The article aims to question a commonplace : Marx would only have criticized the idea of “general interest” because, in his view, it would have been created during the French Revolution in order to guarantee and in the same time veil the bourgeois interest. The analysis, based on an enquiry on the German terms used by the young Marx, reveals, beside this critique, a theoretical attempt to think a “common” or “human” interest. This common interest would overcome class (...) antagonism, and take over the interests of all and of everyone. (shrink)

L’article s’efforce, à partir de l’analyse des expressions allemandes employées par le jeune Marx, de vérifier la thèse communément admise selon laquelle on ne trouverait dans ce corpus qu’une critique de l’intérêt général tel qu’il a été formulé sous la Révolution française, censé dissimuler l’intérêt de la bourgeoisie. L’analyse fait apparaître qu’une telle critique côtoie un effort théorique pour penser un « intérêt commun » ou « humain » qui, dépassant l’antagonisme des classes, pourrait prendre en (...) charge l’intérêt de tous et de chacun. (shrink)

WHEN Marx called Kant the "philosopher of the French Revolution," he did not have in mind the "jacobin" Kant who continued his enthusiastic support of the Revolution long after his freedom-loving younger contemporaries such as Schiller and Goethe had become disillusioned with its course. Marx’s image of Kant is in fact that of the "philosopher of the bourgeoisie" in its struggle for freedom from the constraints of the feudal order. The substitution of a socio-economic class for a political (...) revolution in these two phrases entails a dangerous reduction of politics to economics which typifies a caricatural Marxism. What is more, such a reduction of course distorts the object of analysis, be it the Kantian philosophy, the French Revolution, or our own contemporary socio-political context. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the years preceding Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity in Chile (1970-1973) and, more precisely, on the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR). Since 1969, this Marxist revolutionary group had actively participated in the class struggle in Chile. However its political and social activism was not oriented towards the working class, but instead towards marginalized social sectors (inhabitants of informal settlements and landless rural workers). The paper thus seeks to elucidate the process which led the MIR to invest social (...) sectors that should have been considered as “unorthodox,” from a Marxist organization’s point of view. More generally, the analysis of a political experience taking place in a country where the working class was not as coherent or as massive as it was in 20th Century Western Europe and the United States aims at “deprovincializing” history and at using the concepts of “class” and “class struggle” in a manner which distances them from their potentially economicist and sociologizing implications. (shrink)

Aim: The main aim of the present study is to identify which mental footnotes (related to Marx’s and Engels’ Socialism) have more weight in the current cognitive processing of citizens. Background: We used the “Manifesto of the communist party” as the main source of the thoughts from these authors. Method: An experimental design (based on a previous qualitative research) was carried out to test the influence of mental footnotes on the citizens’ decision on the validity of the concepts. Results: (...) The findings point out that there are strong, current, mental footnotes related to the Marx’s and Engels’ concept of bourgeoisie. Conclusions: The Marx’s and Engels’ Philosophy is currently alive, at least, some concepts related to bourgeoisie. People mostly think that the current means of production of modern bourgeoisie were developed in the feudal age, proletariat struggles with bourgeoisie from the beginning, Communism and Socialism are the only political movement that recognized this bourgeoisie-proletariat antagonism and the means of production are nowadays extended to other social classes. The present methodology (from an Experimental Psychology perspective) means a reliable technique to extract the essence of a text and to test the influence of its concepts on human cognitive processing. (shrink)

The story of the Vox Populi embodies conflict theory, one popular interpretation of Marx's ideas, portraying a bloody revolution that loses sight of its ideals, turns anarchistic, and becomes the new oppressor. In Columbia, Zachary Hale Comstock and Jeremiah Fink illustrate the way the bourgeoisie may come to create and control the means of production. As the friction builds between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, historical processes contribute to the inevitable collapse of capitalism. In BioShock Infinite, the simmering friction (...) between the upper and lower classes boils over into the rise of the Vox Populi. The functionalist perspective often casts religion as a social structure that keeps society together despite any negative costs it may have for any particular group. In order for the bourgeoisie to own the means of production and keep the working class oppressed, it uses propaganda and indoctrination as powerful agents of control. (shrink)

Cette édition numérique a été réalisée à partir d'un support physique, parfois ancien, conservé au sein du dépôt légal de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, conformément à la loi n° 2012-287 du 1er mars 2012 relative à l'exploitation des Livres indisponibles du XXe siècle. Pages de début Introduction I - Questions générales 1 - Sur le concept de politique 2 - Politique et classes sociales 3 - Sur le concept de pouvoir II - L'État capitaliste 1 - Le problème 2 (...) - Typologie et type d'État capitaliste 3 - L'État absolutiste, État de transition 4 - Sur les modèles de la révolution bourgeoise III - Traits fondamentaux de l'État capitaliste Présentation 1 - L'État capitaliste et les intérêts des classes dominées 2 - L'État capitaliste et les idéologies 3 - L'État capitaliste et la force 4 - L'État capitaliste et les classes dominantes IV - L'unité du pouvoir et l'autonomie relative de l'État capitaliste 1 - Le problème et sa position théorique par les classiques du marxisme 2 - Quelques mésinterprétations et leurs conséquences 3 - L'État capitaliste et le champ de la lutte des classes 4 - L'État capitaliste et les classes dominantes 5 - Le problème dans les formes d'État et dans les formes de régime : l'exécutif et le législatif V - Sur la bureaucratie et les élites 1 - Le problème et les théories des élites 2 - La position marxiste et la question d'appartenance de classe de l'appareil d'État 3 - État capitaliste - Bureaucratisme - Bureaucratie4 - La bureaucratie et la lutte des classes Pages de fin. (shrink)

A standard problem with the objectivity of social scientific theory in particular is that it is either self-referential, in which case it seems to undermine itself as ideology, or self-excepting, which seem pragmatically self-refuting. Using the example of Marx and his theory of ideology, I show how self-referential theories that include themselves in their scope of explanation can be objective. Ideology may be roughly defined as belief distorted by class interest. I show how Marx thought that natural science (...) was informed by class interest but not therefore necessarily ideology. Capitalists have an interest in understanding the natural world (to a point) so that they can manipulate it for profit. Their survival in the marketplace often depends on their competitive success in doing so. The fact that their interventions into nature, driven by class interest, often succeed, is evidence of the reliability and truth of their natural scientific theories. -/- With social science, capitalists have a partial interest in understanding the world, so that they may maintain their class power, ideological hegemony, and a reasonably stable and self-reproducing economy. Some bourgeois social science, Marx thinks, is therefore vindicated the same way that natural science is, because of, not despite, its success in promoting the class interests that cause it. But the capitalist class, Marx thinks, also has an interest in obfuscating the truth about the social world. It would undermine the stability of capitalism, for example, for the bourgeoisie to adopt what Marx thinks to be the correct social theory, Marxism, and proclaim to the world that capitalism is exploitative and unstable. Capitalism creates a a need for ideological social theories that, driven by class interest, represent capitalism as just, natural, inevitable, and unalterable. If Marxism is correct, while these theories may further capitalist interests, they will not withstand the test of time as capitalist exploitation and instability engenders countersystemic political action. -/- How, then can we know, according to Marx, that Marxism is correct, as applied to itself? In part it is whether it succeeds in further the class interests that cause it. If workers adopt bourgeois theories and Marxism is right, they will find themselves frustrated in pursuit of goals that they have, such as improving their well-being, and if Marxism is wrong, then those theories will help them further their own goals. Similarly with Marxism: if it is right, then workers who adopt it should in the long run have more success in furthering their own goals, and if not, then not. But it is question begging to say that our confidence in the reliability of Marxism is enhanced by its successful promotion of goals that capitalists do not have but (according to Marxism) workers do. To avoid this problem it is necessary to compare the relative success of each sort of theory in promoting the interests and needs that the respective classes have independently of the theory, as well as by the usual criteria of scientific theory choice. -/- Thus the Soviet variant of Marxism was fairly decisively refuted by its failure to generate the support of its own designated constituency necessary to grow and survive. Whether the same is true of other varieties of Marxism or of capitalist social theory, it is, as Zhou En Lai said when asked whether the French Revolution had succeeded, too soon to tell, at least in any definitive way. However, and this is the point of the paper, an objective test of Marxism is possible even though Marxism says that all theory is informed by class interest. The question is whether the interests are in discovering or obfuscating the truth. The point is not limited to Marx, but applies to any self-referential social scientific theory that includes itself in its scope. -/- Keywords: ideology, self-referential theory, self-reference, reliabilism, objectivity, Marx, Marxism, sociology of science, class interest, classes, capitalism, bourgeoisie, workers, working class, social theory of knowledge, confirmation of scientific theory. (shrink)

This slim volume by an Austrian Marxist attempts two major types of correction to contemporary Marxism. One is an historical correction which seeks to restore what was originally present in the basic vision of Marx and Engels. The other is an innovative correction which seeks to revise the historical doctrine in the face of new conditions which contradict its original conclusions or premisses. The historical correction is the restoration of the human element as the crucial factor in the law (...) of motion of society. Without the human element, there are only tendencies in the movement of history. The human element adds direction--converts a tendency into a specific direction. Previous social movements were spontaneous, but the leap from capitalism to socialism absolutely requires the conscious activity of man. The revisionist correction is two-pronged, but its necessity arises from the same consideration of how to effect the move from capitalism to socialism. The capitalist model has not acted in accordance with Marx's conception of the absolute or relative impoverishment of the working class. Social distribution of surplus value in the industrial powers of the western world has been sufficient to develop a materially satisfied working class. The appeal to the working class, therefore, has to change to a new stress on culture, democracy and, above all, morality. At the same time, the economic arena must not be abandoned. The concept of structural reform, advanced by the late Palmiro Togliatti, should be supported. This means that the working class should join in capitalist planning to avoid depression; that it should insist on a larger role in the operation of the plants and in their relations to the financial and political institutions; and that it should struggle for nationalizing measures which take the decisive means of production out of the hands of the big capitalists. Structural reform could hardly be expected to bring on revolution, but it does move the working class forward toward the decisive content of the socialist revolution, which for Marek is the socialization of the means of production. It thereby tends to heighten the class consciousness which Marek considers vital. This book represents an effort to restore coherence to Marxism by confrontation with historical reality. The failure of the effort does not render it futile, especially as a more extensive attempt by the author is evidently already in preparation. Students of Marxism who do not accept the theoretical exposition of the present volume will still find it useful as a reference for rarely quoted statements by leading Marxists, beginning with Marx himself.--H. B. (shrink)

Prima facie there is confusion in that part of Marx's theory which deals with religion and revolution. On the basis of Marx's scattered statements on religion one can construct two views of the relationship between revolutionary action and the abolition of the religious mentality. One view is that the exploited class can come to atheism prior to the creation of communist society, and, indeed, must attain a secular consciousness if it is to be the agency of revolution. The (...) other view is that the power of religion cannot be broken until after the communist revolution because only a new economic order can remove the material conditions which sustain religion as a mass phenomenon.In the face of these conflicting views we are left with two alternatives. Either we can take one of the constructions as the authentic one, or, we can conclude that Marx's position is incoherent. Seeking the best in both worlds, my approach involves showing why the charge of incoherence appears plausible while arguing for a resolution in the direction of the first construction. (shrink)

This article seeks to reinterpret the process of state and class formation in “peripheral” societies—notably Syria—through a contextualized reading of Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire influenced by the approach of Political Marxism (PM). In light of PM’s claim that capitalism did not emerge in France until the late nineteenth century, it draws a picture of post-revolutionary French society in which the legacy of the precapitalist Absolutist state still determined the nature of ruling class reproduction and class struggle, centered on the state (...) apparatus as the principal source of appropriation. These insights on the nature of ruling class appropriation and the centrality of the state are then applied to the case of post-Ottoman Syria, uncovering parallels with class struggles in post-revolutionary France rooted in the “Jacobin” politics of a state-dependent bourgeoisie of officials and officers. It proposes to rethink the contested moments of transition in terms of “alternative modernities” that developed in the absence of generalized capitalist relations of production. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est de développer une hypothèse macrohistorique au sujet de la représentation et de la réalité du loisir qui est la suivante : aussi longtemps que l'humanité n'a disposé que d'instruments de production pré-industriels ou prétechnologiques, une représentation ou conception relativement stable du loisir a perduré à travers de nombreux siècles : son existence a été justifiée en tant que mode de vie privilégié pour les classes sociales dominantes, en parfaite dichotomie avec le travail qui était (...) l'apanage exclusif des classes dominées. À partir du moment où la révolution industrielle va transformer les modes et les rapports sociaux de production sous la direction de la bourgeoisie comme classe dominante, les formes du loisir contemporain vont apparaître comme lieu de la consommation de la richesse réalisée par le développement prodigieux des forces productives. Ce loisir contemporain, dans un premier temps, sera un privilège de la bourgeoisie comme classe dominante et une manifestation de sa domination. Dans un deuxième temps, il deviendra accessible à des couches sociales de plus en plus larges, au sein des sociétés libérales, dans le cadre de la société « dite » de consommation, pour autant que cette consommation devienne un instrument essentiel pour le développement des intérêts de la classe bourgeoise et un rouage nécessaire à la reproduction des rapports sociaux existants.The purpose of this article is to explore a macrohistorical hypothesis concerning the depiction of leisure as opposed to the reality of leisure, a hypothesis which, briefly, may be stated as follows: throughout the countless centuries during which humanity possessed only pre-industrial or pre-technological tools, there persisted a fairly stable depiction or notion of leisure; the existence of leisure was justified as a privileged way of life enjoyed by the dominant classes of society, in perfect dichotomy with work, which was associated exclusively with the dominated classes. From the moment when the industrial revolution, under the direction of the bourgeoisie as dominant class, began to transform the means of production and the social relations arising from production, contemporary forms of leisure began to make their appearance as a visible means of consuming the wealth made possible by the prodigious development of the forces of production. Initially, this contemporary leisure was revealed as a privilege of the bourgeoisie in its role as the dominant class and served to point up its position. Subsequently, in liberal societies, leisure activities became accessible to an ever-wider social group within the framework of the so-called "consumer society", in proportion with the degree to which consumerism had become an instrument necessary for the development of the interests of the bourgeois class and an essential cog wheel in the continuation of existing social relations. (shrink)

'The VILE MULTITUDE' - MARX AND THE PARIS COMMUNEThe entire purpose of Marx’s work is to enable the working class to act as a revolutionary subject, i.e. as its own liberator, destined to overthrow capitalism. However, this paper demonstrates that this view, which has political validity, is supplemented by another more nuanced and more theoretically interesting understanding of revolutionary upheavals in Marx’s work. This more subtle approach is found particularly in his political analyses, and the paper specifically (...) interprets his writings on the Paris Commune in this light. It is argued that in Marx’s analysis of the actual events, it is not the working classes of Paris that make the revolution. Rather, the revolution is triggered by a series of extraordinary circumstances, and by external agents. It produces an undecidedness, here referred to as a multitude, which is only après coup seized and defined by the working classes. Finally, the paper details how this reading has consequences for a Marxist understanding of politics in general and revolutionary upheavals in particular. (shrink)

At long last, this seminal work is available in English. Originally published in German in 1923, it became almost immediately a center of interest and stormy controversy in both Marxist and non-Marxist circles. With the passage of time, the controversy has abated somewhat, the interest has heightened, and Lukács has become recognized generally as one of the most influential and creative Marxists of the post-World War I world. The tour de force in History and Class Consciousness is its insistence on (...) the indissoluble link between Hegel and Marx and on the centrality of the concept of alienation in Marx's thought--an insistence which was dramatically verified nine years later with the publication of Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and again in 1939 with the appearance of Marx's Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Of perhaps more lasting value are the dazzling expositions on the nature and role of class consciousness, on the open-endedness of history, on the dialectical method as the essence of authentic and orthodox marxism, on the concept of totality, and on fetishism and reification as the inevitable consequences of commodity production relations. Lukács might have rested his laurels on these features of the book and basked in the glory of their popularity. Instead, he chose to emphasize the negative features which he feared might lead the unwary reader down an un-Marxist or anti-Marxist path. Accordingly, he refused to permit republication or translation and those who wanted to read the work had to resort to mimeographed or photographic reproductions, or "pirate" editions. Despite these difficulties, the book managed to circulate widely among serious Marxists and students of Marxism and to exercise an influence which continues to this day. Both critics and admirers of Lukács considered his ban on the book to be "tactical" and his criticisms of it to be tongue-in-cheek, or opportunistic. But when Lukács finally authorized a new edition in 1967 and wrote a new preface for it, there could no longer be any doubt that he truly believed that the book contained grievous failings and that it was these failings which accounted for the book's popularity. Being still in transition from Hegel to Marx, Lukács had not succeeded in wholly reconstructing Hegel along revolutionary materialist lines, as Marx himself had succeeded in doing. In particular, Lukács had succumbed to the identical subject-object relation, which distorted his view of the relationship of man to nature, destroyed the basis for a solid Marxist ontology in which work mediated between man and nature, and disrupted the unity of theory and practice. From the standpoint of Marxism, Lukács' criticisms are unassailable, but this, by no means, entails that his evaluation of the book as a whole has to be accepted. It remains an impressive attempt, during a revolutionary period, to select those elements in Marxism which serve as effective theoretical tools to guide the revolution along a truly socialist path.--H. B. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to analyze, by way of a linguistic connection between Marx, Gramsci and Wittgenstein, the possibility of a grammar of “class struggle” that is immanent to the action of the French Revolution. The French Revolutionary historiography has never been able to provide a grammatical explanation of the “real linguistic transactions” (Wittgenstein) between agents. Our discursive study thus focuses first on the various linguistic forms of individual identities, as certified in the grammar of the first (...) person, the “I”, within the field of “political engagements”. Then, from the catchwords of the revolutionary movement in 1793, the author seeks to explore collective identity, through a grammar of negation and coordination as translated into the dialectical propositions of class struggle. (shrink)

