FRANCE AND GOD
I don’t know if we must say fortunately or unfortunately, but from its links, by its size, and its position in old Europe, undoubtedly also by its moderate climate and an advantageous physical geography, France was often used as example for many people. It just have to look at how much still today, international tourism visits our country, to perceive, without for that, to pride oneself from interest which it symbolizes in the world. For a majority of those who seek cultural bases in it, their interest for the whole of Europe is extremely natural, but we must remain concrete and to question us why France is more visited than our neighbors like Germany or England?
After the progressive Roman Empire's disappearance, and the fall which was followed from there for a majority of Europe, it was from frank kingdom, and in particular by Charlemagne, that were born stable Christian structures which continue until our days on a great part of Europe. Nearer to us however, but even more perceptible by our direct neighbors, as well as a great part of the colonized world by this old Europe, was the revolution of 1789.
It is undeniable indeed, "it is the French revolution that was to see formulating, for the first time, the idea of a revolution social in communist matter, within the framework of Conspiracy of the Equals 1". Precursor of so much of other movements all over the world, it allowed the synthesis by someone called Karl Marx, Soviet revolution's main instigator of 1917. This is why we will try to define the context of analysis of this man in order to be useful to us about it, like thought guides.
1) Conspiracy of the Equals: Conspiracy directed by Babeuf against the French Directory of 1796 and 1797. The plot was denounced and its instigators were guillotined.
Contrary to our neighbor England, of which the monarchy had started for several centuries to make concessions towards a parliamentary monarchy, French monarchy shut oneself away in the absolutism, whose Louis XIV was the apogee. After the revolution, this absolutism actually regressed from 1790 to 1792 then of 1815 to 1848 to the benefit of a constitutional monarchy, but never took the complete step towards the parliamentary government, which leads to the evolution "From the sovereign king to the sovereign people".
Parliamentary monarchies are the fruit of a long change during which little by little the middle-
In England, country considered as the cradle of parliamentary government, and the reference of parliamentary monarchies, the change started as of fourteenth century. Ceaseless and sometimes violent fights between the royal power and that of Parliament ended up benefiting this last. The shift of competences from the sovereign towards the people was done in a progressive way, thus ensuring the system's perenniality in which the royal power is reduced to its simpler expression.
This stability made of England the state more in advance of all European nations, with regard to the "industrial revolution", but what was the benefit for the working classes? From campaign where they lived badly, because exploited by landowners on whom they depended directly, these suffering classes had passed to the city, in an element even more hostile to the poor. From little ground of which they were getting before a minimum survival in the event of famines, they had become entirely dependent on those whom gave them work in an incipient capitalism, more organized to defend the profit than the social actions.
The raised problem by that urban growth's speed in England was dramatically underlined by an epidemic of cholera of 1832, although the epidemic was sometimes quite as fatal in the campaigns. The new industrial towns were concentrated on very small surfaces, because everyone was walking to go to work. In town, the surface of which disposed each one was related to its economic situation. The population's very small fraction, who had land, undoubtedly less than five percent in a cotton city, were often occupying fifty percent of the total surface. The working population was living where factories, roads, channels, then railroads, allowed him.
The result was sordid: at the nineteenth century, the cities were only smoke and stinks, and their inhabitants pay a lot of rents and human lives. A suitable house could cost a semi-
The housing conditions were bad, but still worse was the sanitation system. The most prosperous townsmen could create commissions in charge of the water conveyance, sewers, street lighting and road works, but to the detriment of their poorer neighbors. Very often, waste water from a new middle class' district, were flowing out in the water points which used the working population.
The very unequal living conditions were very hard for a population’s great majority, and this made say to the Toynbee's contemporaries, in agreement with Karl Marks, until 1848, the capitalist industrialization had not improved the working classes' condition.
This progression would have existed if the English middle-
It was also the case in France! Because in France, as in any occident’s other part, the middle-
There secondly was the middle-
A third category gathered the doctors, the lawyers, all the liberal professions. These ones were very little relying on the institutions and the money. They were distinguishing themselves differently: by their independence and their competences. It is among them, Diderot gathered to recruit his "encyclopedic bourgeoisie".
Finally the fourth group, was that of commercial professions: Masters and the storekeeper, those who manufactured and those who marketed, one another were very often confused by the people, not exceed from the management of their small company; those who produced on a vaster scale, and especially the traders, who were really connected to the exchanges’ circuit, formed a more dynamic middle-
From these four bourgeois categories, the two first were inactive, and only the last played an essential part in the economy.
