the communist manifesto, marx and engels
(470): "the practical application of the principles... will depend... on the historical conditions for the time being existing..."
(470): chastened by experience of the Commune -- the State is not an instrument that can be wielded, at least not naively: "One thing [that] especially was proved by the commune."
(472): interesting reflections on the necessity of the "bourgeois revolution" in Russia--"The only answer to [the question of whether it can go straight to "the higher form of communist common ownership] today is this:" world revolution. in other words, the argument is that a proletarian revolution in the West were to complement revolution in Russia, this accelerated transition could very well happen.
(474): the (in)famous claim that the "epoch of the bourgeoisie... has simplified the class antagonisms." the questions are obvious, and well-worn--while we must defend this charge against the aimlessness of the post-moderns, there are legitimate questions to ask about the homogeneity of the underclass, the probability of collective resistance, the euro-centrism of the expectation.
(475): "The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"--see US treasury department, 150 years later.
(475): the notion of the progressive role of the bourgeoisie, which for us, raises questions but also offers a basic premise. the premise--that progress is invariably dialectical, that our apprehension of it needs to be framed by the structuring understanding of the fundamental irrationality of capitalism. and the questions, i think, relate very obviously to the pernicious questions of empire and dependent development--we must learn to re-write, rigorously, the divergent narratives of the national bourgeoisie.
(475-476): the contention here is that exploitation is more naked than before--but this does not mean, of course, that the bourgeoisie fails to cloak its own oppression in say-nothing sweet-nothings.
(477): here, underdeveloped reflections on China and the 'exportation' of bourgeois civilization. if this is used to point to Marxism as imperialism, one need only point to Marxist theories of imperialism.
(477): the "idiocy of rural life" [sack of potatoes, etc.]
(478): prefiguring the Frankfurt School--"Modern bourgeois society...is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."
(478): an important page if we're to trace the Marxist theory of crisis--here sounds quite straightforward, with none of the complexity of Capital: overproduction followed by devaluation (or export of capital and pursuit of new markets, if possible).
(478-479): the gravedigger passage -- note to self--must write an essay on this question.
(479): a possible place where it is predicted that the "wages decrease" -- regardless, that silly objection to Marxism need only be set against the deep analysis of Capital and the concept of the reserve army of labor. [see also "pauperization" on 483)
(480-481): a wonderfully seductive teleology, of workers as scattered mass becoming active, cohesive agent--of local struggles becoming one, (inter)national struggle. if only (in that sense we have to remember that this is polemic).
(481): "...a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands..." [making space for themselves, of course--we can debate, i guess, the extent to which this is an important sociological intervention. the fixity of one's class identity was never relevant. but it is interesting, in light of the next twenty years of engels life, no?]
(481): and this, is interesting, insofar as we want to make it systematic it seems to come into conflict with the anti-elitism of the early work: "and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideolgoists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."
(482): all other classes are "not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary; for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests..." [brief mention of 'lumpen' elements, which are here derided as reactionary--so whereto for the informal working-class? is the objection re: soweto in order? it doesn't seem like that's satisfactory... but we are going round in circles trying to resolve this formally--PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE]
(483-484): 'point' of the Communists is 'unity' -- to represent the general interests of the proletarian movement as a whole. but much will hinge on the question of what 'representation' might entail.
(484): spelling out what the abolition of private property denotes, in a society ridden purely with the class antagonism between Capital and Labor (but, in hindsight, the question of the property of the small artisan, of the peasant--these are all critical questions); and insofar as we accept the premise, who could possibly refute this? "WE by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it."
(485): "In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer." CHECK! "In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." CHECK!
(486): "You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."
(487): yes, the contingency of the bourgeois.
(487): "And your education! Is not that also social..."
(488): the nation as arena for battle -- "The working men have no country. WE cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word." [national as "false-consciousness"? at the very least the rejoinder has to engage the complexities of the perspective]
(490): the dictatorship of the proletariat
(490): amidst the ten-ponit plan--"a more equable distribution of the population over the country" (interesting--the end of the city? or the end of the mega-city? or what?)
(491): "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" CHECK!
(491): "feudal socialism" -- remember the history of the time, the Corn Laws and all this. noblesse oblige at its finest.
(492): Marx and Engels on Christian socialism (worth remembering that this is historically specific, of course--but can't help but think of the liberation theologians--I'm sure there's a better treatment of similar phenomena elsewhere in their work): "Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat."
(494): in critique of German Socialism appropriating French, there's a wonderful criticism of academic irrelevance and self-importance: "The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome 'French one-sidedness' and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature..."
(496): ouch! Proudhon as "Bourgeois Socialist" -- they've had their feud by this point. "They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat."
(498): the critique of utopian socialists--perhaps most importantly, they have no political program (they appeal over the heads of the proletariat, to Society in the abstract). though Marx and Engels applaud, here, the critical achievements of this school. "Castles in the air" become irrelevant as the class war matures.
(500): "In Germany [the communists] fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way..." [not for much longer...] "But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat... in order that after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight with the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin." [this is important, insofar as it's not as simple as declaring that the failures and repressions of 1848-9 mark a stark rupture in Marxist thought--i.e., when the 'permanent revolution' was born. these ideas were always germinating, though the later experiences of course generated awareness of the extent of the ruthlessness of the bourgeoisie.]
collected snippets of immediate importance...

Sunday, October 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment