reflexionesdelpaseante.blogspot.com Alexandre Selection Carrodeguas
Babeuf, the first politician consciously the great socialist revolution, outlined his program in an important letter to his friend Bodson written in early 1796. In this letter it is stated quite Babeuf follower of Robespierre. Moreover, sets himself the task of resurrecting Robespierre.
"Raises Robespierre all means raise the energetic patriots of the republic and with them the people [...] the Robespierre lives throughout the republic, living in the entire class of men able to judge and think clearly and naturally the people. The reason is simple: the Robespierre is democracy, and these two words are absolutely identical. If it is raised to Robespierre, you can be sure to revive democracy. "
If today were to ask a politician or just half an educated man who believes that history is the personification of democracy, would be totally unlikely to respond: "Robespierre." The man of terror, the head of the bloody dictatorship of 1793, is certainly not a Democrat to the generation of our time. But Babeuf, Robespierre system and democracy are quite the same thing. This passage from the letter also said something else. Reveals that in 1796, considered Babeuf Robespierre not only democracy but himself. During this period, the violent rebellion Babeuf preparing the poor French people to overthrow the corrupt capitalist government of the Board and to build in its place a new state order based on the principle of common ownership. To Babeuf and time, these efforts are democratic.
Half a century later, Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto. This document is not intended to make a learned construction, but expressed so that all workers understand them. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848 said: "As we have seen above, the first step in the revolution obrera es la elevación del proletariado a clase dominante, la conquista de la democracia. El proletariado se valdrá de su dominación política para ir arrancando gradualmente a la burguesía todo el capital.”
Para los autores del Manifiesto comunista, pues, “la elevación del proletariado a clase dominante” coincide con la conquista de la democracia. Marx y Engels podían escribir esto en ese entonces sin temor de provocar entre las masas equívocos o confusiones. La democracia es la conquista del poder político por parte del proletariado. Esto lo hubiera podido suscribir Babeuf sin ninguna vacilación.
Con todo, alrededor de 1848, la democracia y el socialismo no coincidían completely to Marx and Engels. The proletariat can exercise some political power in the state, but this is still not sufficient to implement relevant community property. Notwithstanding this, for the generation of 1848, democracy and socialism, were strongly related. In October 1847, Engels wrote in an article in the Deutsche Zeitung Brusseler:
"The Communists, far from causing, in the present circumstances, useless meetings with Democrats, they behave like Democrats in all practical matters of the party. Democracy is therefore necessary in all advanced countries the political power of the proletariat, and political power of the proletariat is the first prerequisite of all joint initiatives. Until it has conquered democracy, the Communists and the Democrats will fight side by side, the interests of the Democrats are those of the Communists. So far, the differences of the two parties have a theoretical nature and can be discussed fully in a theoretical way, not that common action is impaired in some way. There may also agree on some initiatives to be undertaken without delay to achieve democracy for the benefit of the oppressed classes, such as management by the state of modern industry, railroads, lea education of children at public expense, etc. "Later
will more accurately still the difference between democracy and communism, as they saw the revolutionaries of 1848. For now all we need to emphasize the close affinity and commonality of interest that the two trends appeared before the public in 1847. The Deutsche Zeitung Brusseler not intended nor, moreover, give a lesson in public law, but only use, and discuss the political concepts that were on everyone's lips. Now compare the relationship between democracy and socialism's own generation. In Germany, after the November Revolution of 1918 came a "democratic party." Was the party of the bourgeois republicans, to which he belonged among others, the great industrialist and later minister Rathenau. The German Democratic Party had nothing in common with the Communists, and was always regarded as the mortal enemy of the German Communist Party. Within them the same period, President Wilson, was also considered a good Democrat was in the United States, the fiercest opponent of all common aspiration within the working class.
now hear a voice from industry opponents of the revolution of 1848-1849. In November 1849, the Conservative MP stated von Bismark in the Prussian Diet:
"aspire to own land not only those who have temporarily enjoyment of it, but also those who do not. Throughout the past year the promises of the Democrats waved to the large class of laborers from the eastern provinces of Pomerania and Prussia, to make such demands. The promise of land ownership made possible, in the provinces which remained faithful, elections, for example, the deputy Bucher and his friends [...]. It is a regrettable fact that increases the envy of laborers against nuclear farmers, seeing the fruits of the revolution are harvested only by those who are in a position ease, without any benefit to them. The demands of the laborers are not limited, in fact, granted them the land, whose use is a part of his salary, since none that lives alone. They go further: they aim to complete distribution of estates not only but also of the estates. "
von Bismark deputy did not want either, at that time, announced from the rostrum of the Prussian Diet no discovery of political rights. Used the political expressions that everyone understood. For the Prussian Junker, Democrats were the men of the agrarian revolution, the agitators, red, rousing the workers of the land to be divided not only feudal property but also the largest properties. For the Junker von Bismark, the deputy Lothar Bucher was typical of agrarian rebel. The story later ordered that the Junker von Bismark became Reich Chancellor, in Count Bismarck and the Communist Bucher, in the Prussian royal adviser and most loyal and valuable partner of Bismark.
