In August 1895 he published reissue of the Class Struggle in France from 1848 to 1850 of Karl Marx, with an Introduction Friedrich Engels. This exordium of 16 pages is an account of the facts. A review of the actions of the socialist movement from 1848 to 1895.
Despite the time elapsed, the introduction to Engels, it still has much practical value. There is one more piece of library. Current problems, globalization and the terminal crisis of capitalism, have placed the issues raised by Engels back to the table of social controversy. Suffrage
The thermometer was a conclusion arrived Engels after living and enjoying 47 years of intense struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat on the European stage. Read or reread the Introduction of 1895 can be very useful to understand that Engels's conclusions can not be taken as inviolable formulas, valid for all times and places.
In daily life as political solutions are answers to certain problems. Where a contradiction is not resolved, there is a problem. When there is a problem, humans take a position in favor of one party and against another, sometimes instinctively. Currently, we have to take a position before the 2011 national elections. Elections skillfully led by the bourgeoisie. Again, the lesser evil voting is on the menu. Facing this dilemma by the ability of capital but by the inability of the political forces that claim the job.
In the century of Marx and Engels, the working class knew the sect's rise to political mass party. And not because of any magic wand or formula. The problems and their solution germinate in practice and the remedy, in theory, emerges from the study of contradictions. Joint action and discussion is a proven formula in the history of mankind. The various peoples of the world build their own path, recreating the reality and theory, the potential variability of the class struggle has in our time.
Many repeat and repeat the verses of Antonio Machado: Caminante no hay camino is made by walking. And yet, it is very easy to cling to formulas the past, as if they were magic to solve the current problems. The only theory or experience of others can serve as a compass in the adventure of finding answers in our own experience. Through research and study in general can discover and raise the issue, but not solve it. To solve it must be a thorough investigation but especially daring to experience the "solutions", practice and more practice! Which thermometer suffrage can talk to if we dare to act on the big stage of class struggle. The almanac is useful as a means of propaganda and debate. But spend a lifetime of anniversaries on anniversaries, only leads to the antithesis of the "first mass party and ideas of our entire republican history."
Enjoy reading
dear friends.
Tacna, March 18, 2011
EBM
F. INTRODUCTION ENGELS TO THE 1895 EDITION OF [2]
work here was re-released the first test of Marx to explain a piece of contemporary history by his materialist conception, based on the economic situation. In the "Communist Manifesto" was applied to outline the theory in modern history, and in articles published by Marx and myself in the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung "[3], this theory had been used constantly to explain the political events. Here, however, it was revealing, along an evolution of several years, as critical as typical for Europe The internal causation, it was because of reduced, following the conception of the author, political developments in order to cause, ultimately economic.
appreciate
When events and series of events of current history, we can never go back to recent economic causes. Even today, when the press provides such rich material, could, or even in England, monitor day to day running of industry and commerce in the world market and the changes in production methods, to the point of power, at any time to the overall balance of these factors, complex multiply constantly changing, especially when the most important of these acts, in most cases, hidden for a long time before they suddenly and in a violent way to the surface. A clear overall view on the economic history of a period can never be obtained at the time, but only subsequently, after the materials collected and sifted. The statistic is an accessories necessary for this, and the statistics will always lag behind. So when it comes to current history, will be an all too often forced to consider this factor, the most crucial, as a constant factor to consider as given for the entire period and as invariable the economic situation we find the beginning of the period in question, or not taking into account only those changes in this situation, which derive from events patents and patents are also clear. For this reason, here the materialist method has to be limited, too often, to reduce political conflicts to the struggles of interests of social classes and fractions of existing classes determined by economic development, and to show that political parties are the political expression more or less suitable for these same classes and class fractions.
goes without saying that this unavoidable neglect of the changes taking place at the same time the economic situation "very basis of all the events under investigation, is necessarily a source of errors. But all conditions for a synthetic presentation of the daily history inevitably involve sources of errors, without this no hesitate to write the story daily. When Marx undertook
this work, the fountain of errors was even more inevitable. It was absolutely impossible to follow, during the revolutionary period of 1848-1849, the economic changes that were operated simultaneously and, moreover, do not lose sight of a whole. The same was true during the first months of exile in London during the autumn and winter of 1849-1850. But this was precisely the time when Marx began his work. And, despite these adverse circumstances, their exact knowledge of both the economic situation in France on the eve of the February Revolution and the political history of this country thereafter, allowed make a presentation of the events revealed its internal interlock in a way that no one has passed today and has withstood the double test brilliantly to submit it later had to Marx himself.
The first test came when, from the spring of 1850, Marx returned to find peace for their economic studies undertaken primarily to study the economic history of the last ten years. Thus, the actual facts revealed to him with complete clarity what had previously deduced, in a semiapriorista, materials full of gaps, namely the crisis of world trade produced in 1847 was the true mother of revolutions February and March, and industrial prosperity, which had returned to occur gradually from mid-1848 and in 1849 and 1850 reached its heyday, was the animating force that gave new impetus to the European reaction again strengthened. And it was decisive. While in the first three articles [*] (published in the January-February-March issue of the journal "Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-ökonomische Revue" [4], Hamburg, 1850) still beats the hope that soon producing a new upsurge of revolutionary energy, the historical summary written by Marx and myself for the last double issue (May to October), published in the autumn of 1850, breaking a once and for all these illusions, "A new revolution is only possible as a result of a new crisis. But it is as safe as "[*]*. However, the amendment was the only key which had been made. In the explanation of events given in the previous chapters, in the causal set forth therein, there was absolutely nothing to change, as evidenced by the continuation of the story (from 10 March until the autumn of 1850) in the same general summary . Therefore, in this edition, I introduced this below as the fourth chapter.
The second test was even harder. Immediately after the coup d'état by Louis Bonaparte on December 2, 1851, Marx proceeded to a new study the history of France from February 1848 to this event, which closed at the moment the revolutionary period ("The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" , third edition, Hamburg, Meissner, 1885) [*]**. In this booklet appears again, though more briefly, the period set out in this work. Compare with ours this second statement made in light of the decisive event which occurred after having spent more than a year, and you will see that the author felt the need to change very little.
What gives, in addition to our work a very special importance is the fact that it proclaims for the first time the formula on which the parties unanimously workers of all countries in the world condense their demand for an economic transformation: the appropriation of the means of production by society. In the second chapter, concerning the "right to work", which is said to be the "first formula, awkwardly stated, summarizing the revolutionary demands of the proletariat ', Marx writes:" But behind the right to work power over the capital, and behind the power of capital ownership of the means of production, its submission to the associated working class, and therefore the abolition of wage labor as both capital and their mutual relations "[*]. Here is formulated, then, for the first time, the thesis that the modern working-class socialism differs sharply from all the different shades of socialism feudal, bourgeois, petty, etc., As the confused community property of Communism utopian socialism and communism, spontaneous labor. It is true that Marx was also later extend it to the appropriation of the means of exchange, but this extension, that after the "Communist Manifesto" was understood, was simply a corollary of the main thesis. Some people knew of England has added recently also be transmitted to society "means of distribution." These gentlemen would be difficult to tell what, in reality, the economic means of distribution other than the means of production and exchange, unless they relate to political means of distribution, taxes and the poor relief, including Saxony Forest [5] and other equipment. But first, they are today and distribution facilities have been available to the community, the state or the municipality and, secondly, what we want is to abolish them.
* * *
When the revolution broke out in February, all of us were, with regard to our conceptions of the conditions and the course of revolutionary movements, under the spell of previous historical experience, particularly that of France. Was not just of this country, playing the first role throughout European history since 1789, which also now started again the signal for general subversion? It was therefore logical and inevitable that our conceptions of the nature and progress of the "social" revolution proclaimed in Paris in February 1848, the revolution of the proletariat, was strongly colored by memories of the Models 1789 and 1830. And finally, when the uprising of Paris found its echo in the insurgency victorious Vienna, Milan and Berlin, when all Europe to the Russian border, was drawn into the movement, when later, in June, was fought in Paris, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the first major battle for power, when even the victory of his own class rocked the bourgeoisie of all countries so that was quick to throw back into the arms of reaction-feudal monarchy that had just been brought down , there could be for us no doubt, in the circumstances of the time, that had begun the great and decisive battle that battle was to be completed revolutionary period in a single, long and full of vicissitudes, but could only finish the final victory of the proletariat.
After the defeats of 1849, we do not share, let alone the illusions of democracy vulgar clustered around future provisional governments in partibus [6]. This vulgar democracy had a quick victory, decisive and definitive "people" on the "tyrants" and we, with a long struggle, after removing the "tyrants", between the contradictory elements that were hidden within the same "people '. Vulgar democracy expected to recur burst of overnight; we stated already in the autumn of 1850, that at least the first stage of the revolutionary period had ended and that until they break out a new global economic crisis had nothing to expect. And this was worth being proscribed and anathematized as traitors to the revolution the same as then, almost without exception, made their peace with Bismarck, Bismarck always thought they deserved to be taken into consideration.
But history also gave us a lie and revealed as an illusion our point of view then. And went even further: not only destroyed the error where we were, but also transformed up and down the conditions of struggle of the proletariat. The method of struggle of 1848 is today obsolete in every respect, and this is a point that deserves to be investigated more carefully now.
Until then all revolutions had been reduced to the replacement of a particular class rule by another, but all previous ruling classes were only small minorities, compared with the mass of people dominated. A dominant minority was demolished, and a minority holding in place the helm of state and tailored to their interests of state institutions. This role belonged to the minority group always trained to rule and called her by the state of economic development, and precisely for this and only this, most dominated, or intervened in favor of one in the revolution or the revolution quietly accepted. But, whatever the specific content of each case, the form common to all these revolutions was to be revolutions minority. While most cooperate with them, he did consciously or unconsciously serve a minority, but this, or simply the passive, non-resistance from the majority, the minority group was the appearance of being the representative of all the people.
After the first big success, winning a minority used split: one side was satisfied with what has been achieved, another part wanted to go even further and presented new claims in part, at least, were also in real or apparent interest of the great crowd of people. In some cases these more radical demands were satisfied as well, but often just for the moment, as the more moderate party again to become master of the situation and what has been achieved in recent times was lost again, in whole or in part; and then, the losers cried treason and blamed the defeat on bad luck. But in reality, things almost always happened like this: the gains of the first win only be consolidated through the second victory of the radical, once this is achieved, and thus necessary for the moment, the radicals and their successes again disappeared from the scene.
All revolutions of modern times, from the great seventeenth-century English Revolution, had these features, which seemed inseparable from the whole revolutionary struggle. And these traits seem to apply also to the struggles of the proletariat for its emancipation, especially since in 1848 were counted precisely those involving more or less in what sense had to look this emancipation. Even in Paris, the proletarian masses ignored them at all, even After the victory, the path to be followed. And yet, the movement was there, instinctive, spontaneous, irrepressible. Was not this precisely the situation where a revolution was to succeed, led, indeed, by a minority, but this time not in the interests of the minority, but in the truest interests of the majority? If all revolutionary periods shorter or longer, the masses of people were left to win so easily by the empty promises, as long as they were plausible, minority ambitious, how they should be less open to ideas that were the most faithful reflection of their status economic, which were nothing more than clear and rational expression of their own needs, yet they themselves did not understand and that only began to feel a vague way? It is true that this revolutionary spirit of the masses had almost always been followed, and usually very soon, tiredness and even an opposite reaction in dissipating the illusion and disillusion occurred. But here it was not empty promises, but achieving the most genuine interests of the majority thereof; interests at that time the vast majority view was far from clear, but had not be long enough to see clearly, convincing with his own eyes to be put into effect. Furthermore, in the spring of 1850, as shown in the third chapter of Marx, the evolution of the bourgeois republic, born of the "social" revolution of 1848, effective rule had concentrated in the hands of the big bourgeoisie, which also harbored monarchical ideas, "gathering in contrast to all other social classes, as farmers than the small traders around the proletariat, so that, in the common victory and after it, were not them, but the proletariat, chastened by experience, who had become the decisive factor. Did not were given as all prospects for the revolution of the minority are died in the revolution of the majority?
History has given the lie to us and all who thought in a similar way. Has shown that, at that time, the state of economic development on the continent was far from ripe for the elimination of capitalist production, as demonstrated by the economic revolution which since 1848 has taken over the whole continent, giving, for the first time true nature letter to big industry in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland and recently in Russia and Germany making a real major industrial country. And all on a capitalist basis, which means that this base was still, in 1848, great extensibility. But it is precisely this industrial revolution which has made clear everywhere in the relations of class, which has eliminated a multitude of intermediate forms, inherited from the period of manufacture and in Eastern Europe, even by the craft guilds, creating and passing to the forefront of social development a true bourgeoisie and proletariat real big industry. And with this, the struggle between these two great classes in 1848, out of England, existed only in Paris and at most in some major industrial centers, has spread throughout Europe and gained intensity in 1848 was still inconceivable. Then, there was the confusing multitude of different gospels [197] sects, with their panaceas, but today, a single theory, recognized by all, the theory of Marx, clear and transparent, made in a precise way the final objectives struggle. Then, the masses divided and differentiated by location and nationalities, united only by a sense of common penalties, poorly developed, not knowing what course to take definitive and sometimes falling bewildered by the enthusiasm and sometimes in despair, today, the great single army, the international army of socialists, advancing unstoppable and grows day by day in number, organization, discipline, clarity of vision and must win. That even this powerful army of the proletariat had not yet been able to achieve its objective, and, far from winning a major victory in a decisive attack, had to move slowly, from position to position, in a hard and tenacious struggle, shows a conclusively how impossible it was in 1848, winning the social transformation simply by surprise.
A monarchist bourgeoisie dynastic split into two sectors [7], but, above all, peace and security needed for their business pecuniary, and off it a proletariat, beaten certainly, but still threatening, around which were gathered more and more the petty bourgeois and peasants, the constant threat of a violent outburst, yet did not offer the prospect of a final solution: such was the case, as custom-made for the coup of the third suitor, the pseudo-democratic pretender Louis Bonaparte. This, using the army, ended on December 2, 1851 to the tense situation and said inner peace to Europe, to give him in return a new era of war [8]. The period of revolution from below was done for the moment, the latter followed a period of revolutions from above.
Around the Empire in 1851 gave a new proof of the lack of maturity of the proletarian aspirations of that time. But she had to create the conditions under which these aspirations were to mature. Domestic tranquility assured the full development of the new industrial boom, the need to do to divert the army and outward currents spawned revolutionary wars in which Bonaparte, under the pretext of enforcing the "principle of nationalities" [9], sought to poach annexation to France. His imitator Bismarck adopted the same policy for Prussia gave his coup and made his revolution from above 1866, against the German Confederation [10] and against Austria, not least against the Prussian Chamber came into conflict with the government. But Europe was too small for two Bonapartes, and so [198] the irony of history that Bismarck wanted to overthrow Bonaparte and King William of Prussia instituted not only small-German Empire [11], but also the French Republic. Overall result of this was that Europe might become a reality within independence and unity of great nations, with the exception of Poland. It is clear that within a relatively modest, but still enough to make the development process of the working class found as a serious obstacle in the national complications. The gravediggers of the Revolution of 1848 had become his executors. And beside them, the heir of the proletariat-1848-rose and threatening in the International.
After the war of 1870-1871, Bonaparte removed from the scene and ends the mission of Bismarck, which may come back down to the rank of an ordinary junker. But closing this period is the Paris Commune. The devious attempt to steal Thiers in the National Guard in Paris [12] their guns led a successful insurrection. Once again be revealed again in Paris and was only possible the proletarian revolution. After the victory, the power fell into the lap of the working class itself, without which no one disputes. And once again be revealed again how impossible it was also then, twenty years after the time that is related in our work, the power of the working class. On the one hand, France left Paris on a limb, watching was bleeding under the bullets of Mac-Mahon, on the other hand, the Commune was consumed in sterile dispute between the two parties that split, that of the Blanquists (majority) and the prondhonianos (minority), none of whom knew what had to be done. And as sterile as the surprise in 1848, was gifted victory in 1871.
With the Paris Commune was believed to have finally buried the militant proletariat. But, on the contrary, the Commune and the Franco-German data where its most formidable ascent. The fact of framing in the army, which since then and are in the millions, the whole population fit for military service, as well as guns, bullets and explosive action of a force hitherto unknown, produced one complete revolution around the military art. This transformation, on one hand, the period abruptly ended and said Bonapartist fighter development peaceful industrial, making impossible any other war that is not a world war of unprecedented cruelty and absolutely incalculable consequences. On the other hand, military spending, which grew in geometric progression, did raise taxes to exorbitant levels, which threw the poor classes of the population in the arms of socialism. The annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, the immediate cause of the mad competition in armaments, may instigate the chauvinism of the French and the German bourgeoisie, throwing them against each other, but for workers in both countries has been a new loop union. And the anniversary of the Paris Commune became the first holiday of the proletariat.
As Marx predicted, the war of 1870-1871 and the defeat of the Commune by the time traveled from France to Germany's center of gravity of the European labor movement. In France, of course, needed years to recover from the bleeding of May 1871. In contrast, in Germany, where industry-driven as a stove plant by manna of billions [13] paid by France was developing faster than ever, social democracy grew even more quickly and with more persistence.
Thanks to the intelligence with which the German workers were able to use the universal suffrage introduced in 1866, growth appears amazing game indisputable figures in the eyes of the world. 1871: 102,000 votes Social, 1874: 352,000; 1877: 493,000. Then came the high recognition of this progress by the authorities: the Anti-Socialist Law [14], the match was temporarily destroyed, and in 1881 the number fell to 312,000 votes. But he soon overcame and now, under the weight of the emergency law, without press, without a legal organization, without the right of association and assembly, when he began to spread rapidly truly 1884: 550,000 votes; 1887: 763,000; 1890 : 1,427,000. At this point, paralyzed the hand of the state. Gone was the law against the Socialists and the number of votes Socialists rose to 1,787,000, more than a quarter of the total votes cast. The government and the ruling classes had exhausted all means, sterile, aimless and without result. The tangible evidence of its impotence, that the authorities, from the serene to the Chancellor of the Reich, had to swallow - and that came from the despised workers! - These tests are in the millions. The state had reached an impasse and the workers were just beginning their advance.
The first great service to the German workers was extended to its cause in the mere fact of its existence as the Socialist Party which he excelled all in strength, speed and discipline growth. But also provided another: supplied their comrades in all countries a new weapon, one of the most sharp, to make them see how to use universal suffrage.
universal suffrage had existed for a long time in France, but had been discredited by the abuse that had made him the Bonapartist government. And after the Commune was not available to employ a labor party. Also in Spain there was this right from the Republic, but in Spain all serious opposition parties had always rule abstention from voting. The experiences were made in Switzerland with universal suffrage also served to encourage anything but a labor party. The revolutionary workers of the Latin countries had been accustomed to seeing on the right to vote a ruse, an instrument of deception in government hands. In Germany it did not. Already the Communist Manifesto proclaimed the struggle for universal suffrage, democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat, and Lassalle had returned to pick up this point. And when Bismarck was forced to introduce universal suffrage [15] as the only means of appeal to the masses of the people for their plans, our workers immediately took the matter seriously and sent August Bebel to first Constituent Reichstag. And from that day have used the right to vote in such a way that has brought countless benefits and has served as a model for workers of all countries. To borrow the words of French Marxist program, have transformed the universal suffrage of Duperier moyen qu'il a été d'Emancipation jusqu'ici in instrument-a means of deception, which had hitherto been, an instrument of emancipation [16 ]. And even if universal suffrage had not brought more advantage to allow us to count our strength every three years to increase the same extent, with the increase observed periodically and unexpectedly rapid the number of votes, security in the triumph of the workers and the terror of his adversaries, and thereby becomes our best means of propaganda, to inform us accurately about our strength and all opposing parties, thus providing the best tool possible to calculate the proportions of our action and equally cautious against untimely timidity and recklessness against untimely, but not universal suffrage we obtain more benefit than it would be sufficient and would be superfluous. But he has given us much more. With the election turmoil, has provided a unique means to get in touch with the masses of the people where they are still away from us, to compel all parties to stand before the people, against our attacks, their ideas and actions, and also opened our representatives in parliament stands at the top of which they can talk to their opponents in the House and the masses out of it with an authority and a freedom very different from those that are in the press and at rallies. What they served the government and the bourgeoisie its law against the Socialists, if electoral agitation campaigns and speeches constantly Socialists in parliament opened gaps in it?
But this effective use of universal suffrage went into action a method of struggle of the proletariat completely new method of fighting that continued to develop rapidly. It was found that the state institutions which organized the rule of the bourgeoisie offered new possibilities for the working class to fight against these same institutions. And he took part in the elections to the provincial diets, the municipal agencies, the courts of artisans, he played every position from the bourgeoisie, whose voice blended supply enough of the proletariat. And so it was a case of the bourgeoisie and the government came to fear much more legal action against unlawful actions of the workers' party, the electoral successes over the insurgent successes.
For even in this area had substantially changed the conditions of the struggle. The old-style rebellion, fighting in the streets with barricades, which until 1848 had been the decisive everywhere, was significantly outdated.
There should be no illusions: a real victory of the insurrection of the troops in street fighting, a victory in the battle between two armies, is one of the greatest rarities. But it is also true that insurgents rarely been told with this victory. All in pursuit was to weaken the troops by moral factors in the struggle between the armies of two warring countries never come into play, or come in a much lesser degree. If we achieve this objective, the troops did not respond, or send it to lose their heads, and the insurgency ends. If not achieved, even when troops are outnumbered, imposing the advantage of better equipment and training, management unit, the use of forces under a plan and discipline. As it can reach the insurrection in a truly tactical action is to raise and defend a single barricade subject to all rules of art. Mutual support, organization and employment of reserves, in a word, cooperation and the interlocking of the various detachments, and indispensable for the protection of a neighborhood let alone an entire major city, can only be achieved in a very flawed and, in most cases, you can not get in any way. Concentration of forces on a turning point can not be let alone. Thus, the passive defense is the predominant form of struggle, the offense hardly occur here and there, always uniquely, side exits and sporadic attacks, but generally is limited to the occupation of abandoned positions by retreating troops. To this must be added that the troops have artillery and engineering forces well equipped and trained, means to fight the insurgents almost always completely lacking. So it is no wonder that even the barricades struggles waged with the greatest heroism, those in Paris in June 1848, Vienna in October of that year and Dresden in May 1849 - ended with the defeat of insurrection, as soon as the attackers heads, who are not holding back any regard political, acted in compliance with purely military point of view and his soldiers remained loyal to them.
The many successes achieved by the insurgents to 1848 are due to multiple causes. In Paris, in July 1830 and February 1848, as in most of the street fighting in Spain, between the rebels and troops stood a Civil Guard, who either are placed directly next to the insurgency or, with lukewarm and hesitant, hesitation was also the troops and, moreover, supplied weapons to the insurgency. Where the civil guard was placed from the outset against the uprising, as occurred in Paris in June 1848, it was defeated. In Berlin in 1848, beat the people, partly because of the considerable reinforcements received during the night of 18 and morning of 19, in part because of exhaustion and bad of troops and supplies in hand, finally, by the action crippling control orders. But in all cases, the victory was achieved because replied the troops, because the decision lacked control or because he found his hands tied.
Therefore, even in the classic era of street fights, the barricade had more moral than material efficiency. It was a means to break the steadfastness of the troops. If held to achieve this goal, the victory was achieved, otherwise came defeat. This is the main aspect of the issue and should not be overlooked either when investigating the possibilities of street fights that may occur in the future.
Moreover, the possibilities were already fairly low in 1849. The bourgeoisie had been placed beside everywhere government, "culture and property" greeted and given to the troops sent against the insurgency. The barricade had lost its charm, the soldier could not see behind it the 'people', but rebels, rioters, looters, supporters of the distribution, the dregs of society, over time, the officer had been training at the tactical forms of street fighting: it is not throwing in front of bare chest and improvised to the parapet, but that flanked by gardens, courtyards and houses. And, with some expertise, it is now getting ninety percent of cases.
Moreover, since then, many things have changed, and all for the troops. If big cities have grown considerably and have grown even more hosts. Paris and Berlin have quadrupled since 1848, but the fittings have risen more than fourfold. By means of the railways, these fittings can be doubled and more than double in 24 hours, and within 48 hours to become formidable armies. The armament of the troops, so greatly heightened today is incomparably more effective. In 1848 he carried the gun with smooth percussion and cargo; now bear repeating rifle, breech and small size, which has four times the range, ten times ten times more accurately and faster shooting that one. So massive was available grenades and canisters of shrapnel from the artillery, the relatively weak effect, today, percussion grenades, one of which is enough to shatter the best barricade. Then they used the pick of the sappers to break the party walls today are used dynamite.
however, sided with the rebels all the conditions have worsened. An insurrection which sympathize with all the layers of people, there is already difficult, in the class struggle, and probably never will be grouped around the middle of a proletariat so exclusively, that the party gathers reaction around the bourgeoisie constitutes, in comparison with those, an insignificant minority. The "people" will therefore always divided, thereby removing a powerful tool, which in 1848 was extreme efficiency. And the more discharged soldiers are placed next to the insurgents the harder it will equip weapons. The shotguns and carbines luxury of armories, even if, by police order, not pre-rendered useless by removing a bolt-piece can not be compared even remotely, including the fight at close to repeating rifle of the soldier. Until 1848, it was possible to manufacture gunpowder and ammunition needed lead, today, every rifle cartridge requires a different and only one point all agree: they are a complicated product of big business and can not therefore be improvised, so most of the guns are useless if not has the right bullets for them. Finally, the slums of large cities built since 1848 are made from long streets, straight and wide, as commission for the efficacy of new guns and rifles. Would have to be crazy the revolutionary who chose the same for a new barricade fighting working-class districts of North and East Berlin.
Does this mean that in future the street fighting will not play and any role? Not so. It means only that, since 1848, conditions have become much worse for the civilian soldiers and more advantageous for the troops. Therefore, a future street fighting can only be overcome if the situation this disadvantage is offset by other factors. So will occur less frequently at the beginning of a revolution in the further course of this and should be undertaken with more considerable forces. And they will, undoubtedly, as in all the great French Revolution and the 4 September and 31 October 1870, in Paris [17], preferring the open attack to passive tactics barricades.
Does the reader, now, why the powers that be want us to carry all costs where they shoot guns and sabers slashing? Why accuse us of cowardice today because we do not throw no more to the street where we already know that defeat awaits us? Why are we so earnestly beg us to play, finally, once, to be cannon fodder? These gentlemen
unfortunately wasted their prayers and their challenges. We are not so foolish as all that. It is as if to call on his enemy in the next war that confronts them in the formation of lines of the old Fritz [*] or columns of entire divisions to Wagram and Waterloo [18] and also grasping the flintlock. If you have changed the conditions of war between nations, not least have changed the class struggle. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a complete transformation of social organization have to intervene directly the masses, must have understood themselves and what it is, why give their blood and lives. This has taught us the history of the last fifty years. And for the masses to understand what to do, it takes a long and persevering work. This work is precisely what we are doing now, and with a success that plunged into despair to our adversaries.
also in Latin countries will increasingly see necessary to revise the old tactics. Everywhere have mimicked the German example of the use of suffrage, the conquest of all the jobs that are within our reach, everywhere have been overshadowed attacks unprepared. In France, although there the land is mined for over a hundred years for one revolution after another and there is no party that is not in a conspiracy, insurrection and other revolutionary actions, in France, where because this, the Government can not be sure, much less, the army and where all are much more favorable circumstances for a surprise attack insurrection in Germany, even France, the Socialists are giving increasingly aware that there possible lasting victory for them unless they win in advance to the great mass of people, so here is to say the peasants. The slow work of propaganda and parliamentary performance are also recognized here as the immediate task of the party. The successes are not waiting. Not only have won a number of municipal councils, but in the houses there are 50 Socialist deputies, who have demolished and three ministries and a president. In Belgium, the workers have started a year ago the right to vote and have won a quarter of the constituencies. In Switzerland, Italy, in Denmark, Bulgaria and Romania, the Socialists are represented in parliament. In Austria, all parties agree that we can continue to close access to Reichsrat. We will, no doubt, the only thing still at issue is why door. And even in Russia, if it meets the famous Zemsky Sobor, the National Assembly, against which so vainly resisting the young Nicholas, even there we can be sure to have a representation.
Needless to say, not so our foreign comrades quit, much less their right to revolution. No wonder the right of revolution is the only "right" really "historic", the only right that all modern states rely without exception, including Mecklenburg, whose noble revolution ended in 1755 with the "covenant succession" the glorious deeds of feudalism still in force [19]. The right of revolution is so immovably recognized in the universal consciousness that even General von Boguslawski derived simply and solely of the right of the people the right to the coup that claimed to be emperor.
But happen what should occur in other countries, German Social Democracy has a special position, and thus, for the moment at least, a special task as well. The two million voters who sent to the polls, along with youth and women who stand behind them and have no vote, form the largest mass and more compact, the "shock troops" decisive international proletarian army. This mass supplies, and today, more than a quarter of all votes cast, and grows steadily, as evidenced by the additional elections to the Reichstag, the elections to the Diet of the various states and municipal elections and court craft. Growth progresses from as spontaneously, so constant, so overwhelming and yet so quiet as a natural process. All government interventions have proved powerless against it. Today we have already two and a quarter million voters. If this development continues, before the end of the century we will have conquered most of the middle strata of society, petty bourgeois and small peasants and we have become the decisive power in the country, to which will have to bow, wish or not, all the other powers. Keep this up continuously increase, until it overflows itself the current government system, do not wear outdoor operations the impact force becomes stronger every day, but to preserve it intact until the decisive day, such is our main task. And there is only a means to temporarily hold the steady growth of the socialist forces in combat in Germany and even to take a passenger back: a large-scale clash with the troops, a drain as 1871 in Paris. Although, ultimately, this too would be overcome. To delete the world throws a party of millions of men all the guns are not enough repetition of Europe and America. But the normal development is interrupted, no one could have perhaps the impact force at the critical moment, the decisive battle would be delayed, be postponed and would involve great sacrifices.
The irony of world history puts everything upside down. We, the "revolutionary", the "subversive elements", prosper more with the legal means with the illegal and subversion. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are going down with the law created by themselves. Desperate cry with Odilon Barrot: The Legálitas nous tue, legality kill us while we cast, with this law, strong muscles and red cheeks and it seems we have reached the breath of eternal youth. And if we are not so foolish to let ourselves be dragged to the street fighting, to give pleasure, ultimately will have no way to break the law themselves so fatal to them.
For now, make new laws against subversion. Again the world is upside down. These fans antirrevuelta today, is not the same subversive elements in yesterday? Did we provoke civil war of 1866? "We have thrown us to the King of Hanover, the great elector of Hesse and the Duke of Nassau from their land to property, inheritance, legitimate, and annex these territories? And these rebels have shot down the German Confederation and three crowns by the grace of God, complain about subversion? Quis tulerit Querente Gracchos of Sedition?
[*] Who is allowed to insult Bismarck worshipers subversion?
Let them take out their projects subversion law, which make them even tighter, which makes rubber around the Criminal Code, and with it, will achieve nothing more than provide a new proof of its impotence. To get seriously out to social democracy, will have to resort to other measures also very different. The social-democratic subversion, live for the moment to respect the laws, can only be contained through the subversion of the parties of order, which can not succeed without breaking the law. Herr Rössler, the Prussian bureaucrat, and Herr von Boguslawski, the Prussian general, have taught the only way by which you may be able to provoke the workers, who are tempted to street fighting. The rupture of the Constitution, the dictatorship, a return to absolutism, suprema lex regis voluntas! [*] So, mind, gentlemen, here it is not twisting the nose, here is that whistle!
