technically own property (but the value of that property is decreasing, trapping them in a cycle of debt, making them no better off than the urban proletariat but preventing an effective coalition between them).

2. Liberals / bourgeois socialists uniting with conservatives against the working class because they hate the conservatives but hate the thought of societal instability even more.

3. When a country's bourgeoisie is less developed than that of other countries (e.g. France as compared to England in 1850, arguably U.S. as compared to China today, at least in terms of productive capital as opposed to finance capital) a thing happens where they will do tariffs even though this is bad for capital as a whole and probably also bad for their local bourgeois class in the long run.

[Heinrich · Rating 3 out of 5]

"As Lutas de Classes na França de 1848 a 1850," escrito por Karl Marx. Esta obra aborda os eventos históricos desse período particular na França, em que ocorreram importantes conflitos sociais e políticos.

Neste livro, Marx analisa as revoluções de 1848 na França e suas implicações para a luta de classes. Ele examina como as diferentes classes sociais, como a burguesia e o proletariado, estavam envolvidas nos eventos políticos e como suas agendas e interesses conflitavam.

Marx também discute as complexas dinâmicas políticas da época, incluindo a ascensão e queda do governo provisório e a subsequente restauração do Império Napoleônico. Ele explora como esses acontecimentos influenciaram a luta de classes na França e sua relação com o contexto europeu mais amplo.

A obra "As Lutas de Classes na França de 1848 a 1850" de Karl Marx oferece uma análise detalhada desses eventos históricos e é considerada uma contribuição importante para a compreensão das lutas de classes e do materialismo histórico.

[Oscar Gómez · Rating 3 out of 5]

My review would be closer to a 3.75, but I shall reserve that fourth star. I understand this to be an earlier work by Marx, and while that's evident, it is no less complete and dense, for its size, than the rest of Marx's work. A smarter Marxist than I may be able to ascertain the differences in Marx's philosophy and world view on first read than I. The struggle of France was wholly crucial to Marx, for good reason, and undoubtedly shaped the first international in many ways. This analysis is sharp, although I can not say I retained it so wholly as perhaps I would have wished. This is a far cry the dense, dry, and analytical read that Capital volume 1 is, and Engles translation does a good service of clarity, so the words seem succinct and well crafted, but certainly the German and English analysis of Marx and Engles is a dry tone to my fellow Latin American writes that follows after Marx. Nevertheless, I will revist this text in a few years, I am glad to have read it, but I would reserve it to supplementary reading in terms of the scope of Marxist reading.

[Sinan Öner]

Karl Marx'ın 1848 Devrimleri sonrası Fransa'daki sosyal, politik durum ile ile ilgili yazdığı yazılar, Sol Yayınlar tarafından Sevim Belli'nin Türkçesi ile "Fransa'da Sınıf Savaşımları 1848-1850" başlığıyla yıllar önce yayınlanmıştı! Karl Marx, felsefe, hukuk, politik ekonomi, tarih, matematik gibi bilimlerdeki yazılar yazarken, bir yandan da politika ile ilgili yazılar yazıyordu. Karl Marx'ın politik yazıları, Amerika'ya, Asya'ya kadar açılmış bir politik filozofun yazılarıydı! Karl Marx, dünya politikasını kavramak yönünde, 1848 Devrimleri ile ilgili araştırmalar yaptı, 1848 Devrimleri sonrası yeni Avrupa'daki sosyal, politik durumu çözümleyici yazılar yazdı. "Fransa'da Sınıf Savaşımları 1848-1850" kitabında, Karl Marx'ın Fransız toplumuna bakışını okurken, Marxist politik felsefenin 1848 Devrimleri ile oluşumunu Karl Marx'ın Fransa ile ilgisi açısından anlıyoruz!

[Carlos Navarro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coincido con el comentario sobre que es el menos interesante de los libros sobre las revoluciones francesas de 1848 en adelante de Marx, pero tiene una serie de conceptos que se pueden rascar, por ejemplo, la delimitación de las fracciones de clase dentro del Partido del Orden (que no es un concepto que homogenice sus partes pero si su fondo, es decir, todas eran una reacción conservadora a la clase trabajadora que había aumentado poder en 1848 pero al mismo tiempo cada una representaba una fracción de la burguesía distinta) y la postergación de los intereses revolucionarios con el pacto con la Montaña (el partido de la pequeña burguesía).

