Monsieur Fould (Marx, 1861)

From Marxists-en
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Author(s) Karl Marx
Written 16 November 1861


Printed according to the newspaper
First published in Die Presse, No. 318, November 19, 1861
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 19
Collection(s): Die Presse
Keywords : France

This article, date-lined Paris, was written by Marx in London. p. 79

Paris, November 16

Art experts in the field of high political comedy find a source of the purest pleasure in the French Moniteur of November 14. As in the ancient classical drama, Fate invisibly, irresistibly enmeshes the heroes—Fate in the form of a thousand million-franc deficit. As in ancient drama, the dialogue is only between two persons, Oedipus-Bonaparte and Teiresias-Fould. The tragedy turns into comedy, however, since Teiresias says only what Oedipus has whispered to him in advance.[1]

One of the most characteristic tricks of Bonapartist comedy is to put its old, worn dramatis personae on stage over and over again as brand-new heroes. Billault comes on in place of Persigny, and then Persigny comes on in place of Billault! And likewise in the Decembrist press![2] Grandguillot, Cassagnac, Limayrac are tossed to and fro between the Constitutionnel, the Pays and the Patrie. Monsieur VĂ©ron, the “Bourgeois de Paris”,[3] is replaced by Cesena as director of the Constitutionnel, Cesena by Cucheval, Cucheval by Cassagnac, Cassagnac by RenĂ©e, RenĂ©e by Grandguillot, and after six years VĂ©ron comes on again in his old spot—as a brand-new hero.

Likewise under the constitutional system Thiers became new as soon as Guizot was worn out, and Mole new as soon as Thiers was worn out, and then the round was repeated. However, these different men represented different parties and tendencies. If they pushed one another out, in order to follow one another, and followed one another in order to push one another out again, then their toing and froing only snowed the oscillations in the balance of the parties that in general formed the pays legal[4] under Louis Philippe. But Billault or Persigny, Walewski or Thouvenel, Laroquette or Fould, Grandguillot or Limayrac? It is what the English call “a distinction without a difference”.[5]

They all represent the same thing—the coup d’état. They do not represent different interests and parties among the people. They only represent different facial features of the Emperor. They are only different masks, behind which the same head is hidden.

The Times, whose weak point is comparisons, compares Louis Bonaparte with Louis XVI and Fould with Turgot.[6]

Fould and Turgot! It is like trying to compare M. Vaillant with Carnot, because both of them were Ministers of War. Turgot was the head of the new economic school of the eighteenth century, the Physiocratic School.[7] He was one of the intellectual heroes who overthrew the old regime, while Louis XVI was the incarnation of that old regime. But who is Fould? Fould, a member of the dynastic opposition[8] under Louis Philippe, was always passed over on principle despite the most obtrusive solicitation, whenever the dynastic opposition was in a position to nominate a Finance Minister. Fould was held to be a “financier dangereux “, a reputation he had earned owing to his various unlucky financial operations. He needed only to defend a proposal, and the Chambers rejected it. Then came the provisional government. It had hardly been proclaimed, when Fould rushed to Ledru-Rollin, offered his services as Finance Minister and—proposed national bankruptcy. The courtship was unsuccessful, and the rejected suitor got his revenge by writing the pamphlet, Pas d’assignats! Finally Fould recognised in Louis Bonaparte the man who was foolhardy enough to hand the French treasury over to Mr. Fould.

Fould was closely involved in the manoeuvres that ensured the “nephew’s”[9] election to the presidency on December 10, 1848. Fould was a very active friend and made the financial preparations for the coup d’état. December 2, 1851 was not only the victory of Louis Bonaparte but also the victory of Fould. Fould became all-powerful. Fould became Minister of State. Fould could raise even his menus plaisirs[10] to the level of affairs of state. He seized hold of the dictatorship of the theatre along with the dictatorship of finances. Like other notorious men of haute finance[11], Fould shared a passion for the dollar with a passion for the heroines of the wings. Fould became a sultan of the wings. Fould, with PĂ©reire, is the inventor of imperialist finance. He is the direct cause of nine-tenths of the current deficit. Finally, in 1860, the great Fould withdrew into private life, to reappear in 1861 as “a new man” (“a brand new man”)[12] in the imperialist finance comedy. Fould appears again as Turgot, Fould as Marquis Posa!

Applaudite, amici![13]

  1. ↑ An allusion to Napoleon Ill's message to Fould and the latter's "MĂ©moire Ă  l'Empereur", both published in Le Moniteur universel, No. 318, November 14, 1861.—Ed.
  2. ↑ The press of Louis Bonaparte, who staged a coup d'Ă©tat on December 2, 1851.— Ed.
  3. ↑ An allusion to L. Veron's book MĂ©moires d'un bourgeois de Paris.—Ed.
  4. ↑ The section of the people having the right to vote.— Ed.
  5. ↑ Marx uses the English phrase and gives the German translation in brackets.— Ed.
  6. ↑ "The hour of reckoning has at length overtaken France...", The Times, No. 24091, November 15, 1861, leading article.— Ed.
  7. ↑ The Physiocratic school—a trend in bourgeois classical political economy that emerged in France in the 1750s. The Physiocrats held Nature to be the only source of wealth, and agriculture the only sphere of the economy where value was created. Although they underestimated the role of industry and commerce, the Physiocrats rendered an important service by shifting the search for the origins of surplus-value from the sphere of circulation to that of production, thereby laying the basis for the analysis of capitalist production. Advocates of large-scale capitalist farming, they showed the moribund nature of the feudal economy and thus contributed to the ideological preparation of the bourgeois revolution in France. Marx gave a critical analysis of the Physiocrats' views in the second chapter of the Theories of Surplus-Value (see Vol. 34 of this edition). p. 80
  8. ↑ The dynastic opposition—the group of Odilon Barrot in the French Chamber of Deputies during the July monarchy (1830-48). It spoke for the liberal industrial and commercial bourgeoisie , which favoured moderate electoral reform as a means of preventing revolution and preserving the Orleans dynasty. p. 80
  9. ↑ Louis Bonaparte's.— Ed.
  10. ↑ Lesser pleasures.— Ed.
  11. ↑ High finance.— Ed.
  12. ↑ Marx uses the English phrase "a new man" and adds "a brand new man" in German in brackets.— Ed.
  13. ↑ Applaudite, amici! (Applaud, friends!)—with these words actors in ancient Rome concluded their performances. p. 81
Retrieved from "https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/w/index.php?title=Monsieur_Fould_(Marx,_1861)&oldid=91149"