A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 30 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Catalan_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours

Links to indexes of first few lines of all posts of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) France, Alternative Libertaire AL Novembre - Film: " Young Karl Marx ": for or against ? (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]

Date Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:37:04 +0200

The new film by Raoul Peck tells the beginnings of the intellectual journey of the author of Capital, from 1844. That a work accessible to all looks at a figure of the labor movement is welcome, but it manages to to restore the revolutionary ideals ? ---- " An accessible film " ---- This mainstream film, directed by Raoul Peck, is undoubtedly a success if one sticks to the objectives it sets. ---- The characters are credible, starting with Karl Marx himself. The sets easily transport us in the XIX th century: it is a great success of the film. ---- Karl Marx, in 1844, is, at just 26 years old, in a pivotal moment of his life. He is going to meet Friedrich Engels (their first meeting is for the least comical) which will change him deeply. ---- Relations with Proudhon are interesting to follow, until the coup and the transformation of the " League of the righteous " into " League of Communists ".

Marx, his wife Jenny and their children lead a very modest life, not to say miserable, far from the image of " bourgeois " who sticks to Marx.

The main characters never wonder if they will give up or not, but, despite the vicissitudes, how they will manage to continue their militant activity.

Of course, we regret that this or that aspect of the main characters is not addressed.

Indeed, we could talk about the relationship to women that Marx and Engels had, of their productivism. And why not mention the anti-Semitism of Proudhon, another recurring character ...

However, this is not the object of the film, which does not, however, draw an idyllic portrait of the characters either. And it is always easy to judge the characters who lived 200 years before us, in a society that was quite different and therefore bears the defects of his time.

The film seems to reach the point, recalling that Marx endowed the working class with solid ideas through its scientific socialism at a time when abstract feelings and dreamy idealistic dreamers dominated.

It reminds us of the importance of linking a strong theory to political activism, and of never giving up. Far from addressing extremist leftists and their incessant internal debates, the film is accessible, made to be seen by the greatest number. And it's healthy.

Nico (AL Moselle)


" Living Intellectuals "

Of course, we welcome a mainstream film, which succeeds in bringing to life the desire for social revolution, still fossilized in images of one-party dictatorships. What could Marx and Engels do to embody this desire and become symbols of the revolution ? On this point, we can leave the film dissatisfied.

The activist activity of Marx, Engels, and their comrades Proudhon or even Bakunin is reduced to writing. Not a strike, revolt or insurrection, nor daily activism ; but articles, books or a manifesto. This corresponds in part to the reality of the duo's activity, but not to that of their contemporaries, nor of ours. The public will see more salon intellectuals than revolutionary militants, and the desire for revolution, which we can guess in the characters on the screen, does not affect us.

We do not see organizational work either: reunions, parties or congresses are already ready, our two friends have only to speak and thereby the power (as when the League of the righteous becomes League of Communists). The working masses, yet actresses of the revolution, remain voiceless, except to applaud or whistle the leaders, as in bourgeois democracy.

Realism certainly, but must we be moved by such a political practice ? Are the revolutionaries these men who take the direction of an organization they have not built, because they are persuaded to be intellectually superior and to be right, even if they despise their comrades who have become adversaries ? If the ambition of a scientific socialism as a weapon at the disposal of the oppressed is commendable, to make it an instrument of power to secure the political leadership is at least perverse, and announces the authoritarian " communist " history , to which our current will never cease to oppose. The film would have gained to suggest in a less heroic way these totalitarian inclinations.

Of course, these criticisms are more political than aesthetic. But is a beautiful political film possible without a critical dimension that prevents it from being caricatural ? If we appreciate the political debate that does not fail to spark the film, we would have liked to see it on the screen.

Vincent (AL Gironde)

Raoul Peck, The Young Karl Marx, 1h58.

A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center