0

" The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages , which Reactionists so much admire , found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence . It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about . It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids , Roman aqueducts , and Gothic cathedrals ; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades " .

Siddharth Mahendiran
  • 1
  • It sounds like an appreciation of bourgeoisie society with wealth and time to be dedicate to activities different from war and serviva. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 04 '22 at 16:25
  • 1
    The usual translation is "reactionaries" rather than "reactionists"--the term basically refers to people who want to turn back the clock to an earlier, more hierarchical form of society. So I think he's saying that although such reactionaries may admire various kinds of "brutal display of vigour" of earlier ages, like building of cathedrals or conquering nearby territories, in comparison with the modern age these past ages seem lazy and slow ('the most slothful indolence'), that that capitalist/bourgeois era has unleashed huge amounts of construction and progress unlike anything in the past. – Hypnosifl Sep 04 '22 at 18:14
  • 1
    It is clearly one of Lewis Carroll's more fevered writings. In other words, citation needed. – BillOnne Sep 05 '22 at 19:09
  • I'll let this question stand, and see how other users react to it, but it's often hard to comment adequately on a brief quotation taken out of context. Hypnosifl's comment is certainly helpful, though. Welcome in any case to PSE. – Geoffrey Thomas Sep 06 '22 at 10:45
  • 1
    @BillOnne It's from the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as implied in the title... – haxor789 Sep 06 '22 at 14:27
  • @SiddharthMahendiran Could you be a bit more explicit in terms of what you don't understand about it? As far as I know Marx saw history as a progression from the rule of the few to the rule of the all, determined by material conditions and so "capitalism" (apparently he rarely uses that term) is progress from feudalism and he appreciates that, just to then take it down from that pedestal by showing what is wrong with that "new" thing. – haxor789 Sep 06 '22 at 14:30
  • @haxor789 The quote is not really about power becoming more widely distributed, in fact during their further discussion of how things have changed in the bourgeois era, Marx and Engels write that the bourgeoisie have "centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation." In that section they talk mainly about the revolution in material production, that the bourgeoisie have "created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together". – Hypnosifl Sep 06 '22 at 16:56
  • @Hypnosifl No it's not it's part of a whole section on class relations and afaik he's basically describing how they used to be and how they are now and while there's a centralization of property in the hands of the few there's also a sharp class divide and a concentration of people. And sure in that section he's essentially mocking the reactionaries arguing with how much could have been done as exemplified by the bourgeoisie. – haxor789 Sep 07 '22 at 13:18
  • @haxor789 - Yes, it's part of the [section](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007) on bourgeois vs. proletariat class, but the next few paragraphs after "The bourgeoisie has disclosed..." focus on the need of the bourgeoisie to radically increase production, how they have "created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together" and how this has accelerated technological change and attendant social change (disruption of older social forms, proletarianization of former peasants etc.) – Hypnosifl Sep 07 '22 at 15:32
  • And that discussion goes on for a bunch of paragraphs before it transitions into a discussion of how we now see what Marx & Engels see as crises of over-production (the paragraph beginning 'A similar movement is going on before our own eye') which they take as a sign that the bourgeois are now holding back further development that could be unleashed by a proletarian revolution...once they start talking about that, I'd say your "progression from the rule of the few to the rule of the all" is accurate, but first there has to be that long setup about the changes in the bourgeois era. – Hypnosifl Sep 07 '22 at 15:36

0 Answers0