Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: December 6, 2020 at 6:18:07 AM EST > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Socialisms]: Shapiro on Goff, 'Auguste Blanqui and > the Politics of Popular Empowerment' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Philippe Le Goff. Auguste Blanqui and the Politics of Popular > Empowerment. London Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2020. 273 pp. > $115.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-350-07679-2. > > Reviewed by Shelby Shapiro (Independent Scholar) > Published on H-Socialisms (December, 2020) > Commissioned by Gary Roth > > Blanqui > > In _Auguste Blanqui and the Politics of Popular Enlightenment_, > Philippe Le Goff endeavors to make the legendary nineteenth-century > French revolutionist relevant to the twentieth and twenty-first > centuries. Discussing Blanqui's ideas in depth makes this book > valuable. He connects Blanqui's ideas with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and > then Francis-Noel "Gracchus" Babeuf and Philippe Buonarroti: "indeed, > my basic (and most consequential and contentious) move is to approach > Blanqui as serious political thinker whose body of thought warrants > sustained critical engagement. Blanqui's enduring contribution to > radical thought, I argue, is his insistence on the capacity of > conscious and organized collective political action to bring about > radical social change, and the focus and consistency with which he > articulated this view" (p. 14). > > Between the introduction and conclusion, Le Goff divides his study > into five parts: intelligence, conflict, actors, volition, and > history. Blanqui's main focus was on the need to be educated and > enlightened. Blanqui advocated that an enlightened elite be entrusted > with the education project after taking power; somehow power would > devolve upon the newly enlightened masses. The mechanics of this > transition were never described by Blanqui. Nor is there any > discussion about what would constitute sufficient enlightenment, also > a failure not of Le Goff's making. It is worth noting, as Le Goff > does, that Blanqui's attempts at insurrection all ended in failure, > and he spent more than half of his life as a political prisoner. The > fact that Blanqui spent decades behind bars as a political prisoner > speaks to Blanqui's sincerity and deeply held beliefs in his > ideological edifice, rather than whether that particular fortress was > worth defending. To sincerely believe that miasmas cause disease does > not prove that Robert Koch was wrong; to sincerely believe that the > earth is actually flat does not disprove all of the scientific > evidence to the contrary. > > To make Blanqui relevant is highly problematic, and leads to the main > weakness of this book. Emblematic of this is a comment Le Goff makes > as he discusses a number of Blanqui's newspapers: "one might note, > parenthetically and anachronistically, that it is for these very > reasons [the ability of a free press to enlighten] that Blanqui would > have undoubtedly been wholly enthusiastic about the capacity of > social media and the internet more generally to reach directly vast > swathes of people, bypassing both the practical and political > limitations of the print press" (p. 38). Le Goff's noting that his > comment was both parenthetical and anachronistic only led this > reviewer to wonder why he nevertheless made the observation: > obviously the author felt it was an insight profound enough to be > mentioned, despite the qualifying language. This serves as an > excellent example of what the Cambridge philosopher of history > Quentin Skinner wrote on the "impropriety of supposing that he > _could_ have meant to contribute to a debate whose terms were > unavailable to him, and whose point would have been lost on him."[1] > Le Goff's parenthetical comment assumes that Blanqui would have > understood and approved of the "social media and the internet." By > the time Blanqui died, France in general and Paris in particular did > not have an electrical grid system and radio had not been invented, > much less its technological offshoots. How can it be even assumed > that Blanqui would have approved of this new technology? The > historian Tom Standage pointed out the fears engendered among many > people by what he called "the Victorian internet"--that is, the > telegraph.[2] > > Le Goff seeks "to situate [Blanqui] within his own historical > context, to understand him within his political and intellectual > environment, but not confine him to this. His writings are at once a > product of, yet not reducible to, the specific sociopolitical > conjuncture of their composition" (p. 19). Yet Le Goff also states > that "any attempt to draw direct parallels and equivalences between > Blanqui's time and our own will soon run into trouble, of course," > and then proceeds to do just that: "and yet, for all the obvious > contextual differences, one cannot fail to be struck by the extent to > which, in certain basic respects, Blanqui's sociopolitical analysis > does in fact resonate today" (p. 188). To quote the Marxist professor > Bertell Ollman's reply to a student's question in a socialist theory > class this reviewer took at New York University in the late 1960s, > "as a gentleman of the dialectic, my answer is yes. And no." > > Blanqui rooted his ideology in enlightenment and education as the > path to freedom. "In the short term," writes Le Goff, "responsibility > for initiating processes of mass education falls on the only group > of people in a position to undertake them--the _declasses_ > intellectuals who align themselves with the atheist workers, artisans > and students concentrated in Paris" (p. 5). Later he writes: "Most of > the salient features of Blanqui's conspiratorial politics are present > here: an enlightened minority capable of overcoming its numerical > inferiority through subjective dedication and determination; an > ignorant and impotent majority requiring external assistance to free > it from its unconscious servitude; the destruction of all forms of > mis-education and manipulation. To this we should add a > post-revolutionary transitional power based in the capital, a > 'Parisian dictatorship', that represents the nation as a whole. With > these components Blanqui's project becomes clear enough: an > enlightened elite seize power in Paris, where all political and > intellectual forces of the country are concentrated, and launch a > dual process of popular education on the one hand and suppression of > those actors who threaten to prevent, undermine or undo the work of > enlightenment on the other. Following this transitional period, the > general dissemination and development of enlightened thought and > consciousness would give rise to the direct self-rule of the people" > (p. 45). > > This is the opposite of "popular empowerment." It is, rather, the > empowerment of a disciplined minority: first, to take power, and then > to exercise it allegedly in the interests of the masses as perceived > by the vanguard. In Le Goff's words, "like Lenin or Che after him, > Blanqui went to extraordinary lengths to unite 'in himself', as Fidel > Castro later said of Che, the revolutionary ideas, the revolutionary > action and the revolutionary virtues that form the three pillars of > his political project" (p. 8). An interesting trio: Castro, Ernesto > "Che" Guevara, and Lenin. Castro repurposed the Isle of Pines, the > prison where he had been held by Fulgencio Batista, to jail dangerous > counterrevolutionary poets(!). Che, Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no > harm") notwithstanding, represented the forces of repression in > "revolutionary" Cuba along with Raul Castro. Lenin famously > excoriated Leon Trotsky for a short-lived cessation of the death > penalty. > > At one point Le Hoff brings the American political philosopher > Michael Hardt into the equation as well: "as Michael Hardt affirms > with Lenin and [Baruch] Spinoza (and the same applies to Blanqui)" > (p. 134), thus putting into dialogue the following thinkers: Spinoza > (1632-77), Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Blanqui (1805-81), and Lenin > (1870-1924). Hardt apparently argued that "Jefferson agrees with > Lenin," but how is this even remotely possible (p. 135)? This group > makes sense if one claims, as Le Goff does, that Blanqui anticipated > the thoughts and actions of people who came onto the historical stage > long after his exit, including Castro, Che, Antonio Gramsci, Lenin, > and Rosa Luxemburg. While all of these figures may have been > influenced by Blanqui and his writings, the reverse is impossible. > That all of these writers were speaking about the same issues using > the same terms or sharing common concepts concerning similar > societies beggars the imagination. > > Le Goff cites Blanqui's posthumous book: _La Critique Sociale_ > (1885), which contained much material Blanqui never published. > According to historian Edward S. Mason, this book "was rarely if ever > read."[3] Why, at least concerning the unpublished material, this is > relevant to Blanqui's project(s) remains unclear. Le Goff also > discusses Blanqui's book on astronomy, _Eternity by the Stars_ > (1871), writing that "in what follows I trace the steps by which > Blanqui builds his analysis in order to arrive at an understanding of > the text itself and to consider how we might interpret its wider > significance within his project" (p. 168). This makes an assumption > that Blanqui's writings on astronomy were meant to be part of a > larger project. Le Goff states that Blanqui's astronomical > speculation began during a prison stay thirty years prior. Le Goff > points out the problems encountered when using Walter Benjamin's > pronouncements on _Eternity by the Stars_, a book admired by > Benjamin. Le Goff concludes by saying that "_Eternity by the Stars_ > does not