7 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2023
    1. From this striving, otherwise than in the case of the intellectuals, there results also another statement of the problem, and new perspectives are opened. In this way conceptions are formed regarding the regulation of the mutual relations of human beings in social production, conceptions which to the intellectual elements appear incomprehensible and which they declare to be utopian and unrealizable. But these conceptions have already unfolded a powerful force in the revolutionary uprisings of the wage-workers, of the modern proletarians. This force was shown first on a major scale in the Paris Commune, which sought to overcome the centralized authority of the State through the self-administration of the communes. It was the cause also of Marx’s giving up his idea (expressed in the Communist Manifesto) that state economy would lead to the disappearance of class society. In the workers’ and soldiers’ councils of the Russian and German revolutions of 1917-23, it arose once more to a mighty and at times all-mastering power. And in future no proletarian-revolutionary movement is conceivable in which it will not play a more and more prominent and finally all-mastering role. It is the self-activity of the broad working masses which manifests itself in the workers’ councils. Here is nothing utopian any longer; it is actual reality. In the workers’ councils the proletariat has shaped the organizational form in which it conducts its struggle for liberation.
    1. Nonetheless, there remains still an unbalanced contradiction between on one hand Marx's characterization of the Paris Commune as the finally discovered "political form" for accomplishing the economic and social self-liberation of the working class and, on the other hand, his emphasis at the same time that the suitability of the commune for this purpose rests mainly on its formlessness; that is, on its indeterminateness and openness to multiple interpretations. It appears there is only one point at which Marx's position is perfectly clear and to which he professed at this time under the influence of certain political theories he had in the meantime come up against and which were incorporated in this original political concept-and not least under the practical impression of the enormous experience of the Paris Commune itself. While in the Communist Manifesto of 1847-48 and likewise in the Inaugural Address to the International Workers' Association in 1864, he still had only spoken of the necessity “for the proletariat to conquer political power” now the experiences of the Paris Commune provided him with the proof that "the working class can not simply appropriate the ready-made state machinery and put it into motion for its own purposes, but it must smash the existing bourgeois state machinery in a revolutionary way." This sentence has since been regarded as an essential main proposition and core of the whole political theory of Marxism, especially since in 1917 Lenin at once theoretically restored the unadulterated Marxian theory of the state in his work "State and Revolution" and practically realized it through carrying through the October Revolution as its executor. But obviously nothing positive is at all yet said about the formal character of the new revolutionary supreme state power of the proletariat with the merely negative determination that the state power cannot simply "appropriate the state machinery" of the previous bourgeois state "for the working class and set it in motion for their own purposes." So we must ask: for which reasons does the "Commune" in its particular, determinate form represent the finally discovered political form of government for the working class, as Marx puts it in his Civil War, and as Engels characterizes it once more at great length in his introduction to the third edition of the Civil War twenty years later? Whatever gave Marx and Engels, those fiery admirers of the centralized system of revolutionary bourgeois dictatorship realized by the great French Revolution, the idea to regard precisely the "Commune" as the "political form" of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, when it appeared to be the complete opposite to that system?
  2. Jan 2023
    1. david described  what a revolution is a change of common sense   and the collective imagination and david argued  that the main achievement of the paris commune   despite a defeat had been the transformation  of the common sense about how we live together   00:03:02 so most of what we consider ordinary in our  cities public transportation street lights   public schools the eight hours work days and even  the not yet achieved equal pay for women and men   originated in the paris commune and it  was then considered to be a social madness

      !- David Grabber : Delayed impact of the Paris Commune - civic ideas we all now take for granted such as: - public transportation - city street lights - public schools - eight hour work day

      only a few decades ago were considered madness

  3. Aug 2020
  4. May 2020
  5. Aug 2018
    1. La Commune, comme forme politique que prend le pouvoir de la classe ouvrière niant et détruisant l’ancien pouvoir d’État, n’a pas le sens de la constitution d’un nouveau pouvoir politique : ce n’est qu’un instrument qui, comme dit Marx, « doit servir de levier pour extirper les bases économiques sur lesquelles se fonde l’existence des classes »  [16][16]  Ibid., p. 52.. L’œuvre qu’accomplit selon Marx la classe ouvrière n’est donc pas d’abord une œuvre politique : c’est une œuvre sociale qui passe, certes, par un moment et des moyens politiques, mais dont la finalité est toujours sociale. Cette finalité sociale n’est autre que « l’expropriation des expropriateurs »  [17][17]  Id. La même formule se retrouve à l’identique dans..., c’est-à-dire l’abolition de la propriété privée qui, soit dit en passant, ne signifie ni l’abolition de toute propriété, ni l’instauration d’une propriété collective, mais qui consiste à « faire de la propriété individuelle une réalité » en plaçant sous le contrôle de la société les conditions (notamment les moyens de production) qui, actuellement, détruisent au contraire la propriété individuelle parce qu’elles sont les conditions à la fois de l’expropriation du plus grand nombre et de l’exploitation du travail. Or, cette œuvre sociale fut précisément celle de la Commune, et c’est cette œuvre que Marx nomme ici de son nom propre : « C’est du communisme, c’est ‘l’impossible’ communisme », ce communisme qui, du coup, apparaît au contraire comme « du très ‘possible’ communisme ». 9 De sorte qu’il n’est pas étonnant que ce soit le lieu que Marx choisisse pour redire ce qu’il avait dit dès L’Idéologie allemande, à savoir que le communisme n’est ni une utopie, ni un idéal : « La classe ouvrière n’a pas d’utopies toutes faites à introduire par décret du peuple », « elle n’a pas à réaliser d’idéal », elle a « seulement à libérer les éléments de la société nouvelle que porte dans ses flancs la vieille société bourgeoise qui s’effondre »  [18][18]  Ibid., p. 53.. Marx ne peut pas dire plus clairement que le communisme n’est pas un état social et politique qui se laisserait anticiper sous la forme d’une utopie ou d’un idéal, l’action politique se comprenant alors comme l’action de construction et d’édification d’un ordre conforme à cet idéal ; c’est bien plutôt un processus lui-même social de destruction des obstacles que la société actuelle met à l’éclosion en elle d’une « forme de vie plus haute »  [19][19]  Id., processus qui ne peut s’accomplir sans passer par un moment politique de destruction du principal de ces obstacles, à savoir l’État comme entité séparée de la société, et d’invention de nouvelles formes d’organisation qui sont inséparablement sociales et politiques.

      Le communisme comme action de détruire l'État comme entité séparée de la société.