Scan barcode
beatriz1998's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.25
“Os homens fazem a própria história; contudo, não a fazem de livre e espontânea vontade, pois não são eles quem escolhem as circunstâncias sob as quais ela é feita, mas estas lhes foram transmitidas assim como se encontram.”
mwplante's review against another edition
5.0
Essential read if you want to understand the world you live in. Marx is so ON FIRE here that he uses current events in 19th century France to make his point and I still followed his point completely despite, at the time, having next to no familiarity with 19th century French history.
nowturtle's review against another edition
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
4.25
Marx was cooking here
wickedcestus's review
Napoleon III is a funny guy. You just have to take one look at his moustache to understand that he is a funny guy.
Karl Marx appreciates the humour inherent in Napoleon III. This book is not so much a history, being written only a year or so after the events described. It is, in a sense, political satire. I was amused.
This is not the Marx you probably think of when you think of Marx. However, glimpses of that Marx are in this book. For one, the people who take part in the events are often subjugated to the momentum of class interests. Sometimes, they act in the interest of their class, sometimes not. It is unclear why. For two, the style is Hegelian. By which I mean that the sentences are occasionally insufferable. Abstract concepts are given agency, and do things.
If you are interested in the events preceding the formation of France's Second Empire, this is an interesting way to learn about it. The end!
Karl Marx appreciates the humour inherent in Napoleon III. This book is not so much a history, being written only a year or so after the events described. It is, in a sense, political satire. I was amused.
This is not the Marx you probably think of when you think of Marx. However, glimpses of that Marx are in this book. For one, the people who take part in the events are often subjugated to the momentum of class interests. Sometimes, they act in the interest of their class, sometimes not. It is unclear why. For two, the style is Hegelian. By which I mean that the sentences are occasionally insufferable. Abstract concepts are given agency, and do things.
If you are interested in the events preceding the formation of France's Second Empire, this is an interesting way to learn about it. The end!
tsharris's review against another edition
4.0
Marx at his most readable. Useful reflection on the forces that shape events.
jrc2011's review against another edition
5.0
(Grad school notes on the book from 1993 below)
Theory Overview: "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" by Karl Marx
Using the events of French history beginning with the February Revolution of 1848 through the victory of Louis Napoleon and the establishment of the Second Empire in December 1851, Marx shows how the relationships between the classes and class fractions contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state.
Essential Definitions
proletariat: the urban workers who were mostly responsible for the February revolution.
republican bourgeois: republican minded bourgeois, writers, lawyers, officers and officials that owed its influence to the personal antipathies of the country against Louis Philippe, to memories of the old republic, to the republican faith of a number of enthusiasts, above all, however, to French nationalism..." (p.27).
petty bourgeois: lower level capitalists, like shopkeepers etc.
lumpenproletariat: the unemployed, rag pickers, thieves, ex-convicts.
democratic republicans: intellectuals, clergy, some petty bourgeois
legitimists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Bourbons, under whose previous rule big landed property ruled.
Orleanists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Orleans, under whose rule high finance, large scale industry, large scale trade governed.
dialectics: the ability to see conflict between things as a creative source to an outcome (or several outcomes); the thesis is in conflict with an antithesis-- the result is a synthesis, in which parts of both thesis and antithesis are present.
Central Thesis:
Marx began this book as a collection of weekly articles, covering the period of February 1848-1852. What he saw in the political turmoil of France in those years was the emergence of a capitalist state caused by the intense class struggle during this period.
In February 1848, the proletariat along with the republican bourgeois overthrew the Orleanist monarchy and established a provisional government, intending wide electoral reform. This is the first period, referred to as the social republic. Meanwhile, the capitalists and monarchists were busy planning and organizing support from petty bourgeois, the rural poor and the lumpenproletariat with ideas and slogans that blurred class distinctions and interests ("Property, family, religion and order").
