Skip to main content


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>Marx: 18 Brumaire</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="01:01:27" n="9517">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="fr">French</language>

<language id="de">German</language>



<person id="nm0088" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0088, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="3"><p>number of speakers: 3</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">History</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG3</item>

<item n="module">Historiography</item>




<u who="nm0088"> the subject of today's lecture is <pause dur="0.2"/> Karl Marx's text Eighteenth Brumaire <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> next week <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> will talk about Marxism after Marx look at what <trunc>s</trunc> <trunc>w</trunc> what happened to the Marxist legacy <pause dur="0.3"/> # after the eighteen-eighties <pause dur="0.4"/> # what i want to do today largely is concentrate <pause dur="0.3"/> # on the text itself which is <pause dur="0.3"/> a very complicated text and i think not a from slightly difficult text <pause dur="0.7"/> well i'll just begin by a a slight sort of # <pause dur="0.3"/> introduction when i arrived at <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> # what seems like a lifetime ago but was only thirty-one years ago in nineteen-sixty-eight <pause dur="0.7"/> # i would think probably about forty per cent of the members of staff <pause dur="0.5"/> were <pause dur="0.3"/> Marxists E P Thompson of course was the the doyen of the # <pause dur="0.2"/> of Marxist British Marxist historians and was was here in the social history centre <pause dur="0.8"/> and a straw poll conducted amongst # first year basic one students in a lecture in nineteen-sixty-nine <pause dur="0.6"/> revealed that something like forty per cent of the students # saw themselves as either Marxist or sympathetic to Marxism <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> times

have obviously changed and <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # now when Marx is brought up as a topic # i'm wheeled out as one of the <pause dur="0.2"/> surviving dinosaurs as it were in the department <pause dur="0.3"/> # most of the remaining Marxists either being dead or long departed or have become Liberal Democrats <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> or whatever <pause dur="0.7"/> # i conducted a similar sort of poll # last year <pause dur="0.3"/> in this this sort of # session <pause dur="0.3"/> and found that unsurprisingly nought per cent of historiography students <pause dur="0.2"/> # identified themselves as Marxists <pause dur="0.5"/> # i tried one with a postgraduate # <pause dur="0.2"/> historiography group the same year and found one out of thirty <pause dur="0.3"/> but he didn't count 'cause he was an Italian <pause dur="0.4"/> # # <pause dur="0.3"/> but # <pause dur="0.2"/> i could perhaps begin this lecture therefore with a sort of McCarthyite question are you now or have you ever been <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> a Marxist and the camera will pick you out <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> and # sort of <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <trunc>s</trunc> sort of send your name

straight to M-I-five <pause dur="0.5"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> clearly the world of the nineteen-seventies and eighties has been <pause dur="0.6"/> eighties and nineties has been <pause dur="0.3"/> singularly unkind <pause dur="0.4"/> both to <pause dur="0.5"/> Marxists linked social and political movements <pause dur="0.4"/> and also to Marxist modes of analysis the collapse of the Soviet system <pause dur="0.5"/> the sharp decline of socialist and trade union movements in the industrial West <pause dur="0.4"/> the apparent disintegration <pause dur="0.4"/> of the industrial heartlands of the # organized working class in Western Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> the apparent disintegration of any clear sense of class identity as being the sort of basic building block <pause dur="0.3"/> of one's <pause dur="0.3"/> # personality as it were <pause dur="0.3"/> the apparent triumph of <pause dur="0.3"/> free market globalized international capitalism <pause dur="0.4"/> has all clearly <pause dur="0.5"/> changed the world <pause dur="0.2"/> drastically <pause dur="0.8"/> but before writing the final obituary of Marxism one should perhaps ponder <pause dur="0.4"/> certain ironies noted by John Gray in a recent # Times Literary Supplement review <pause dur="0.3"/> of a series of <pause dur="0.6"/> # writings on the hundred-and-fiftieth

anniversary of the Communist Manifesto which came last year <pause dur="0.9"/> John Gray is no Marxist he he was a Thatcherite for a while in the eighties he's now sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> New Labour i think <pause dur="0.4"/> but Gray insists that <pause dur="1.0"/> Marx clearly got all sorts of things wrong he's <trunc>sub</trunc> subsequent <trunc>si</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> subsequent experiences have clearly questioned the viability of large-scale planned economies as being more rational and efficient than market economies <pause dur="1.0"/> Marx was clearly blind to a whole series of ecological consequences of industrialization which have <pause dur="0.2"/> marked our own perceptions of the world in the last few years <pause dur="0.8"/> but Gray insists that one striking central paradox <pause dur="0.4"/> is that <pause dur="1.0"/> some of Marx's central predictions <pause dur="0.4"/> were in <trunc>actua</trunc> were have in fact been in a sense delayed <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>b</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> in their implementation <pause dur="0.3"/> by the <pause dur="0.4"/> intervening rise of Marxist and social democratic movements in the late nineteenth early twentieth century <pause dur="0.9"/> and Gray goes on to argue that now <pause dur="0.3"/> that Marxism and social democracy are clearly

in <trunc>d</trunc> in retreat <pause dur="0.8"/> the global capitalism which Marx predicted <pause dur="0.3"/> is now at last in a sense coming into being <pause dur="0.4"/> the world described by Marx in the Communist Manifesto <pause dur="0.5"/> is Gray says recognizably the world we live in <pause dur="0.2"/> a hundred-and-fifty years later <pause dur="0.5"/> to take just one quote from the Communist Manifesto <pause dur="0.8"/> <reading>all old established national industries <pause dur="0.2"/> have been destroyed <pause dur="0.3"/> or daily are being destroyed <pause dur="0.3"/> they are being dislodged by new industries <pause dur="0.3"/> whose introduction becomes a life and death question <pause dur="0.3"/> for all civilized nations <pause dur="0.4"/> by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw materials <pause dur="0.3"/> but raw material drawn from the remotest zones <pause dur="0.4"/> industries whose products are consumed <pause dur="0.2"/> not only at home <pause dur="0.7"/> # but in every quarter of the globe <pause dur="0.2"/> in place of old wants satisfied by productions of the country <pause dur="0.3"/> we find new wants requiring for their satisfaction <pause dur="0.3"/> the products of distant lands and climes <pause dur="0.3"/> in place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency <pause dur="0.3"/> we have intercourse in every

direction <pause dur="0.3"/> universal interdependence of nations</reading> <pause dur="1.1"/> moreover <pause dur="0.4"/> the long term impact <pause dur="0.3"/> of this as Marx predicted <pause dur="0.5"/> may well be in the twenty-first century <pause dur="0.4"/> not only the dominance of the world economy by a handful of capitalist multinational firms <pause dur="0.5"/> but a predatory capitalism read in tooth and claw from which the <pause dur="0.2"/> inhibitions of socialism and Marxist movements and trade unions and welfare states <pause dur="0.3"/> have been removed <pause dur="0.6"/> a polarization on a global scale between the affluent minority <pause dur="0.4"/> and the destitute majority of the world's population <pause dur="0.5"/> endless uncontrollable change and uncertainty and flux <pause dur="0.4"/> in technologies <pause dur="0.5"/> which makes the hopes for certainty and security futile <pause dur="0.9"/> even <pause dur="0.2"/> increasingly perhaps among broad strata <pause dur="0.3"/> of the middle class <pause dur="0.7"/> to quote the Communist Manifesto again <pause dur="0.7"/> <reading>constant revolutionizing of production uninterrupted disturbances of all social conditions everlasting uncertainty <pause dur="0.3"/> and agitation <pause dur="0.3"/> distinguish the bourgeois epoch <pause dur="0.2"/> from all

earlier ones <pause dur="0.5"/> all fixed fast frozen relations with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions <pause dur="0.3"/> are swept away <pause dur="0.5"/> all new formed ones become antiquated because before they can ossify <pause dur="0.4"/> all that <trunc>sol</trunc> is solid melts into air <pause dur="0.4"/> all that is holy <pause dur="0.2"/> is profaned <pause dur="0.5"/> and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses <pause dur="0.2"/> his real condition of life <pause dur="0.3"/> and his relations with his kind</reading> <pause dur="1.1"/> in nineteen-forty-eight in the the centenary of the Communist Manifesto <pause dur="0.5"/> Joseph Schumpeter <pause dur="0.2"/> again no Marxist but a leading sort of economic theorist <pause dur="0.6"/> claimed that capitalism <pause dur="0.3"/> left to itself and left unchecked <pause dur="0.3"/> would make <pause dur="0.2"/> intact civilization as Schumpeter called it <pause dur="0.4"/> impossible <pause dur="1.0"/> many conservatives in our own society believe in the need to restore family values traditional values <pause dur="0.5"/> but at the same time they espouse free markets <pause dur="0.6"/> this Gray insists is actually impossible combination it's quixotic to try and combine the two <pause dur="0.4"/> for global free markets <pause dur="0.4"/> are in the process of undermining <pause dur="0.8"/> not only families but local

cultures <trunc>car</trunc> <trunc>c</trunc> whole career structures <pause dur="0.4"/> who today <pause dur="0.3"/> in the face of constant downsizing delayering technological change <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>conte</trunc> contemplate a stable career for life <pause dur="0.5"/> and very soon university lecturers will be replaced by <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>videos as it were of past lectures or <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> interactive <pause dur="0.4"/> courses on on on on the web and so on and so forth <trunc>u</trunc> the university lecturer <pause dur="0.3"/> will be a thing of the past <pause dur="0.8"/> i'm too old to bother but those of you who are <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> aspiring to be university lecturers # in the future <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> # might have some cause for <trunc>s</trunc> concern <pause dur="0.7"/> there is in short <pause dur="0.7"/> Gray argues an acute contradiction between capitalism's promise <pause dur="0.2"/> of a liberal society and a good life <pause dur="0.5"/> and the actual realities lived in a globalized market society <pause dur="0.6"/> Gray's argument is that Marx's achievement <pause dur="0.4"/> despite all the errors that he made and there are there are countless Gray says <pause dur="0.3"/> his achievement was to identify the contradictions <pause dur="0.2"/> at the heart of liberal

civilization <pause dur="0.4"/> to which no solution <pause dur="0.4"/> has yet been found </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0088" trans="pause"> what i want to do now is to look <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> at <pause dur="0.2"/> Marx's the the <trunc>wer</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the emergence of Marxism <pause dur="0.3"/> the relationship between Marxism and other paradigms of historical explanation which we look at this term <pause dur="0.4"/> and then look at the text itself <pause dur="1.5"/> this term in a sense we're dealing <pause dur="0.2"/> above all with perhaps three major historiographical paradigms which emerged in nineteenth century Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> we've done one of them <trunc>s</trunc> already <pause dur="0.3"/> the Rankean paradigm <pause dur="0.4"/> Ranke is clearly significant <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> for his insistence on professional standards his use of archives his scrutiny of evidence <pause dur="0.4"/> his insistence that historians should <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>tr</trunc> # try as far as possible to eliminate <pause dur="0.3"/> their own prejudices <pause dur="0.4"/> for claiming that the historian should seek to empathize with people who lived in the past <distinct lang="de">verstehen</distinct> to understand # what was going on inside their heads <pause dur="1.3"/> # in emphasizing the individual event and the individual <pause dur="0.3"/> historical actor great man great person <pause dur="0.4"/> that one should not <pause dur="0.7"/> move from the <pause dur="0.2"/>

general to the particular but one should perhaps tentatively try to move from the particular to the general <pause dur="0.7"/> he rejected much of the Enlightenment emphasis on progress to a world of reason and peace <pause dur="0.5"/> arguing that wars between powers had always occurred and would always occur <pause dur="0.5"/> and the best one could hope for was a balance of power <pause dur="0.7"/> and <trunc>b</trunc> and he insisted that great states each represented in a sense an idea # America represents democracy and freedom the United <trunc>st</trunc> the U-S-S-R represented <pause dur="0.3"/> Soviet totalitarianism et cetera et cetera <pause dur="0.6"/> and he insisted that a strong state was necessary as a prerequisite for internal order and the freedom of man to worship <pause dur="0.4"/> now clearly <trunc>ran</trunc> the Rankean paradigm is still enormously powerful it's <pause dur="0.5"/> clearly informs the writings of people like Geoffrey Elton in Britain <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> # there's a whole school of neo-Rankean historians <pause dur="0.2"/> # in still in in in West in what was West Germany <pause dur="1.2"/> the second paradigm <pause dur="0.2"/> is <pause dur="0.7"/> a French school of <pause dur="0.3"/> positivist structuralist historians <pause dur="0.4"/>

# we used to have a lecture at this stage in the course on either Comte or Durkheim both of these <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>have <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> been cast into the rubbish bin of history <pause dur="0.3"/> but you will fairly soon be doing the Annales who are in a sense the twentieth century heirs of this <pause dur="0.2"/> French positivist tradition <pause dur="1.2"/> and the key figure <pause dur="0.3"/> in the nineteenth century in this who is virtually a contemporary <pause dur="0.3"/> # of Ranke <pause dur="0.4"/> is a man called Auguste Comte the founder of the <trunc>discip</trunc> of the word and the discipline of sociology <pause dur="0.9"/> Ranke as you <pause dur="0.2"/> found out was a Prussian a Lutheran a monarchist a conservative hostile to the Enlightenment <pause dur="0.7"/> Comte <pause dur="0.4"/> is in a sense a reverse of Ranke he's a claddic classic product of the <pause dur="0.2"/> world of the French Revolution <pause dur="0.3"/> educated in the <distinct lang="fr">grande école</distinct> set up by <pause dur="0.2"/> Napoleon after the French Revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> to train the post-revolutionary elite <pause dur="0.4"/> in France <pause dur="0.6"/> Comte viewed the Enlightenment <pause dur="0.3"/> as a stage on the path of humanity <pause dur="0.3"/> from the age of religion <pause dur="0.4"/> through the age of

philosophy <pause dur="0.4"/> finally to the age of science the age of positivism <pause dur="0.3"/> # which he saw as emerging in the nineteenth century <pause dur="1.0"/> he therefore shared the Enlightenment French Revolution emphasis on progress which Ranke rejected <pause dur="0.5"/> but he was worried that the French Revolution <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> because of the <pause dur="0.3"/> social <trunc>un</trunc> # upheaval which was created <pause dur="0.3"/> would create instability therefore <pause dur="0.2"/> what the post-revolution world needed <pause dur="0.3"/> was <pause dur="0.4"/> Comte said a science of mankind <pause dur="0.2"/> I-E sociology <trunc>in</trunc> he <trunc>in</trunc> invented the term <pause dur="0.6"/> which would <pause dur="0.2"/> diagnose social problems <pause dur="0.2"/> and <trunc>su</trunc> suggest solutions <pause dur="0.7"/> Comte saw society <pause dur="0.4"/> as an entity it was a reality it was a thing <pause dur="0.5"/> and society could be studied <pause dur="0.2"/> using the methodology of natural sciences <pause dur="0.2"/> something which Ranke rejected <pause dur="0.5"/> and one could <pause dur="1.1"/> discern its laws there were laws of motion as it were of society which could be <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> worked out <pause dur="0.8"/> and Comte envisaged a world where <pause dur="0.3"/> experts <pause dur="1.0"/> economists sociologists demographers scientists technologists and so forth <pause dur="0.3"/> would <pause dur="0.8"/> uncover these social laws <pause dur="0.4"/> and utilize

their knowledge of society to run society in a more efficient productive <pause dur="0.4"/> # way for for as it were a more productive <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> more prosperous future <pause dur="0.4"/> and the masses would not really understand this science but they would be taught to accept <pause dur="0.2"/> and welcome the rule of this technocratic elite <pause dur="1.9"/> now Marx is the figure clearly of a a third paradigm <pause dur="0.4"/> Marxism differs from Comtean positivism because <pause dur="0.5"/> positivists' approach <pause dur="0.6"/> emphasized understanding deep structures and the laws of motion in society <pause dur="0.4"/> in order <pause dur="0.4"/> that modern a sort of modern technocratic elite <pause dur="0.3"/> could manage and stabilize society and achieve social integration and harmony <pause dur="0.7"/> the positivists in sort # in short sought to control and eliminate social conflict <pause dur="0.9"/> Marxism was clearly <pause dur="0.6"/> more revolutionary in it it saw previous <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>m</trunc> <trunc>mar</trunc> Marx famously said that previous philosophers <pause dur="0.4"/> had sought to interpret the world <pause dur="0.3"/> that his task <pause dur="0.2"/> was to change it <pause dur="0.6"/> and he saw revolution as a sort of locomotive of history class conflict <pause dur="0.3"/> as what drove history forward <pause dur="1.0"/>

subsequent Marxists # have often criticized the positivists <trunc>ce</trunc> Comte and his disciples <pause dur="0.2"/> for their <pause dur="0.2"/> overemphasis on social structures and laws <pause dur="0.5"/> saying this this was too deterministic <pause dur="0.3"/> # it undermined man's capacity to have an agency as it were <trunc>i</trunc> an input <pause dur="0.2"/> into how history moved <pause dur="1.1"/> but what it i think is important here to register is that for <pause dur="0.3"/> much of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century <pause dur="0.5"/> Marxism <pause dur="0.2"/> certainly shared or <trunc>ki</trunc> appeared to share many of the features <pause dur="0.3"/> of this positivist sociological approach <pause dur="0.8"/> indeed Karl Popper in another book that we used to do in historiography which has again been cast into the dustbin of history <pause dur="0.2"/> a book called the Poverty of Historicism <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> argued that <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> both Comte and Marx should be lumped together <pause dur="0.4"/> as believers in deterministic laws of history they both in a sense shared <pause dur="0.3"/> many features in common he asked <pause dur="1.1"/> and why was this confusion possible well first of all because Marxists and positivists <pause dur="0.2"/> both <pause dur="0.4"/> unlike Ranke <pause dur="0.4"/> appeared to share a common interest

in <pause dur="0.2"/> society they weren't so concerned with <pause dur="0.2"/> individuals getting inside the heads of individual great people <pause dur="0.6"/> but they were concerned with society social structures <trunc>econ</trunc> economics <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> secondly Marx was clearly influenced <pause dur="0.5"/> if less directly by Comte himself <pause dur="0.3"/> certainly by Comte's great <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> teacher was a who's a <pause dur="0.2"/> rather eccentric French <pause dur="0.3"/> # aristocrat who actually <unclear>espoused</unclear> the the <trunc>re</trunc> French Revolution a man called Saint-Simon <pause dur="0.6"/> Saint-Simon was <pause dur="0.8"/> an eccentric genius he dreamed he in he in his <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> multitude of writings round about the turn of the century in the early eighteen # early early eighteen-hundreds <pause dur="0.4"/> he dreamed of for example the Panama and Suez canals it was actually one of his disciples de Lesseps who built the Suez Canal <pause dur="0.3"/> sixty years later but <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # Saint-Simon dreamed of a single global market in order to have one one needed <pause dur="0.2"/> # these canals to link the oceans of the world <pause dur="0.2"/> he dreamed of the <pause dur="0.5"/> he said <pause dur="0.2"/> it was <trunc>l</trunc> logical that Europe should form a single <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.5"/>

