stellaed
22nd November 2008, 08:41
Was this a nationalist response to a trade system that threatened Europe?
Here is what I think after reading Marx
Karl Marx presents an in-depth view of the civil war describing the version of events from a scholar’s perspective. Although we may encounter a bias point of view Marx makes available to historians an essay that gives a contemporary understanding of the social and revolutionary attitudes at the time. This is when the emerging ideologies focused primarily on the relationship between worker and capitalist providing Marx with surmountable impetus. He announces that we are one with European governments, with his insight into the civil war suggesting the embodiment of the worker was exploited, and that his emboldening of the workers movements further contributes to socialist agendas in a time of sporadic upheaval.
We can see that he supports the Commune through an attitude that denounces a resurgence of the old, dominated by the hereditary rule that placated a hierarchy of a people who have grown distrust worthy of powerful elites. Through Marx’s interpretations he offers the concept of revolution as a conglomerate of arms, one that opposes tiresome oppression and the foreign aggressor (Prussia). The Government of Thiers signed the armistice with Prussia that surrendered Alsace & Lorraine, a government strongly opposed by socialist movements at a time, suggested by Marx, when the people had a duty to revolt against Prussian occupation, this continued a war with French capitalists who steered away from growing national sentiment to bear arms and overthrow.
In his attempt to counter the idea that the Commune is not an aggregation of absolute power but rather a unified struggle for liberty, we are offered insight into an intellectual perspectives of the leaders administering these social movements and what they hoped to achieve. It was essentially driven by the concepts of equality and expropriating the expropriators so that the worker did not become an engine of class despotism.
Marx reinforces opposition to a central regime describing the shape of a bourgeoisie that had emerged and was instituting its maxim of power in Paris. This power shift was slowed down by the commune’s movements prior to the civil war at which point in time Marx suggested would have to centralise in order to succeed, this type of power base is similar to that of England’s constructed hierarchies.
Marx notes that the efforts of the communes thrust for revolution were conducted under exceptionally low wages as opposed to what the authoritarian classes were receiving, indicating the bourgeoisie were creating a power base that attributed to monarchical and/or hereditary rule and is further suggestive that the workers were being exploited by these ruling classes, they did this by emplacing a hegemony of propertied rule, state capital over labour, it was social enslavement. Marx further attributes the efforts of the commune to social movements heralded by the workingmen allowing the middle classes to reorganise areas of business to their advantage and to more proportionally settle disputes given the reconstruction of the political framework.
The commune, in the view of Marx, provides us with an educated perspective that is described as a free trade movement symbolising a true democracy that sought legislative councils to better represent the poor and declare purpose for new education establishments, teaching justice and respect amongst each other and to destroy instruments of tyranny. His essay ensures the bourgeoisie, mainly concerned with the subjection of the worker, he is denounced through his enlightenment of the commune which does aim to overthrow the functions of the bourgeoisie central process amplified by proactive subterfuge thus misleading the workingmen of France
Through a developed sense that the commune is a new and emancipating force prepared to approach the social distinctions in Paris, that they were bemused with contempt by Marxism which has given the responder a course overview whereby we are able to extract a philosophy then fused with underprivileged European thought and by engagements in a crisis reinforced by an ideology settling to the minds of those leftist movements thereafter.
His argument does exhibit a mind that warrants an analysis of events emboldening to the spirit of ‘viva la commune’ and offers a study of those factors surrounding the commune. We are able to explore in retrospect, to redefine or accept, this exhilaration of the socialist ideology applied to ‘The Civil War in France’. Through the various mediums that constituted this collective, one that was driven by the resentment of Thiers government, based backdoor diplomacy with the powerful Prussian authority, Marx’s interpretation of the revolutionary influences made by judgements sceptical of the old hierarchies while his embellishment of the Communes actions attach our insight to natural objectives in a construction of what life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ought to be.
While Thiers government feared the commune, this new collective engine of the people that resided in the functions workingmen, house wives, peasants, intellectuals and armed citizens, threatened power bases in other parts of Europe. Marx explores this Commune de Paris with a attentive enthusiasm identifying nature as one that encapsulated Paris with freedom, it is then transformed into an enclave of liberty in a world of tyranny.
This civil war in its nature has embarked as the foreground of the great dispute between capital and labour, one that emerges from the base of society and cannot be smothered unless the capitalist is extinguished from its pillar of despotism, this has enraged the workingmen of France and attracted scholars in all varieties to immerse their ideologies around a great conflict between two camps. Here, Marx’s insight brings justification for the communes motives that exploded the revolutionary atmosphere of Paris, accomplished by the changing attitudes aimed at disfiguring the Royalist agenda, through Republican ideals constructed with liberal and social thought and becoming the cry of justice at the time. Marx pronounces his insight in favour of the commune delivering his audience the themes of what a new and fair society should be constructed around, this and that the purpose for which he denounced the Nobles, the Royalists and the Capitalist, with such remonstration powerfully consumed in the minds of those influenced during this golden age of revolution.