Contrary to its powerful counterpart English that had been able to alone fight against monarchy, the chance of the "weak" French middle-
The work world of the eighteenth century, did not have indeed even a rudimentary unit, nor trace from class consciousness. These ones least free among the workmen were the "companions", whom the corporation's rules were binding, and who lived under the roof even of their owner, in a proximity which quickly became a solidarity, practically a dependence. The workmen who worked in manufactures of the big cities could perhaps begin, by the alone virtue of their gathering, a vague proletarian conscience. But most independent and best armed were the craftsmen, who worked on their premises on behalf of merchant or of trader and who made some time appears of small employers by bringing together around them some companions. The craftsman was however subjected to the "capitalists" on whom he depended at the same time for the raw material and for the outlet to the trade. Only his tools belonged to him own.
Hatred and the fight would have been thing possible between the workman and the middle-
The workman's difficulties or miseries were more due to the food products' price than the wages' weakness. During long years, the wage rate remained a constant, and the workman forgot it to let himself fascinate by the variable whose rise or fall ordered the vicissitudes of his existence: the prices’ curve, and in particular that of the price of the bread. It was the paramount expenditure which devoured on it owns, a half of the working income.
The consequence was they thought a lot less to claim wage increase (claim which would have opposed the workman to his middle-
The lack of unit and town peoples' collective conscience was an godsend for the bourgeoisie. These ones of whom they exploited work became paradoxically their allies. The aristocracy had thus become the common enemy: peasant's enemy whom it deprived, enemy of the middle-
To the contrary of English middle-
Thus, if the middle-
of 1789, in order to reach its objectives, this bourgeoisie haven't got enough powerful in itself, with the very image of Archimedes when he says, give me fulcrum and I will raise the ground, was going to take "fulcrum" on the people to raise the royal absolute power. This support was however going to be turned over against it, because of a pre revolutionary movement in which the "book of grievances 1" did not claim any monarchy abolition, this bourgeoisie will be found at the first following day with a popular revolution that it will have the devil's own job to manage in its favor.
1) Book of grievances: At that time, documents in which the assemblies that prepared the General Statement consigned the complaints and the wishes that their representatives were to put forward.
The people, whom, by effect of group, let himself go to justify his more low instincts towards his persecutors, stoop to reproduce what he condemned at the others!
From the philosophical current born from another part of itself, had already appeared a beginning of the people's collective conscience, and in particular in certain Parisian " the sans-
2) Michelet: Great French Historian (Paris 1798 -
The philosophical current of eighteenth had not reached that the bourgeois classes, because the nobility eager at the same time to preserve its privileges related to the absolutism of monarchy, would have however liked to acquire rights that parliamentarism would have brought to him, without of course losing any of its advantages. The Revolution was thus the "privileged people's acts", nobility and middle classes, whose political conscience had been sharpened in contact with philosophy, from now on rather close to the government to know its weaknesses and to wish to take part in it.
Until 1788, when the great divorce between the nobility's competing ambitions and the middle class occurred, the fight against the absolutism were the fact of the “Bodies 3”, supported at the court by the cabals and led in front of the opinion by the Parliaments' large hybrid body, all united in an opposition common to the "ministerial despotism", in theory the all-
3) Bodies: Parts of the State whose members aren’t elected, such as senior civil servants recruited through the “Prestigious University-
In the fight against the absolutism, the privileged persons' action had found an ally paradoxical in the "philosophy of the Lights 4", even so mortal enemy of the "bodies". As much as to the religious "tradition", the philosophers, indeed, were opposed to the preceding privileges "social and political", "traditions", "usages", but especially to the "distinctions" such unjustified and abusive advantages. But they equally it were, against the arbitrary capacity; and their declamations, in addition to the revolt climate which they contributed to create, provided to each group the suitable weapons to defend their private interests. The number and the power of the privileges were such, than any partial action didn't seem to be able to reduce the number or harmfulness of it.
4) Philosophy of the Lights: Partisane philosophy with new ideas at the eighteenth century, precursory sign of the revolution of 1789.
The essential reorganization could not thus come from the "bodies" themselves for which advantages of each one was related to the similar existing advantages for the others, whatever were otherwise the jealousies and the contempt, whom they went reciprocally. The nature even of the absolute monarchy prevented it to destroy these "bodies", since it was by them it reigned on the population whole.
In the powerlessness of the traditional authority and its impossibility to lead to a broad consensus, the regime appeared unable to reform itself by the legal and peaceful means. This absolute monarchy inserted in the slump of the colonial wars had moreover led the State coffers to the excessive debt, but was supported in this dimension by the church's head which maintained it in idolatry of the old monarchy's strong points, the divine law was in fact, I quote: the keystone; Lord's anoint, thaumaturge king, the king is a sacred person, an image from God the father.
Like each one knows, this explosive set was going to find the spark which would put fire at the powders, to give 1789; 1789 and its revolution. A revolution that, for the today's majority a few years after their exit of studies, remain only a vagueness of memory on July 14 and the storming of the Bastille, has however lasted ten years. Ten years during which, beyond the failure of the system, important evolutions of society were going to be born, and according to the observer was going to give the world various currents in public opinion in the following generations, until today.
After the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights and the destruction of feudalism, both carried out in 1789, the sale of the national properties confiscated to the clergy, made it possible the bourgeois revolution by this massive expropriation which touched nearly the tenth of the French territory, attached to it, by extremely strong ties, the group of those which one saw, at the heart of the action in 1790 and 1791, to benefit from "bargain".
Consolidation on a side, break of the other: the nationalization of the ecclesiastical possessions was inseparable from the officialization that the civil Constitution of the clergy undertook, voted on July 12, 1790.
In these same days in Paris, in spite of the rain and lack of preparation (mitigated by the voluntary work of thousands of citizens) and especially the oath without heat of Louis the sixteenth 1, the Federation's festival (July 14, 1790) were the ultimate demonstration of a Revolution which wanted to still believe in its perfect unanimity.
1) Louis the sixteenth: Last French absolute monarch (1774-
By this new civil Constitution of the clergy, bishops and priests were became civil servant elected within the framework of new administrative divisions, had to take the civic oath, what didn't arrange cohesion. The hostility of the pope "Pie VI", his formal condemnation of the "Swearers 1" in April 1791, introduced an irremediable fault into a revolutionary world that endeavored to safeguard the national unanimity's myth. In the months and the years to come, this break had to take a great importance in a popular opinion whose religious factor was an element of polarization.
1) Swearers: Designation of the priests who, at that time, had to take oath to the clergy's civil Constitution.
One year later, the scene had changed: what the revolutionary iconography presents to us at the date of July 17, 1791 by squeaking recall of the Federation, it's the gunfight of the March Field. Animated by the club of Cordeliers 2, the Parisian petitioners claimed the forfeiture of the king.
2) The club of Cordeliers: Revolutionary club of left founded in April 1790 and whose leaders were Danton, Marat, Desmoulins, Hébert, and Chaumette. It played a decisive part in the deposal of monarchy and disappeared in March 1794, at the time of the elimination of its partisans by Robespierre.
Bailly, mayor of Paris, La Fayette, ordering the national guard, made proclaim the martial law and to fire against the demonstrators (revolutionary of another side): the break was going to prove to be final between the popular revolution and a certain bourgeois revolution.
What was launched was going to make its way, by the counter-
Beyond from the change that this bourgeois revolution was going to live, most important for the French history, and much of other civilizations perhaps, happened at this time on the level even from the people. From a population that wasn't yet conscious about it a few years, to see certain a few months before, the people was going to acquire a concept of importance that was going to be built by the most motivated ones.
All the renewed popular dynamism found indeed in the context of 1791 and 92 of the environments where to fit: the rapid growth of the clubs and fraternal companies then covered France of a network sometimes surprisingly dense of popular organizations. In Paris, the club of Cordeliers, where Danton and Marat were speaking, outnumbered, by its more popular recruitment, the club of the Jacobins 1, which remained, then, more closed. At this date, one can say that already a great part of the most politicized urban masses, had opened the eyes, and had got into fight: "The sans-
1) Club of the Jacobins: Constituted initially in Versailles by the province's deputies, it was moved in convent of the Jacobins in Paris. Deprived then from its moderate members such as La Fayette and Sieyès, this organization fell into the hands of revolutionists the most radicals, called Montagnards, because sitting on the highest tiers, was dominated by the personality of Robespierre. These "Montagnars", Power’s Masters in 1793, imposed a policy of public salvation, called The Terror. Divided into three principal periods, this "Terror" resulted in the imprisonment of approximately 500 000 suspects, of whom approximately 40 000 were guillotined. It was the principal political period of dechristianization, economic supervision by the state and the redistribution of the suspects's possessions to the poor. In its last weeks of power, it removed the judicial guarantees at the accused, and was finished with the fall of Robespierre, in Thermidor 9 (July 28, 1794).
In the revolution that interests us, a manipulation other than the bourgeois midle-
The very poor shy behaviors of this king, more attracted by the iron work than state's management, were going indeed to produce an inversion of revolutionary motivations towards the monarchy's dismissal in favor of republic, which hitherto was not even considered. These new data were accentuated during the summer 1791 by the intervention of the foreign monarchs, Emperor and king of Prussia, who launched a call with the monarchical coalition to restore Louis the sixteenth in his sovereignty.
He got into deep the policy of the worst, and like to justify himself to his attackers he accepted a constitutional monarchy, and formed in March 1992 a government known as Girondins because of origin of a good number from them. April 20 he declared war against Bohemia and Hungary's king, and was more than justified since the first engagements were disastrous for a French Army in full change, disorganized by the emigration of its officers.
Less waited, at least in its forms, its scope and its maturity, was the popular reaction to this new situation. Half-
These conditions have then carried an unreservedly counter-
One often keeps the picture of the storming of the Bastille as proletarian revolution's key picture or the barricades of the “Faubourg Saint-
Into this crucial moment where the disorder was everywhere, the middle-
One should not seek to dissociate the two pictures on which this phase of the Revolution was completed: Valmy and massacres of September, which are there like showing that nothing of balanced and really good, can emerge from a revolution.
The battle of Valmy, September 20, 1792, broke the Prussian offensive in Champagne: unhoped-
Let us thus recall few dates, on September 21, 1792 monarchy is abolished, the 22, republic is proclaimed.
Oh! It is obvious that it didn't have style yet this very discussed republic, which was far to be like nowadays in the heart of all French or almost, because it was for poorest, words which they understood only with half, as-
If we would have the counting of its active participants, the Revolution remained indeed a phenomenon of active minority. In the sections of Marseilles for example, the most massive pushes of popular participation never brought more the quarter from male adults of district to the meetings of sections, that it had at summer 92 or federalist spring of 93. If one passed in counting with true "militants», the active group would be reduced even more. From this revolutionary elite different aspects however began to be detached, a revolutionary mentality appeared, and then the gulf restricted itself between the revolutionary masses and the drama's heroes.
In his majority the French people wasn't yet on the point of assuming a political share, but it was lay the foundations, and the important thing is certainly the value which this first foundations in the heart of humblest then represented. This began to make them become aware of their man dimension, "Mister", whom they were all, because all called "citizens".
Any progression, especially as regards collective behavior, is not generally done in a day, and "Nothing that results from human progress, is obtained with the approval of all. Those whom see the light before the others, are condemned to continue it, in spite of the others "as had said, it seems to me, Christopher Columbus and why not Jesus, Christ. If a share of middle-
The picture that Mathiez gave of the Jacobin Louvot, master of smithy frank-
1) The Enragés: Factions of militants more extremists of the Parisian sans-
Beyond developed, indeed during the rise of the revolutionary dynamism until 1794, an increasing aggressiveness against the rich persons, at city as in countryside, judged in their selfishness at the "Terror" time. This is why, we must remember that: "the revolutions are only brackets of the history, and generally recreate after a more or less long time, similar systems to those of which they precipitated the fall". Each one in its fanaticism, born from covetousness too often justified in view of the bad behavior of richest, was reproducing what it had fought.
They had until then lived only in the dark of great men they often idolized like "higher" persons, but they then started to measure the notions of their existence. We will not say however this idolatry of the "higher" man didn't exist any more since, but it then received the first genuine arrow, because the idea making its way, more and more the higher man had to only govern and not to dominate. It is extremely fortunately what we find more and more, in the stimulus of our today's governments, but also what we must expect for the future, without us to satisfy with "great men" to only great "appearances".
What changed, and what we must retain as being most important with the benefit of hindsight, is the birth of this new glance on themselves whom could have all these million men within the people in this time and those to come. Without this benefit, and if we deepen still a little, we would be likely to go out a synthesis identical to that from certain Karl Marx to whom our glance will relate soon.
The great number of the agricultural day laborer who had placed all their economies in the purchase of little lands, often even of bad quality, began to realize that they had fallen into a trap. Each one had wanted to be owner, and the majority from them had run after independence and happiness, abandoning the sure profit from their work in the farmers, but found only misery. For others on the other hand, the rich bourgeois who were "provided themselves" with the purchase in abundance property confiscated from nobles and clergy, we were going to find them seven years later, in 1799, the day before the 18 Brumaire (November 9), which was going to see the putsch of Bonaparte first consul, to gather under the slogan "It is necessary for a king to me, because I am owner".
Mrs. de Staël noted it without tenderness, but humorously: "the great force of the Heads of the State in France, it is the extraordinary taste which one has there to occupy of the positions [... ]. All that distinguishes a man from another is particularly pleasant to the French; there isn't nation for which the equality agrees less; they proclaimed it to take the place of the former superiors; they wanted to change inequality... ".
This revolution that didn't finish any, was going to find in Bonaparte the one who was necessary to him to conclude. But, what conclusion for those whom were going to analyze their results! Let us look just little!
The Bonapartism created the personal power indeed, amalgamates monarchical tradition and sham democracy. The First consul controlled and reigned with the way of an enlightened sovereign who conceded at the Revolution's accomplished fact, with surrounding of republican forms, but thus created an extremely ambiguous situation. His power progressively in monarchial attitude, the life of court was restored, since from Consulate until the proclamation of the hereditary Empire and coronation, all was of course materialization of a dream of absolute power going until taking the forms of a universal domination, and to revive of the archaisms, Napoleon being caught for new Charlemagne.
The proclamation of the Empire and the perpetual reinforcements toward personal power were however as many means of consolidating the Revolution's established privileges in France and defying the European Counter-
Many freedoms were however suppressed, the freedom of expression was brutally reduced; just on first days 1800, 60 Parisian newspapers out of 73 were removed, and the survivors did not have to publish contrary articles "to social pact, people's sovereignty and the glory of the armies ", moreover, several of them like "the Moniteur" or "le Journal des débats", were sheets "inspired by the imperial power".
But Napoleon, very quickly, went much further. He wanted to define an elite social and political on a basis which was not nor that of feudal nobility "not on the distinctions of blood, which is an imaginary nobility, since there is only one kind of men, he said! ", nor that of richness," which one cannot make a title, of all the aristocracies, this one seemed to me the worst ", will say the Emperor to Sainte-
The workman’s genius being nevertheless to know to employ materials that it has under the hand, the families of old nobility entered often near Napoleon, because their fortunes already existent and their influence were put at the government’s service that was not enough rich to pay everyone.
The imperial aristocracy's bases were thus the personal merit and the "service" rendered to the State. Thus Napoleon was proclaiming, "Our time is that of merit; it is necessary to let sons of the peasants to rise by talents and services to the first rank... Where I found the talent and courage, I raised it and put at his place everywhere. My principle was to open the careers to the talents, thus, "will be born a historical" and "national" nobility ", substitute to the parchments the" beautiful actions, and to the private interests the fatherland's interests".
Napoleon thus lives in the creation of a new type aristocracy, just like in the institution of a hereditary Empire, not a reaction or a treason with regard to the Revolution, but on the contrary a consolidation of the new order. "A national nobility's institution was not contrary with the equality" for him; it was "eminently liberal and was able with the time, to consolidate the social order and destroy the nobility's vain pride". It was one of these "granite masses", which he intended to throw on the ground of France to base the republic definitively. In a mixture, which was well in his authoritarian manners, the assertion of principles and the cynicism of their execution, he found in the French’s temperament the justification of a new scale of titles: "they need distinctions, because it is with rattles that one leads the men".
From 1804 until 1808, i.e. from empire's proclamation until the decree on the organization of the imperial nobility, the social policy of Napoleon developed with a greater complexity, including the Legion of honor itself in a organize along hierarchical meticulous lines. At summit: The Napoleon Bonaparte's family. Around it, "an organization of the imperial palate conforms to the dignity of the throne and the size of the nation". Let us perceive: A Court to which Napoleon assigned for function, however very badly carry out, to give the flavor to the French society with the good example, at summit by fusion of the elites. At the first rank of great officers, eighteen marshals whose their promotion meant at same time, firstly all the price attached by the Emperor to the titles acquired to the field of honor, secondly the importance whom he granted to the army like instrument social rise.
At the creation's time of first titles in 1807, he made for example the marshal Lefebvre, duke of Dantzig intentionally, because he says: "This marshal had been private, and everyone in Paris had known him sergeant in the French guards". The only fact of belonging to the Legion of Honor conferred the title of knight, lowest on the scale. The non-
It's on the level of imperial nobility's organization that the more equivocal aspects of the Napoleon’s social legislation were. Being very preoccupied indeed, to put "his" nobility in a position to support as for appearances the competition of old aristocracy, and to lead to a fusion of elements, the Emperor incontestably transgressed the principle from the civil equality and reintroduced in France, features of feudality identical to the precedents. It was what arose in particular from the heredity of titles, the creation of great hereditary fiefs by substitution of property and transmission of titles to the elder son, the distribution of endowment in pension, the institution of the majorats on the government initiative or the private individuals request, in other words of inalienable properties of family intended to guarantee to the heir a title of nobility a sufficient fortune to honor this title, etc. It is however wise to notice that the title most abundantly decreed, that of "baron", was not hereditary; the one of knight could be granted on simple justification of an income of 3 000 franks per annum; That the fiefs and equipments were generally taken on the vassal kingdoms, therefore on foreign ground.
The population's fate had absolutely not changed. The rural migration not being started yet, like it was the case in England, the population of cities accounted for only fifteen to twenty percent. The eighty-
The peasants had wished, with passion and sometimes with fury, to release themselves from the feudal and seigniorial exploitation, the tithes' burden, the champart and other taxes. On this point, a share of them had obtained only one purely verbal satisfaction. The taxes’ name had indeed disappeared from the vocabulary, but not from economic reality for all those, sharecroppers and farmers, who were obliged to take land with lease.
The revolutionary legislation, from Constituent to Convention until the Directory, indeed in practice, had left the owner-
The historian Albert Soboul (1914-
Let us add to that, under the Consulate and the Empire, the return of a great number of emigrants on their lands, when they remained to them and the clergy's prestige restoration, had developed in the campaigns, particularly in the West and South-
It's evident that the French revolution’s picture and of its direct evolution towards the "dictatorship" of the first Napoleonic empire which one receives on the school's benches, resembles only slightly the summary of the very good work whose reference is in bibliography, which emphasizes well the social repercussions, in spite of perpetual wars. We thus find there the ways of thinking that certain contemporary observers of this time could answer off the top of their head, attached at too hasty and concrete results. We already approached the fundamental people's awakening and its man dignity, in report with the simple "servant" increasingly domestic, but it was largely occulted by objectives of a bourgeoisie more concerned to equip oneself, than to release the people.
Already rich philosophy at the eighteenth century of utopian ideas has thus quickly learnt a lesson from many analyses and conclusions from this great period of history and civilization. If it had occurred anything from particularly concrete lasting the centuries to feed these ways of thinking, there were a lot of things to be said about that, in very great thoughts.
The idealistic character from developed theory being unique to philosopher, he becomes of brittleness higher than the vast majority, if he feels an opposite practical application with his ideals, going until justifying the limits of his own theory. I don’t say it in advance in order to be able to accuse the various philosophers whom we will quote a too great precipitation of analysis, but quite to the contrary so that nobody judges them in their ideals, and give to them entire responsibility for the revolutions which were going to be born from it. Conflicts such as they had just lived themselves had perhaps marked deeply them. If we represent ourselves the number of deaths, executed cold-
To quote only some of these philosophers, they were named Saint Simon1 or Hegel2. The first, although from a "relationship" remote enough, was going to give rise to our today's French socialist party, as for the second, his works was going to be more important in the current of ideas to which was going to adhere one certain Karl Marx3 like his friend and fellow traveler less known, Engel 4.
2) Hegel (Friedrich), German philosopher (Stuttgart 1770-
3) Marx (Karl), Philosopher, economist and German Socialism's theorist (Trier 1818-
4) Engels (Friedrich), German socialist theorist (Barmen, integrated today in Wuppertal, 1820 -
He fought the theses of E. Dühring in The Anti-
This work cannot be sold. It is offered free of charge for information by Association
CHRETIENS DE L'ESPOIR, 2 Impasse Saint Jean -
Tel. (33) 0954705737 – Fax (33) 0959705737 -
|Degermann יצירה של איזבל|
|התקווה אלצהיימר איגוד|
|ליצור איתנו קשר|
|מצגת של המייסדים שלנו|
|שירים ישראליים מסורתיים|
|משבח של כריסטוף Bottois|
|רק האהבה תישאר|
|הפרדוקס של הכנסייה|
|ה צרפת ו אלוהים|
|סיכום של ספר|
|סמלי של ה כריכה|
|סיכום של ספר|
|סמלי של ה כריכה|
|מדע ו אמונה|
|את פלאי הולדה האנושי|
|סינתזה של מבנה רוחנית אנושית|