1848-1851 crítica às apropriações democratas de o 18 Brumário de Luís Bonaparte e os dois e distintos movimentos campesinos em Karl Marx

Abstract

This paper criticizes the appropriations and strict-democratic interpretations of Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (2002, 2011) showing the Western Marxist concepts of civil society and a proposal for democracy in condensation with the bourgeois state frame. The research exposes the need for a real understanding of democracy, parliament and capitalist state, through the political foundations laid in the Marxian theory of permanent revolution, according to the articles published by Marx in the periodical Gazeta Renana, the text of Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Central Committee to the members of the Communist League of 1850 and the legitimate content of The Eighteenth Brumaire. Marx's approach in The Eighteenth Brumaire is completely at odds with reformist Marxist interpretations, as it shows a direct relationship with the revolutionary processes that were taking place in Europe in 1848 and the following years, as they were in France, Germany and other countries. By taking this context into account, this work discusses whether the perspective of proletarian emancipation brings together a task that is trodden strictly through democracy by the bourgeois parliament, or whether, in a dialectical process, it involves, step aside and goes beyond the strict democratic path. The paper also asks whether or not the revolutionary movement in permanence, corresponding to the workers' program and guide to the proletarians in party, can be linked to traits in the working class in a general sense, particularly with peasant worker groupings. To this question, the work points to the possibility of two distinct peasant movements in The Eighteenth Brumaire: one, reactionary, which leaned towards the interests of the large landowners in France, offering support to Bonaparte's coup; and, another, unlike, possible to come into being, dragged along by the organization and struggle of the working class, a spirit that, in latent distance, was represented in the proletarian perspectives and journeys defeated in the bloody June authorized by the French Democratic Parliament in 1848. Therefore, this paper discusses the content and the means capable or not of allowing a constitution of the distinct and superior peasant movement in Marx. The thesis itself admits and recognizes the possibility of a distinct peasantry, which does not seek laws in the bourgeois parliament, agricultural market reserves and piecemeal expropriations of land: agendas related and tied to the forms of organization of alienated reformist bourgeois rural work. A distinct and different peasantry, a result that can only be constituted in a process that is yet to come, in a non-autonomous relationship, in association with the labor movement that is fighting for its relative wage, in dialectical-political means and terms that are driven and developed in the capitalist metabolism of production. In itself, it is a political force with the power to link the ongoing development of the classic program of the revolutionary workers' party. The permanent entity, responsible for establishing, moving and elevating the societal terms dialectically on the march to deny the denial of the antagonistic economic constraints imposed by capitalist society and the bourgeois state on workers around the world.