European market <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> and should have a single currency and all the <pause dur="0.3"/> # for those of you who are Europhobes and don't want want us to get out of Europe <pause dur="0.2"/> can blame Saint-Simon as being well as it were well the founder of the <pause dur="0.3"/> of the European idea <pause dur="0.8"/> and Saint-Simon divided history into economic stages from him Marx derived the idea of a sort of teleology <pause dur="0.4"/> of history progressing from slavery to feudalism to capitalism and so forth <pause dur="0.8"/> and also Saint-Simon was responsible in a sense for the <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> notion which is <pause dur="0.3"/> kind of central to sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> # subsequent labour movements of the distinction as it were between productive <pause dur="0.3"/> and parasitic <pause dur="0.3"/> # social groups <pause dur="0.2"/> there's a famous parable <pause dur="0.3"/> # by Saint-Simon in which he says <pause dur="0.3"/> imagine <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a Europe in which <pause dur="0.2"/> all the crowned heads <pause dur="0.3"/> all the princes and princesses and bishops and so forth and aristocrats <pause dur="0.3"/> are <trunc>s</trunc> are called to a <pause dur="0.3"/> a wedding in Lisbon of a of a royal princess <pause dur="0.3"/> and they happen to be walking across a bridge one day <pause dur="0.3"/> # to go to the cathedral and the bridge

collapses and they're all <pause dur="0.2"/> thrown into the river and drown <pause dur="0.4"/> what is the impact on Europe <pause dur="0.3"/> answer <pause dur="1.4"/> zilch <pause dur="0.3"/> # these people are totally useless they're unproductive they're parasitic <pause dur="0.3"/> if that bridge however contained <pause dur="1.1"/> scientists doctors # <pause dur="0.4"/> technologists managers <pause dur="0.3"/> # useful people <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> then it would indeed be serious those are in a sense the productive classes <pause dur="0.3"/> and it was <pause dur="0.2"/> Saint-Simon's # students in the <distinct lang="fr">grandes écoles</distinct> who took part in the <pause dur="0.2"/> eighteen-thirty revolution in Paris which overthrew the <pause dur="0.3"/> returned Bourbons <pause dur="0.3"/> and some <pause dur="0.2"/> radical Saint-Simonians actually spread their ideas among the workers in Paris in the early eighteen-thirties <pause dur="0.3"/> and some French workers got the <pause dur="0.4"/> # idea that actually they were the productive classes it was actually the workers <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>not the managers and the <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> and the and the industrialists who were the

the true who actually # as it were the <trunc>tr</trunc> were the truly productive class <pause dur="0.3"/> so much of Marx's # <pause dur="0.3"/> structure of thinking as it were <pause dur="0.3"/> # comes from <trunc>the</trunc> these sorts of Saint-Simonian influences <pause dur="0.9"/> moreover Marx was drawn into the <pause dur="0.6"/> what <pause dur="0.2"/> some have seen as a trap <pause dur="0.4"/> of seeking the laws of historical development <pause dur="0.4"/> in Das Kapital written in <trunc>nine</trunc> eighteen-sixty-seven <pause dur="0.9"/> Marx said that he was seeking <pause dur="0.3"/> the economic laws of motion <pause dur="0.4"/> of modern society <pause dur="0.6"/> and this led him certainly on occasions to <pause dur="0.2"/> appear to write as if <pause dur="0.5"/> society has moved inevitably inexorably <pause dur="0.2"/> from feudalism to capitalism <pause dur="0.3"/> and that capitalism too was inexorably doomed by <pause dur="0.2"/> certain internal contradictions <pause dur="0.7"/> and there were <pause dur="0.2"/> clearly problems with this many of Marx's liberal critics <pause dur="0.3"/> # Karl Popper for example <pause dur="0.4"/> # a leading philosopher of science # <pause dur="0.5"/> # argued in The Poverty of Historicism that Marx was <pause dur="0.8"/> wedded to what had become an outmoded nineteenth century notion of science a concept of scientific laws <pause dur="0.5"/> # whereas twentieth

century science after # <trunc>ei</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> Einstein and relativity and so forth was much more <pause dur="0.3"/> operating on the grounds of provisional hypotheses as it were which could be tested and falsified <pause dur="0.7"/> and Isaiah Berlin who E H Carr <pause dur="0.2"/> # refers to occasionally in his pamphlet <trunc>histor</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> Historical Inevitability <pause dur="0.4"/> argued that Marx's deterministic model <pause dur="0.4"/> is a denial ultimately of human free will <pause dur="0.3"/> and human agency <pause dur="0.6"/> but certainly for a century or so after eighteen-fifty <pause dur="0.5"/> Marxist historiography one could argue i think <pause dur="0.3"/> was held back in some ways by this sort of positivist overlay <pause dur="0.8"/> and this was in part because Marx himself clearly wasn't in a technical sense a historian <pause dur="0.4"/> and wrote relatively little <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="makes quotation mark gesture" iterated="n"/> history <pause dur="0.8"/> he was known for much of the late nineteenth early twentieth century for two major <pause dur="0.4"/> writings as it were first the <pause dur="0.3"/> brief polemical <pause dur="0.4"/> Communist Manifesto written on the eve of the European revolutions of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.2"/> predicting them <pause dur="0.3"/> and setting out a strategy for them <pause dur="0.6"/> and secondly for Das Kapital

written <pause dur="0.2"/> nearly twenty years later <pause dur="0.4"/> a huge attempt # # one of our great prime ministers Harold Wilson said he <pause dur="0.2"/> he gave up on page two <pause dur="0.4"/> # but # he <trunc>b</trunc> he <trunc>b</trunc> he'd done an economics degree at Oxford but <pause dur="0.4"/> a huge attempt to construct a model <pause dur="0.3"/> of the capitalist system <pause dur="0.4"/> conceived almost like a machine with a sort of central <pause dur="0.3"/> # sort of floor at # at its heart as it were <pause dur="0.3"/> E P Thompson's <pause dur="0.3"/> # book The Poverty of Theory which you'll look at next term in in conjunction with <pause dur="0.2"/> Thompson's other writing <pause dur="0.5"/> argues that # <pause dur="0.7"/> that there is something unsatisfactory about this rather mechanistic <pause dur="0.3"/> # version <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> of history which which which Marx gets drawn into he was trying to as it were refute <pause dur="0.4"/> the capitalist <trunc>economi</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>econ</trunc> economists on their own ground <pause dur="0.3"/> # and there's something rather unsatisfactory about this particular <pause dur="0.3"/> # approach <pause dur="1.8"/> the result of this concentration on the Communist Manifesto on the one hand and <trunc>kas</trunc> Das Kapital on the other was that many of the insights available in Marx's other writings in other

texts <pause dur="0.4"/> # where he does write some contemporary history and he does so in ways which are more suggestive <pause dur="0.4"/> of a less deterministic <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>a</trunc> approach <pause dur="0.5"/> # where he allows some room for agency for class consciousness for beliefs ideologies cultures and so forth <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> these texts were relatively neglected <pause dur="0.2"/> and it was only the rediscovery of such texts in the twentieth century <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>a</trunc> as together with the works of the so-called young Marx in the eighteen <trunc>f</trunc> early eighteen-forties <pause dur="0.4"/> which inspired the <pause dur="0.3"/> new Marxist new left of of the eighteen nineteen-sixties of which E P Thompson in a sense <trunc>wa</trunc> was a part <pause dur="0.9"/> until then <pause dur="0.3"/> Marxist historiography often reflected a rather crude <pause dur="0.4"/> vulgar positivistic Marxism <pause dur="0.4"/> and it's i think also <pause dur="0.2"/> important to recognize that <pause dur="0.6"/> it's only very late as it were in the nineteen-sixties <pause dur="0.3"/> that Marxist historians get a <trunc>s</trunc> any sort of <pause dur="0.7"/> toehold on most European university systems <pause dur="0.3"/> # there is the odd maverick like Georges Lefebvre one of the <trunc>c</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> classic historians of the French

Revolution who has a post at the Sorbonne <pause dur="0.3"/> in the nineteen-thirties <pause dur="0.4"/> but in Germany clearly of in in the era of <trunc>i</trunc> Wilhelmine Germany or Nazi Germany <pause dur="0.2"/> or even post-nineteen-forty-five <pause dur="0.3"/> west West Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> Marxists were largely excluded from the entire university system <pause dur="0.3"/> Gramsci perhaps the greatest Marxist theorist of this century who <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> will talk about next week <pause dur="0.5"/> died of course in one of Mussolini's prisons in the nineteen-thirties <pause dur="0.5"/> # British Marxists were very marginal George Rude one of the great British Marxist historians of the French Revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> never # <trunc>suc</trunc> succeeded in getting a job in a British university and had to go to <pause dur="0.3"/> Australia or some godforsaken place to <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> and actually <trunc>r</trunc> wrote a book about the the Tolpuddle martyrs <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>and <pause dur="0.2"/> people being deported to Australia as it were <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> # in order to find a job <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>e</trunc> even E P Thompson of course had only <pause dur="0.3"/> about four or five years here <pause dur="0.3"/> in his entire career he he

was a sort of lecturer in a sort of worker's education in <pause dur="0.2"/> in the West Riding of Yorkshire for most of his career <pause dur="0.4"/> he had three or four years here <pause dur="0.3"/> fell out with the Vice Chancellor wrote a famous book called Warwick University Limited <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> which i recommend you to read <pause dur="0.3"/> # it's all about how business interests control the the University of Warwick # <pause dur="0.2"/> an implausible thesis but <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.9"/> and then of course left and and there's <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> there <trunc>wa</trunc> there was therefore not very much space as it were for Marxist historiography to develop <pause dur="0.3"/> within the <trunc>univer</trunc> the university systems of Europe until <pause dur="0.4"/> till the nineteen-sixties <pause dur="1.3"/> but this vulgar Marxism as it were which was dominant was nevertheless <pause dur="0.2"/> in a sense quite powerful in that it argued <pause dur="0.9"/> Hobsbawn # suggests five major things <pause dur="0.9"/> in the last <trunc>instan</trunc> first of all in the last instance <pause dur="0.2"/> that economic factors were determining <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> hypothetically <pause dur="0.2"/> our world of the nineteen-nineties is being shaped by

the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> globalization <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> of the world economy <pause dur="0.3"/> # and the spread of new technologies of <pause dur="0.4"/> to take one example as it were <pause dur="0.6"/> secondly a model of base and superstructure that the economic base of society the mode of production <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> determines in some sort of ways in the last instance <pause dur="0.3"/> the superstructure of <pause dur="0.4"/> politics ideas culture laws <pause dur="0.2"/> and so forth that these are in some some ways <pause dur="0.3"/> reflect <pause dur="0.4"/> # what is going on # as it were underneath <pause dur="1.1"/> thirdly a notion <pause dur="0.2"/> that class is central that each as it were mode of production develops a distinctive set of classes and class relations <pause dur="0.4"/> and that history's motor as it were is the <pause dur="0.2"/> relationship and conflict between <pause dur="0.3"/> these classes which is again as i say related to <pause dur="0.2"/> to the <trunc>m</trunc> the modes of production <pause dur="0.9"/> fourthly and i mentioned this already that there are in a sense certain historical laws <pause dur="0.4"/> which <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> ensure that or which should suggest that <trunc>his</trunc> history <pause dur="0.4"/> # moves societies from stages from slavery to feudalism to

capitalism and so forth <pause dur="0.7"/> and finally and this is quite <pause dur="0.2"/> significant for the Eighteenth Brumaire which is partly about this <pause dur="0.3"/> that the state <pause dur="0.5"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> in some ways either directly or indirectly <pause dur="0.3"/> the instrument of the <pause dur="0.4"/> dominant economic class at a given moment in the Ancien Régime <pause dur="0.3"/> you had a feudal society with the <pause dur="0.2"/> feudal aristocracy as the dominant <pause dur="0.7"/> class in a capitalist society it's the capitalist bourgeoisie which are <pause dur="0.2"/> hegemonic <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and <trunc>y</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> not only are they sort of were in control of the economics but also their ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> # are the ones that circulate most freely and are <pause dur="0.3"/> dominant within a given society <pause dur="1.8"/> in other words the state is not as Ranke seemed to think of it # necessarily good <pause dur="0.6"/> necessary needed to achieve <trunc>s</trunc> internal stability to fight wars <pause dur="0.4"/> nor is it <pause dur="0.2"/> the state as Comte and the positivists suggested <pause dur="0.4"/> an instrument <trunc>w</trunc> whereby disinterested experts and technocrats maximize efficiency and <trunc>produc</trunc> productivity <pause dur="0.3"/> and the public <pause dur="0.2"/> well-being <pause dur="0.3"/> the state for Marx is the instrument

ultimately <pause dur="0.2"/> of the dominant class # at a given moment <pause dur="1.6"/> now even this rather crude vulgar Marxism as it's sometimes known <pause dur="0.4"/> had an explosive impact on Rankean <pause dur="0.6"/> Rankeanism as it were <trunc>wa</trunc> was the dominant paradigm <pause dur="0.6"/> # <trunc>eri</trunc> Eric Hobsbawn in one of his essays in the nineteen-sixties said <pause dur="0.8"/> this even this sort of vulgar Marxism <reading>was a concentrated charge of intellectual dynamite which demolished the fortifications of traditional Rankean history</reading> this perhaps <pause dur="0.3"/> overstating it because Rankean <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>history <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> # is still with us as it were but # <pause dur="0.2"/> as it were there is a a certain element of truth in it <pause dur="1.0"/> many of the neo-Marxists of the twentieth century argued that the <pause dur="0.2"/> the real Marx as it were the fully <pause dur="0.3"/> fully sort of rounded Marx <pause dur="0.4"/> was actually more nuanced more subtle <pause dur="0.4"/> # if if more difficult to get at as it were that he was found only in brief texts such as The Eighteenth Brumaire <pause dur="0.5"/> # dealing with <pause dur="0.2"/> short specific periods <pause dur="0.4"/> that # many of the

ideas from the as it were alternative Marx had to be teased out of incomplete texts <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> and there was an need therefore in the twentieth century for <pause dur="0.3"/> Marxists to read and reread these different sort of fragmented writings of Marx to <pause dur="0.2"/> to tease out <pause dur="0.3"/> as it were the the authentic <pause dur="0.3"/> voice of Marx <pause dur="0.5"/> and <trunc>cle</trunc> clearly a what a lot of the historiography of the <trunc>s</trunc> nineteen-sixties and seventies was about was <pause dur="0.6"/> Marxist historians <pause dur="0.4"/> attempting to find an alternative <pause dur="0.3"/> both <trunc>t</trunc> on the one hand to sort of the Rankean model <pause dur="0.4"/> of great men or the positivist model of determinism <pause dur="0.6"/> stressing <pause dur="0.4"/> # a world <pause dur="0.8"/> suggested in Marx's <pause dur="0.2"/> shorter texts <pause dur="0.2"/> where men make their own history <pause dur="0.3"/> but do so <pause dur="0.5"/> only under circumstances given and transmitted from the past <pause dur="1.7"/> but to turn to the text itself <pause dur="1.0"/> the Communist Manifesto <pause dur="0.3"/> was written on the eve of eighteen-forty-eight on the eve of the revolutions of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.6"/> and in it Marx appeared to claim that <pause dur="0.7"/> two or three main <trunc>th</trunc> main things first of all that developments <pause dur="0.3"/> within European

capitalism <pause dur="0.5"/> were already <pause dur="0.2"/> in well advanced in the process <pause dur="0.4"/> of polarizing society into <pause dur="0.3"/> a dominant capitalist bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> a growing working class <pause dur="1.1"/> that the existing ruling elite therefore was increasingly capitalist <pause dur="0.3"/> and that therefore the coming revolutions which he predicted and which occurred within weeks <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> almost of the <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> publication of of the Communist Manifesto <pause dur="0.2"/> that the coming revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> which would sweep Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> would be dominated <pause dur="0.3"/> above all by <pause dur="0.2"/> a central conflict between capitalists and workers <pause dur="1.4"/> The Eighteenth Brumaire is written <pause dur="0.4"/> nearly four years later <pause dur="0.9"/> and it's written in a sense in defeat <pause dur="0.5"/> and it's written to explain <pause dur="0.8"/> why the revolutions did occur <pause dur="0.4"/> but also from unfortunately from a Marxist point of view why <pause dur="0.5"/> the workers had been defeated <pause dur="0.3"/> why the victor in France had been <pause dur="0.4"/> a new sort of authoritarian centralized Bonapartist state # # a sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> a second empire <pause dur="0.4"/> a sort of <trunc>r</trunc> <trunc>r</trunc> some some ways sort of repeating the the pattern of <pause dur="0.3"/> of # of Napoleon the

First <pause dur="0.3"/> and what this new state signified in in class terms <pause dur="0.8"/> and to enquire whether his theories in the of the Communist Manifesto were <pause dur="0.4"/> completely wrong or whether one could <pause dur="0.2"/> as it were nuance them modify them <pause dur="0.3"/> use them to explain as it were what had happened <pause dur="1.3"/> the history of the text i think is significant it was written as i say <pause dur="0.2"/> in <pause dur="0.4"/> eighteen-fifty-two <pause dur="0.3"/> it wasn't actually <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> published until eighteen-sixty-nine <pause dur="0.5"/> and it was largely ignored for fifty years or so after that you might wish it had been ignored for <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> a hundred-and-thirty years after that but <pause dur="0.2"/> it wasn't <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> it was taken up by <pause dur="0.7"/> Marxists in the nineteen-twenties and thirties <pause dur="0.2"/> as they grappled <pause dur="0.2"/> with <pause dur="0.3"/> fresh defeats <pause dur="0.5"/> at the hands of not Bonapartism this time but fascism <pause dur="0.4"/> why did the Italian working class go down to feat <pause dur="0.3"/> defeat at the hands of Mussolini <pause dur="0.2"/> why did the German working class <pause dur="0.5"/> with a huge sort of communist party a huge socialist party a <trunc>hu</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> tens of <trunc>m</trunc>

millions of of <trunc>o</trunc> unionized workers <pause dur="0.2"/> why had these movements gone down <trunc>de</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> defeat <pause dur="0.2"/> at the hands of of fascism <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a quite interesting book on <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> theories of fascism by <pause dur="0.2"/> a man called Kitchen published in the nineteen-seventies <pause dur="0.2"/> very short book and the <pause dur="0.3"/> one of the very short chapters in this very short <trunc>ch</trunc> book <pause dur="0.2"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> Fascism as a Bonapartism and what <pause dur="0.3"/> Kitchen does is use <pause dur="0.4"/> The <pause dur="0.2"/> Eighteenth Brumaire <pause dur="0.3"/> as a way of reflecting on <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> the nature of fascism <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> and the text certainly influenced <pause dur="0.3"/> the new # Gramsci in his sitting in Mussolini's jail reflecting on why the Italian left had been defeated by Mussolini <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> took an interest in in the sort of ideas that that Marx had put forward in this text <pause dur="0.7"/> now how does The Eighteenth Brumaire modify <pause dur="0.2"/> the Communist Manifesto well it does so in a number of ways first of all <pause dur="0.5"/> it argues that capitalism <pause dur="1.1"/> is actually only developing slowly gradually unevenly in the Europe of of mid-nineteenth century <pause dur="0.5"/> that older modes of

production <pause dur="0.2"/> both in industry and with artisan producers <pause dur="0.2"/> and in the countryside with peasant farming <pause dur="0.3"/> are still there therefore <pause dur="0.5"/> one does have industrialists and one does have industrial workers but there is a much more <pause dur="0.3"/> diverse economy <pause dur="0.4"/> # with # <trunc>m</trunc> many more sort of different sort of <trunc>s</trunc> <trunc>u</trunc> subordinate social groups <pause dur="1.2"/> there is a class war that goes on in Paris and Lyon and Berlin and Cologne and so forth in Europe in eighteen-forty-eight between <pause dur="0.3"/> capitalists and workers <pause dur="0.3"/> but there are lots of other conflicts going on in Europe as well between other sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> social <trunc>s</trunc> social groups <pause dur="0.8"/> and because the <trunc>co</trunc> there is a very complex <pause dur="0.4"/> class structure and an unevenly developed economy <pause dur="0.9"/> # the <pause dur="0.5"/> social and political divisions of Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> in eighteen-forty-eight are much more complicated than Marx suggested in the Communist Manifesto <pause dur="0.7"/> at the level of elite politics it's difficult to form a single coherent <pause dur="0.4"/> conservative party because <pause dur="0.7"/> on the one hand one still has remnants of the old

aristocracy # who still survive and are still yearning for some sort of return to the Ancien Régime <pause dur="0.6"/> still imperfectly assimilated into the new <pause dur="0.4"/> bourgeois world <pause dur="0.6"/> and the bourgeoisie itself Marx says is fragmented on all sorts of grounds between <pause dur="0.5"/> finance industry trade land <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>th</trunc> <trunc>th</trunc> the professions <pause dur="0.2"/> politically between royalists Bonapartists republicans <pause dur="0.2"/> culturally between Catholics Jews Protestants <pause dur="0.3"/> Freemasons and <pause dur="0.2"/> Voltaireans and so forth <pause dur="0.4"/> in other words the <pause dur="0.3"/> the world of the elites is much more fragmented on all sorts in all sorts of grounds <pause dur="0.3"/> than Marx suggested in this notion of a sort of single capitalist ruling class <pause dur="1.3"/> and these intraclass divisions divisions as i say are within the leading classes <pause dur="0.4"/> make it difficult for the elites to achieve a united front <pause dur="0.4"/> even in the face of the threat of workers and peasants in the revolutions of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.7"/> and Marx concludes in the end <pause dur="0.3"/> these fragmented social elites in the # in the end need Bonapartism some sort

of strong authoritarian military backed regime <pause dur="0.4"/> to come in to <pause dur="0.3"/> sort out their difficulties for them <pause dur="0.4"/> # to or as it were <pause dur="0.3"/> counteract the their own fragmentation <pause dur="0.2"/> just # # as later Marx has said <pause dur="0.3"/> as the <pause dur="0.2"/> German bourgeoisie which was squabbling <pause dur="0.2"/> over all sorts of things needed the Nazis <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> to come and save them from communism and the depression <pause dur="0.3"/> # in the early nineteen-thirties <pause dur="1.2"/> the title The Eighteenth Brumaire derives from Marx's <pause dur="0.2"/> ironic view of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.5"/> a tragicomic replay of the heroic revolution of seventeen-eighty-nine and the seventeen-nineties history repeating itself as farce <pause dur="0.6"/> # in place of as it were the great Napoleon one has Napoleon the Little # his his nephew <pause dur="0.4"/> # in place of a <pause dur="0.2"/> a heroic and successful bourgeois revolution <pause dur="0.3"/> in the seventeen-nineties <pause dur="0.2"/> one has <pause dur="0.2"/> a stuttering and ultimately failed <pause dur="0.2"/> working class revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> in eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.6"/> and this revolution fails Marx argues because <pause dur="0.3"/> the working class

is still too small <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # that # it's forced to ally with # <pause dur="0.3"/> other social groups artisans and peasants and petits bourgeois <pause dur="1.6"/> the style of the text i think is significant # Marx is in a sense a <pause dur="0.7"/> a one of the many things that makes him interesting to read but also often difficult to read is he is that he <pause dur="0.4"/> he <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>i</trunc> is enormously learned in world literature from Greece and Rome and nineteenth century literature and Cervantes and <pause dur="0.3"/> and everything else <pause dur="0.3"/> # and # he <pause dur="0.2"/> scatters the the text with all sorts of literary references to all sorts of different <pause dur="0.4"/> periods <pause dur="0.5"/> and i think when you read the text that perhaps it's useful to concentrate on <pause dur="0.2"/> the first third <pause dur="0.3"/> and perhaps the last fifteen pages or so i think there's the meat of the argument <trunc>i</trunc> is is there and the middle <trunc>sec</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> sections are rather <pause dur="0.6"/> complex overcomplex perhaps <pause dur="0.3"/> account of the <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>int</trunc> <trunc>in</trunc> internal squabblings of the various elites <pause dur="0.3"/> which may be fascinating if you're interested in right wing elite politics in France but probably <pause dur="0.3"/> fairly

bewildering <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> # if you're not <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> but much of the middle section has the the various actors # the various sort of aristocrats and different sections of the bourgeoisie and various sorts of bourgeois and aristocratic parties <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> he has them sort of dressing up they're endlessly putting on masks and <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> putting on costumes and <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> as it were <trunc>d</trunc> adopting # different sort of historical guises <pause dur="0.3"/> # adopting the roles and the postures of of previous historical epochs <pause dur="0.5"/> and the irony the savage irony the of the text derives from Marx's <pause dur="0.5"/> dialectical mode of argument his <pause dur="0.2"/> sense that his conviction that <pause dur="0.4"/> objective historical processes are in fact occurring <pause dur="0.4"/> in a sense despite <pause dur="0.2"/> not because of the actions of individuals parties classes <pause dur="0.6"/> unlike Ranke who says <pause dur="0.3"/> you understand history by getting inside the heads of people <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> finding out what they thought they were doing <pause dur="0.4"/> Marx says that's only part of the

process because <pause dur="0.3"/> lots of times people do things which they think are going to <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>have <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>one sort of impact <pause dur="0.2"/> and in fact they have <pause dur="0.2"/> completely the opposite <pause dur="0.2"/> # # impact <pause dur="0.4"/> for example Marx says the newly enfranchised peasantry who've got the vote for the first time <pause dur="0.2"/> in eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.4"/> in the midst <trunc>o</trunc> middle of a revolution in the middle of a huge agrarian crisis of indebtedness and <pause dur="0.4"/> and and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.5"/> # they feel threatened from all sides they feel worried about urban socialism <pause dur="0.4"/> # they're <trunc>f</trunc> worried about the <trunc>ha</trunc> hanging on to their small farms they're in debt the crops have failed <pause dur="0.5"/> cash prices are falling whatever <pause dur="0.5"/> they vote Louis <trunc>napol</trunc> # Marx says # in December eighteen-forty-eight for Louis Napoleon as somebody as a sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> charismatic saviour who will come and rescue them from their <pause dur="0.3"/> their <pause dur="0.3"/> problems <pause dur="0.4"/> but Marx says and this is the the irony <pause dur="0.7"/> if you actually get a Bonapartist regime <pause dur="0.3"/> which stabilizes French capitalism <pause dur="0.7"/> the development of capitalism inexorably will in the long

term <pause dur="0.2"/> destroy small-scale peasant agriculture <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> in other words the peasants vote for <pause dur="0.2"/> somebody who they think will save them <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> in the long term <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> the type of regime that Bonaparte # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>ism</trunc> introduces by <pause dur="0.3"/> spreading agrarian capitalism will actually <pause dur="0.2"/> undermine small peasant agriculture <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> and # this sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> the the the certain sort of similar sort of arguments you make about the German petit bourgeoisie and Hitler <pause dur="0.4"/> or or indeed <trunc>some</trunc> <trunc>some</trunc> someone suggested to <trunc>m</trunc> Mrs Thatcher and small grocers in the # <pause dur="0.3"/> in the nineteen-eighties and nineteen-nineties the the sort of sign which i <pause dur="0.3"/> usually mention in my seminars which was <pause dur="0.2"/> painted on a bridge in <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> in <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> where i live <pause dur="0.3"/> in the early nineteen-eighties at the height of Thatcherism <pause dur="0.3"/> # you know <pause dur="0.2"/> Mrs Thatcher helps small businesses get smaller and smaller and the actual <pause dur="0.3"/> # sign was