In his article "Marxism and Revisionism," Lenin pointed out that Marxist theory "had to fight at every step in its journey of life." The history of the development of Marxism is one of the struggle against streams of various socialist ideas. Marxism developed in the struggle. In the 1840s Germany was on the eve of a bourgeois democratic revolution. In order to mobilize the proletariat and the broad masses of the people to participate in the impending democratic revolution, the bourgeoisie (...) had first of all to bring the theory of revolution into the workers' movement, combine the theory of revolution with the workers' movement, and found a proletarian revolutionary party on the basis of this combination. However, at that time, not only in France and Britain but also in Germany there were various socialist schools and ideas and "genuine socialism" was one of the influential socialist schools. Up to 1864 the "genuine socialists" vigorously disseminated their philistine viewpoint in the Union of Justice Advocates and hindered the founding of a proletarian revolutionary party. In order to arm the proletariat with the theory of revolution, win over the Union of Justice Advocates to their side, and turn the union into a real proletarian revolutionary party which would be armed with scientific socialism, Marx and Engels put up a firm struggle against various socialist schools which were hostile to scientific socialism, particularly against "genuine socialism," which had great influence in the Union of Justice Advocates, and theoretically smashed the "genuine socialist" school. In this struggle, Marx and Engels exposed the real class nature of the philistine theory, thoroughly refuted its erroneous viewpoints, particularly the "genuine socialist" flapdoodle about "love," smashed this school, and eliminated this school's evil effects on the workers' movement. Today it is still highly pertinent for us to study the writings and letters of Marx and Engels during the struggle. (shrink)

This collection addresses fundamental themes in Marx's social and political thought. It covers key controversies in the analysis of Marx's overall intellectual development, the influence of Hegel, the Marx-Engels relationship, the validity of historical materialism, the significance of class and class struggle, the state and political parties, and reform and revolution. It also addresses Marx's work as historian, anthropologist, student of time and space, social psychologist, social interactionist, and literary scholar. It also covers debates regarding (...) class='Hi'>Marx's views on technological determinism: *national identity *nationalism, and cosmopolitanism *cities and citizenship *welfare and human rights *science and ideology *patriarchy and the family *gender and sexual orientations *culture and religion *alienation and fetishism *justice in capitalism and communism. Bob Jessop provides an extended general introduction and also summarizes and interrelates the various articles at the start of each volume. Contributors adopt a wide range of approaches and cover some sixty years of analysis. (shrink)

Abstract The Marxian vulgate, which long dominated the historiography of the French Revolution, and which was broadly accepted in the social sciences, is no longer sustainable. But newer attempts to frame the issue of class in entirely linguistic terms, producing the claim that France had no bourgeoisie because few people explicitly described themselves as ?bourgeois,? are not entirely convincing. The Revolution brought into being, and helped to sustain, a new social group: the ?state bourgeoisie,? which defined itself by its education (...) and by state service, and which was socially cohesive and exclusive. Thus, the Revolution can be seen as ?bourgeois? not in the sense of having been caused by a rising bourgeoisie, but in the sense that it caused one to rise. (shrink)

It was Marx who first formulated what later became known as the idea of the working class as an ‘emancipatory subject’. In his view, the workers alone were able to orchestrate a revolution that would put an end to capitalism. The purpose of this paper is to show that this line of thought is ideological by Marx’s own standards, and that while the working class never constituted the coherent political subject that Marx wanted it to become, its (...) non-existence produced distinct theoretical effects not just in his work, but also in the Marxist tradition. After a brief discussion of the different criticisms of the idea of the working class as emancipatory subject put forward by Hardt, Negri, Laclau, and Mouffe, an attempt is made to demonstrate how Althusser’s structural approach is better suited to formulate an alternative to the traditional view. Finally it is argued that this alternative stays within a general Marxist framework. (shrink)

Philosophe français spécialiste de logique, Edmond Goblot (1858-1935) est avant tout connu pour un essai de sociologie décapant, La Barrière et le Niveau (1925), qui pose pour la première fois les fondements d'une théorie de la distinction sociale. Délaissant l'analyse matérialiste des classes au profit d'une perspective culturelle originale, Goblot décrypte sans complaisance les moeurs de la bourgeoisie française, monde qu'il connaît d'autant mieux qu'il en est lui-même issu. Condisciple d'Henri Bergson et d'Emile Durkheim à l'Ecole normale supérieure, Goblot ne (...) bénéficiera pas de la même aura que ses deux anciens camarades. L'histoire de leurs relations, et plus généralement de Goblot avec ses collègues philosophes de la IIIe République, n'en constitue pas moins un prisme original pour comprendre les transformations d'une activité, la philosophie, alors en pleine mutation. Portrait sociologique d'un professeur ordinaire, cet ouvrage opte pour un double parti pris. Il met d'abord en évidence les entrelacs entre trajectoire sociale et choix intellectuels, y compris dans un domaine aussi aride que la logique. Il montre ensuite que La Barrière et le Niveau n'est pas un accident de parcours intellectuel mais l'application au monde social des thèses originales défendues en logique par Goblot. L'ouvrage propose en ce sens une nouvelle interprétation de ce grand classique des sciences sociales qu'est devenu La Barrière et le Niveau. (shrink)

Volume I is one of the most influential documents of modern times, looking at the relationship between labor and value, the role of money, and the conflict between the classes. The "forgotten" second volume of Capital, Marx's world-shaking analysis of economics, politics, and history, contains the vital discussion of commodity, the cornerstone to Marx's theories. The third volume was unfinished at the time of Marx's death in 1883 and first published with a preface by Frederick Engels in (...) 1894, strove to combine the theories and concepts of the two previous volumes in order to prove conclusively that capitalism is inherently unworkable as a permanent system for society. Here, Marx asserts controversially that - regardless of the efforts of individual capitalists, public authorities or even generous philanthropists - any market economy is inevitably doomed to endure a series of worsening, explosive crises leading finally to complete collapse. But he also offers an inspirational and compelling prediction: that the end of capitalism will culminate, ultimately, in the birth of a far greater form of society. (shrink)

In ‘Rationality and Revolution’ Nancy Holmstrom addresses an issue that has gained considerable currency among social and political theorists. She asks what insight, if any, Marxists might glean from rational choice accounts of radical working class collective action. The purpose of this comment is to argue that Holmstrom’s unfavorable estimation of rational choice accounts is ill-conceived.Holmstrom raises two basic objections to rational choice explanations of working class collective action. First, she contends that such accounts are limited, inadequate or incomplete and (...) indicates several manifestations of this purported deficiency. Second, Holmstrom alleges that rational choice accounts are ideologically suspect and, as such, fundamentally at odds with Marxist explanations of revolutionary action. Holmstrom appears to believe that this second line of criticism ‘follows’ in some sense upon the first. H so, it would be sufficient to establish the error of her initial line of argument. Because neither of her criticisms can withstand scrutiny, however, independent reasons will be advanced for rejecting each. (shrink)