:marx:
Here is what I think after reading Marx
Karl Marx presents an in-depth view of the civil war describing the version of events from a scholar’s perspective. Although we may encounter a bias point of view Marx makes available to historians an essay that gives a contemporary understanding of the social and revolutionary attitudes at the time. This is when the emerging ideologies focused primarily on the relationship between worker and capitalist providing Marx with surmountable impetus. He announces that we are one with European governments, with his insight into the civil war suggesting the embodiment of the worker was exploited, and that his emboldening of the workers movements further contributes to socialist agendas in a time of sporadic upheaval.
We can see that he supports the Commune through an attitude that denounces a resurgence of the old, dominated by the hereditary rule that placated a hierarchy of a people who have grown distrust worthy of powerful elites. Through Marx’s interpretations he offers the concept of revolution as a conglomerate of arms, one that opposes tiresome oppression and the foreign aggressor (Prussia). The Government of Thiers signed the armistice with Prussia that surrendered Alsace & Lorraine, a government strongly opposed by socialist movements at a time, suggested by Marx, when the people had a duty to revolt against Prussian occupation, this continued a war with French capitalists who steered away from growing national sentiment to bear arms and overthrow.
In his attempt to counter the idea that the Commune is not an aggregation of absolute power but rather a unified struggle for liberty, we are offered insight into an intellectual perspectives of the leaders administering these social movements and what they hoped to achieve. It was essentially driven by the concepts of equality and expropriating the expropriators so that the worker did not become an engine of class despotism.
Marx reinforces opposition to a central regime describing the shape of a bourgeoisie that had emerged and was instituting its maxim of power in Paris. This power shift was slowed down by the commune’s movements prior to the civil war at which point in time Marx suggested would have to centralise in order to succeed, this type of power base is similar to that of England’s constructed hierarchies.
Marx notes that the efforts of the communes thrust for revolution were conducted under exceptionally low wages as opposed to what the authoritarian classes were receiving, indicating the bourgeoisie were creating a power base that attributed to monarchical and/or hereditary rule and is further suggestive that the workers were being exploited by these ruling classes, they did this by emplacing a hegemony of propertied rule, state capital over labour, it was social enslavement. Marx further attributes the efforts of the commune to social movements heralded by the workingmen allowing the middle classes to reorganise areas of business to their advantage and to more proportionally settle disputes given the reconstruction of the political framework.
The commune, in the view of Marx, provides us with an educated perspective that is described as a free trade movement symbolising a true democracy that sought legislative councils to better represent the poor and declare purpose for new education establishments, teaching justice and respect amongst each other and to destroy instruments of tyranny. His essay ensures the bourgeoisie, mainly concerned with the subjection of the worker, he is denounced through his enlightenment of the commune which does aim to overthrow the functions of the bourgeoisie central process amplified by proactive subterfuge thus misleading the workingmen of France
Through a developed sense that the commune is a new and emancipating force prepared to approach the social distinctions in Paris, that they were bemused with contempt by Marxism which has given the responder a course overview whereby we are able to extract a philosophy then fused with underprivileged European thought and by engagements in a crisis reinforced by an ideology settling to the minds of those leftist movements thereafter.
His argument does exhibit a mind that warrants an analysis of events emboldening to the spirit of ‘viva la commune’ and offers a study of those factors surrounding the commune. We are able to explore in retrospect, to redefine or accept, this exhilaration of the socialist ideology applied to ‘The Civil War in France’. Through the various mediums that constituted this collective, one that was driven by the resentment of Thiers government, based backdoor diplomacy with the powerful Prussian authority, Marx’s interpretation of the revolutionary influences made by judgements sceptical of the old hierarchies while his embellishment of the Communes actions attach our insight to natural objectives in a construction of what life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ought to be.
While Thiers government feared the commune, this new collective engine of the people that resided in the functions workingmen, house wives, peasants, intellectuals and armed citizens, threatened power bases in other parts of Europe. Marx explores this Commune de Paris with a attentive enthusiasm identifying nature as one that encapsulated Paris with freedom, it is then transformed into an enclave of liberty in a world of tyranny.
This civil war in its nature has embarked as the foreground of the great dispute between capital and labour, one that emerges from the base of society and cannot be smothered unless the capitalist is extinguished from its pillar of despotism, this has enraged the workingmen of France and attracted scholars in all varieties to immerse their ideologies around a great conflict between two camps. Here, Marx’s insight brings justification for the communes motives that exploded the revolutionary atmosphere of Paris, accomplished by the changing attitudes aimed at disfiguring the Royalist agenda, through Republican ideals constructed with liberal and social thought and becoming the cry of justice at the time. Marx pronounces his insight in favour of the commune delivering his audience the themes of what a new and fair society should be constructed around, this and that the purpose for which he denounced the Nobles, the Royalists and the Capitalist, with such remonstration powerfully consumed in the minds of those influenced during this golden age of revolution.
:marx: