Marx's Praise Of The Bourgeiosie In The Manifesto

[/\______/\]

I was curious as to what explanations you as Marxists have for Karl Marx treatment of the bourgeiousie(most probably spelt incorrectly) in the communist manifesto. Specifically, why he appears to praise them and their achievements. While describing how they have changed society from feudal to capitalist, for a man who dedicated his life to the cause of overthrowing them, he sure speaks highly of them.
For example, 'the bourgeosie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilesly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment'. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.'
And so on, throughout all his descriptions of the bourgeosies actions the same tone is kept. It almost appears to me as if he is celebrating them and their achievements.

But anyway, what do you think is the reason for this? The one explanation I have came up with has been that because of his situation - moving from country to country at risk of being apprehended by governments. So he had to restrain, and put on this face of applauding them.
But that seems quite a weak explanation, and I doubt its the full reason.

[BOZG]

Marx did have a reserved respect for the bourgeoisie. They had progressively developed the means of production and social relations in society for a period of time. The rejection of feudalism for capitalism and the rise of industry were progressive steps, which no Marxist can reject. The problem is though that capitalism only remained progressive for a period of time and just as feudalism was a progressive step from slavery and capitalism from feudalism, socialism becomes the necessary step for society to progress further.

[commiecrusader]

Yeeeees...

The qualities you talk of him praising really are greeeeat...


has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment'.
Oh praise the lord, the wonderful Bourgeoisie have made man selfish and motivated only by money. Worthy of praise indeed...


It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation
Ooooooooh greeeeat, we replace all personal beliefs with calculator style thinking. God those Bourgeoisie are rockin'. I wish I could do everything they do... :rolleyes:

It seems to me Marx is being more ironic than anything else.

[Monty Cantsin]

The Marxists dialectical is both conservative and revolutionary. At one point the system of the day is rational a higher form of human society then the last system which is now irrational. But when this system currently capitalism becomes irrational it to will be superseded by a higher form of human society.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Perhaps the words may be confusing to you if you are new to communism but the quote you have posted is hardly a praise to the bourgeois.

It's an attack against them.

[The Feral Underclass]

All I see from the quote is Marx stating fact.

[gaf]

marx was a bougeois who had a lot of time to think other existential questions
but really nether had to fight(in life) to pay for his bread
petty bourgeois who hated peasant and never got grease on his hand
it was easy to use people to achieve your goal(still is),like in the french revolution nothing new realy
because the roman empire did produce sort of people(see socci) 2000 years ago
and it still not better those days

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:38 PM
marx was a bougeois
he was petit-bourgeois.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 15 2004, 10:07 PM
he was petit-bourgeois.
i know the difference between petit and grand (i'm french speakin)
a bourgeois big or small still a bourgeois
and see my signature you may understand what i mean
because i coud have write pitty or silly bougeois

[BOZG]

They may still be bourgeois but they play different roles in society and must be distinguished between.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:46 AM
They may still be bourgeois but they play different roles in society and must be distinguished between.
yeah sure as a new social class(caste)

or a new way to difference yourself about what you are just humaaan

and the "must"you are using is suspicious

[DaCuBaN]

They may still be bourgeois but they play different roles in society and must be distinguished between.


This is my main "beef" with marxism: It promotes the idea of sub-dividing society up so as to analyse the roles played in class society: Marx did this, ergo we don't have to! Someone who comes into accordance with the idea of "From each according to ability; to each according to need" already understands this fact, so in effect it's patronising and sectarian.

Once the basis if class society is understood (and rejected!) by an individual, the analysis of it is no longer necessary, so in other words it just doesn't matter.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by /\______/\@Oct 11 2004, 01:27 PM
I was curious as to what explanations you as Marxists have for Karl Marx treatment of the bourgeiousie(most probably spelt incorrectly) in the communist manifesto. Specifically, why he appears to praise them and their achievements. While describing how they have changed society from feudal to capitalist, for a man who dedicated his life to the cause of overthrowing them, he sure speaks highly of them.
For example, 'the bourgeosie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilesly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment'. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.'
And so on, throughout all his descriptions of the bourgeosies actions the same tone is kept. It almost appears to me as if he is celebrating them and their achievements.

But anyway, what do you think is the reason for this? The one explanation I have came up with has been that because of his situation - moving from country to country at risk of being apprehended by governments. So he had to restrain, and put on this face of applauding them.
But that seems quite a weak explanation, and I doubt its the full reason.
It is all part of historic science- he is not praising them, he is just stating that at the time they had led a change. They hold the power as a class that the emporers and kings once held. It is important becuase the bourgeoisie take power and it brings things closer to a clear class divide of workers and bosses. Bourgeoisie and Proliteriat. He is talking about their hand in progressing fuedalism to capitalism, because they did. And this plays a whole giant role in his idea that socialism is after capitalism.
Bougeoisie take power from monarchs, and the proliteriat take the power from them.