started off in very large letters <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> itself got smaller as <pause dur="0.3"/> # towards the end of the <pause dur="0.3"/> the sentence <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> now clearly one could say that in the long term <pause dur="0.3"/> the French peasantry have <pause dur="0.2"/> largely disappeared or well there are still some of them around blockading channel ports <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> yesterday if you've read your Daily Mail and your Sun you might <pause dur="0.2"/> might have noticed this <pause dur="0.4"/> # but that's this is the <trunc>remem</trunc> remnants of a # a once much larger <pause dur="0.3"/> class the the the peasantry has has steadily been eroded <pause dur="0.2"/> in Europe over the last hundred-and-fifty years <pause dur="0.7"/> but <trunc>mar</trunc> what Marx is is <pause dur="0.3"/> concentrating on is the contradiction between <pause dur="0.7"/> what men <pause dur="0.4"/> actually are and who they think they are what they <pause dur="0.4"/> are doing and what they think they're doing or what the <trunc>im</trunc> impact of what they're doing is <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>mor</trunc> # <pause dur="0.3"/> what they think that it's going to be and what what it actually is <pause dur="0.5"/> # for example <pause dur="0.9"/> # the aristocracy in the post-<pause dur="0.3"/>seventeen-eighty-nine world Marx says <pause dur="0.4"/> still see

themselves as <pause dur="0.4"/> heirs of a long sort of aristocratic pedigree going back to the Middle Ages <pause dur="0.3"/> enemies therefore of the revolution and the and the bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.9"/> and yet Marx says really if you look at these people in eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.4"/> they no longer have <pause dur="0.2"/> seigneurial privileges they no longer have aristocratic tax exemptions <pause dur="0.3"/> they've lost most of the things which actually distinguish them as a <pause dur="0.4"/> as a # class <pause dur="0.2"/> in the Ancien Régime <pause dur="0.5"/> they're still quite rich but their <trunc>ri</trunc> their income comes from land it comes from <pause dur="0.2"/> railway investments <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>shares in coal mines and so forth <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> in all sorts of <pause dur="0.4"/> ways they are objectively <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>p</trunc> part of the part of the bourgeoisie their their income actually comes from <pause dur="0.2"/> the same sort of sources <pause dur="0.3"/> as that of the upper middle class <pause dur="0.4"/> they're really de facto part of the bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.7"/> and therefore they should in a sense share a common interest to defend property against socialism <pause dur="0.6"/> but subjectively Marx says some of them are still

locked in the past subjectively <trunc>s</trunc> they're still locked in this sort of world of of <pause dur="0.2"/> hereditary privilege and and <pause dur="0.3"/> and and family heritage and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.5"/> and Marx sees them therefore as a sense schizophrenic <pause dur="0.4"/> # endlessly <pause dur="0.6"/> putting on and taking off costumes and masks posing one moment as <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of feudal seigneurs and the next moment as <pause dur="0.4"/> defenders of property against against working class socialism <pause dur="0.6"/> and # one recent <trunc>criti</trunc> # sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> # # <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of of study of The Eighteenth Brumaire by <pause dur="0.2"/> by <trunc>chris</trunc> Christopher Norris in the context of post-modernism which is something you'll come to next term <pause dur="0.4"/> suggested that eighteenth <trunc>cent</trunc> The Eighteenth Brumaire is in a sense the first <pause dur="0.4"/> as it were protopostmodernist text because one has these characters as it were endlessly <pause dur="0.2"/> changing identity changing costumes <pause dur="0.2"/> choosing identities <pause dur="2.9"/> one of the things that clearly distinguishes Marx's approach from from that of Ranke is his treatment as it were of great <pause dur="0.4"/> men <pause dur="0.4"/> # Marx has clearly no time at all

for the notion that <pause dur="0.9"/> well then Ranke as as it were <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>p</trunc> <trunc>p</trunc> largely attributed the German Reformation to to Luther that Luther was the this great man who came along and thought <pause dur="0.3"/> in a different way about the <pause dur="0.2"/> about the church about # theology and so on and so forth the <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> in a sense the Reformation and indeed <pause dur="0.4"/> subsequent German national identity was conceived in the mind <pause dur="0.3"/> of this of this great man in in in the early sixteenth century <pause dur="0.6"/> Marx rejects the sort of Rankean emphasis on which <trunc>whi</trunc> <trunc>whi</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>w</trunc> would it be possible as it were to write a Rankean account <pause dur="0.3"/> of the period that Marx is writing about <pause dur="0.2"/> in terms of Louis Napoleon as a great man who comes along and <pause dur="0.2"/> saves the state against chaos in and and and revolution and so forth and <pause dur="0.3"/> revives France's economic and political power in the eighteen-fifties <pause dur="0.4"/> after the crisis <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> but although Marx refuses to take that line he also says that the <pause dur="0.4"/> some of the lines taken by <trunc>l</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> Louis Napoleon's Republican critics people like the novelist Victor Hugo who

wrote a pamphlet called Napoleon le Petit Napoleon the Little <pause dur="0.4"/> # which he sort of ridiculed Louis Napoleon as a complete <pause dur="0.3"/> idiot a nincompoop a sort of pale shadow of his uncle and so on and so forth <pause dur="1.0"/> Marx said that's not good enough either because if this man is such an idiot <pause dur="0.3"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> so incompetent and so forth how come he's managed just to seize power in one of the most powerful states <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> in Western Europe <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> Marx's answer to this if it is an answer and there are things wrong with it undoubtedly is that <pause dur="0.3"/> the significant <pause dur="0.6"/> reading of why Louis Napoleon and Bonapartism came to power <pause dur="0.3"/> in France in eighteen-fifty-one <pause dur="0.5"/> is <pause dur="0.5"/> in terms of the a sort of <pause dur="0.7"/> paralysis in the class war as it were the <pause dur="0.2"/> the French elites <pause dur="0.3"/> are too <pause dur="0.2"/> divided as i've tried to describe <pause dur="0.2"/> to rule themselves <pause dur="0.7"/> the masses workers and peasants <pause dur="0.3"/> are too mobilized too angry too radicalized to allow the elites to rule <pause dur="0.4"/> but the masses

are also <trunc>soo</trunc> too <pause dur="0.4"/> immature too unorganized <pause dur="0.3"/> # to actually seize power effectively themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> and it's in this sort of <pause dur="0.5"/> stalemate in a class war as it were <pause dur="0.2"/> which allows this <pause dur="0.2"/> # figure as it were <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> with various sorts of backers and various sorts of # thing <pause dur="0.2"/> to to to come to power <pause dur="1.5"/> what Marx is trying to do here is to <pause dur="0.9"/> constantly in a sense decode <pause dur="0.5"/> French politics <pause dur="0.7"/> in class terms he says you've got a variety of parties you've got Republicans Radicals <pause dur="0.3"/> Montaignards <pause dur="0.3"/> # Legitimist Royalists or Lyonist Royalists Bonapartists and so on and so forth <pause dur="0.3"/> these are the were the political labels <pause dur="0.4"/> who <pause dur="0.7"/> in class terms do these various parties represent <pause dur="0.9"/> and the bourgeois elites he says are fragmented <pause dur="0.4"/> # there is in a sense a ruling block rather than a single capitalist ruling class <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> # many of the as it were financiers and so forth have backed <pause dur="0.2"/> the Orleanist regime till eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.5"/> the conservative wing of the # nobility are still yearning for the return of the Bourbons who've been

displaced in eighteen-thirty <pause dur="0.7"/> # and there are all sorts of <pause dur="0.2"/> # divisions as it were within the the the the ruling elites <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> and # as i i tried to describe the # <pause dur="0.2"/> # the the aristocracy are sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>s</trunc> schizophrenic about their identity <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> on the one hand they the aristocracy are <pause dur="0.6"/> as it were <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/> objectively in terms of their income part of the bourgeoisie but nevertheless <pause dur="0.2"/> they're still swayed by family traditions dynastic loyalties <pause dur="0.4"/> family memories <pause dur="0.3"/> # they still obstinately feel themselves to be distinct from the bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.6"/> # and Marx goes on to say <reading>distinction is made in private life <pause dur="0.4"/> between what a man thinks and says of himself <pause dur="0.3"/> and what he really is and does <pause dur="0.4"/> in historical struggles <pause dur="0.3"/> one must <pause dur="0.2"/> make a still sharper distinction <pause dur="0.4"/> between <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> # between the <pause dur="0.2"/> phrases <pause dur="0.2"/> and fantasies of the parties involved <pause dur="0.2"/> and their real interests between their conceptions <pause dur="0.2"/> of themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> and what they really are</reading> <pause dur="1.5"/> and similarly <pause dur="0.3"/> # looking at the <pause dur="0.4"/> the <trunc>f</trunc> the left in France in eighteen-forty-eight

which is trying to make a more popular egalitarian revolution of in the interests of the <pause dur="1.4"/> workers peasants artisans the lower classes of society <pause dur="1.3"/> Marx attributes their <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> you see he basically says that they are a sort of composite group they're an uneasy alliance of a certain number of sort of bourgeois radical leaders you know lawyers and doctors and journalists <pause dur="0.5"/> together with sections of the lower middle class sections of the skilled artisans <pause dur="0.2"/> sections of the peasantry <pause dur="0.4"/> and the new emerging working class <pause dur="0.6"/> # and Marx argues that it's precisely this preponderance within this <pause dur="0.2"/> popular coalition <pause dur="0.4"/> of <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="fr">petit</distinct> producers you know small artisans small peasant <pause dur="0.2"/> proprietors <pause dur="0.4"/> which makes <pause dur="0.4"/> their ultimate strategy their ultimate ideology <pause dur="0.2"/> slow confused and ultimately Marx argues such a failure <pause dur="0.5"/> because what Marx argues and this is part of Marx's sort of <pause dur="0.5"/> historical ruthlessness <pause dur="0.2"/> is that <pause dur="0.5"/> much of this popular alliance actually represents people like small independent craftsmen <pause dur="0.2"/> and small

peasants <pause dur="0.2"/> who are doomed <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> to disruption the capitalist process <pause dur="0.2"/> is too powerful <pause dur="0.2"/> to allow these sorts of <pause dur="0.2"/> intermediary groups <pause dur="0.2"/> to survive much longer <pause dur="0.3"/> their modes of production are archaic <pause dur="1.3"/> and one could argue and <trunc>p</trunc> certain historians have argued <pause dur="0.3"/> that Marx is here allowing his in a sense his teleological conviction <pause dur="0.3"/> of the long term <trunc>cap</trunc> you know in the long term these people are going to be defeated <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> therefore <pause dur="0.2"/> in a sense their struggles are doomed and therefore in a sense they're futile <pause dur="0.3"/> one could nevertheless argue that in the real world of the France of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.3"/> since there are millions of peasants and <pause dur="0.2"/> hundreds of thousands of small artisans and you know these people actually exist <pause dur="0.3"/> they're not actually factory workers <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> nevertheless they they will actually try to construct a world where where <trunc>y</trunc> <trunc>wh</trunc> based on you know cooperative credit and mutual aid societies and <pause dur="0.3"/> various sorts of <trunc>mutua</trunc> # # sort of # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> institutions of this sort cooperative production <pause dur="0.3"/>

which would actually try and prolong their existence <pause dur="0.4"/> and indeed Bernard Moss in quite an interesting article in the Socialist Register nineteen-ninety-eight which should be on the reading list and isn't <pause dur="0.4"/> # has argued that <pause dur="0.4"/> Marx himself <pause dur="0.3"/> a year or two earlier in eighteen-forty-eight forty-nine had actually urged <pause dur="0.3"/> in both France and Germany <pause dur="0.2"/> a sort of broad populist coalition in worker <pause dur="0.2"/> which workers allied with peasants and artisans <pause dur="0.3"/> and the petit bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.3"/> it's only <pause dur="0.4"/> when he comes to The Eighteenth Brumaire when <pause dur="0.2"/> when they when they've actually been defeated that he says well it's inevitable they would be defeated because they <pause dur="0.2"/> represent as it were the the forces of backwardness and the forces of the past </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0088" trans="pause"> what i want to do finally if i've got time is to look <pause dur="0.4"/> briefly at <pause dur="0.4"/> the relationship between class and politics <trunc>i</trunc> in in in in in to summarize it as it were <pause dur="0.4"/> and then if i have time and if i don't have time then you've got it written down on the on the

sheet i've <trunc>give</trunc> given you <pause dur="0.2"/> look a bit about the <pause dur="0.2"/> the role of the state <pause dur="0.5"/> first of all to summarize in a sense what i think Marx is trying to say # about <pause dur="0.2"/> the relationship between class and politics <pause dur="1.0"/> he's arguing i think that class doesn't in itself represent <pause dur="0.3"/> a category of absolute political unity <pause dur="0.4"/> there are endless <pause dur="0.3"/> squabbles within classes ideological cultural political and so forth <pause dur="0.2"/> if one thinks of our own <pause dur="0.4"/> period of the nineteen-eighties and nineties the <pause dur="0.2"/> the English bourgeoisie is divided between some who believe in a sort of libertarian <pause dur="0.3"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> # moral code and some who believe in Christian family <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>values <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> # some believe you know bankers and financiers and people in the city in the London like <pause dur="0.3"/> interest rates to go up because they make their money <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>through <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> lending money <pause dur="0.3"/> on high rates of interests which are harmful to northern and midland industrialists <pause dur="0.4"/> #

there are <pause dur="0.2"/> sections of the Tory Party that are in favour of <pause dur="0.5"/> the single European currency and the common market and there are sections of the Tory Party that are <pause dur="0.2"/> against it <pause dur="0.2"/> sections of British business which are <pause dur="0.3"/> take different lines <pause dur="0.3"/> the in other words the <pause dur="0.2"/> the bourgeoisie is is fragmented on all sorts of of lines <pause dur="0.4"/> but <trunc>mar</trunc> what is Marx is arguing is that <pause dur="0.4"/> ultimately class dictates a certain line of material interest beyond which <pause dur="0.3"/> no political fraction <pause dur="0.3"/> of the bourgeoisie will actually cross <pause dur="0.4"/> the <trunc>bourg</trunc> no bourgeois party will in the last instance <pause dur="0.6"/> attack private property or call call for the wholesale nationalization of the the banks or the city of London <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/> or the renationalization of the railway system or or whatever <pause dur="0.4"/> # but until that line is reached <pause dur="0.4"/> class fractions will <trunc>f</trunc> actually fight <pause dur="0.2"/> quite bitterly amongst themselves <pause dur="0.8"/> such squabbles might well be about religion if you one <pause dur="0.3"/> one looks at the British bourgeoisie in the

nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> the most bitter conflicts were often between <pause dur="0.2"/> the Church of England and non-conformists <pause dur="0.2"/> these were very real <pause dur="0.4"/> through a cultural and often <trunc>politic</trunc> you know the <pause dur="0.2"/> non-conformists tended to be Liberals <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # Church of England <pause dur="0.2"/> tended to be Tories these are very real conflicts <pause dur="0.3"/> such ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> such conflicts actually exist in a certain plane <pause dur="0.2"/> # in in the superstructure as it were <pause dur="0.6"/> # but may be explained in the sense <pause dur="0.4"/> in that plane you don't need to constantly return to the <pause dur="0.4"/> mode of production or the underlying economic base <pause dur="0.4"/> to necessarily explain all these <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> conflicts or some of them might be <pause dur="0.3"/> might be done that way <pause dur="0.5"/> the line of class therefore in a <trunc>s</trunc> in a sense establishes a ring <pause dur="0.5"/> around possible activities what goes on inside the ring <pause dur="0.5"/> can have non-material causes can be conflicts about religion or whether or not one supports a <pause dur="0.2"/> particular dynasty or whatever <pause dur="0.7"/> and conflicts over such issues may be subjectively deeply felt <pause dur="0.4"/> # as deeply felt even more

deeply felt than class divisions <pause dur="0.6"/> but such conflicts rarely in the last instance cross the line <pause dur="0.3"/> of certain common material interests <pause dur="1.0"/> Marx later insisted that it is not the consciousness of men which determines their <trunc>s</trunc> social existence <pause dur="0.4"/> but on the contrary <pause dur="0.3"/> their social existence which determines their consciousness <pause dur="1.0"/> and one <pause dur="0.5"/> of the <pause dur="0.3"/> complicated lessons i think of The Eighteenth Brumaire <pause dur="0.5"/> is that <pause dur="0.3"/> in the <pause dur="0.2"/> complicated transitional society of France of eighteen-forty-eight a world <pause dur="0.2"/> moving towards capitalism but in which <pause dur="0.4"/> peasants artisans petits bourgeois aristocrats all sorts of <pause dur="0.3"/> older social groups are still present <pause dur="0.6"/> then <pause dur="0.6"/> social existence is determined <pause dur="0.5"/> by in a sense a coexistence of the new capitalist mode of production <pause dur="0.2"/> but also with older modes of production <pause dur="0.8"/> and hence the superstructure of ideas ideologies consciousness <pause dur="0.4"/> reflects in the France of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.3"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> a single dominant capitalist mode of production <pause dur="0.3"/> but also various <pause dur="0.4"/> subsidiary perhaps declining but

still very powerful <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> as it were <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>al</trunc> alternative modes of production <pause dur="2.1"/> the idea moreover the study of the aristocracy suggests the ideas and attitudes generated by an earlier feudal society <pause dur="0.3"/> may in a sense have an afterlife the feudal system may have gone by seventeen-eighty-nine <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> it still lives on in a sense in the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>consciousness <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> of aristocratic families and may outlast might <trunc>outla</trunc> outlast the mode of production <pause dur="0.3"/> which gave rise to it </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0088" trans="pause"> i'll just summarize the last bit very <trunc>bries</trunc> briefly <pause dur="0.7"/> Marx <pause dur="0.3"/> # Marx's final # focus was on the <pause dur="0.3"/> Bonapartist state <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> in a superb often quoted <pause dur="0.4"/> and i i'll link this with the analysis of the peasantry because he sees the peasantry as in some way the <pause dur="0.3"/> the mass base <pause dur="0.3"/> of the Bonapartist state <pause dur="0.8"/> in a superb and often quoted passage at the end towards the end about ten pages from the end <pause dur="0.4"/> Marx portrays the French peasantry as <pause dur="1.1"/> objectively a class there are millions of these smallholders and and sort of small tenant farmers and share croppers <pause dur="0.4"/> living

in provincial rural France each of them farming a few acres <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> distinct clearly from other classes they are in a sense <pause dur="0.2"/> # you know clearly a <trunc>c</trunc> a a a a <trunc>c</trunc> they have a class with certain things in common <pause dur="0.8"/> but subjectively Marx says their level of class consciousness <pause dur="0.8"/> is very low <pause dur="0.4"/> they are not fully a class for itself as it were <pause dur="0.4"/> because they were geographically dispersed they have low lates of rates of literacy <pause dur="0.4"/> they <pause dur="0.2"/> don't meet each other very often in market centres they are <pause dur="0.3"/> too fragmented in all sorts of ways to <pause dur="0.2"/> act together <pause dur="0.4"/> as a class <pause dur="0.8"/> and therefore Marx argues they are unable to generate a level of class class organization <pause dur="0.4"/> # achieved by say even by <trunc>urba</trunc> urban workers or by urban bourgeois <pause dur="0.8"/> they are therefore unable Marx says to defend their own class interests in this crisis of eighteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.3"/> and turn to a Bonapartist messiah <pause dur="0.4"/> # who will <pause dur="0.4"/> as Marx says <pause dur="0.2"/> send the rain to <trunc>s</trunc> and the sunshine from above <unclear>in other words</unclear> they turn to a charismatic figure <pause dur="0.2"/> to

