Talk:The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marxian

Is Marxist not a better term than Marxian? 163.1.99.26 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Most of the information on this page is a very close paraphrase, and in some places perhaps verbatim copy, of Robert Tucker's introduction to the essay in his Marx-Engels Reader. Without reference notes and quotation marks in the appropriate places, this is just plagiarism (unless Robert Tucker himself wrote the wiki article). Augenblick (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example look at: "The pamphlet shows Marx in his form as a social and political historian, treating actual historical events—those leading up to Louis Bonaparte's coup d'état of 2 December 1851—from the viewpoint of his materialist conception of history." This is a direct copy from Tucker's preface on page 594 of the aforementioned book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foadt001 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it really doesnt matter if something is plagiarized here, as no one is taking credit for what they write. all that matters is whether it is a copyright violation. verbatim copying of copyrighted text must be removed. if someone has adequately paraphrased a large portion of a copyrighted text, thats ok.(of course, the boundary between copyright violation and rewriting can be somewhat fluid)76.245.46.57 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

After the quote, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." there is a "Citation needed" tag. It's a quote from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, so why does it need a citation? I'm taking it out. Jhobson1 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A citation isn't needed for that quotation, but a citation is needed for the clause that introduces that quotation, which claims that this is "the most famous formulation of Marx's view of the role of the individual in history." That's a very strong claim -- I think a citation would be needed even if we claimed that this quotation was famous, but "the most famous"? If that is true, then surely there is a secondary source that supports that claim. If no secondary source supports that claim, then "most famous" is merely the opinion of one Wikipedia editor.

In my judgment, we don't need a secondary source that says, literally, that this is "the most famous" formulation, but we at least need a secondary source that states that this formulation is extremely renowned, or is widely recognized, or something like that.

For what it's worth, I don't really see that this quotation says a great deal about "role of the individual in history". How much flexibility does an individual have? Obviously, Caesar and Napoleon and Hitler and Obama inherited the circumstances of the worlds they were born into. But, that being stipulated, did they then have complete freedom to reshape their worlds to the best of their ability? Or were their own personal choices dictated by their psychologies which were in turn shaped by their environments? That is a key question in any discussion of "the role of the individual in history", and it doesn't appear to me that this passage from Marx really addresses these issues. Just my two cents... if a reliable source says that this quotation is about the individual in history, then my doubts are irrelevant. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Marx's historical materialism, the individual has very little freedom to begin with (especially prior to the revolution), and they only have a chance at making good use of their conditions, at managing, administrating, or organizing their conditions. Based on that, the quote doesn't say anything about the freedom of individuals, but it's more a statement on the freedom of large organizations and society, i. e. humanity, at large (which are part of the overall conditions determining individuals) regarding social experiments to change or adapt conditions. Men make their own history as a species, but that doesn't mean individuals do. It means society, material conditions, and large organizations make history and progress, instead of being doomed to a static, oppressive form of society (such as slave ownership, feudalism, and Capitalism) dictated by 'nature', whereas this 'nature' is often used as an excuse by conservatives as to why supposedly reforms and revolutions would be impossible or doomed to failure. It's this conservative notion that Marx is arguing against in that quote, while also giving certain limitations to humanity's freedom as dictated by dialectical materialism and historical materialism. --2003:DA:CF04:EB00:F981:4CF3:1421:E75A (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hegel

According to Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (volume 11, p. 738), Marx references Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy (p. 323 of the 1837 German edition), which is also the exact citation given in Engels's letter to Marx when describing the idea. Therein, Hegel basically posits that people at large are so stupid that they need every significant historical event to happen twice before they can actually acknowledge, understand, and accept it, pointing towards the two violent deaths of Julius Caesar and Cassius in close succession and Napoleon's two defeats (first at the Battle of Leipzig and again at the Battle of Waterloo) as examples. According to this notion, history is indeed not cyclical, but whoever refuses to learn from history is doomed to repeat it by making the same mistakes all over again. The first time, you couldn't know it was wrong, but the second time, you should've known. That's why the first time is a tragedy, whereas the second time is a farce. --2003:DA:CF04:EB00:F981:4CF3:1421:E75A (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate the page to "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte"?

The correct title of Marx's book is The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which redirects to this page. Shouldn't the main page and the redirect page be swapped? — Tatzelbrumm (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C'est un fait accompli. —Tatzelbrumm (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the title page, which we show in the article, clearly says: Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon.

Why do you think it should be different? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]