In May 1848, the National Assembly emerged from the election to represent the nation (although the rural poor and lumpenproletariat lost representation in the government with this election) and reduce the revolution to a bourgeois scale. The proletariat recognized this and rose up, only to be crushed by the rest of the classes. This period of Constituent assembly changed the system from a class based to a regional/geographically based system. The leaders of the proletariat revolution were removed and a period of exclusive rule by the bourgeois republicans began. A state of siege on Paris was declared while the bourgeois republicans worked to get rid of the democratic petty bourgeois from the government, further restrict voting and create a constitution which retained the same administration and judiciary systems, the same army and created a separate legislative and executive branch. The bourgeois republicans begin to push out the democratic republicans and replace them with pure republicans. At this point freedom is only a legal term-- you have it as long as you don't impinge on the freedom of others.
December 10, 1848 Louis Bonaparte was elected president and the republican bourgeois were "thrust aside by the mass of bourgeoisie", mainly the Legitimists and Orleanists (both royalists) which united in the name of capital and the party of Order. By May 1849 the constituent assembly is replaced by the Legislative National Assembly and begins the period of the constitutional (or parliamentary) republic. Bonaparte and the party of Order work together to drive out the rest of the petty bourgeois who were at that point realizing that their interests were closer to the workers (than with the Legitimists or Orleanists). Through its parliamentary dictatorship, the party of Order further restricts voting (abolishing universal suffrage). The two factions of the party of Order start fighting with each other for power-- passing laws to increase the legitimacy of capitalism and neglecting to pass laws to check the executive branch. Bonaparte took advantage of the situation and regularly blackmailed the government for more money, took control of the army and organized the lumpenproletariat into his own private army (the Society of December 10th).
There was an attempt to fuse the Orleanist and Legitimist groups together which failed and resulted only in further fractionalization of the party of Order. The fractionalization becomes more apparent, especially in the press. Louis Bonaparte appears to be the sole presence of reason and order and in December 1851 stages a coup d'etat which marks the end of the parliamentary period and bourgeois control. Louis is determined to maintain power at all costs and the bourgeois decide to put up with him as long as their interests are protected. Thus begins the "Second Empire" which lasts until 1870.
Author's Summary
Changes in class relations cause changes in state structure; because of the conflicts of interest that separate classes and class fractions, causing class struggle, Louis Bonaparte was able to rise to power. And, the capitalist class appears to be willing to put up with dictatorship as long as their interests are protected.
CRITIQUE
Conceptually, this case study suits his theory of class relations and the development of the capitalist state as we discussed in readings earlier this semester. Marx actually saw what was going on and was able to stand back and see what the different actors were, how and why they did certain things and what the results were. His concept of class is based on production-- classes exist on the continuum of owner to worker to unemployed. The classes have different interests and motivations, (although the non-owner classes don't always recognize their common interests) which is the cause of class struggle. Class struggle causes the constant changes in government. In the end, Marx diagnoses the disease as capitalism and prescribes the evolution to revolution as the cure.
The substance of the theory is well supported by the evidence actually observed by Marx. The basic ideas-- seen in action and presented as the underlying reality of the historical/political events -- make sense. Marx got the ideas of how the capitalist state is developed and established by watching it happen. By using dialectics he accurately describes the dynamics of the situation. All the events (coups, legislation, class struggle etc.) are all interrelated and all contribute to one thing-- the establishment of the capitalist state. This also shows that hindsight is a wonderful tool for political and social analysis.
Since Marx did use dialectics, it could be argued that the different combinations of the factors that contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state in France in the 19th c. might result in something else. After all, dialectics is when thesis and antithesis meet, resulting in synthesis, which is neither one nor the other but a combination of the two-- so couldn't the different contributing factors be recombined to a different outcome?
Summary
Writing a memo on this book has been somewhat difficult given the instruction to begin with a quote from the book and to analyze Marx's argument. The 18th Brumaire is essentially a case study, and any quote I could have picked wouldn't have allowed me to really analyze Marx's argument, only part of the historical situation he describes.
In the letter following the main work, Marx says that "1) the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
Marx has effectively shown the relations of classes in a particular historical period, as well as the dictatorship of the proletariat which occurred relatively early in the Revolution of 1848. However, as Marx had the benefit of hindsight to mold the events of the Revolution of 1848 into his dialectical perspective, we can see that the transition to the abolition of classes is long overdue. At this point, it seems as though capitalism itself is the inevitable end. The capitalist state seems to be able to establish itself rather quickly compared to the time it is taking for the revolution which will result in abolition of classes to occur.
While Marx had a pessimistic view about people in general, he was ultimately an optimist and expected a socialist revolution which would end exploitation and establish an egalitarian society.
Questions:
1. Is the abolition of classes to inevitably follow the dictatorial capitalist state?
2. The case study of the Revolution of 1848 meshes perfectly with Marx's hypotheses on class struggle and the growth of capitalism. Are his theories mainly significant to the period of time in which they were formed or can they truly be applied to current situations?
Theory Overview: "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" by Karl Marx
Using the events of French history beginning with the February Revolution of 1848 through the victory of Louis Napoleon and the establishment of the Second Empire in December 1851, Marx shows how the relationships between the classes and class fractions contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state.
Essential Definitions
proletariat: the urban workers who were mostly responsible for the February revolution.
republican bourgeois: republican minded bourgeois, writers, lawyers, officers and officials that owed its influence to the personal antipathies of the country against Louis Philippe, to memories of the old republic, to the republican faith of a number of enthusiasts, above all, however, to French nationalism..." (p.27).
petty bourgeois: lower level capitalists, like shopkeepers etc.
lumpenproletariat: the unemployed, rag pickers, thieves, ex-convicts.
democratic republicans: intellectuals, clergy, some petty bourgeois
legitimists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Bourbons, under whose previous rule big landed property ruled.
Orleanists: supporters of the return to the throne of the Orleans, under whose rule high finance, large scale industry, large scale trade governed.
dialectics: the ability to see conflict between things as a creative source to an outcome (or several outcomes); the thesis is in conflict with an antithesis-- the result is a synthesis, in which parts of both thesis and antithesis are present.
Central Thesis:
Marx began this book as a collection of weekly articles, covering the period of February 1848-1852. What he saw in the political turmoil of France in those years was the emergence of a capitalist state caused by the intense class struggle during this period.
In February 1848, the proletariat along with the republican bourgeois overthrew the Orleanist monarchy and established a provisional government, intending wide electoral reform. This is the first period, referred to as the social republic. Meanwhile, the capitalists and monarchists were busy planning and organizing support from petty bourgeois, the rural poor and the lumpenproletariat with ideas and slogans that blurred class distinctions and interests ("Property, family, religion and order").
In May 1848, the National Assembly emerged from the election to represent the nation (although the rural poor and lumpenproletariat lost representation in the government with this election) and reduce the revolution to a bourgeois scale. The proletariat recognized this and rose up, only to be crushed by the rest of the classes. This period of Constituent assembly changed the system from a class based to a regional/geographically based system. The leaders of the proletariat revolution were removed and a period of exclusive rule by the bourgeois republicans began. A state of siege on Paris was declared while the bourgeois republicans worked to get rid of the democratic petty bourgeois from the government, further restrict voting and create a constitution which retained the same administration and judiciary systems, the same army and created a separate legislative and executive branch. The bourgeois republicans begin to push out the democratic republicans and replace them with pure republicans. At this point freedom is only a legal term-- you have it as long as you don't impinge on the freedom of others.
December 10, 1848 Louis Bonaparte was elected president and the republican bourgeois were "thrust aside by the mass of bourgeoisie", mainly the Legitimists and Orleanists (both royalists) which united in the name of capital and the party of Order. By May 1849 the constituent assembly is replaced by the Legislative National Assembly and begins the period of the constitutional (or parliamentary) republic. Bonaparte and the party of Order work together to drive out the rest of the petty bourgeois who were at that point realizing that their interests were closer to the workers (than with the Legitimists or Orleanists). Through its parliamentary dictatorship, the party of Order further restricts voting (abolishing universal suffrage). The two factions of the party of Order start fighting with each other for power-- passing laws to increase the legitimacy of capitalism and neglecting to pass laws to check the executive branch. Bonaparte took advantage of the situation and regularly blackmailed the government for more money, took control of the army and organized the lumpenproletariat into his own private army (the Society of December 10th).
There was an attempt to fuse the Orleanist and Legitimist groups together which failed and resulted only in further fractionalization of the party of Order. The fractionalization becomes more apparent, especially in the press. Louis Bonaparte appears to be the sole presence of reason and order and in December 1851 stages a coup d'etat which marks the end of the parliamentary period and bourgeois control. Louis is determined to maintain power at all costs and the bourgeois decide to put up with him as long as their interests are protected. Thus begins the "Second Empire" which lasts until 1870.
Author's Summary
Changes in class relations cause changes in state structure; because of the conflicts of interest that separate classes and class fractions, causing class struggle, Louis Bonaparte was able to rise to power. And, the capitalist class appears to be willing to put up with dictatorship as long as their interests are protected.
CRITIQUE
Conceptually, this case study suits his theory of class relations and the development of the capitalist state as we discussed in readings earlier this semester. Marx actually saw what was going on and was able to stand back and see what the different actors were, how and why they did certain things and what the results were. His concept of class is based on production-- classes exist on the continuum of owner to worker to unemployed. The classes have different interests and motivations, (although the non-owner classes don't always recognize their common interests) which is the cause of class struggle. Class struggle causes the constant changes in government. In the end, Marx diagnoses the disease as capitalism and prescribes the evolution to revolution as the cure.
The substance of the theory is well supported by the evidence actually observed by Marx. The basic ideas-- seen in action and presented as the underlying reality of the historical/political events -- make sense. Marx got the ideas of how the capitalist state is developed and established by watching it happen. By using dialectics he accurately describes the dynamics of the situation. All the events (coups, legislation, class struggle etc.) are all interrelated and all contribute to one thing-- the establishment of the capitalist state. This also shows that hindsight is a wonderful tool for political and social analysis.
Since Marx did use dialectics, it could be argued that the different combinations of the factors that contributed to the development and establishment of the capitalist state in France in the 19th c. might result in something else. After all, dialectics is when thesis and antithesis meet, resulting in synthesis, which is neither one nor the other but a combination of the two-- so couldn't the different contributing factors be recombined to a different outcome?
Summary
Writing a memo on this book has been somewhat difficult given the instruction to begin with a quote from the book and to analyze Marx's argument. The 18th Brumaire is essentially a case study, and any quote I could have picked wouldn't have allowed me to really analyze Marx's argument, only part of the historical situation he describes.
In the letter following the main work, Marx says that "1) the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
Marx has effectively shown the relations of classes in a particular historical period, as well as the dictatorship of the proletariat which occurred relatively early in the Revolution of 1848. However, as Marx had the benefit of hindsight to mold the events of the Revolution of 1848 into his dialectical perspective, we can see that the transition to the abolition of classes is long overdue. At this point, it seems as though capitalism itself is the inevitable end. The capitalist state seems to be able to establish itself rather quickly compared to the time it is taking for the revolution which will result in abolition of classes to occur.
While Marx had a pessimistic view about people in general, he was ultimately an optimist and expected a socialist revolution which would end exploitation and establish an egalitarian society.
Questions:
1. Is the abolition of classes to inevitably follow the dictatorial capitalist state?
2. The case study of the Revolution of 1848 meshes perfectly with Marx's hypotheses on class struggle and the growth of capitalism. Are his theories mainly significant to the period of time in which they were formed or can they truly be applied to current situations?
c_daddy_reads's review against another edition
5.0
Very cool! I love how this Marx fella can write! He can write a page whose tone is chock full of violence, stupidity, rage etc. Kicks ass