The Civil War in France: The Paris Commune

Fransız Üçlemesi #3

by Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Fedorovsky

Book by Marx, Karl, Lenin, V. I.

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

182 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1871

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

[Yann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Après le coup d'état de Napoléon III, Marx continue son observation de la politique française avec une analyse de la commune de Paris, suite à la débâcle de 1870 et l'avènement de l'Empire Allemand. Dans une verve ex cathedra toujours aussi énergique et partisane, l'auteur pourfend l'Assemblée Nationale de Thiers et porte aux nues la courte Commune de Paris, écrasée par l'armée régulière. Les insultes et les invectives pleuvent, comme chez Luther, avec lequel il partage le même fanatisme moral, celui d'extirper le vice par la violence. Le vice est ici représenté par la classe des riches, systématiquement exploiteurs, corrompus, vicieux, sans cœur, et voués fatalement à disparaître suivant son système. A l'inverse, les communards sont des héros tragiques parés de toutes les vertus, qui paient finalement le prix d'avoir été trop doux à l'égard de leurs persécuteurs, mais dont le sacrifice est justifié par une future victoire quasiment certaine.

Marx a en grande partie raison de rendre hommage aux communards, et de critiquer la vision biaisée des thuriféraires de la politique de l'Assemblée, mais la récupération qu'il fait du sang versé par les autres me déplait beaucoup. Voilà un beau métier, bien planqué dans une capitale lointaine, de s'enflammer pour tel ou tel parti dans une guerre civile au loin, et d'attiser les flammes de la violence et de la haine, de spéculer sur le sang, au lieu de se faire l'avocat de la concorde, tout cela pour justifier son propre système et lui donner plus d'importance. Dans une guerre de conquête, il y a évidemment un agresseur et une victime, mais dans une guerre civile, prendre parti n'est jamais un choix aussi innocent et désintéressé que les professeurs de vertu et autres philosophes de profession veulent bien nous faire croire.

Toute société renferme des rapports de sujétion qui peuvent paraitre choquant aux uns, et qui pour les autres semblent naturels, car l'habitude les a consacrés, ainsi qu'un dégout de ce qui est inférieur dans les faits: ignorance, pauvreté, avilissement. Or ces dégouts, le temps, la paix, le progrès et la confiance peuvent finalement les dissoudre et les abolir: la noblesse n'avait-elle pas voté avec enthousiasme l'abolition de ses privilèges le 4 août 1789 ? Au contraire, les actions violentes les aiguisent, les tendent et les irritent, appelant autant de réactions brutales aux répercussions multiples. Qu'on lise, par exemple, pour mesurer le fossé entre les deux partis, l'éloquente correspondance de Georges Sand et Flaubert sur le sujet de la Commune de Paris; et pourtant, moins de dix ans après les faits, en 1880, l'amnistie arrive! Au bout de cent ans de convulsions régulières, en France, l'ère des révolutions touche à sa fin.

Il n'empêche, malgré ces sévères réserves, que cet ouvrage est rudement bien écrit, et fort intéressant, car l'on comprend et l'on s'imprègne souvent mieux des évènements en se plongeant d'abord dans des récits partisans mais pleins de vie et de sincérité des contemporains, qu'en se jetant uniquement sur le rapport impartial et apaisé mais parfois terne des érudits.

[Vik · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is an old saying in France (a French prosecutor had once said it): A Paris of 1871, in that Paris everyone was guilty; you are guilty if you don't have money to get out.

To sum up my review, I would say- it is the kind of text, which is produced rarely in history.

[Sarah Jaffe]

Need more Marx audiobooks. Also reminded me of the many reasons to read uncle Karl one of the underrated ones is the sick burns.

[Cool_guy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comedy Central presents the roast of Adolphe Thiers hosted by Karl Marx

[Reid tries to read]

When boys cried: Louis Napoleon overthrows the National Assembly in 1851

When men cried: Louis Napoleon overthrows the Paris Commune in 1871

[Patrick Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy”writes Engels in his postscript on the reflections on the Paris Commune.
In this text, we see Marx at his height of historical analysis, not containing as much philosophical as would be preferred by me but it makes for a fantastic reading. Marx provides insights into the horrors committed by Thiers in the civil war showing his ultimate fear of the proletariat. It also provides an incredible gothic Marxist reading with several undertones of: the grave, death, ghouls, ghosts, haunting etc. which made you appreciate the language choice used by Marx to describe historical events

[celestine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps not as earth-shatteringly revelatory as I was expecting considering the subject matter as concerns communists and the historical genius of Marx. However, my mans has got serious burn skills. The sheer variety of hilarious and acidic insults he throws at Thiers are alone worth the price of admission.

[Beck Siegal · Rating 4 out of 5]

They should have awards for best preface and postscript and Engels should win every year

[R · Rating 5 out of 5]

"[The Paris Commune] is a proof of the divergence of the tendencies of the socialist and the bourgeois pictures of history – and from now on there will be two distinct historical cultures running side by side without ever really fusing – that people who have been brought up on the conventional version of history and know all about the Robespierrist Terror during the Great French Revolution, should find it an unfamiliar fact that the Terror of the government of Thiers executed, imprisoned or exiled more people – the number has been estimated at a hundred thousand – in that one week of the suppression of the Commune than the revolutionary Terror of Robespierre had done in three years."
- Edmund Wilson, To the Finland Station


Reputation - 3/5
Marx's pamphlet on the Paris Commune is the inaugural writing of what Edmund Wilson calls the socialist view in our now diverged historical cultures. It is an address that Marx wrote and gave in English at the end of May 1871, after the Commune had been toppled by Adolphe Thiers' provisional government. The original pamphlet was about 35 pages. On the 20th anniversary of the Commune, Friedrich Engels compiled two of Marx's previous addresses on the same subject and provided an introduction and postscript for republication. This 1891 edition is now published under the title The Civil War in France


Point - 5/5
Even the title of the work is a declaration of significance. It is not the implicitly local and radical naming the "Paris Commune," in which a small band of radicals briefly held sway in a single French city. To Marx, it is "The Civil War in France."

In brief, the Paris Commune was a revolutionary government made up of France's working class and national guard that seized power in Paris for 72 days in Spring 1871. After Louis Bonaparte's (Napoleon III) parodical attempt at conquest in 1870, the Kingdom of Prussia under Bismarck swiftly defeated France and reached the gates of Paris by September of the same year. Out of some blend of sacred regard, pity, and political manoeuvre, Bismarck withheld his troops from entering Paris. By January 1871, Paris was surrounded and suffering from outrageous famine and squalor as France's monarchist government haggled with the Prussians for an honorable end to the war.

By March of 1871, the Parisian workers and national guard grew tired of being France's sacrificial lamb and established their own government. When the parliamentary leader of the monarchists, Adolphe Thiers ordered the surrender of the new Parisian government's arms, the national guard, who had previously supported the monarchists, showed their new allegiance to the Commune government by turning their guns on Thiers.

You can read the rest of the story on wikipedia or watch a few videos on YouTube. Come to your own conclusion about which side of history you're on based on what you read.

What Marx has written here is obviously the Left's version. And it is, to this day, the best Left analysis that can be read. In barely more than 30 pages Marx sums up the whole war. In the postscript, Engels describes Marx's

"remarkable gift, first proved in ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,’ for grasping clearly the character, the import, and the necessary consequences of great historical events, at a time when these events are still in process before our eyes, or have only just taken place."

For whatever you might think of Marx's philosophy and system, it cannot be denied that he was one of the sharpest political critics (one might say prophets) that has ever lived. The analyses and predictions he makes in this brief work are not only immediately relevant to 1871 France, they extend to Germany's position after France's capitulation in the Second World War (1941):

"If the fortune of her arms, the arrogance of success, and dynastic intrigue lead Germany to a dismemberment of French territory, there will then only remain two courses open to her. She must at all risks become the avowed tool of Russian aggrandizement, or, after some short respite, make again ready for another 'defensive' war, not one of those new-fangled 'localized' wars, but a war of races – a war with the Slavonic and Roman races."

Besides his powers of insight, Marx is also in full satirical form in this pamphlet. I am not French, and I have no idea how history books talk about Adolphe Thiers, the second president of France. I only know him as the guy Marx mercilessly skewers throughout this pamphlet. Marx shreds him in a way he simply couldn't respond to if he had tried. He never tried. He totally ignored Marx. And the Right apologists continue in his ignorance.

Finally, what, you may ask, have 72 days of revolutionary 19th Century politics and Marx's opinions about them to do with us today? How is this a 5 star book?

150 years after the Paris Commune, there arose in France a debate in France around one of Paris' most iconic buildings, The Sacré-Cœur Basilica on Montmarte. The basilica has become a symbol of division between the two historical cultures Wilson describes. It was conceived by a French bishop on September 4, 1870 (the very day of France's capitulation to Prussia) to combat the "moral decline" of France had suffered since the French Revolution by a rededication to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Before construction of the basilica could get underway, the Paris Commune set up its headquarters on Montmarte, and held the position until its supporters were exterminated (most by summary execution) in May of 1871.
The Sacré-Cœur Basilica was literally built on the spilled blood of these French citizens and dedicated to the moral and religious regeneration of France.
There is vehement resentment towards Sacré-Cœur from the Left - they want to pull the cathedral down. De Gaulle's descendants and all the conservatives of France call them crazy radicals. The debate rages on. All this was in the news last year, 2021.


Recommendation - 4/5
The significance of the Paris Commune is profound for several reasons.
Historically, it is the definitive end of France's dominion over Germany. Prussia easily wiped France in the 1870 war and stood outside Paris' gates while French infighting destroyed itself. Bismarck didn't have to lift a finger against the sworn enemy of his people. And since 1870, France alone has never posed a serious threat to German hegemony.
Politically, the battle rages on, as we have seen. The Paris Commune will not be soon forgotten in France, and no writer has better expressed the Left's view of it than Karl Marx.
Radically, this is essential reading for the fan of Marx. It is Marx at his sharpest and most acerbic. Apart from his critical analysis, it is important to remember that Marx wrote this absolutely contemporarily with events. To the Marxist, it is the best demonstration of "practice" that you have in all his work. He saw a popular uprising, understood it, wrote and gave speeches in support of it, and directed his arm of the international movement towards towards it. Marxism in practice.


Personal - 5/5
This is a quick read. It provides a summary of events and it's so full of exceptional Marx quotations that it almost feels like some sort of Greatest Hits of disses and insults:

"Whatever may be the incidents of Louis Bonaparte’s war with Prussia, the death-knell of the Second Empire has already sounded at Paris. It will end, as it began, by a parody."

Marx's almost awkward "by a parody" rather than "in parody" is a tell that he wrote this work in English. I first read it in Russian (before I even knew Marx wrote it in English), where the translation makes up for some of these grammatical inaccuracies, but that nevertheless communicates Marx's style perfectly.

On the subject of style, it strikes me as remarkable that Marx was capable of conducting high-level radical agitation and theory in three languages: German, French, and later, English. This is his masterpiece in the latter.

[Göker Makaskıran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kitap birden çok yayınevi tarafından yayımlandı ama bu baskının özelliği iki önemli Troçkist yazar ve militan (Michael Löwy ve Daniel Bensaid) tarafından yazılan kitabın içeriği ile ilgili önemli yazıları kitabın başına sunuş yazıları olarak eklemek olmuş.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got a lovely old edition of this from the University Library. It has a slightly grudging introduction by Engels and appendices of resolutions by the General Council of the International Working Men's Association. Most interestingly, there is a speech given by Lenin in 1908 on lessons from the Commune, which brings out the point that the initial French Revolution has begun a tide of European nationalism, but by the turn of the 20th century patriotic feeling had become damaging to the revolutionary cause. This is also notable as the international significance of the Commune seems to be judged by history as much smaller than the 1789-94 revolution. Which is emphasised, I suppose, by the title of this book, 'The Civil War in France'. Although the Commune had geopolitical significance, its ideas didn't reverberate around the world in the same way as those of the initial ('Great') French Revolution.

As Lenin was speaking decades after the Commune, his tone is measured. Marx's central work, by contrast, is very angry indeed. It consists of an address delivered mere days after the fall of the Commune. He spends quite a bit of it personally abusing Thiers, the French president he holds personally responsible for the repression of the Commune and resulting wholesale slaughter. More broadly, his analysis brings home the sheer complexity of political factionalism in France at the time. It also highlights the achievements of the Commune's short lifespan, which were impressively pragmatic economic and administrative reforms.

As mentioned before, it is fascinating to compare the 1789-1794 revolution with the Paris Commune, which could be seen as a later manifestation of the former's ideas. What strikes me, in this commentary and elsewhere, is that the first revolution was one of young, idealistic men, whereas the Commune consisted of middle aged men, disillusioned by war and political infighting. Whereas strong personalities emerged from 1789-1794, there is no Robespierre or Danton in 1871. That said, the Commune didn't last long enough, managing a mere 70 days, for this happen. Moreover, you could argue that the lack personality politics demonstrates a more fundamental democracy was at work, a genuine 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Marx certainly really doesn't single out particular Communards for praise, despite excoriating many on the other side by name.

I recommend this book to supplement your understanding of the Paris Commune and its immediate aftermath, but not as an introduction. Marx assumes total understanding of events straight off. I suggest, 'That Terrible Year' by Alaistair Horne as a good starting point.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting, I learned a lot reading this. This for me is the ideal Marxist text to study for information about his political philosophy. It’s his most in depth work on the subject despite its short length. I actually ended up reading it twice because I took a long break from it and forgot where I left off, and in the end I’m glad I did this because I ended up seeing things in it I had not before. One of the things that struck me was that I never knew that Marx’s definition of a dictatorship of the proletariat is a lot looser, having periods of regression, lasting a long, long time, still being capitalist, and so on, and it made me think how maybe we have in a way already had a sort of dictatorship of the proletariat throughout different periods of progressivism throughout history, such as in the post Civil War Reconstruction era in America, or the FDR administration post WW2 in the form of social democracy. And of course, several such cases all around the world and in Western Europe. Another thing I found fascinating was how he described a kind of class struggle manifesting itself in the political state through the struggle between its different branches representing different classes. Which makes sense and is consistent with Marx’s theory of the state being the mediator and the reconciliation of different classes to defend the status quo. Such as how the republic branch presents a more democratic aspect of state representation of the people (or at least is under the guise of that), while the executive branch and the judicial, which is largely unelected and unaccountable, can represent ruling class interests. Of course, there is much more left unanswered in the texts of Marx, like how is it democracy is taken to its full advantage under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on. I’ll be reading this and other texts again in the future and hope to get more out of it.

[JC · Rating 4 out of 5]

My friend spent a number of weeks in Paris this year, and I was a little envious and read this book because I was thinking about all the places related to the Paris Commune he should visit. I bought a copy of this book during FLP's recent sale, and people are free to borrow it, or download a pdf of it for free. Anyway, a nice little excerpt from the book:

"On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary to be received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, was not to exceed 6,000 francs (4,800 marks). On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the church from the state, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, the exclusion from the schools of all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers—in a word, “of all that belongs to the sphere of the individual’s conscience”—was ordered and gradually put into effect.13 On the 5th, in reply to the shooting, day after day, of captured Commune fighters by the Versailles troops, a decree was issued for the imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried into execution. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th Battalion of the National Guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing."

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

an important read. helped me envision what a dotp would actually look like and helped me realize that the bourgeois truly are not human.
some parts are a little hard to read and him tearing into 19th century French parlementarians, whilst amusing, makes it harder to focus on the actual meat of this work.

[Sam Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had actually been meaning to read The Civil War in France for a while, and what ultimately prompted me to finally read it was attending a lecture about it by one of the English professors at my school actually, it was a great lecture for the most part. Not reviewing that lecture though, I'm here to review the book! The Civil War in France is a collection of three addresses that Marx gave to the International Workingmen's Association during and in the immediate aftermath of the uprising of the Paris Commune in 1871; it is also the only work by Marx that was originally published in English and it shows! This is definitely Marx's writing at its best, absolutely beautiful prose and impactful writing that flows so smoothly and powerfully when you're reading it. I read the entire thing, from start to finish, in one sitting! This isn't really a history of the Paris Commune of 1871; as would be expected of something written during the events it is describing, it isn't exactly accurate on all the details, but in a sense what matters more than being exact on all of the details is the real meaning of the work. It is an ode to revolution and a description of the possible steps that can be taken to reach a world beyond repressive capitalism. The Civil War in France is one of Marx's best works, and it isn't a major investment to read; read it today! Or well, whenever you're able to, I just think you oughta read it.

[Giorgi · Rating 5 out of 5]

ბურჟუებს დედის ტყვნა,ბურჟუებს სიკვდილი.