challenge or alter so much as reaffirm Blanqui's most basic > philosophical assumptions.... If at first the astronomical hypothesis > seems to depart entirely from the politics of our earth, it is a > detour via the stars from which Blanqui's militant politics return > and reassert themselves with ever-greater force and ever-greater > urgency" (p. 182). In so concluding, he quotes the Marxist historian > Eric Hobsbawm. Under the _nom de plume_ Francis Newton, Hobsbawm > wrote articles about jazz for the _New Statesman_. Can it be said > that Hobsbawm's musical writing had anything to do with his political > beliefs? When Hobsbawm began writing about jazz as Francis Newton, > the official Communist line (and Hobsbawm remained a Party member > until he died) was anti-jazz. In short, Hobsbawm's "Jazzist > deviationism" could not and cannot be squared with, or seen as a > coherent part, of his allegiance to the Communist Party, or any of > his theoretical and historical writings. > > Le Goff, then, is attempting to make all of Blanqui's writings a > coherent whole, what Quentin Skinner refers to as "the myth of > coherence." "The recent historiography of Marx's social and political > thought reveals a similar trend. Marx is not allowed simply to have > developed and changed his views from the humanistic strains of the > _Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts_ to the apparently very > different, far more mechanistic, system outline over twenty years > later in _Capital_."[4] > > Le Goff states that "perhaps as many as one hundred thousand people > joined his funeral procession" (p. 10). Yet for all that is written > about "popular empowerment," all of Blanqui's attempts to overthrow > the government failed--the public did not feel sufficiently > "empowered" to follow his lead. The size of his funeral procession > notwithstanding, historian Patrick H. Hutton noted that the "Central > Revolutionary Committee, founded in 1881, remained a tightly knit > circle of about twenty veteran disciples of Blanqui."[5] The size of > the Central Revolutionary Committee and its description as "tightly > knit" speaks more to the character of Blanquism: the taking of power > by a small secret disciplined cadre, the model he adapted from Babeuf > and Buonarroti. "The result is in many ways an undeniably elitist > and/or substitutionist conception of transition and change: only > those with the requisite knowledge and intelligence can act to create > a society in which all are informed and so all are actors. It is less > a question of direct popular self-empowerment than of representing > and eventually giving power to the people when, but only when, they > have 'come of age'--'as soon as' they 'reach the age of reason', as > Rousseau similarly puts it--under the tutelage of a superior > intelligence" (p. 141). > > The role of Paris represents something very interesting. As the > intellectual center, "Blanqui's underlying assumption is clear: > Parisians, unlike the majority of the French population, are > enlightened and as such politically conscious, capable of the > purposeful, determined action that revolutionary politics demands.... > Parisians think for, act for and stand for the French people as a > whole" (p. 49). Paris as the dictating center renders the rest of the > country a colony ruled by and for its center. To cite Franz Fanon, > Castro, Guevara, Jefferson, and other anticolonialists, then, becomes > an exercise in irony. > > The value of this book lies in Le Goff's setting forth the political > thought of Auguste Blanqui and placing that into the context of > Blanqui's times and the struggles in which Blanqui participated. > Trying to make him relevant to the twentieth and twenty-first > centuries undermines the seriousness his ideas deserve within the > context of their utterance by Blanqui. > > Notes > > [1]. Quentin Skinner, "Meaning and Understanding in the History of > Ideas," _History and Theory _8, no. 1 (1969): 8. > > [2]. Tom Standage, _The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of > the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's Online Pioneers_ (London: > Walker & Company, 1998). > > [3]. Edward S. Mason, "Blanqui and Communism," _Political Science > Quarterly_ 44, no. 4 (December 1929): 498-527; 498-99. > > [4]. Skinner, "Meaning and Understanding," 19-20. > > [5]. Patrick H. Hutton, "The Role of the Blanquist Party in Left-Wing > Politics in France, 1879-90," _Journal of Modern Histor_y 46, no. 2 > (June 1974): 277-95; 281. > > Citation: Shelby Shapiro. Review of Goff, Philippe Le, _Auguste > Blanqui and the Politics of Popular Empowerment_. H-Socialisms, H-Net > Reviews. December, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55581 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4209): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/4209 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/78757183/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