Sin embargo, creo que hay que entenderlo en un momento muy concreto, durante la caída de la republica francesa y el ascenso de Napoleón III.

[Yaaser · Rating 2 out of 5]

Crisp, insightful and exhausting. Now a historical account of major events in 19th century Europe, and although it's more of a journalistic commentary on what was going on, and it cannot be fully read and understood without Wikipedia and occasional reference to names and events. It's 4 articles that deal with the France under Louis Bonaparte and deconstruct the notion of "republic," arguing basically that there is/ a conflict between the French people which is going to affect the global history. Now 150 years later, it appears that France was the (maybe one and only model) for perfect clear-cut class categorization in modern history.

[Vadzianyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. I have learned so much from reading this and I recommens ir to everyone interested in the Marxist interpretation of class struggle, and not just in France. What is written in this book can be utilized to many modern situations, albeit with some minor changes maybe. I also enjoyed the two articles from Engels added into the book. It’s best if you draw a timeline of the events. Marx recalls many dates later in the book and one must remember each one in order to grasp the bigger picture.

Türkiyeli okur için: Sol yayınlarının çevirisinden okudum ve çok da iyi olduğunu söyleyemem. Belki Yordam Kitap’ın çevirisi daha iyidir.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marx'ın kendine has ve biraz zorlayıcı diline pek çok yerde rastlamışsınızdır. Eğer bu sizi yormuyorsa bu eserin sizin için de bilgilendirici ve ufuk açıcı bir okuma olacağı kesin gibidir.

Tek karar verilmesi gereken bu okumanın sadece zevk için değil, ciddi bir çalışma gibi görülüp görülemeyeceğidir. Notlar almak, araştırmak ve Marx'ın yaptığı gibi yorumlamak. Fransa'da Sınıf Mücadelelerini okurken mitolojiden anlar hale gelmeniz, tarihi olayları incelerken Marksist bir perspektife sahip olmaya başlamanız sizi şaşırtabilir.

[1688miami]

1688miami มาสมัครเข้าร่วมเล่นเกมบาคาร่า 1688miami เว็บไซต์คาสิโนออนไลน์ที่ดีที่สุดในตอนนี้ เล่นเกมการเดิมพันกับเว็บไซต์คาสิโนออนไลน์1688miamiของเราเพื่อนไม่จำเป็นที่จะต้องห่วงเรื่องของการโดนโกงเลย เพราะว่าเว็บไซต์ของเราเป็นเว็บไซต์คาสิโนออนไลน์ที่มีมาตรฐาน เว็บคาสิโนออนไลน์ที่เปิดให้บริการมาอย่างยาวนาน1688miamiนอกจากนี้เรายังมีบ่อนคาสิโนจริง ๆ เปิดให้บริการด้วยในต่างประเทศ เพื่อนๆก็ไม่จำเป็นที่จะต้องเดินทางไปเล่นบ่อนคาสิโนที่ต่างประเทศ

[Animesh Mitra]

Great. Karl Marx applied dialectic outlook, dialectic materialism, historical materialism and the materialist conception of history in analysing the contemporary incidents and history of France from 1848 to 1850. He tried to analyze the whole situation through the perspective of class struggle and applied the theory of dialectic materialism and the theory of materialist conception of history.

[Josselin Alezot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dur à lire mais ultra intéressant pour un avoir un apercu des décisions et conséquences politiques de l'époque. On se sent comme un lecteur quotidien des journaux de l'époque avec de nombreuses informations sur les conflits géopolitique pendant le second empire.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Detrás del derecho al trabajo está el poder sobre el capital, y detrás del poder sobre el capital la apropiación de los medios de producción, su sumisión a la clase obrera asociada, y por consiguiente la abolición tanto del trabajo asalariado como del capital y de sus relaciones mutuas”.