Talk:The Civil War in France

Socialism Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

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

theoretical consequences[edit]

this section isn't particularly clear. also could use some more citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly original research, violates Wikipedia policies, even though the writing and points seem decent enough. As commented above, some of the points in the last section could be expanded. Some suggestions below in square brackets.

For Marx, the history of the Paris Commune caused him to reassess the significance of some of his own earlier writings. In a later preface to the Communist Manifesto, Marx would write that "no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today."[12] It is the earlier passage that sought to show the process of worker seizure of state power.

[First, CM was written by Marx and Engels. Both must have agreed not to emphasise the measures proposed at the end of Section II and/or revise it altogether in light of post-Paris Commune developments? The point about 'earlier passage that sought to show the process of worker seizure of state power' is rather unclear. Clarify.]

Following the publication of "The Civil War in France", "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'"[12]

[Elaborate and clarify what it meant by this. Perhaps draw on secondary literature. Referencing the original author/work is a violation of wikipedia standards, as it counts as original research (if I am not mistaken)].

His writing of this passage also brings up a rift between Marxist-Leninists and Social-Democrats, who both interpret his writing differently.

[Is this a reference to the 'Marxist Leninists' of post-1917 Russia and the German reformist SDP members? Because there are Marxist-Leninists and Social-Democrats today too. Perhaps specify the historical period and country as they relate to the reference 'Marxist Leninists and Social-Democrats']

Libertarian Marxist currents would later draw from this work by emphasizing the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation. [13] Vladimir Lenin writes that, "Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the 'readymade state machinery', and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it."[13] In contrast, Social-Democrats believe that Marx's writing of this means he believes the revolution in Paris was a failure, and that a revolution is not necessary to meet the needs of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Marxist Leninist was a reference to Lenin? Then say so. Also, need to provide an example of a social democrats who made such an argument] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.88.67 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]