But do not forget that the German Empire, like all small states and, in general, all modern states is a contract product: product, first, a contract of princes among themselves and, second, the princes the people. And if one party breaks the contract, the whole contract has been grounded and the other party is also detached from their commitment. Bismarck brilliantly showed us in 1866. Therefore, if you violate the Constitution of the Reich, the social is free and can do and not do with respect to you what you want. And what then want, is not easy you can think of to tell you today.
Almost exactly 1,600 years, was also active in the Roman Empire a dangerous game of subversion. This party undermined religion and all the foundations of the state; denied flatly that the emperor's will was the supreme law, it was a no homeland, international, extending across the territory of the Empire from Gaul to Asia and beyond the borders of empire. Had spent many years doing work in sabotage, underground, hidden, but for quite some time that was considered and with enough force to exit in the light of day. This party of revolt, which was known by the name of Christians, also had strong representation in the army, legions were Christian. When they are sent to the ritual sacrifice of the national church heathen, to make the honors there, these soldiers took their bold subversion to the point of displaying special markings on the hull-cross-in protest. Even the barracks of the same penalties superiors were useless. The emperor Diocletian could not continue watching it undermined the order, obedience and discipline within his army. Vigorously intervened because there was still time to do so. Passed a law against the Socialists, say, against Christians. Rallies were banned the rebels, closed and even ruined their premises, prohibited Christians distinctive crosses, "as red handkerchiefs in Saxony. The Christians were unable to hold public office, could not be even ends. Since at that time not yet have well trained judges about the "consideration of the person" as implied by subversion bill of Herr von Koller [20], which was made without further ado prohibit Christians who could claim their rights in court. Also this law exception was sterile. Christians, mocking her, torn from the walls and even said that his palace burned to the emperor at Nicomedia, finding him inside. So, it comes with the great persecution of Christians in 303 AD. It was the last of its kind. And did so well, that seventeen years after the army was composed predominantly Christian, and the next autocrat of the Roman Empire, Constantine, The priests called the Great, proclaimed Christianity the state religion.
F.
Engels London, March 6, 1895 Published
(some are published in accordance with the abbreviations) in the journal full text of the evidence "Die Neue Zeit", Bl. 2, No. 27 printed in the original text, and 28, 1894-1895 and in editing the manuscript collated with separate booklet of the work translated from German. C. Marx "The Class Struggles in France from 1848 to 1850." Printed in Berlin in 1895.
NOTES [1] 88. Marx's work "The Class Struggle in France from 1848 to 1850" is a series of articles with the common title "from 1848 to 1849." The primary plan work "The Class Struggles in France" included four articles: "The defeat of June 1848," The June 13, 1849 "," The consequences of June 13 in the continent "and" The current situation in England ". However, only three articles appeared. The problems of the influence of the events of June 1849 in the continent and the situation of England were clarified in other writings of the magazine, particularly in the international reports written jointly by Marx and Engels. When editing the work of Marx in 1895, Engels introduced additionally a fourth chapter which included sections on the events in France with the subtitle "Third International commented." Engels chapter titled "The abolition of universal suffrage in 1850" .- 190, 209.
[2] 89. The "Introduction" to Marx's work "The Class Struggles in France from 1848 to 1850" was written by Engels for a separate edition of the paper, published in Berlin in 1895.
When published in the introduction, the directive of the German Social Democratic Party strongly asked Engels to soften the tone, too revolutionary to view it and gives it a more cautious. Engels subjected to criticism vacillating position of the party leadership and his desire to "act alone without breaking the law." However, it must take into account the views Directive, Engels agreed to omit the proofs several passages and change some formulas. This edition is published in full the text of the preface. Bernstein
used that introduction to defend his tactics opportunistically. In a letter to Lafargue of April 3, 1895, Engels and Bernstein says "I played a trick. In my introduction to Marx's articles on the France of 1848 has chosen 50 which could be used to defend a hostile tactics violence and peaceful at all costs, this tactic, it has preached with such affection, and more today in Berlin to prepare emergency legislation. Well, this tactic only recommend Germany at the present time, and still large reserves. In France, Belgium, Italy and Austria should not be followed in full, in Germany may be irrelevant tomorrow. "Outraged
deep down, Engels insisted that its introduction was published in the journal" Neue Zeit ". However, it was published with the same cuts he had to make the above-named author in the edition released.
The text of preface Engels is published in full for the first time in the USSR in 1930 in the book of Karl Marx's Struggles classes in France from 1848 to 1849 ".- 190
[3] 71." Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Organ der Demokratie "(" New Rhine Gazette Body Democracy ") appeared daily in Cologne from June 1, 1848 until May 19, 1849, the heading Marx and Engels editorial board included .- 145, 190, 230, 564.
[* ] See this volume, pp. 209-293. (Editor's Edit.)
[4] 90. "Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-ökonomische Revue "(" New Rhine Gazette political and economic commentary ") magazine founded by Marx and Engels in December 1849 released until November 1850, theoretical and political organ of the League of Communists. Is printed on Hamburg. They left six issues of the magazine, which ceased publication due to persecution by the police in Germany to lack of material resources .- 192, 293
[**] See this volume p.. 296. (Editor's Edit.)