This article examines the views of Burke, Tocqueville, and Marx on the nature and extent of modern revolution and its restorative logic. I argue that, while all three supported the introduction of changes in society, they differed on how to steer the course of such changes, which resulted in a peculiar meaning of modern revolution. Each of them proposed good and bad versions of modern revolution, offered specific ways of protecting the good versions from producing perverse effects, and warned (...) against the ugly consequences of a failed revolution. Burke’s conservative revolution favored incremental change against radical social transformations. Contra Burke, Tocqueville acclaimed the egalitarian tendency as a preordained path and advocated democratic revolutions insofar as political liberty could be rescued from the ills of social equality. Marx drew the possibilities of a proletarian revolution from the future the history of class conflicts had prepared. Particularly in his later works, Marx rejected Blanqui’s abortive version of conspiratorial revolution and social revolution without democratization. Overall, each of these thinkers—Burke, Tocqueville, and Marx—reconciled political and social revolutions in their own way, acknowledging that in order to prevent social and moral decay, modern revolutions inevitably gravitate to the Christian logic of restoration. (shrink)

What does the Soviet record tell us about the viability, effectiveness, and efficiency of socialism? There are several questions that arise if one examines the Soviet experience, in addition to the comparative systems aspect. One question relates to the impact of the experience of the Soviet Union on theories of socialism, and also vice versa: the impact and relevance of socialist theory in assessing the Soviet system. Then there is the important issue of the role of specifically Soviet- Russian circumstances: (...) traditions, political culture, and work ethic. A poet, Voloshin, wrote, “ Velikii Pyotr byl pervyi bolshevik ”. The eminent philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev also remarked that “Peter's methods were purely bolshevik.” Leftists of a Trotskyist persuasion argue that the Soviet Union under Stalin took the wrong turn, that the Soviet Union is not socialist at all, that it is “state capitalist” – run by a “new bourgeoisie,” a bureaucratic ruling class—and continue to manufacture other variants on this theme.While official Soviet ideology claims that the U.S.S.R. is socialist and is following the principles laid down by Marx and Lenin, this can be questioned. One can indeed show that many aspects of the Soviet economic and political scene are at variance with the anticipations of Marx and of Lenin. But from this, one need not draw the conclusion that there was a “revolution betrayed,” but rather that some of these anticipations were unreal or unrealizable. (shrink)

The principles of historical materialism involve Marx in making two crucial claims about freedom. The first is that the revolutionary proletariat is, in an important sense, more free than its class antagonist the bourgeoisie. The second is that the beneficiaries of a successful proletarian revolution—the members of a solidly established communist society—enjoy a greater freedom than even proletarians engaged in revolutionary praxis. It is perhaps natural to take Marx to be operating here with what might be called a (...) logically continuous notion of freedom, established communists enjoying to perfection what revolutionary proletarians merely imperfectly experience and what the bourgeoisie entirely misses. But whatever one's views might be about what Marx in fact says about freedom this cannot be what he ought to say for his theory of freedom to work. The kind of line Marx need to take finds a significant precedent in his economics where we find a theory implying two quite distinct logical dimensions in that the principles and concepts designed to apply to the transactions of capitalism necessarily lack descriptive purchase on communist economic reality. The existence of these two dimensions, and particularly Marx's comparative silence as to the nature of the second, reflect his conviction that the transition between the two systems must be marked by a profound conceptual as well as material break. Consequently it is not unreasonable, perhaps, to look for an analogous discontinuity in his metaphysics and to expect to find two distinct varieties of freedom, the one reflecting the nature of class society, the other of human community. (shrink)

Cette contribution examine les rapports entre le matérialisme des intérêts que revendique Bakounine dans ses derniers textes et la critique qu’il propose des notions d’intérêt général, de représentation politique et de centralisation dans La théologie politique de Mazzini et l’Internationale. Son objet est de montrer que la prise en compte du rôle social et historique des intérêts rend caduque toute possibilité d’un intérêt général qui viendrait à son tour fonder la légitimité d’une représentation politique dans une assemblée centraliste. (...) La première partie de l’article examine le rapport entre ce matérialisme des intérêts et la conception matérialiste de l’histoire proposée par Marx et Engels. La seconde insiste sur la critique de l’intérêt général comme fiction et sur l’impossibilité qui en découle de toute représentation dans le cadre d’un système centralisé, la reconnaissance de cette impossibilité débouchant même sur une critique du mandat impératif. (shrink)

Class line is a fundamental line of the Party. To be the Communist Party is to make revolution, eradicate the bourgeoisie and promote the proletariat, stress class status, and implement the proletarian class line!

Friedrich Engels, in 1895, reissued Marx's 'The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850', with an Introduction endorsing peaceful political tactics. We review the primary evidence to bring order to a confusing picture that emerges from a range of conflicting interpretations of the document. Our conclusions are as follows: First, the 1895 Introduction does not signify a new position, considering Engels' recognition over several decades of political concessions by the British ruling class. Secondly, since from the 1840s Marx too had (...) applauded the potential of the 'Social Democratic' route, at least under the appropriate conditions, we may be confident that he would have approved of Engels' Introduction. Thirdly, the case for universal suffrage was to set the foundations for a classless communist system; Engels, we show, would have found unacceptable a Parliamentary system generating a working-class majority unwilling to carry out a communist program, or a working-class electorate choosing to replace the party at the polls. (shrink)

The present article analyses the research papers devoted to changes in industrial workers'states of Ukraine during 1905-1914. Current understanding of the basic principles of historiographical studies stipulates a many-sided approach to the studied problem. The analysis and generalization of extensive sweep of historical papers belonged to the historians of several generations outstand as an essential component. The presented article is devoted to presentation of the social and economic, political, ethnic changes in the environment of industrial workers of Ukraine in 1907-1914 (...) in the papers of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern historians. It is no coincidence that the workers of Ukraine came into view of the researchers- a change-over to capitalistic business model took place in consequence of economic growth and due to industrial advance of separate regions of Russian Empire in which there are two new classes: owners of enterprises - bourgeoisie and wage and salary workers - proletariat. A problem of the growth of a number of industrial workers in Ukraine in the period after revolution 1905-1907 in the terms of evolution of value judgments of this issue in the environment of historian was considered in the pages of the research. That fact that the overwhelming majority of industrial workers definitively severed ties with land and semi- agricultural sector was not remained out of view of the researchers. In the vast majority of papers there was traced the unified tendency- in estimating of the socio-economic state of industrial workers a salary level and unemployment index are considered. It should be emphasized that historians of the Soviet time pointed up the enterprises' drive against demonstration of labour solidarity, strike movements and trades unions. In contradistinction to them the modern researchers draw attention not to repressive-punitive measures of the government and enterprises but to democratic ways of search of understanding between two social classes. The foreign researchers do not leave aside the problems of the research of formation and development of industrial workers in the industrial regions of Russian Empire. They pointed out that progressive transformations were executed not through the capitalists' excessive jealousy for the state of wage workers and in the first instance for the purpose of increase in incomes by the intensive method of economy management. Consequently the following stages of research of changes in working environment in Ukraine during 1907-1914 can be distinguished in the following way - pre-revolutionary authors concerned themselves with accumulation of statistical data, reminiscences of parties involved in the events, descriptive materials which just stated the facts; the historians of the Soviet period gradually deviate from accumulation of information to its research, analysis, systematization and fusion that was most pronounced in the 70th -80th of the ХХ for a period of creation of collective papers; modern researchers basing on best practice of their predecessors consider transformation in the working environment in new perspective without ideological overrun of the Soviet period. At present there is necessity of creation of generalising historiographical papers the task of which consisted in systematization and generalization of the best practice of several generations of historians on the problem of industrial workers' state in Ukraine during 1907-1914. (shrink)

The underlying assumption of Lukács’ History and Class Consciousness is that “history” can be understood as a unified and meaningful meta-narrative, which can be read along the lines of a realist novel. Although the future is not guaranteed, the present contains “objective possibilities” which can be identified and realized through activist intervention in the world by those who are destined to “make” history, the proletariat. In the intervening century since the Russian Revolution, it has become impossible to read “history” as (...) a singular, triumphalist story leading to human emancipation or identify any one group as its subjective agent. To salvage the revolutionary potential of Lukács’ work, it has been read instead in terms of “fidelity to the Event” by such latter-day Leninists as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek. But their recourse to a meta-historical notion of pre-figuration and future realization is itself no less beholden to a literary or rhetorical device, that of figura, which was traced by Erich Auerbach in originally religious terms. (shrink)

In this paper, we undertake a genealogical study to illustrate how Karl Marx derives his concept of class conflict from Adam Smith’s theory of social order. Based on these findings, we argue that both Smith’s and Marx’s political economies should be interpreted in relation to each other – from the perspective of social philosophy, in particular their shared concepts of social order and necessary opposition of class interests. By appeal to process philosophy, we also argue that this reinterpretation (...) needs to take into account two other ideas shared by Smith and Marx, namely the social individual as person-in-community, and the pursuit of desirable social forms from a humanistic perspective. We conclude by contending that business management practice would benefit from understanding the role of class tensions and social order in stakeholder relations. Specifically, management and organization scholarship should focus on philosophical examinations of the influence of social order on economic activities in an organization in a way that is far more appreciative of the social relations of individuals as being the primary, rather than a secondary, concern. (shrink)

In the course of the last few centuries the evolution of literature has been marked by the entry of Eastern countries into the system of social and spiritual relationships which came into being in the West at the beginning of the 17th century. This evolution is linked with the changes which have been grouped together as “modernization.” The content of this modernization coincides, more or less, with what Marx and Engels described, in the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, (...) as the expansion of the bourgeoisie. However, in the 20th century, the possibility of a non-capitalist path has become apparent, and therefore the theory of modernization gives a wider sense to the character of the ruling class (which, in the 19th century, was the European bourgeoisie), and emphasizes changes of a general nature: the differentiation of the social structure, the birth of new institutions and new roles, economic differentiation, industrialization, urbanization, increased vertical and horizontal mobility, cultural differentiation, the birth of a science independent of religion, the substitution of a businesslike, rational attitude to life for a religious one, the development of civic awareness and of civil rights. The cradle of modernization (England, Holland, France) is conventionally called “the West.” Other countries, including those situated to the west of France (e.g. Spain, Portugal) are considered as “the non-West.”. (shrink)

Ralph Kingston, inBureaucrats and Bourgeois Society, argues that government employees constituted the core of the French bourgeoisie in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The book lends support to the Marxist interpretation of the Revolution, not as a breakthrough of a capitalist bourgeoisie, but as a conflict originating in a social structure whose economic surplus was appropriated politically. This review posits that the peasants’ subsistence strategies constrained the economic evolution of the country and led well-to-do families to invest in shares of (...) governmental authority and careers in the civil service rather than in private enterprises. The slow economic growth and pursuit of state offices represent underlying continuities between the Old Regime and the nineteenth century. The notable changes resulted from the popular uprisings of 1789–93 and the rationalisation of the state apparatus during the revolutionary decade. (shrink)

This article evaluates the centrality of class in the "social interpretation" of the French Revolution put forward by George Lefebvre, Albert Soboul, and others. The social interpreters introduce an admirable complexity into their explanations of the causes and dynamics of the Revolution, but this complexity stems from their use of loose, multiple, and often contradictory notions of class influenced partly by Joseph Barnave's "stage theory" of pre-Revolutionary France and by "vulgar Marxism." These notions contrast with the concept of class - (...) surplus-labor extraction - developed in the three volumes of Marx's Capital, and they also are the focus of criticisms advanced by revisionist historians such as Alfred Cobban and Franqois Furet. While the revisionists' criticisms are often justified and provide useful theoretical directions, the social interpreters' focus on class can be preserved by using this alternative concept. Using this concept can consistently convey the many class divisions in pre-Revolutionary France and the multiple class positions historical agents simultaneously occupied before, during, and after the Revolution. (shrink)

The most striking example of Roman intervention in the affairs of mainland Greece between the Achaean and Mithridatic Wars is provided by an inscription now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. This stone bears the text of a letter to the city of Dyme in Achaea from a Roman proconsul named Q. Fabius Maximus, which describes his trial and sentencing of certain men of Dyme whom he had judged responsible for a recent disturbance in that city. One crux to be resolved (...) is chronological: A date of c. 115 b.c. has long been generally accepted, but recently evidence from another, still unpublished inscription has been thought to point to the year 144. Further, the letter of Fabius Maximus has long been held to exemplify the close supervision that most scholars, regardless of their position on the vexed question of Greece's formal status after 146, assume was exercised over Greece by Roman commanders in Macedonia from the time of the Achaean War. The document has also often been cited to bolster the claim that Rome pursued in second-century Greece a conscious policy of suppressing democracy or the political aspirations of the lower class. This is not, of course, the place for reassessment of these old, complex controversies. My purpose here is rather to show that interpretation of the letter of Fabius Maximus has not always been sufficiently mindful of the many obscurities of the text and, consequently, of the events that lie behind it; too often the great lacunae in our knowledge have been filled with assumptions that beg the questions that are under debate. (shrink)

The confession quoted above by way of introduction reveals with tragic sincerity the fatal passion of an overly avid reader, unlimited in curiosity certainly but fully conscious of the demanding finality of the work he had to accomplish: the scientific critique of an international system of social organization, “in which man is a humiliated, enslaved, abandoned and scornful being” (1844). Cultivating poetry and philosophy in a world felt to be unlivable meant becoming an accomplice of those individuals and institutions principally (...) responsible for the barbarity called modern civilization. But to combat this, it was necessary to scour the murky historical horizon issued from a distant past where only great social revolutions marked the stages of a progression seen as ambiguous because realized by means of unspeakable phenomena of regression. Only one revolution took place under the contradictory sign of an emancipation with universal ambitions and of a decline with indelible consequences: the French Revolution. Conclusion as well as beginning, it was studied by Marx as a unique event, both in relation to its antecedents as well as its liberating promises. Although it is true that Marx “never wrote a history of the ancien régime”, a hardly significant remark, it is no less true that he studied and compiled, with the eagerness of a schoolboy enthralled by history, an enormous mass of documentation that can “help understand how (the ancien regime) gave birth to the Revolution”, despite what François Furet might think (Marx et la Révolution française, Paris, 1986, p. 79). Moreover, the author of Das Kapital drew from the revolutionary history of France the inspiration for a “poetry of the future” in which the following vision was designed:“The old bourgeois society, with its classes and its class antagonism, gave way to an association in which the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of the whole” (1848). (shrink)

The capacity to provide satisfactory nursing care is being increasingly compromised by current trajectories of healthcare funding and governance. The purpose of this paper is to examine how well Marxist theories of the state and its relationship with capital can explain these trajectories in this period of ever‐increasing austerity. Following a brief history of the current crisis, it examines empirically the effects of the crisis, and of the current trajectory of capitalism in general, upon the funding and organization of the (...) UK and US healthcare systems. The deleterious effect of growing income inequalities to the health of the population is also addressed. Marx's writings on the state and its relation to the capitalist class were fragmentary and historically and geographically specific. From them, we can extract three theoretical variants: the instrumentalist theory of the state, where the state has no autonomy from capital; the abdication theory, whereby capital abstains from direct political power and relies on the state to serve its interests; and the class‐balance theory, whereby the struggle between two opposed classes allows the state to assert itself. Discussion of modern Marxist interpretations includes Poulantzas's abdication theory and Miliband's instrumentalist theory. It is concluded that, despite the pluralism of electoral democracies, the bourgeoisie do have an overweening influence upon the state. The bourgeoisie's ownership of the means of production provides the foundation for its influence because the state is obliged to rely on it to manage the supply of goods and services and the creation of wealth. That power is further reinforced by the infiltration of the bourgeoisie into the organs of state. The level of influence has accelerated rapidly over recent decades. One of the consequences of this has been that healthcare systems have become rich pickings for the evermore confident bourgeoisie. (shrink)

Why did Marx declare the revolution permanent? A careful examination of the celebrated passages from March 1850 in their immediate rhetorical context shows that he intended to affirm the tactical principles laid down earlier in the Communist Manifesto – as opposed to standard ‘anti-stagist’ interpretations that present the Permanenz locution of 1850 as a break with these principles. Among such principles: keeping eyes firmly fixed on the prize – the permanent final goal of a complete overhaul of society – (...) is essential to maintaining a proper perspective on history’s way-stations, that is, the necessary but subordinate revolutionary tasks and allies; and public declaration of the permanent goal is essential for preserving the independence of the workers’ movement and thus for carrying out the proletariat’s world-historical mission of creating a classless society. (shrink)

In their simplest form, hybrid languages are propositional modal languages which can refer to states. They were introduced by Arthur Prior, the inventor of tense logic, and played an important role in his work: because they make reference to specific times possible, they remove the most serious obstacle to developing modal approaches to temporal representation and reasoning. However very little is known about the computational complexity of hybrid temporal logics.In this paper we analyze the complexity of the satisfiability problem of (...) a number of hybrid temporal logics: the basic hybrid language over transitive trees; nominal Until logic; and referential interval logic. We discuss the effects of including nominals, the @ operator, the somewhere modality E, and the difference operator D. Adding nominals to tense logic leads for several frame-classes to an increase in complexity of the satisfiability problem from PSPACE to EXPTIME. On transitive trees, however, the satisfiability problem for this language can be decided in PSPACE. Along the way we make a detour through hybrid propositional dynamic logic: we establish upper bounds for a number of temporal logics by generalizing results due to Passy and Tinchev [29] and De Giacomo [16]. We conclude with some remarks on the relevance of our results to description logic, and draw attention to the utility of the spypoint technique for proving upper and lower bounds. (shrink)

This contribution deals with Bakunin’s materialistic conception of human interests and its relationship to his harsh criticism of any idea of general interest, political representation and centralisation, especially in his late work Mazzini’s Political Theology and the International. The purpose of the article is to show how, by considering human interests and their role in society and history from a materialistic point of view, Bakunin also thinks general interest as something impossible, so that any legitimate foundation for political representation in (...) a centralist assembly. The first part of the contribution deals with this materialistic conception of interests and its relationship to Marx’s materialistic conception of history. The second part is about the very criticism of general interest as a mere fiction, so that any legitimate representation in the framework of a centralised system becomes impossible, even if the members of such an assembly are limited by imperative mandates. (shrink)

We show that every extension of the basic hybrid logic with modal Sahlqvist axioms is complete. As a corollary of our approach, we also obtain the Beth property for a large class of hybrid logics. Finally, we show that the new completeness result cannot be combined with the existing general completeness result for pure axioms.