A generation later, Friedrich Engels wrote in a letter dated December 1884:
"In terms of pure democracy and its role in the future, I am of the view that plays a lot more secondary role in Germany than in industrial developing countries older. But this does not preclude the possibility that when the time of the revolution. Transient gain in importance as the most advanced of the bourgeois parties and tried to do in Frankfurt (in the German party of Frankfurt 1848-1849) and as last hope of salvation of the economy totally bourgeois and even feudal. At times like this, all the reactionary mass clings to it and reinforces it. All that was democratic reactionary is going through [...]. In any case, our only enemy the day of the crisis and the next, all feedback will be grouped around pure democracy and I think we must not lose sight of that. "
It is important that Engels speaks here of "democracy" but keep referring to "pure." Obviously considered a bourgeois state which certainly applies universal suffrage, but that has not touched the property. You could say that as early as 1847 Engels had pointed out the difference between democracy and communism. However, it is evident the change in the political concept since the time of the article published in the Journal of the letter from Brussels until 1884. To put it in a very simple way: in 1847 the Socialist Workers and democracy were on the same side of the barricade, but instead in 1884, not anymore. The Engels, 1884 and would not write that democracy, even the non-communist, coincides with the political power of the proletariat. Now consider the possibility that democracy can be a bulwark of defense from which all currents of the bourgeoisie and even of feudalism together prevent the political power of the proletariat.
In the eighties, Engels was deeply held, as indicated by their letters, the question whether - if he knew it marked a revolution in Germany was possible, after the fall of the feudal monarchy and military Hohoenzollern, directly build a socialist state or government will come before the state a pure democracy, ie a capitalist bourgeois republic. Engels thought the decision was in the hands of the Prussian army. The Socialists were trying to conquer the proletariat of the countryside with the slogan of the expropriation of large estates and their transfer to co-workers of the earth. Recruits of the Prussian guard regiments came from the east of the Elbe. With the slogan of an expropriation of large estates, could be put into crisis the regiments which supported the Prussianism and the rule of the Hohenzollern house, in which case they could avoid, in Germany, the intermediate stage of pure democracy . It is extremely significant that the proposal "expropriation of large estates and transfer land to rural workers" have in 1848 a typical value of democracy, and instead, the slogan should now serve to prevent "pure democracy" in Germany.
In World War the Allied powers, especially the United States and President Wilson claimed that fought for the victory of democracy. By then it was customary to regard as a bourgeois state democratic state governed by the method of universal suffrage. Democratic tactic was used as the path of reform to be achieved peacefully through persuasion of the majority of the people against any attempt of revolutionary violence. As is also known, after 1918 the radical elements and activists, dissatisfied with existing conditions, began to despise democracy in all countries. Suffice it to recall the Bolshevik and fascist propaganda against democracy.
In 1923, he arrived in Hamburg, a workers' uprising against the communist state order in force, the bourgeois-democratic republic. Later he was tried the secretary of the Communist Party Urbhans on charges of having provoked the insurrection. He defended himself with an effective speech that ended with the words: "The masses will say it is better to burn in the fire of the revolution that burst in the hotbed of democracy." What a change
in the evaluation of democracy from Babeuf to Urbhans! It is wielded at the time the alleged evidence that violent revolution was a democratic fact, regardless of the bloodshed and terror involved. At present, there is a profound contempt, hatred against the radical socialist democracy, which is presented as the embodiment of capitalist condition with all faults. Over the last hundred and fifty years, profoundly changed the concept of democracy and it should be noted the shift occurred in the period between 1850 and 1880.
Our research aims to clarify the relationship between democracy and Marxism. There many conflicting definitions of Marxism. For purposes of this book we adopt the most simple and irrefutable: the theory and practical politics of Marx and Engels themselves. They started their activity around 1845. Engels died twelve years after Marx, in 1895. The problem is, then, the relationship between democracy and Marxism during the fifty years between 1845 and 1895.
As discussed in detail below, the working policy of Marx and Engels was a constant clash with democracy. Democratic movements always provided the foundation on which Marx and Engels had to build its policy, on the other hand, Marx and Engels constantly trying to influence matches and democratic trends and transforming them according to their orientation. It would be necessary, therefore, make a quick description of the democratic movement of 1845 to 1895 and thus verify that the relation of the Marxism with each of the stages of democracy. In the last century France was the most important field of class struggle in Europe. Marx constantly France hoped the momentum for critical changes. For the same continue, according to Marx's conception of a more comprehensive history of French class struggles during the past fifty years.
social networking
0 comments:
Post a Comment