[***] See this volume, pp. 408-498. (Editor's Edit.)
[*] See this volume, page. 239 (N. of Edit.)
[5] 91. It refers to government allocations Engels ironically designates the name of the property gifted to Bismarck by Kaiser Wilhelm I in the Forest of Saxony, near Hamburg .- 193, 302
[6] 92. In partibus infidelium (literally: "in the land of the infidels') addition to the title of Catholic bishops for purely nominal charges on non-Christian countries. This expression used it often Marx and Engels, applied to various governments emigrants who had trained abroad without taking into account a country's actual situation .- 194, 307, 412, 438, 480
[7] 93. These are two monarchist parties of the French bourgeoisie in the first half of the nineteenth century, or the legitimacy (see note 59) and Orleanists.
Orleanists: supporters of the Duke of Orleans, junior branch of the Bourbon dynasty, which remained in power since the revolution of July 1830 until the revolution of 1848, representing the interests of the financial aristocracy and the bourgeoisie.
During the Second Republic (1848-1851), the two groups formed the nucleus of royalist "party of order", a unified conservative party .- 197, 227, 424
[8] 94. France participated, with Emperor Napoleon III in the Crimean War (1854-1855), Austria made war to dispute Italy (1859), participated with England in the wars against China (1856-1858 and 1860), began the conquest Indochina (1860-1861), organized the military intervention in Syria (1860-1861) and Mexico (1862-1867) and finally, made war against Prussia (1870-1871) .- 197
[9] 95. Engels used the term expressing a principle of foreign policy of the ruling circles of the Second Empire Bonaparte (1852-1870). The so-called principle of nationalities "was widely used by the ruling classes of the big states as ideological cover for their annexation plans and their adventures in foreign policy. With nothing to do with the recognition of nations to self-determination, the "principle of nationalities" was a spur to spur domestic discord and transform the national movement, especially the movements of young people in policy instrument counter of the large states competing
197 .- [10] 96. The German Confederation was founded on June 8, 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, was a union of feudal absolutist states Germany and consolidating the political and economic division of Germany .- 197, 315
[11] 97. Following the victory over France during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) did the German Empire, however, was excluded Austria, whence the name "Little German Empire." The defeat of Napoleon III was a boost for the French Revolution, which overthrew Louis Bonaparte took place on September 4, 1870 to the proclamation of the Republic .- 198, 377
[12] 98. National Guard, civilian volunteer militia and armed with selected controls that existed in France and some Western European countries. Formed for the first time in France in 1789 at the beginning of the bourgeois revolution existed at intervals until 1871. Between 1870 and 1871, the National Guard of Paris, which were included in the terms of the Franco-Prussian war the democratic masses, played a major revolutionary role. Founded in February 1871, the Central Committee led the proletarian uprising of March 18, 1871 and the initial period of the Paris Commune of 1871 exercised (until March 28) as a first proletarian government in history. Once crushed the Paris Commune, the National Guard was disbanded .- 198, 214, 413
[13] 99. After the defeat in the Franco-Prussian of 1870-1871, France, Germany paid a contribution of five billion francs 199 .-
[14] 100. The emergency law was enacted against the Socialists in Germany on October 21, 1878. Under this law banning all Social Democratic Party organizations, mass organizations and the labor press, was confiscated everything written about socialism and the Social repressed. Under pressure from mass labor movement, this law was repealed on October 1, 1890 .- 199
[15] 101. Bismarck decreed universal suffrage in 1866 for elections to the North German Reichstag, and in 1871, for elections to the Reichstag of the German Empire unified .- 200
[16] 102. Engels cites the theoretical introduction written by Marx for the French Workers Party program adopted at the Congress of Le Havre in 1880 .- 200
[17] 103. On September 4, 1870, through the revolutionary action of the masses, was overthrown in France the Government of Louis Bonaparte and proclaimed the republic. On October 31, 1870 Blanquists conducted an unsuccessful revolt against the Government of National Defense
204 .- [*] This refers to Frederick II, King of Prussia from 1740 to 1786. (Editor's Edit.)
[18] 104. The Battle of Wagram, during the Austro-French war of 1809 lasted from 5 to 6 June of that year. In it, French troops sent by Napoleon I defeated the Austrian Archduke Charles.
The Battle of Waterloo (Belgium) took place on June 18, 1815. Napoleon's army was defeated. This battle played the decisive role in the campaign of 1815, predetermining the final victory of the anti-Napoleonic coalition of European states and the fall of the empire of Napoleon I. - 204, 269
[19] 105. Engels referred to the long struggle between the ducal power and nobility in the duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz, which ended with the signing, in 1755, the constitutional treaty of Rostock on the inheritance rights of the nobility. This treaty confirmed the previous rights and privileges of this and confirmed his leading position in the Diets estates; exempted from contributions half of their lands, put the magnitude of taxes on trade and crafts and the participation of one and the other in State spending
205 .- [*] Is it acceptable that the Gracchi complaining of sedition? (Juvenal, Satire II) (N. from the Edit.)
[**] The will of the king is the supreme law! (Editor's Edit.)
[20] 106. On December 5, 1894, was presented to the German Reichstag a new draft law against the Socialists. The project was rejected on May 11, 1895 .- 208
TacnaComunitaria 
0 comments:
Post a Comment