This collection assembles some of Herbert Marcuse’s most important work and presents for the first time his responses to and development of classic Marxist approaches to revolution and utopia, as well as his own theoretical and political perspectives. This sixth and final volume of Marcuse's collected papers shows Marcuse’s rejection of the prevailing twentieth-century Marxist theory and socialist practice - which he saw as inadequate for a thorough critique of Western and Soviet bureaucracy - and the development of his revolutionary (...) thought towards a critique of the consumer society. Marcuse's later philosophical perspectives on technology, ecology, and human emancipation sat at odds with many of the classic tenets of Marx’s materialist dialectic which placed the working class as the central agent of change in capitalist societies. As the material from this volume shows, Marcuse was not only a theorist of Marxist thought and practice in the twentieth century, but also proves to be an essential thinker for understanding the neoliberal phase of capitalism and resistance in the twenty-first century. A comprehensive introduction by Douglas Kellner and Clayton Pierce places Marcuse’s philosophy in the context of his engagement with the main currents of twentieth century philosophy while also providing important analyses of his anticipatory theorization of capitalist development through a neoliberal restructuring of society. The volume concludes with an afterword by Peter Marcuse. (shrink)

Talk of 'spirituality' and 'individual religion' is proliferating both in popular discourse and scholarly works. Increasingly people claim to be 'spiritual but not religious,' or to prefer 'individual religion' to 'organized religion.' Scholars have for decades noted the phenomenon - primarily within the middle class - of individuals picking and choosing elements from among various religious traditions, forming their own religion or spirituality for themselves. While the topics of 'spirituality' and 'individual religion' are regularly treated as self-evident by the media (...) and even some scholars of religion, Capitalizing Religion provides one of the first critical analyses of the phenomenon, arguing that these recent forms of spirituality are in many cases linked to capitalist ideology and consumer practices. Examining cases such as Eckhart Tolle's The Power of Now, and Karen Berg's God Wears Lipstick, Craig Martin ultimately argues that so-called 'individual religion' is a religion of the status quo or, more critically, 'an opiate of the bourgeoisie.' Capitalizing Religion: Ideology and Opiate of the Bourgeoisie is a landmark publication in critical religious studies. (shrink)

It is not intended as some sort of revelation on my part that Greenberg's cultural theory was originally Marxist in its stresses and, indeed in its attitude to what constituted explanation in such matters. I point out the Marxist and historical mode of proceeding as emphatically as I do partly because it may make my own procedure later in this paper seem a little less arbitrary. For I shall fall to arguing in the end with these essay's Marxism and their (...) history, and I want it understood that I think that to do so is to take issue with their strengths and their main drift.But I have to admit there are difficulties here. The essays in question ["Avant-Garde and Kitsch" and "Towards a Newer Lacoön"] are quite brief. They are, I think, extremely well written: it was not for nothing the Partisan Review described Clement Greenberg, when he first contributed to the journal early in 1939, as "a young writer who works in the New York customs house"—fine, redolent avant-garde pedigree, that! The language of these articles is forceful and easy, always straightforward, blessedly free from Marxist conundrums. Yet the price paid for such lucidity, here as so often, is a degree of inexplicitness—certain amount of elegant skirting round the difficult issues, where one might otherwise be obliged to call out the ponderous armory of Marx's concepts and somewhat spoil the low of the prose from one firm statement to another. The Marxism, in other words, is quite largely implicit; it is stated on occasion, with brittle and pugnacious finality, as the essay's frame of reference, but it remains to the reader to determine just how it works in the history and theory presented—what that history and theory depend on, in the way of Marxist assumptions about class and capital or even abase and superstructure. That is what I intend to do in this paper: to interpret and extrapolate from the texts, even at the risk of making their Marxism declare itself more stridently than the "young writer" seems to have wished. And I should admit straight away that there are several point in what follows where I am genuinely uncertain as to whether I am diverging from Greenberg's argument or explaining it more fully. This does not worry me overmuch, as long as we are alerted to the special danger in this case, dealing with such transparent yet guarded prose, and as long as we can agree that the project in general—pressing home a Marxist reading of texts which situate themselves within the Marxist tradition—is a reasonable one.22. This carelessness distinguishes the present paper from two recent studies of Greenberg's early writings, Serge Guilbaut's "The New Adventures of the Avant-Garde in America," October 15 , and Fred Orton and Griselda Pollock's "Avant-Gardes and Partisans Reviewed," Art History 3 I am indebted to both these essays and am sure that their strictures on the superficiality—not to say the opportunism–of Greenberg's Marxism are largely right. But I am nonetheless interested in the challenge offered to most Marxist, and non-Marxist, accounts of modern history by what I take to be a justified though extreme, pessimism as t the nature of established culture since 1870. That pessimism is characteristic, I suppose, of what Marxists call an ultraleftist point of view. I believe, as I say, that a version of some such view is correct and would therefore with to treat Greenberg's theory as if it were a decently elaborated Marxism of an ultraleftist kind, on which issues in certain mistaken views but which need not so issue and which might still provide, cleansed of those errors, a good vantage for a history of our culture.T. J. Clark, professor of fine arts at Harvard University, is the author of The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France, 1848-1851 and Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution. His book on impressionist painting and Paris is forthcoming. (shrink)

Western philosophers have generally neglected honor as a moral phenomenon worthy of serious study. Appiah’s recent work on honor in moral revolutions is an important exception, but even he is careful to separate honor from morality, regarding it as only “an ally” of morality. In this paper we take Appiah to be right about the psychological, social, and historical role honor has played in three notable moral revolutions, but wrong about the moral nature of honor. We defend two new theses: (...) First, honor is an emotional and moral form of recognition respect that can hinder or aid moral progress. Second, honor, so conceived, can play a rational role in progressive moral change, as it did among the working class in the British abolition of slave trade, when the pressure of moral consistency moved them to protest American slavery as an affront to their honor without change in their moral belief that slavery is wrong. (shrink)

A French philosopher specializing in logic, E. Goblot is especially remembered today for his book, La Barrière et le Niveau, which, because it lays the groundwork for a theory of social distinction, has become a classic of sociology. Generally presented as a simple precursor which merely anticipates the more noteworthy work of P. Bourdieu, La Barrière et le Niveau is in fact a work mobilizing arguments which tap into the reality of a social class, the bourgeoisie, with which E. Goblot (...) is intimately familiar. By adopting a critical and reflexive posture, it is possible to appreciate the extent to which E. Goblot’s familial and professional experience contributed to framing the issues and the theses which he would develop regarding the French bourgeoisie’s social-distinction strategies in the fields of education, sociability, and morality. (shrink)