[mohab samir · Rating 5 out of 5]

كما كان الثامن عشر من برومير تحليلا سياسياً يوضح سيرة صعود لويس بونابرت لسدة الحكم فى فرنسا وعلاقة هذا الصعود الساقط بالصراع الطبقى الحاد خلال الأحداث الثورية فى منتصف القرن التاسع عشر . نجد الحال فى الحرب الأهلية فى فرنسا تحليلاً فى غاية القيمة للأسباب الحقيقية والأكثر أهمية - وبالتالى الأكثر تشوشا اذا لم يتم تحليلها بعمق كما فعل ماركس - لسقوط بونابرت المشين . وكذلك لما تلا هذا السقوط كاستكمال للصراع الطبقى ومحاولة إخضاع الجمهورية الثالثة لسلطة البراجوازية وهو الأمر الذى تم باستلام تيير لرئاسة الجمهورية ومؤامرته مع بسمارك وجيوش ألمانيا التى أطاحت ببونابرت آنذاك لقمع المعارضة التى بلغت ذروتها فى تشكيل كومونة باريس ذات الطابع الاشتراكى الديمقراطى والتى تم وأدها فى المهد بعد حصار باريس الشديد ثم قصفها واقتحامها وارهابها بمختلف طرق الإرهاب والهمجية التى يقوم بها الغزاة او المتسلطين على الحكم .
فيعطينا تسلسلا واضحاً عن الجرائم التى ارتكبها الحكم الامبراطورى فى فرنسا على يد لويس بونابرت الماجن والمتهتك بدايةً من خديعة الفلاحين الذين انتخبوه وتقدم بمشروع الانقلاب العسكرى على الجمهورية للشعب باسمهم عندما سمح أغراهم باقتسام الملكية الاقطاعية القديمة وتجزئتها وتسجيلها كملكية عقارية صغيرة للفلاح غير ملتزمة بريع لمالك الأرض الإقطاعى ثم ليُحِل هو محل هذا الريع ضريبة الدولة المرتفعة على هذه الملكيات الصغيرة لتصبح غارقة فى الديون لكبار الرأسماليين فتتجمع مرة أخرى فى أيدى قلة من الملاكين ا��عقاريين المقربين للسلطة وينتفع حفنة من رجال المال من فوائد ديون هؤلاء الفلاحين كما تزيد موارد الامبراطورية من حصيلة الضرائب الباهظة المفروضة عليهم وبذلك تصبح القلة من فئة السلطة والبرجوازية الكبيرة التى تستظل بظلها كمصاصى الدماء كما يدعوهم ماركس الى جانب القلة من رجال الصناعة التى تعتصر العمال وتبتز حاجتهم للعمل ولا تعطيهم الا اقل ظروف الحياة ملائمة. إضافة إلى فئة اكبر الى حد ما من البرجوازية الصغيرة التى يدعوها برجوازية البقالين والتى تضم كذلك تجار التجزئة والمحامين وكهنة الدين يستنتج ماركس ان هذه الفئات تنعم فى بؤس الفئة الغالبة من العمال والفلاحين . كما تسعى الفئة القليلة لتوطيد حكمها وسلطتها على أعناق الفئة الكبرى ليستمر رخاؤها بإستنادها وبخدماتها الى سلطة الدولة التى لا تكون شيئاً هى الاخرى دون عمل الفئة الكبرى أو دون تحصيل ضرائبهم .
لذا فعندما ضاق صدر الشعب خصوصا بعد هزيمة فرنسا فى الحرب التى قادها اليها بونابرت برعونة ضد بسمارك وبروسيا وعندما كان هؤلاء فى فرنسا بعد أسر نابوليون وتحت سيادة الفوضى قام سكان باريس وغالبيتهم من العمال باستقلالهم وتكوين حكومة شعبية ديمقراطية تلغى جميع اشكال حكم الدولة الرأسمالى والبرجوازى السابق وبالغاء سلطة الدولة المستغِلة وإرساء الحكم المدنى القائم على المساواة والغاء الامتيازات وتقسيم العمل او تمييزه .
الأمر الذى أدى بالحكومة الجمهورية - التى تولت سلطة الدفاع المدنى بعد سقوط الامبراطورية وأسر نابوليون وهى حكومة الرئيس تيير لمواجهة الغزو الألمانى - بالتآمر مع العدو الألمانى ذاته وتقديم التنازلات فى سبيل الإتحاد ضد كميونة باريس والعمل لعدة شهور على إسقاطها بمختلف الوسائل الهمجية والتى تحاول دائما السلطة البرجوازية تبريرها بمختلف التبريرات الدينية والمحافظة او تزييفها فى صورة اعمال تسعى للحفاظ على حقوق الشعب او اراضى الدولة وملكيتها حتى تم اسقاط حكم العمال اى اسقاط الكومونة فى باريس والتى قام رجالها ونسائها بالدفاع البطولى عنها حتى آخر قطرة دم .
نرى حتى هذا الزمن وسنظل لمستقبل غير معلوم المدى نرى نفس هذه الصراعات الطبقية تتكرر . فقط يتغير الثوب الذى ترتديه من صراعات دينية او قومية أو سياسية وأحيانا إجتماعية صريحة الى حد ما الا ان نفس المؤامرات التى تتزيا بزى الأخلاق وهى اشدها إنحطاطا والتى ترسم للشعب مصلحته العامة فى يدها فى حين انها لا تسعى او تحارب الا لأشد مصالحها خصوصية . والتى غالبا ما تنتهى فى ضعف وزراية الى إغراق القارب بمن عليه .
وكما يتنبأ ماركس بسقوط نابليون المشين عند صعوده الانقلابى فى مخطوطة الثمن عشر من برومير فإنه بعد سقوطه الذى فضح الصراع السياسى وأفشى سر أسراره كصراع طبقى . نقول أنه يتنبأ ان هذا الصراع سيغرق أوروبا فى حرب عالمية لا يستطيع أحد أن يتوقع مداها وأثارها . وهو أيضا الأمر الذى يتوقع الكثير الآن تكراره مادامت الرأسمالية قائمة على رأس السلطات السياسية العالمية ومادامت تتطور وتزداد وطأتها حدة وتزيد من كم وكيف البؤس الذى تعانيه الطبقات العمالية من بروليتاريا وفلاحين .

[Tanroop · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Civil War in France" is a collection of addresses that Karl Marx made to the First International Working Men's Association. They span the opening salvos of the Franco-Prussian War and end with the repression of the Paris Commune.

This is widely considered to be one of Marx's "historical" works, but that isn't entirely true. Marx was writing as these events unfolded and thus at times he did assume a degree of familiarity with events which the modern reader may not have. I would recommend doing a quick read on the Paris Commune and Franco-Prussian War before reading it, if you're not familiar. (The version I read had a useful timeline and summary in the appendix).

Nonetheless, this is a short and enjoyable book. Marx is at the peak of his polemical powers here when lambasting figures like Thiers, "that monstrous gnome", and also showed a great deal of insight into the world historic events unfolding before him.

This work is at its best when discussing the Paris Commune, and the utterly brutal suppression that culminated in its destruction. Marx argued that this was "testimony to the savagery of which the ruling class is capable as soon as the working class dares to come out for its rights."

Marx's analysis of the Commune's structure and policies is fascinating. Engels, in a postscript, said that the Commune encapsulated what he envisioned as the dictatorship of the proletariat. I've always been interested in historical possibilities, and I find the allure of imagining alternative pasts to be quite strong. A world in which the Paris Commune succeeded, as improbable as that would have been given the circumstances, is worth contemplating.

"The working class did not expect miracles from the Commune. They have no ready-made utopias to introduce par décret du peuple. They know that in order to work out their own emancipation, and along with it that higher form to which present society is irresistibly tending by its own economical agencies, they will have to pass through long struggles, through a series of historic processes, transforming circumstances and men... When the Paris Commune took the management of the revolution in its own hands; when plain working men for the first time dared to infringe upon the governmental privilege of their "natural superiors"... The Old World writhed in convulsions of rage at the site of the Red Flag, the symbol of the Republic of Labor, floating over the Hôtel de Ville".

[Leonardo · Rating 3 out of 5]

No le quito el valor histórico, pero a mi me pareció poca cosa. Lo juzgo mal escrito, parece ser un documento de coyuntura. Muy plagado de cuestiones menores del momento. No escrito para durar. Está lleno de insultos y descalificaciones, más que de demostraciones de la posición. Marx intenta apropiarse de la Comuna de París. Me gustó más el prólogo de Engels que el texto en sí.

Por lo demás, estuvo bueno leerlo como compañía a La era del capital. Me resulta muy interesante el período. Hasta hace poco tenía mucho desconocimiento respecto de la guerra franco-prusiana, y hoy me doy cuenta de su importancia para comprender (aunque todavía no lo haya logrado) la comuna de París (y todo lo que implica y produjo), la unificación alemana, y la primera guerra mundial (también la segunda, obvio).


--------
Zizek cita en Sobre la Violencia Pág.233 un párrafo de la introducción de Engels en referencia a la Comuna de París como la Dictadura del Proletariado (extrañamente Zizek comete el error de fechar la insurrección en 1891, y no en 1871 cuando realmente ocurrió. Ignoro si el error persiste en el original inglés).

Guariglia en Democracia y Estado de Bienestar Cap.1 hace alusión a la democracia directa presentada por Marx citando a la Comuna de París en 1870. Pareciera ser que nadie sabe cuando sucedió.

[Michael Wayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The government of Versailles cries, 'Incendiarism!' and whispers this cue to all its agents, down to the remotest hamlet, to hunt up its enemies everywhere as suspect of professional incendiarism. The bourgeoisie of the whole world, which looks complacently upon the wholesale massacre after the battle, is convulsed by horror at the desecration of brick and mortar!
When governments give state licences to their navies to 'kill, burn, and destroy,' is that licence for incendiarism? When the British troops wantonly set fire to the Capitol at Washington and to the summer palace of the Chinese emperor, was that incendiarism? … To be burned down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world.
But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good!"
Astonishing, once again, how the exact same patterns that we saw in 1871 are repeated again and again, the most recent being, obviously, this exact point in history. There are dozens of great quotes from this one that I could pull up but this one felt the most striking to me.

Favorite bits are when Marx loses his cool though. "[Adolphe] Thiers, that monstrous gnome..."

[Leonard Janke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Missed Opportunity for a More Peaceful Marxism?

Overall Rating: 3.25/5.0

The Civil War in France contains three addresses by Karl Marx to the International Workingmen's Association regarding the Franco-Prussian War and the subsequent Civil War in France, which arose from the Paris Commune of 1871. The book also includes an introduction by Fredrich Engels on the 20th anniversary of The Commune. As the speeches were given as the events were in progress or just days after they ended, they provide valuable primary source material regarding how Socialists reacted at the time.

Reconsidering Germany's War-Obsessed Image

Before reading this book, I knew almost nothing about the Franco-Prussian War other than "Germany won." Given that Germany started WWII and the consensus view when I was in school that Germany also shouldered primary responsibility for starting WWI, I was surprised to learn from reading this book that France was, in fact, primarily responsible for the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. Indeed, although the pattern of who was the aggressor shifted as the French Revolution progressed, by the time Napoleon took over, it became clear that, between France and Germany, France was the more militarily aggressive nation during the 19th century.

Although the notion that Germany was primarily responsible for WWI has been challenged, primarily under the notion that the complex system of alliances made the situation a powder keg in search of a match, learning more about the Franco-Prussian from this book led me to have more sympathy for why Germany, before 1914, may have thought it wise to have a plan to pre-emptively against France to try and knock it out of a two-front war early.  

Given the war-obsessed image Imperial Germany now has, other surprising information from the book is Marx's recount of Prussia's reluctance to occupy more than a token amount of Paris. (Indeed, looking more into Prussian history after Waterloo, after reading this book, it seems Prussia certainly did not relish its role as a sentinel to French aggression in the 19th century and took on, for example, reclaiming the Rhineland quite cognizant of the difficulty the developments, especially legal, during the French Revolution and Napoleonic era posed.)

Broader Context

In addition to recounting the proximate history of the Franco-Prussian war, Marx considers it in the broader context of class antagonism, which often turned violent in 19th-century France, including in 1830, 1848, and the 1860s. Marx describes the Second Empire as not representing the people's will but rather suppressing it, serving the bourgeoisie's interest and ripe with corruption. To further his point, Marx cites several statements by socialist organizations in both France and Germany stating united working-class opposition to the war.

The Commune

Marx's recount of the history of The Commune is broadly accurate. Of course, only a fool would expect Marx to give a completely dispassionate account, so it is wise to cross-check his history against other sources.

An example of the not-completely-objective perspective is that although Marx mentions that The Commune intended to seize Church property, he only briefly mentions this before quickly moving on. Marx fails to consider whether this was a repeat of a critical failure of the French Revolution: its leaders' personal disdain for religion leading them to underappreciate how important religion remained in French life.

Still, overall, Marx's broad picture is accurate. The Commune was acting relatively restrained. There were some, but not large-scale seizures of property and no Reign of Terror resulting in reprisals against prior enemies.

Marx's key point that there was excessive brutality in putting down The Commune is accurate. He is also correct that The Commune posed little military threat to Prussia. The real concern was that establishing a Communist society would provide an example likely to lead to domestic unrest elsewhere. Thus, the Prussians stood by, allowed a French army to reband, and brutally put down the threat.

Marx's Speaking Style

Marx, of course, was one of history's most highly skilled propagandists and polemicists, and he was given much material to work with by the war and the suppression of The Commune. Thus, the book is valuable for those interested in studying propaganda and how persuasive polemics are written. (Here, I am using a definition of propaganda that does not exclude it from being largely accurate. Indeed, some of the best propaganda is highly accurate. Further, even the ultimate conclusions of the propaganda may also be largely accurate.)

Foreshadowing Future Marxist Themes

Marx's recount of the brutal and international nature of the suppression of the Commune provides some insight into future Marxist history. Indeed, the Bolshevists would remember The Commune as they seized power in 1917. There would, indeed, be an international effort to try and crush the Russian Revolution in its cradle by giving aid to domestic opposition so that the example would not spread. Bolshevists used this fear to further their notion that a Vanguard Party must be formed to protect the Revolution, although such a notion was a significant departure from Marx.

From the book, we can also see early indications of what would become a key future concern among Marxists. Specifically, Marx recounts that the lack of rural support for urban Parisians was a critical factor in the failure of The Commune, although he, of course, feels that rural, poorer areas would have been important beneficiaries of a Communist revolution. The poor seeming to work against their interest by opposing Communism would puzzle, and to this day still does, many Marxist theorists who have come up with a myriad of theories to explain why.

Conclusion and Contemporary Relevance

The Civil War in France, being transcriptions of Marx's speeches, does not get deeply into Marxist theory. Instead, it is a largely accurate account of the Franco-Prussian War and the suppression of the Paris Commune. The emphasis is on the relative restraint of The Commune, juxtaposed with the viciousness and international cooperative nature of the response. It is a warning that future Marxists, especially the Russian Bolshevists, took seriously.

Unfortunately, the book did not contain what I read it hoping to learn: Marx's own words on why he initially opposed the Commune. From other sources, we know that he thought violence at this stage would be counterproductive. More could be achieved peacefully in advanced capitalist countries. Marx also believed that the presence of the Prussian army just outside Paris made success highly unlikely, as did the lack of requisite organization by the leaders at the time. All this turned out to be highly prescient.

Apparently, Marx decided not to play "told-you-so," but rather to seize on the opportunity presented by the martyrs. Thus, one wonders if he had instead emphasized both the brutality of suppression and why he initially opposed the Commune, Marxism could have evolved along a more peaceful path, especially in Russia and Eastern countries.

Today, it is fascinating to ponder the fact that populist movements in the West are primarily conservative, while the established powers are more left-leaning—a reversal a little over 150 after The Commune.  Although there is no evidence that it has happened yet, it is fascinating to wonder if these populist movements ever were to threaten Western left-leaning governments if there would be multinational efforts to crackdown. Thus, the reversal of the political situation leads to the rather amusing conclusion that modern-day conservatives may find Marx's speeches more applicable to them in the present-day situation than those on the political left.

[emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marx was a fine historian as well as a fine political commentator. Marx’s passion bleeds through every page here, as does his witty sarcasm and brutal, honest digs at every bourgeois apologist and politician.

While this text could seem outdated — seeing as neither the historical nor material conditions are ‘relevant’ today — Marx ties his historical analysis excellently into broader long-lasting critiques and indictments of capitalism.

The Paris Commune, much like Marx predicted, was but the first instance of a country sacrificing its people, borders, and capital to offset any chance of a socialist uprising. It is the first large-scale instance of brutal wholesale repression against a communist uprising. These trends continued and intensified into the European response to the Bolshevik uprising, and accelerated from there: China, Congo, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Greece, Chile. The list goes on and on and on.

The point: Capitalism always finds a way to survive its crises. Marx, Lenin, Engels, Luxemburg — they weren’t *wrong*. Historical progression will advance, and capitalism will collapse under the weight of its contradictions.

The problem is capitalists know this just as well as any communist does. They know capitalism is untenable. They know of the inevitable boom-bust cycles. But it’s their control of the superstructure that delays and obfuscates class consciousness, and revolutionary action — and if it’s not through ideas, it’s through force.

The Paris Commune is an inspiring and beautiful period in the history of the proletarian struggle…but it is a cautionary tale nonetheless.

Some favourite quotes:

"Imperialism is, at the same time, the most prostitute and the ultimate form of the state power which nascent middle class society had commenced to elaborate as a means of its own emancipation from feudalism, and which full-grown bourgeois society had finally transformed into a means for the enslavement of labour by capital".

"the bourgeois of our days considers himself the legitimate successor to the baron of old, who thought that every weapon in his own hand fair against the plebeian, while in the hands of the plebeian a weapon of any kind constituted in itself a crime."

(Engels): “Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

[Zapato · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una historia tan heróica como trágica, el primer gobierno obrero de la historia, reprimido a sangre y fuego.

"El hecho sin precedente de que después de la guerra más tremenda de los tiempos modernos, el ejército vencedor y el vencido confraternicen en la matanza común del proletariado, no representa, como cree Bismarck, el aplastamiento definitivo de la nueva sociednd que avanza, sino el desmoronamiento completo de la sociedad burguesa. La empresa más heroica que aún puede acometer la vieja sociedad es la guerra nacional. Y ahora viene a demostrarse que esto no es más que una añagaza de los gobiernos destinada a aplazar la lucha de clases, y de la que se prescinde tan pronto como esta lucha estalla en forma de guerra civil. La dominación de clase ya no se puede disfrazar bajo el uniforme nacional; todos los gobiernos nacionales son uno solo contra el proletariado."

[Montana Goodman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my favorite of Marx’s writings that I’ve read so far. The analysis is excellent, but I would not recommend reading this if you’re not already somewhat familiar with the events of the Paris Commune. The postscript by Engels is fantastic and could be read alone. I also really enjoyed Josh Holroyd’s introduction (sizeable but worth reading).

[Derek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this assessment of The Paris Commune, after last year's unrest, I was shocked by how modern the Communards were in their attempts at changing the world, offering us a prototype of how a full transition from a police state to an abolitionist horizon could possibly play out.

Not only does the Commune offer us a schema for reimagining the state, how to make it more egalitarian, it also teaches us lessons about the need for self-defense and preparation for the reactionary forces that would ultimately organize against such a bold attempt to making the world anew. The lessons of the Paris Commune are beautiful but sobering, inspiring but tragic.

[E :) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here’s a summary of what Marx said:

Dictatorship of the proletariat = very good

La semaine sanglante = not good

What will the ruling elite do to get back their power? Anything!

While he was critical of the way the Commune decided to rule France in their short life, he clearly thought some of their ideas were great. It’s a shame I truly hate political theory :) don’t read this!

[Mickey Dubs · Rating 5 out of 5]

The French are revolting.

[Carlos Navarro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este sí, es muy interesante. El capítulo III sobre la comuna es fundamental y ayuda a comprender muchos de los análisis sobre el Estado que hacía Marx ya en etapa madura.

[Bassam Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب للمفكر العمالي والمنظر الأبرز للأيديولوجية الشيوعية والإشتراكية العلمية، كارل ماركس بعنوان "The Civil War in France" كتبه في ٣٠ مايو ١٨٧١ في أعقاب الأسبوع الدموي (٢١ إلى ٢٨ مايو ١٨٧١) الذي قامت به السلطة البرجوازية الفرنسية وفلول الإمبراطورية الفرنسية الثانية (امبراطورية المهزوم لويس بونابرت "نابليون الثالث") بالتواطىء مع المحتل البروسي وقيادته المتمثلة في بسمارك بالقصف الدموي والمكثف على باريس وارتكاب أفظع جرائم الحرب بحق قاطينها من أبناء وبنات الثورة العمالية الوليدة، الثورة الأبرز في القرن التاسع عشر والتي عرفت تاريخيا باسم "الثورة الرابعة أو كمونة باريس".

وقد قامت دار الثقافة الجديدة بترجمة الكتاب إلى العربية ترجمة جيدة، تضمنت المقدمة القيمة لرفيق كارل ماركس في النضال، فريدريك  إنجلز، التي قدم بها أحد طبعات الكتاب اللاحقة باللغة الألمانية، الصادرة سنة ١٨٩١.

الكتاب رغم صغر حجمه إلا أنه يعد مفصلي في مضمونه وما ترتب من عميق أثر، أسهم في رسم مجريات التاريخ خلال بضعة عقود لاحقة؛ وكونه مفصلي راجع لعدة اعتبارات منها للذكر لا الحصر، الزمان، المكان، الحدث ومنظور القراءة التاريخية وسياق الإستشراف.

يتناول ماركس في كتابه قراءة المشهد الأوروبي والفرنسي تحديدا ضمن أحداث القرن التاسع عشر المفصلية التي شكلت الوعي الفرنسي والأوروبي الثقافي، في مرحلة لاحقة، بطبيعة الأنظمة الإجتماعية القائمة وآلية الصراع الطبقي، ففرنسا خلال هذا القرن الحافل شهدت بزوغ الملكية الثانية (ملكية الأورليانيين) وأفولها إبان انتفاضة البروليتاريا الفرنسية سنة ١٨٤٨ والتي سحقتها الجمهورية الثانية بتحالف الطبقات الرأسمالية، البرجوازية الرأسمالية وبرجوازية الملاكين المتحالفة مع نابليون الثالث، ومن ثم سقوط الجمهورية الثانية سنة ١٨٥٢ مقابل نهوض الإمبراطورية الثانية بقيادة نابليون الثالث (شارل لويس نابليون بونابارت) قبل أن تتداعى هذه الإمبراطورية سنة ١٨٧٠ إثر هزيمة جيشها وأسر إمبراطورها وجزء كبير من جيشه بعد خسارته للحرب البروسية-الفرنسيةوالتقدم البروسي "الفاتح" باتجاه باريس؛ وقد قام ماركس بتقديم قراءة تاريخية تحليلية وافية لهذه المرحلة في كتابه "الثامن عشر من برومير لويس بونابارت" والذي يشكل كتاب "الحرب الأهلية في فرنسا" تتمة له.

وفي أعقاب ظروف هزيمة الإمبراطورية الثانية وتقدم المحتل البروسي، برز الحدث الأهم في تاريخ النضالات العمالية في القرن التاسع عشر، وهو ثورة البروليتاريا الفرنسية الباريسية (أو الثورة الرابعة) التي قدمت للعالم أنموذجا فريدا للديمقراطية الإجتماعية أو ما أسماه أنجلز "دكتاتورية البروليتاريا"، التي حكمت باريس لما يزيد عن الشهرين (من ١٨ مارس ١٨٧١ إلى ٢٨ مايو ١٨٧١)، أنموذجا ملهما وغير تقليدي (رغم ما اعتراه من قصور) لحكم الطبقة العاملة (من بروليتاريي وأبناء الطبقة المتوسطة الباريسيين) التي تشكل الأغلبية الساحقة، لأول مرة لنفسها وامتلكالها لوسائل الإنتاج ومنتج عملها، في إطار تكافل إجتماعي غير مسبوق، وقد عرف هذا الشكل التنظيمي باسم "كومونة باريس" والذي رأت فيه أوروبا البرجوازية بوادر تهديد وجودي لها، قبل أن تتكاتف عليها الأقليات الرجعية من البرجوازية المتنفذة في فرنسا وأوروبا (رجعية فرنسا ممثلة ببقايا الملكية والإكليروس (الكنيسة)، برجوازيي رأس المال والملاك العقاريين، كبار الموظفين في أجهزة القمع من جيش وشرطة، اضافة إلى فلول الجيش النابليوني المهزوم والمأسور لدى بروسيا - الأخيرة التي أطلقته فقط بهدف وأد الثورة العمالية) ورجعية أوروبا م��ثلة ببروسيا وبسمارك، وتقوم بثورتها المضادة (انقلاب الدولة العميقة) للقضاء على باريس وكومنتها العمالية، قبل أن تنتشر وتجتذب اليها بروليتاريا الأقاليم.

لتهيمن بعدها البرجوازية الرأسمالية وحلفائها، على مفاصل الدولة (الجمهورية الثالثة) وأجهزة قسرها بعد أن قامت بحصار، وقصف باريس الذي أفضى إلى وأد الثورة العمالية عبر ارتكاب أفظع الجرائم والمجازر التي شهدتها فرنسا وأوروبا في القرن التاسع عشر، حيث قدر عدد القتلى من عمال باريس ومدنييها من رجال ونساء وأطفال، ما بين عشرة آلاف وعشرين ألفا، قتلوا بالقصف العشوائي، الاعدامات الميدانية وحتى الدفن أحياء، ناهيك عن الأسرى والمنفيين، وهذا بحسب ماركس هو الوجه الحقيقي لبرجوازية أوروبا المتهتكة، المتهافتة على الحفاظ على مكاسبها القائمة على استعباد العامل وعمله ضمن علاقة استغلالية، واحتكاراتها لوسائل الانتاج وامكانية مراكمة رؤوس الأموال.

وقد ركز ماركس في كتابه المهم هذا على أنموذج كومونة باريس: الخلفية، الظروف المحيطة، سياق النشأة، ملامح التنظيم العمالي للكمونة (أول شكل من الأشكال الأولية لقيام اشتراكية البروليتاريا الاجتماعية وتنظيمها الاجتماعي)، الذي عده نواة بينة لما يمكن أن تؤسس له الطبقة العمالية في المرحلة التي ستعقب انتصارها في معركة صراعها الطبقي مع البرجوازية.

ولم تفته الإشارة إلى النواقص ونقد بعض الممارسات التي أدت برأيه إلى تيسير وأد التجربة من قبل البرجوازية الرجعية بلا رحمة وهي في مهدها، غير أنه لم يخفي إنفعالاته وغضبه المبرر من برجوازيات أوروبا وجرائمها بحق الطبقة العمالية ونضالاتها، غضب لم يمنعه من تقديم قراءة متكاملة للحدث، ملابساته، شخوصه وأبرز الأسباب المفصلية التي أدت الى النهاية التي وصلت لها الأمور؛ هزيمة الكومونة ماديا وانتصارها معنويا، (حيث غدا ذلك الأنموذج أمثولة ملهمة لكل الصراعات الطبقية في أوروبا)، ولن يمضي الكثير حتى تلهم تجربة كومونة باريس وكلمات ماركس (قراءة ماركس وتحليلاته للحدث الواردة في كتابه هذا) بروليتاريي روسيا وقائدهم فلاديمير لينين في خوض نضالاتهم وتحقيق انتصارهم على الرجعية الروسية ممثلة باقطاعيي وبرجوازيي روسيا القيصرية سنة ١٩١٧، لتقيم بعدها البروليتاريا الروسية أول شكل من أشكال دولة العمال ودكتاتورية البروليتارية - الذي جسدته اتحاد السوفيتات (وفي هذا السياق يمكن الرجوع الى كتاب "الدولة والثورة" لفلاديمير لينين)، الاتحاد الذي خرج منتصرا في الحرب الأهلية الروسية وحروب المحتلين الغازين الأوروبيبن لروسيا من خارجها، انتهاءا بانتصارها على النازية وتشكيل الكيان الذي عرف باسم الاتحاد السوفياتي والذي ساهم برسم خارطة العالم في القرن العشرين.

تجدر الإشارة هنا إلى دلالات تجذر العنصرية الغربية (وفكرة التفوق العرقي/الحضاري) تجاه الغير أوروبيين (شعوب العالم الأخرى - الشرقيين)، الذي دللت عليه كلمات النشرة المركزية لحزب العمال الألماني الاشتراكي التي وصفت الشرق وشعوبه "بالبربرية" وجعلت رسالة أوروبا الغربية "المتحضرة" (ممثلة بالعمال)، محاربة هذه "البربرية الشرقية"، وهذا ان دل على شيء، فإنه يدل اتفاق اليمين واليسار الأوروبي الغربي، والبرجوازية والبروليتاريا الأوروبية الغربية النسبي، في الفكر العنصري الفوقي وفي اضطهاد شعوب العالم الغير أوروبي، أدناه الاقتباس كاملا:

"لقد نشرت اللجنة المركزية لحزب العمال الاشتراكي الديمقراطي الألماني بيانا ٥ سبتمبر ١٨٧٠ ....." اننا نحتج على ضم الإلزاس واللورين (...) فخدمة لمصالح فرنسا وألمانيا المشتركة، لمصلحة السلم والحرية، لمصلحة نضال الحضارة الأوروبية الغربية ضد البربرية الشرقية، (...) ومع رفاقنا العمال في جميع البلدان، سنعمل بحزم وإخلاص من أجل القضية الأممية المشتركة للبروليتاريا!" ." ص٤١

تجدر في النهاية الإشارة إلى بعض من مكامن أهمية هذا الكتاب الأبرز، أولها أنه قدم قراءة تحليلية من منظور تطور التاريخ المادي ومنظور الصراع الطبقي المهيمن على تاريخ تلك الحقبة، مع الإنحياز للطبقة العاملة، وهي قراءة للتاريخ وأحداثه كانت ولازالت متفردة، ناجعة ومغايرة للسردية السائدة التي تهيمن عليها (ولا زالت إلى يومنا هذا) البرجوازية الغربية ورأس المال؛ قراءة يمكن البناء عليها وتطويرها لتكوين بديل اجتماعي أكثر انسانية ومقدرة على تحقيق الرفاه الاجتماعي للغالبية الساحقة من سكان هذا العالم.

ثانيا، أنه وثق/أرخ لسردية تاريخية مختلفة عن سردية المنتصرين، هي سردية المظلومين من المناضلين البرولياريين المسحقوين الذين كتب التاريخ بدمائهم وتم التنكر لهم ولنضالتهم في سرديات المنتصرين، قراءة تاريخية كانت ولا زالت ملهمة لكل الثوار من الطبقات المسحوقة من بروليتاريي العالم، الذين لن ينتصروا (والنصر لهم أقرب وأدنى) إلا إذا لبوا نداء التضامن والتكاتف الاجتماعي النضالي الذي هتف به ماركس في فبراير ١٨٤٨ وتردد صداه مذ حينه عبر القرون: "يا عمال العالم، إتحدوا!".

أنصح به.

إقتباسات:

"لكن المطلب،...، كان ينطوي بحد ذاته على تهديد للنظام الإجتماعي القائم؛ والعمال الذي قدموا هذا المطلب كانوا ما يزالون يحملون السلاح، ولذلك كان تجريد العمال من السلاح هو أول المقتضيات بالنسبة للبرجوازيين المتربعين على دست الحكم. وعلى هذا فإن كل ثورة ينتصر فيها العمال كان ينشب في أعقابها نضال جديد ينتهي بهزيمتهم." ص٧-٨ *فريدريك إنجلز

"لم تعد البنادق المحسنة تستطيع أن تقتل بالسرعة الكافية، فكانوا يقتلون المهزومين بالمئات من المدافع الرشاشة. وما زال (حائط الكومنيين) في المقبرة شاهدا صامتا بليغا على الجنون الذي يمكن أن يتملك الطبقة الحاكمة حالما تجرؤ البروليتاريا على الدفاع عن حقوقها." ص١٧ *فريدريك إنجلز

"أنه ينبغي على الطبقة العاملة، لكي لا تفقد ثانية الحكم الذي ظفرت به آنفا، أن تطيح بجهاز الإضطهاد القديم جميعه، الذي كان يستخدم سابقا ضدها، هذا من جهة، وكان عليها من جهة أخرى، أن تحمي نفسها من نوابها وموظفيها بجعل تفويضهم جميعا، ودون إستثناء، عرضة للإلغاء في أية لحظة." ص٢٠-٢١ *فريدريك إنجلز

"في البدء خلق المجتمع لنفسه أجهزة خاصة لحماية مصالحه المشتركة، وذلك عن طريق التقسيم البسيط للعمل. بيد أن هذه الأجهزة، وأهمها سلطة الدولة، تحولت مع مضي الزمن وتحقيقا لمصالحها الذاتية الخاصة، من خادمة للمجتمع إلى سيدة له." ص٢١ *فريدريك إنجلز

"وليس هناك مكان يشكل فيه "الساسة" قسما من الأمة أشد نفوذا وانعزالا مما في أمريكا الشمالية على وجه التحديد." ص٢١ * فريدريك إنجلز

"إن الدولة ليست إلا جهازا لقمع طبقة أخرى، وهذا ما يصدق عن الجمهورية الديمقراطية بدرجة لا تقل إطلاقا عن صدقه على الملكية. والدولة، حتى في أحسن الحالات، شر ترثه البروليتاريا المنتصرة في الكفاح من أجل السيطرة الطبقية؛ والبروليتاريا المنتصرة،...، ستضطر إلى بتر أسوأ جوانب هذا الشر في الحال." ص٢٣ *فريدريك إنجلز

"أنظروا إلى كومونة باريس. فقد كانت دكتاتورية البروليتاريا." ص٢٤ *فريدريك إنجلز

"لقد قالت - الفروع الفرنسية للأممية - للشعب الفرنسي علنا وأكدت له: إن الإشتراك في الإستفتاء يعني التصويت بالموافقة على الإستبداد في الداخل وعلى الحرب في الخارج." ص٢٦

"وإننا إذ نعي شعار جمعية الشغيلة الأممية: "يا عمال العالم إتحدوا!"، لن ننسى أبدا أن عمال العالم كله هم أصدقاؤنا، وإن طغاة العالم كله هم أعداؤنا." ص٣٠ * من قرار مندوبي عمال سكسونيا - ألمانيا عن الحرب الألمانية الفرنسية ١٨٧٠

"وإذا كان للحدود أن تعين وفق المصالح العسكرية، فلن تكون هناك نهاية للمطالبات لأن كل خط عسكري له، بالضرورة، نواقصه ويمكن تحسينه بضم مناطق جديدة ملاصقة له؛ فضلا عن أن هذه الحدود لا يمكن تعيينها مطلقا بصورة نهائية وعادلة لأن الغالب يملي الشروط كل مرة على المغلوب، وهنا بالتالي، بذرة حرب جديدة." ص٣٧

"وشأن الأمم كلها شأن الأفراد - هكذا يعلمنا التاريخ بأسره - ولتجريدها من إمكانية الإعتداء، ينبغي تجريدها من جميع وسائل الدفاع. فلا يكفي التضييق على خناقها، ينبغي قتلها." ص٣٨

"وفي ألمانيا، كما في كل مكان آخر، يسمم أذناب أصحاب الحل والربط، الرأي العام ببخور الثناء الكاذب على النفس." ص٣٩

"وإذا لم يحركوا ساكنا، فإن الحرب الهائلة الراهنة ستكون نذيرا بحروب دولية أشد هولا، وستؤدي في كل بلد إلى إنتصارات جديدة على العمال يحرزها فرسان السيف والأرض والرأسمال." ص٤٤ *ماركس ٩ سبتمبر ١٨٧٠

"كانت باريس المسلحة هي العائق الخطير الوحيد في طريق مؤامرة الثورة المعاكسة. وكان لابد لذلك من تجريد باريس من السلاح." ص٥٩

"بيد أن هذه الثورة قد أصبحت الوضع القانوني لفرنسا. فالجمهورية، نتيجة هذه الثورة." ص٦٠

"إن ثورة العمال المجيدة في ١٨ آذار (مارس) حكمت باريس لا ينازعها منازع، وكانت اللجنة المركزية هي حكومتها المؤقتة." ص٦٢

"منذ ١٨ مارس وحتى دخول جنود فيرساي إلى باريس ظلت ثورة البروليتاريا خالية من أعمال العنف التي تتسم بها الثورات ولا سيما الثورات المعاكسة التي تقوم بها الطبقات العليا." ص٦٢

"ولم يُتْرَك (رجال النظام) وشأنهم فحسب، بل أتيحت لهم إمكانية الإتحاد والإستيلاء على الكثير من المواقع القوية في قلب باريس بالذات. هذا التساهل الذي أبدته اللجنة المركزية وهذه السماحة التي أظهرها العمال المسلحون، وهما صفتان غريبتان تماما عن طباع حزب النظام، اعتبرهما هذا الأخير من دواعي إدراك العمال لضعفهم." ص٦٥

"لكن من العبث أن يحاول المرء أن يعد جميع فظائع الناس الذين قصفوا باريس بالمدافع، فظائع مثيري عصيان مالكي العبيد الذين كان يحميهم الفاتح الأجنبي." ص٦٩

"كتبت اللجنة المركزية في بيانها الصادر بتاريخ ١٨ آذار (مارس سنة ١٨٧١) ما يلي: "إن بروليتاريي باريس أدركوا، إذ رأوا إخفاقات الطبقات الحاكمة وخيانتها، أنه قد أزفت الساعة التي يترتب عليهم فيها أن ينقذوا الوضع بأن يأخذوا بأيديهم إدارة الشؤون العامة." ص٧٠

"وبقدر ما كان تقدم الصناعة الحديثة يطور ويوسع ويعمق التناقض الطبقي بين الرأسمال والعمل، كانت سلطة الدولة تتخذ أكثر فأكثر طابع سلطة الرأسمال القومية على العمل، طابع قوة إجتماعية نظمت من أجل الإستعباد الإجتماعي، طابع أداة للسيطرة الطبقية." ص٧١

"وبعد كل ثورة تؤذن بخطوة معينة إلى الأمام في النضال الطبقي، يتجلى طابع الإضطهاد المحض لسلطة الدولة على نحو أوضح." ص٧١ - ٧٢

"وبالنظر لتهديد انتفاضة البروليتاريا، أخذت الطبقة المالكة المتحدة تستخدم سلطة الدولة، بصفاقة ووقاحة، كآلة قومية لحرب الرأسمال ضد العمل." ص٧٢ - ٧٣

"إن شعار "الجمهورية الإجتماعية"، الذي هللت به بروليتاريا باريس لثورة شباط (فبراير)، لم يكن إلا تعبيرا عن طموح غامض إلى جمهورية ينبغي لها أن تزيل لا الشكل الملكي للحكم الطبقي فحسب، بل الحكم الطبقي ذاته." ص٧٤

"ولم تستطيع باريس أن تقاوم إلا لأنها قد تخلصت من الجيش نتيجة الحصار واستعاضت عنه بالحرس الوطني الذي كانت أكثريته الغالبة مؤلفة من العمال وكان ينبغي تحويل هذا الواقع إلى نظام مقرر، ولذلك كان أول مرسوم أصدرته الكومونة يقضي بإلغاء الجيش الدائم والإستعاضة عنه بالشعب المسلح." ص٧٤ - ٧٥

"لقد تشكلت الكومونة من أعضاء المجالس البلدية الذين أختيروا بالإقتراع الشامل في مختلف باريس. كانوا مسؤولين وكان يمكن إلغاء التفويض الممنوح لهم في أي وقت كان. وكان أكثريتهم، بطبيعة الحال، من العمال أو من ممثلي الطبقة العاملة المعترف بهم." ص٧٥

"كان يراد بالكومونة أن تكون لا هيئة برلمانية، بل هيئة عامة تتمتع بالسلطتين التشريعية والتنفيذية في الوقت عينه." ص٧٥

"وصارت جميع المؤسسات التعليمية مجانية بالنسبة للجميع ووضعت خارج تأثير الكنيسة والدولة. وهكذا لم يعد التعليم المدرسي في متناول الجميع فحسب، بل أن العلم نفسه تحرر كذلك من القيود التي فرضتها عليه الأوهام الطبقية والسلطة الحكومية." ص٧٦

"وكان لوحدة الأمة أن تصبح حقيقة بتدمير سلطة الدولة التي كانت تدعي بأنها تجسيد لتلك الوحدة، ولكنها كانت ترغب في أن تكون مستقلة عن الأمة، مستعلية عليها. أما في الواقع فلم تكن سلطة الدولة هذه إلا بمثابة الطفيلية على جسم الأمة." ص٧٧

"كانت المهمة هي بتر أجهزة الإضطهاد البحتة التابعة للسلطة الحكومية القديمة، وانتزاع الوظائف المشروعة من سلطة تطمع أن تكون فوق المجتمع وتسليمها إلى خدام المجتمع المسؤلين." ص٧٧

"وبدلا من البت مرة كل ثلاث سنوات أو ست، أي عضو من الطبقة الحاكمة يجب أن يمثل ويقمع الشعب في البرلمان، كان يجب على حق الإنتخاب العام، أن يخدم الشعب." ص٧٧

"لقد جعلت الكومونة من ذلك الشعار الذي نادت به جميع الثورات البرجوازية - الحكومة القليلة النفقات - حقيقة، وذلك بإلغاء أكبر بابين من أبواب النفقات: الجيش الدائم وسلك الموظفين. ووجود الكمونة في حد ذاته كان إنكارا للملكية التي هي، في أوروبا على الأقل، القناع الذي لا يستغنى عنه للسيطرة الطبقية." ص٧٩

"كانت (الكومونة)، من حيث الجوهر، حكومة الطبقة العاملة، كانت نتاج كفاح طبقة المنتجين ضد طبقة المستملكين؛ كانت الشكل السياسي الذي اكتشف أخيرا والذي كان يمكن أن يتم في ظله انجاز التحرير الاقتصادي للعمل." ص٨٠

"إن حكم المنتجين السياسي لا يمكن أن يقوم جنبا إلى جنب مع تخليد عبوديتهم الإجتماعية. ولذلك كان لابد أن تقوم  الكومونة بدور أداة تحطيم الدعائم الإقتصادية التي يعتمد عليها وجود الطبقات ذاته وبالتالي السيطرة الطبقية." ص٨٠

"مع تحرير العمل سيغدوا الجميع عمالا وسيكف العمل المنتج على أن يكون خاصة طبقة معينة." ص٨٠

"بيد أن الكومونة لم تكن تدعي العصمة كما فعلت ذلك جميع الحكومات القديمة دون إستثناء. فقد كانت تنشر جميع تقارير جلساتها وتعلن عن جميع أفعالها؛ وكانت تطلع الجمهور على كل نقائصها." ص٨٩

"لأول مرة منذ فبراير ١٨٤٨، قد غدت شوارع باريس مأمونة بالرغم من أنه لم يكن فيها ولو شرطي واحد." ص٩٠ *أثناء حكم الكومونة ١٨٧١