save them because they are <pause dur="0.2"/> too <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> unorganized to save themselves Marx says <pause dur="0.3"/> and this is a phrase which Edward Said uses in in the beginning of Orientalism which you'll be studying next term <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>they cannot represent themselves <pause dur="0.3"/> they must be represented</reading> <pause dur="1.2"/> now Marx i think is <pause dur="0.5"/> actually aware that # the the peasantry of France in in in the <pause dur="0.6"/> eighteen-forty-eight # to eighteen-fifty-one is actually quite mobilized quite radicalized in some some areas <pause dur="0.4"/> # some of the peasants vote for Louis Napoleon in <trunc>ei</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> in December eighteen-forty-eight shouting <pause dur="0.3"/> aristocrats and usurers to the guillotine which is not the <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> the normal sort of conservative <pause dur="0.4"/> # sort of response # <pause dur="0.3"/> # that one might <trunc>im</trunc> imagine <pause dur="0.3"/> and he notes the the way that some peasants are actually attracted by the left # in in in in as the second republic <pause dur="0.4"/> # progresses <pause dur="0.8"/> but Marx is also almost wilfully myopic about # about the possibilities of peasant consciousness and peasant

organization <pause dur="0.5"/> he talks elsewhere in his writings about the idiocy of rural life <pause dur="0.6"/> he sees peasants as almost irredeemably backward and ignorant <pause dur="0.3"/> doomed ultimately by the growth of agrarian capitalism <pause dur="0.3"/> it's only the workers <pause dur="0.3"/> gathered together in factories and cities <pause dur="0.2"/> who are capable of organizing as a potential radical revolutionary class <pause dur="0.7"/> # and i think he therefore largely ignores what was actually quite substantial peasant resistance to the Bonapartist coup d'état in December eighteen-fifty-one he talks about France being <pause dur="0.3"/> delivered <pause dur="0.2"/> unresisting into captivity <pause dur="0.6"/> and if one looks at <pause dur="0.2"/> if one looks at this more broadly <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> it's i think an interesting question to pose Marx says the history of <pause dur="0.3"/> societies is the history of class and class conflicts <pause dur="0.7"/> while the history of most # most people in Europe over <pause dur="0.4"/> a thousand years and more have actually been peasants <pause dur="0.3"/> well if peasants have such a low level of class consciousness <pause dur="0.3"/> what role i mean if you

look at the <pause dur="0.3"/> German peasant revolt of fifteen-twenty-five or the <pause dur="0.3"/> French peasant revolt of seventeen-eighty-nine or the Russian peasant revolt of nineteen-<pause dur="0.3"/>five or nineteen-seventeen or the Chinese peasants <pause dur="0.2"/> are are peasants irredeemably backward <pause dur="0.2"/> incapable of of political <pause dur="0.4"/> consciousness and action this is a <pause dur="0.3"/> a question that <pause dur="0.2"/> that Marx # in a sense # <pause dur="0.7"/> poses <pause dur="0.2"/> and perhaps doesn't provide an entirely satisfactory answer to <pause dur="2.1"/> what i think Marx <trunc>i</trunc> is arguing is that <pause dur="0.4"/> all societies are divided into classes but the level of class consciousness <pause dur="0.4"/> varies widely <pause dur="0.3"/> and so does the capacity for effective class action <pause dur="1.1"/> the later <pause dur="0.3"/> Marxist theorist the <pause dur="0.2"/> # Hungarian Georg Lukacs <pause dur="0.4"/> argued that Marxists should be aware <pause dur="0.6"/> of three levels of class <pause dur="0.2"/> one is the objective class position as it were one's actual place in the social structure <pause dur="1.2"/> the second is the actual level of subjective class consciousness which Marx claims for the French peasants is fairly low <pause dur="0.9"/> and thirdly <pause dur="0.2"/> what Lukacs <trunc>arg</trunc> argues that Marxist

historians should be <pause dur="0.6"/> aware of what he called ascribed class consciousness I-E what a class <pause dur="0.3"/> would think if it could perceive its interests more clearly <pause dur="0.3"/> # perhaps it's something a bit like Rousseau's general will as it were <pause dur="0.4"/> and he <pause dur="0.2"/> Lukacs argued that Marxists should be aware of this third <pause dur="0.5"/> # # as it were sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> category <pause dur="0.2"/> because the contrast between <pause dur="0.4"/> people's actual and their rational behaviour <pause dur="0.3"/> affects the historical effectiveness of their actions </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0088" trans="pause"> Marx sees the peasant electors <pause dur="0.9"/> as a sort of mass <pause dur="0.2"/> passive base <pause dur="0.2"/> of the Bonapartist state the <pause dur="0.3"/> Bonapartism is strong in part because it's able to attract the support <pause dur="0.3"/> of at least a sizable proportion <pause dur="0.3"/> of France's <pause dur="0.4"/> mass rural # peasant electorate <pause dur="0.9"/> but Marx argues there's no necessary correlation between <pause dur="0.3"/> the interests of the peasantry and the longer term interests of the Bonapartist regime <pause dur="0.4"/> just as there's no necessary correlation <pause dur="0.5"/> later Marxists will argue between the interests of the German petit bourgeoisie who voted for the

Nazis <pause dur="0.4"/> and the actual <pause dur="0.4"/> # sort of <pause dur="1.0"/> programmes and policies of the Nazi regime <pause dur="0.2"/> in power which are often more favourable to <pause dur="0.3"/> to I G Farben and German big business <pause dur="1.2"/> Marx sees the bourgeois elites in France as turning to Bonapartism again <pause dur="0.6"/> later Marxists would say like the bourgeoisie in Italy in the nineteen-twenties or the bourgeoisie in Germany in the nineteen-thirties <pause dur="0.6"/> because they grow impatient of the divisions and squabbles <pause dur="0.3"/> within their own political class <pause dur="0.3"/> because in the face of economic depression and <trunc>p</trunc> possible <pause dur="0.5"/> working class socialism or revolution <pause dur="0.4"/> # the bourgeoisie bourgeois politicians are squabbling among themselves <pause dur="0.3"/> the bourgeoisie say to hell with that lot <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> we're fed up with parliamentary government we're fed up with elections it's all too <pause dur="0.3"/> messy it's all too dangerous <pause dur="0.2"/> what we need is a strong man <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> who can restore law and order and and so forth <pause dur="0.3"/> and # <pause dur="0.8"/> and in a sense # therefore the the the the there are

certain parallels i think <unclear>#</unclear> between # <pause dur="0.4"/> between Bonapartism fascism there <pause dur="0.5"/> and then there is the question that is the resultant state the Bonapartist state the fascist state <pause dur="0.4"/> a capitalist bourgeois state <pause dur="0.6"/> well yes and no and yes it's not because it is not <pause dur="0.4"/> directly run by the capitalists it's not actually <pause dur="0.4"/> financiers and <pause dur="0.2"/> industrialists and so forth who <pause dur="0.2"/> run the state machine in the in France in the eighteen-fifties <pause dur="0.2"/> or in Germany in the nineteen-thirties <pause dur="0.5"/> and to some degree the bourgeoisie relies on protection from the police and the bureaucracy and the army <pause dur="0.5"/> # # to in order to <pause dur="0.2"/> to to to preserve it its its wealth and its power and its investments <pause dur="0.8"/> but Marx argues that <pause dur="0.4"/> yes it is a <unclear>you know</unclear> capitalist bourgeois state it's not a state he says <pause dur="0.2"/> not a state suspended in a void <pause dur="0.6"/> because by suppressing the left <pause dur="0.6"/> by dismantling the workers' movement after eighteen-fifty-one <pause dur="0.2"/> just as the

Nazis dismantled the communists and the trade unions <pause dur="0.2"/> after nineteen-thirty-three <pause dur="0.6"/> # one <pause dur="0.2"/> allowed the capitalist <pause dur="0.3"/> regime to survive <pause dur="0.3"/> and to expand to make profits for the <trunc>b</trunc> for the bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.3"/> and that the state machine itself <pause dur="0.3"/> recruits from the elites the bureaucracy is actually recruited from the <pause dur="0.2"/> educated sons of the propertied elites <pause dur="0.2"/> and lives in a sense off the surplus value <pause dur="0.3"/> created by <pause dur="0.2"/> capitalism and by <pause dur="0.2"/> the taxation system <pause dur="0.6"/> and therefore <pause dur="1.2"/> what Marx is postulating is an idea of a state which is both <pause dur="0.5"/> on the one hand <pause dur="0.3"/> semi-autonomous is <pause dur="0.2"/> it's not directly controlled by <pause dur="0.2"/> the capitalists they've in sense abandoned that <pause dur="0.5"/> but yet it's functioning <pause dur="0.3"/> in the long term to protect their their interests <pause dur="0.3"/> and as i say <pause dur="0.2"/> in that sense the analysis of fascism <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # in nineteen-twenties and thirties <pause dur="0.3"/> relied heavily on Marx's analysis of Bonapartism <pause dur="0.3"/> # in The Eighteenth Brumaire <pause dur="0.4"/> thank you very much