How to proceed?
- This topic has 20 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Are we going to read the different prefaces ?Section by section seems a rational thing to do.Chapter 1 'Bourgeois and Proletarians' – Week commencing Monday 14 April ?
The prefaces are too important to ignore, though perhaps they should be read after the main chapters.
I agree re: prefacesSo how does an on-line reading group work? We read a section and post comments/questions ?
Père Duchêne wrote:I agree re: prefacesSo how does an on-line reading group work? We read a section and post comments/questions ?Yes that's pretty much it. You're suggested timetable seems good to me.
Père Duchêne wrote:Section by section seems a rational thing to do.Chapter 1 'Bourgeois and Proletarians' – Week commencing Monday 14 April ?I'd suggest rather the week after, i.e after Easter, to give some who have expressed an interest but who are not on this forum the time to do so.Anyway, I'll creating a separate thread for each section, so that they are ready for whenever we want to use them.
Does 'section 1' include the'preamble' ?A spectre is haunting Europe……..
I see what you mean. The 3 or 4 paragraphs before section 1. I suppose we could discuss whether or not it was so in 1848 that communism was a sepectre haunting Europe. I suspect not but that the spectre was rather political democracy (ie universal male suffrage electing a law-making body that controlled the executive in place of the various authoritarian dynastic regimes). There, I've jumped the gun and already started discussing when I shouldn't have done.
Was he applying his own historical materialism to the material conditions he found at hand? Clearly communism was not possible at the time so would that make Marx a Utopian?.
Actually, in the Communist Manifesto Marx acknowledged that at the time a bourgeois revolution would have to proceed any communist (or socialist) revolution. His mistake was to assume that, in 1848+, this would be followed fairly rapidly by a 'proletarian revolution' in which the working class would gain control of political power even if they wouldn't be able to bring in communism immediately. But can we blame blokes in their 20s for being over-optimistic?I hope others are following this premature discussion and will join in now that the ball is in play.
Please read on to where Marx describes "…… ….. this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself." The use of the term "nursery tale" is clearly a rebuttal to the capitalist branding all opposition as communistic besides cleverly inferring that they lack political sophistication and are immature in recognising and identifying their real enemy whose time has come.In short, the whole of the manifesto sets out to put the historical record straight.
"Actually, in the Communist Manifesto Marx acknowledged that at the time a bourgeois revolution would have to proceed any communist (or socialist) revolution." Proceed? surely thats precede! : )
It is very important to read and discuss all the prefaces because Marx and Engels used to make changes and clarification adding a preface to their books
ALB wrote:I see what you mean. The 3 or 4 paragraphs before section 1. I suppose we could discuss whether or not it was so in 1848 that communism was a sepectre haunting Europe. I suspect not but that the spectre was rather political democracy (ie universal male suffrage electing a law-making body that controlled the executive in place of the various authoritarian dynastic regimes). There, I've jumped the gun and already started discussing when I shouldn't have done.In 1848 communism was not a spectre haunting Europe, it was capitalism. I think that the Communist Manifesto should has not been called a comunist manifesto either
'A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism' is sheer hyperbole for early 1848,the working class as a political class is in its infancy in early 1848: 'the formation of a class with radical chains' has really just occurredwe had the Chartists in England who demanded: A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, the Secret Ballot, no Property Qualification for MPs, payment of MPs, equal Constituencies, annual Parliament Elections. This could best be described radical bourgeois politics in the vein of Tom Painein France there had been working class 'uprisings' in Lyons, the Canut silk weavers in 1831 and 1834, this is more the economic struggle between capital and labour, Engels wrote from the time of the Lyon rebellions “the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie came to the front in the history of the most advanced countries in Europe”the 1844 Silesian Weavers uprising is comparable to the Lyons Silk weavers1848 in Europe is the bourgeois still as revolutionary class trying to wrest power from feudal, aristocratic, autocratic elitesI think the 'June Days' in Paris June 1848 is when the working class realise fully the enemy is the bourgeois classMaybe start reading part 1 'Bourgeois and Proletarians' now…SPC
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.