"إن مَدَنِيَّةٌُ النظام البرجوازي وعدالته تطلعان بضوئهما الحقيقي المشؤوم كلما هب العبيد والمظلومون ضد السادة. وعندئذ تكون هذه المَدَنِيَّةٌُ وهذه العدالة بربرية غير مُقْنَّعَة وانتقاما لا يعرف القانون." ص٩٩ - ١٠٠

"إن باريس العمال الهادئة، باريس الكومونة تتحول فجأة إلى جهنم على أيدي كلاب حراسة "النظام"، المتعطشة إلى الدماء." ص١٠٢

"وواقع أن حزب النظام كان ينشر بعد جميع ولائمه الدموية التهتكية هذا القدر من الإفتراء على ضحاياه، لا يدل إلا على أن برجوازيي أيامنا يعتبرون أنفسهم الورثة الشرعيين للإقطاعيين السابقين الذين اعترفوا لأنفسهم بحق استعمال أي سلاح كان ضد العامة بينما كان أي سلاح من أي نوع في يد أحد العامة يشكل جريمة في حد ذاته." ص١٠٦

[Matt Lucente · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently began reading Lissagaray’s History of the Paris Commune of 1871, but found myself initially confused by his writing on the subject; its introduction seemed to presuppose a certain degree of background knowledge which I, unfortunately, did not have. So, I decided to read this short (and famous) work by Marx on the very same topic in advance. I’m really glad I did, because this work is concise, sharp, and provides the historical analysis which I was looking for, as well as fleshing out Marx’s theories of the bourgeois state.

The text draws revolutionary lessons from the failures and successes of the Commune, and expands upon the idea that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes”, but must smash that state machinery altogether and start fresh. Marx seeks to derive theory from the events of the Commune so as to guide future revolutionary movements and learn from the mistakes of the Commune—the first expression of revolutionary working-class power in history. This is the essence of scientific socialism, and is a constant thread throughout both this text and the entire history of socialist struggle: learning from mistakes, analyzing proletarian history, and applying those lessons to our own present context to work towards building a better world, free from the repression and exploitation found in capitalist society.

I really enjoyed Marx’s exposition of that capitalist society—of the gradual development of the state under capitalism into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, an organ by which capital wields total power over the working-class people who produce its profits. Some of what Lenin discusses in State and Revolution is already present here; Marx describes the police and standing army as armed appendages by which the bourgeois ruling class enforces its rule, just as Lenin, decades later, describes these very same repressive forces. Marx describes the Commune’s measures in regards to these armed forces by saying:

”Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at a workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune.”

This absolutely rules, and is something to be carried forward by future socialist projects: the abolition of the police as a tool of political repression (which Marx correctly notes actually made the streets of Paris safer during the Commune’s short lifespan), the replacement of a standing army with the armed people, and the dictatorship of the proletariat—that is, the state being made up of working-class people being paid a “workman’s wage”. The term “dictatorship of the proletariat” can be easy to misunderstand from a modern perspective, but the word “dictatorship” there simply refers to those who dictate. We in the US live under the dictatorship of the imperialist bourgeoisie; the aim of socialism, the first concrete expression of which was found in the Paris Commune, is to supplant that with a government made up of working people on behalf of all working people; not to exploit them, but to uplift them and improve their lives in real, material ways. This is what the “dictatorship of the proletariat” means, and Marx describes exactly how the Commune’s democratic governing body took measures during its 72 days in power to secure a better life for the working masses. He says:

”The great social measure of the Commune was its own working existence. Its special measures could but betoken the tendency of a government of the people by the people. Such were the abolition of the nightwork of journeymen bakers; the prohibition, under penalty, of the employers’ practice to reduce wages by levying upon their workpeople fines under manifold pretexts – a process in which the employer combines in his own person the parts of legislator, judge, and executor, and filches the money to boot. Another measure of this class was the surrender to associations of workmen, under reserve of compensation, of all closed workshops and factories, no matter whether the respective capitalists had absconded or preferred to strike work.”

Additionally, under the Commune, education was made universal and separated from the church, rent payments were remitted, judicial officials such as judges and magistrates were to be elected, answerable to the people they served, paid a workman’s wage, and were to be revocable at any time. Indeed, every elected official in the Commune was to be subject to the right of revocation if the people decided they were not sufficiently serving the interests of the masses. This is a far cry from the thin veneer of democracy we have in the US, where a president can be impeached, tried for federal crimes, and carry with them abysmal approval ratings while doing nothing to improve the lives of the masses; but because there does not exist any democratic mechanism by which to remove elected officials (very much by design), the actual masses of people in bourgeois democracies (eg. the US) have no say in the matter. It does not matter whether the hundreds of millions of working people in the US approve of their elected officials or not, because the entire mechanism of American “democracy” is built around keeping power in the hands of those who already have it—ie. The capitalists.

The Commune sought to do away with that; by paying a workman’s wage, establishing the right of recall, and more, it hoped to do away with the social climbing and exploitation endemic to the ruling class in bourgeois democracies. These measures have been carried through by subsequent socialist projects; Cuba’s democratic system, for example, is robust, features the universal right of recall, constant accountability and responsibility of elected officials at all levels from the neighborhood up to the national assembly, and elected officials are paid a regular working wage. Cuba’s parliament, due to its democratic system committed to equality and the bettering of peoples’ lives, has the second-highest rate of women’s political participation in the world (55.74% of seats as of February 2024), has managed guide its centrally-planned economy and social distribution of wealth to better its peoples’ lives in the face of the US’s strangling sanctions, has developed a cutting-edge, world-class healthcare industry in comparison to which the U.S.’s barbaric for-profit system is laughable, and has shown its commitment time and time again to the revolution’s goals of creating a more egalitarian, just society for its working masses. The Paris Commune was the first stirrings of such a revolutionary path for the working class, and its lessons have been carried forward, and will continue to be until humanity finally unshackles itself from capitalist repression, and a better world and a better future is established for all.

I feel like I’m getting kind of long-winded and far afield from the topic of this review, but the point above leads me into one of my gripes about this text: I wish Marx had expanded more on the role of women in the Commune. He mentions womens’ participation briefly, discussing womens’ role in actively fighting on the barricades during the brutal destruction of the Commune by Thiers and his reactionary ghouls, but does not go into any detail into how, if at all, the Commune sought to work towards gender equality in France. This feels like an oversight, as he specifically mentions womens’ investment in the Commune and their fighting and dying at the barricades, and especially considering the breadth of writing in Marxism which seeks to address gender relations and liberate working women from the misogyny and gender exploitation inherent in bourgeois society. Perhaps the Commune was simply too short-lived to implement any policies to this effect, or perhaps (more likely) the Communards were still influenced by the extreme misogyny in French society at the time (and still today; women were not able to vote in France until 1944, and couldn’t have their own bank accounts until 1965 ).

Maybe Lissagaray will go more in-depth into this issue once I delve deeper into his longer text on the Commune, but I felt it to be an oversight in this text. We have seen in the example of Cuba how the democratic measures first enacted by the Commune can improve women’s lives and provide a path (not yet completed, but significant strides have been made) to true egalitarianism—one only needs to look at the data—and I felt that was a key aspect missing from Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune. Later revolutionary projects, such as those in the USSR, China, Burkina Faso, etc. all made enormous strides in bettering social conditions for women—especially in relation to what they were pre-revolution—and commentaries/histories of those movements usually mention those strides, because they are successes and should be lauded. The failure to do so in this text, to me, either represents an oversight by Marx, a failure on the part of the Commune, a result of the Commune’s short lifespan and brutal destruction after only a couple of months, or perhaps a combination of all three.

All in all, a really good (and short!) text. I feel like this review was maybe a little muddled, but I hope it wasn’t too incomprehensible or rambling lol. Would recommend, but it’s probably not a great entry point into Marx’s writings. I’ll leave off the review with this banger quote from Engels’s 1891 postscript, which is well-worth reading after the main text itself:

”From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment. What had been the characteristic attribute of the former state? Society had created its own organs to look after its common interests, originally through simple division of labor. But these organs, at whose head was the state power, had in the course of time, in pursuance of their own special interests, transformed themselves from the servants of society into the masters of society, as can be seen, for example, not only in the hereditary monarchy, but equally also in the democratic republic. Nowhere do “politicians” form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions.

It is well known that the Americans have been striving for 30 years to shake off this yoke, which has become intolerable, and that in spite of all they can do they continue to sink ever deeper in this swamp of corruption. It is precisely in America that we see best how there takes place this process of the state power making itself independent in relation to society, whose mere instrument it was originally intended to be. Here there exists no dynasty, no nobility, no standing army, beyond the few men keeping watch on the Indians, no bureaucracy with permanent posts or the right to pensions. and nevertheless we find here two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends – and the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians, who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality exploit and plunder it.”