History and Background.
The early writings give key insights into the foundations of Marx's mature thought. Both the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law [translated elsewhere as "right"] and the early manuscripts fall into this line.
Key terms:
Critique "A radical negation of social reality"
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law
This is one of Marx's first statements of the basic
ideas of critique, continuing Feurbach's shift from Hegelian idealism to
a material, "scientific" conception of social life.
From Tucker's Introduction to the first section of the critique (not
included in our reading):
"In line w. his program of effecting "a ruthless
criticism of everything existing," Marx during 1843 took up the criticism
of politics. He set about this by working on a commentary on Hegel's
treatise on the state. To the Hegelian political philosophy (which
he called, following Feuerbach, "speculative philosophy") he applied the
method of "transformational criticism" that Feuerbach had applied to the
Hegelian philosophy of Religion. Although the work was left incomplete
and unpublished, it was, as Marx later said, a milestone on his road to
historical materialism: it led him to the view that instead of the
state being the basis of "civil society", as Hegel had said, civil or bourgeois
society is the basis of the state.
Despite its incompleteness -- the extant part of
the commentary start w. paragraph 261 of Hegel's treaties and deals only
with selected further sections up to paragraph 308 -- this works remains
of interest as Marx's most extensive single piece of purely political writing,
although his standpoint at the time of writing was no more than proto-Marxist."
(Tucker, p.16).
continuing for the section we do read:
"Written at the close of 1843 and published in the
Deutsch-Franzosishe
Jahrbucher in 1844, this essay is a consummate expression of the radical
mind. It proclaims the need for a Radical Revolution as the way to
man's self-realization. Germany is taken as the focal point for this
revolution, and the proletariat -- the concept of which makes its first
appearance in Marx's writings here -- as its class vehicle. In August
1844 Marx sent a copy of the essay to Ludwig Feuerbach along with a long
letter expressing love and respect for that thinker, whose writing had
provided, he wrote, a "philosophical foundation for socialism" by bringing
the idea of the human species from 'the heaven of abstraction to the real
earth." Feuerbach's influence, along with that of Hegel, is clearly
visible in the essay."
Introduction.
He starts by saying that the critique of
religion is "in the main complete" and that this is a fundamental critique.
Here he is referring to Feurerbach's work, which he admired greatly.
The critique of religion showed that religion was created by Man, as a
reflection of himself. But Marx immediately extends this. Man is
grounded in the world, "the state, society" religion is the expression,
the "general theory" of that world. The process of critiquing religion,
of tearing away the illusion, is a "demand to give up the state of affairs
which needs illusions": It is a fundamental attack on social organization.
The purpose of critiquing religion is to make it possible for people to
see past the illusions and act in their own interest, allowing him to "...revolve
round himself".
Points:
The task of history, then, is to establish the truth of the world,
and the task of philosophy is to provide the tools needed to do that.
He sets up a parallel that relates his work to Feurerbach:
Critique of Religion --> Critique of Law
Critique of Theory --> Critique of Politics
The work, however, does not deal with Politics or Law per se, but w. the philosophy of law and politics. Why? Because the current state of political affairs in Germany are not modern, but an "anachronism". The bulk of the next section is about the problems w. the current German state. A few things to note:
Note as well the implicit theory of history, when he discusses the need for the past to be utterly despised for a revolution. This is the playing out of his Hegelian method: that each new era must negate the past. "Why should history proceed this way? So that mankind shall separate itself gladly from its past. We claim this joyful historical destiny for the political powers of germany." (p.57 of the tucker ed)
Because Germany is an Anachronism, he instead turns to German political philosophy, which is not so "backward". In critiquing that, he can focus on the truly modern aspects of political life. As an aside, compare this strategy w. what Durkheim's treatment of law in the division of labor. The philosophy he will critique is the "Speculative Philosophy" i.e. Hegel's work.
Note the motive: to move past ideas to action.
"The criticism of the Hegelian philosophy of right does not remain at its own sphere, but leads to tasks which can only be solved by means of practical activity" [very rough quote. See also the last Theses on Feuerbach]
{it should also be pointed out that in the course-pack copy here, there is a break that is not indicated in the text. The ellipsis mark is missing here}
He is clearly frustrated w. the wishy-washy state of affairs in Germany.
In his push for critique, for a ruthless negation of everything, this half
progression is really the "utopia" The state of affairs makes
it impossible for any one group to lead a revolution:
"For this reason, the princes are in conflict w.
the monarch, the bureaucracy with the nobility, the bourgeoisie with all
of them, while the proletariat is beginning its struggle w. the Bourg."
[p.63 of tucker].
Note that the proletariat makes its first appearance here.
What, then, is the *real* possibility of emancipation in Germany?
Which gives us a fair segue into the 18th Brumaire
18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Historical Setting
To get a sense of this work, a little French History is needed.
Here's a thumbnail sketch of the major events, backing up some distance.
Source.
A nice international overview of events occurring at that time.
Thumbnail:
French republic established after the Revolution of 1848 (following
the original republic during the French Revolution). The liberal republicans'
hope of establishing an enduring democratic regime were soon frustrated.
In 1848 Louis-Napoléon (later Napoleon III) was elected president
and a monarchist majority was elected to the legislative assembly, which
passed conservative measures restricting voting rights and freedom of the
press and giving the church increased control over education. Soon realizing
that his power and future reelection were limited by the assembly's actions,
Louis-Napoléon organized a coup d'état in 1851. A new constitution
reduced the assembly's power, and a plebiscite to approve the change was
accompanied by officially inspired petitions for the empire's restoration.
In 1852 Louis-Napoléon was proclaimed emperor and the Second Empire
was born. (source)
You might want to check out a couple of great sociology pieces on events in French History:
"Hegel remarks that all facts ... of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
- Here Marx sets the whole tone. In this case the "Tragedy" was the rise of Napoleon I compared to his Nephew. This, again, remarks back to the notion of a dialectic process. Note, however, the classic Marxist derision in the tone!
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please;
they do not make it under circumstances of their own choosing"
- This expresses in a succinct way the nub of Marx's theory of
action: people act, but only under historically contingent conditions.
The first section of the reading sets the historical stage, and Marx is exercising his name calling best here. This is political journalism, and he's making fun of the events.
The revolution of 1848, in contrast to the 18th century revolutions, was but a shadow, a weak, farcical replaying of the old ideas. In this first reference to the events (p.92), he gives away his disappointment at the French people, marking what many think as the end of his belief in the value of democracy.
"The French, so long as there were engaged in revolution, could not get rid of the memory of Napoleon, as the election of December 10 proved. They hankered to return from the perils of revolution to the flesh pots of Egypt, and December 2, 1851 was the answer. They have not only a caricature of the old Napoleon, they have the old Napoleon himself, caricatured as he must appear in the middle of the 19th century." (p.92)Then he makes a political statement, about what *should* happen:
"The Social revolution of the 19th century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition of the past. Earlier revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to dull themselves to their own content. In order to arrive at its own content, the revolution of the 19th century must let the dead bury their own dead."p.93. Note the contrast between "Bourgeois" revolutions and "Proletarian" revolutions, last paragraph. Proletarian revolutions are hard fights, that do not progress neatly.
"Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the 18th century, storm swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other. ... On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the 19th century, criticise themselves constantly, interrupt themselves continually in their own course..."
The challenge:
"It remains to be explained how a nation of thirty-six million can
be surprised and delivered unresisting into captivity by three swindlers."
We get some sense of how he is going to do this through his discussion of the events.
Manifesto of the Communist Party.
This piece is pretty self-explanatory. Some points to keep in
mind: