03/09/2017

« La démocratie n’est jamais acquise » - Karine Tuil


 Une tribune importante sur la situation en France par un écrivain que j'admire depuis mon premier entretien avec elle, en 2003 :



Karine Tuil : « La démocratie n’est jamais acquise »


Dans une tribune au « Monde », la romancière estime que la victoire d’Emmanuel Macron a certes permis de faire reculer le Front national. Mais cet acquis n’est pas définitif. Il faut, pour se préserver durablement, refonder le pluralisme.

LE MONDE |   • Mis à jour le  | Par  






TRIBUNE. A l’origine d’un engagement politique et intellectuel, il y a parfois une histoire familiale de la peur. Etre enfant d’immigrés vous assure un poste de vigie démocratique, en particulier quand vos parents ont quitté un régime autoritaire où critiquer le pouvoir vous assurait une place à l’ombre. « Ne pas déranger » fut notre mot d’ordre ; mes parents osaient à peine élever la voix. Qu’on pût contredire, juger, invectiver le pouvoir sans risquer d’être emprisonné leur semblait relever d’une pure fantasmagorie.

Ils ne manquaient pas une occasion de le rappeler : nés en France, nous avions de la chance ; la liberté n’était pas donnée, elle pouvait, à tout moment, vous être reprise. Ici, on avait le droit de voter, manifester, lire une presse indépendante, exprimer ses opinions politiques - derrière cette litanie des bienfaits français se déployait l’idée selon laquelle on ne connaissait la valeur de la démocratie que si l’on avait fait l’expérience de l’oppression –, l’enseignement parental se concrétisant par des lectures à forte charge politique et sociale – confirmation par la littérature de ce qu’ils nous disaient de vive voix : la démocratie n’est jamais acquise.





-

Et je repose mon entretien publié l'an dernier, à la sortie de son roman L'Insouciance :

[INTERVIEW] 

KARINE TUIL, « L’INSOUCIANCE »


16 août 2016 Par
Melissa Chemam
Roman choral, radiographie imaginaire d’une France en pleine ébullition sociale et politique, L’Insouciance de Karine Tuil pousse le lecteur à se poser des questions qui souvent dérangent. Inspirée par l’injustice faite à de nombreux soldats après leur retour traumatisant d’Afghanistan, la romancière tisse tout un monde autour du personnage de Roman Roller, un jeune lieutenant qui tombe amoureux d’une journaliste récemment mariée à un homme d’affaires richissime, Français Vély. Originaire de Clichy-sous-Bois, Romain, dans son errance, essaie de sauver son mariage ébranlé par le post-trauma de la guerre la plus inutile de sa vie… Il va aussi renouer avec ses anciens camarades de banlieue, dont la nouvelle star montante de la politique, Osman Dibula, nommé parmi les conseillers du « Président », mais dont le parcours, en tant que jeune noir sans diplôme de grande école, se révèle plus que chaotique. Le livre est un des sommets de l’auteur. Et de toute évidence un des romans qui marquera la rentrée littéraire 2016.
Pour en parler au mieux, nous avons proposé à l’auteur de nous accorder un long entretien.

-


The novel was also published in English. Read more on The Guardian:



The Age of Reinvention review – don’t believe the hype

Karine Tuil’s promising tale of identity theft set against the legal world of New York is let down by racial and sexual stereotyping

When a novel’s cover is emblazoned with the words “the international bestseller” or “shortlisted for the Prix Goncourt”, the advance acclaim can invoke one of two responses in a reader: hope that the book in question lives up to the plaudits or fear that it may not. In the case of The Age of Reinvention, the eighth novel by French author Karine Tuil, it is the latter, sadly, which transpires to be true.

The premise of the book is promising: talented law student Samir Tahar, a French Muslim, encounters what he believes to be racial discrimination when applying for jobs. On a whim, he shortens his name to Sam and soon after is employed by a firm believing him to be Jewish, an assumption Samir does nothing to contradict. When Samir later becomes a successful and much-feted lawyer in America, he perpetuates the lie of his Jewish heritage. Appropriating the tragic personal history of his former best friend, Samuel, he marries the daughter of one of New York’s most powerful Jewish men and establishes a network of lies that eventually catches him up with devastating consequences.



Stolen identities and double lives undoubtedly make for intriguing stories. But no amount of skilful plotting by Tuil can disguise the retrograde racial politics that sit at the heart of this novel, which is translated by Sam Taylor. Tuil’s Jewish characters are rich, famous and powerful (even Samuel, who spends much of the novel psychologically and emotionally weak, ends the book as an internationally bestselling novelist), whereas the Muslim characters, most notably Samir and his mother, face relentless political, cultural and economic prejudice. The disturbing message Tuil appears to want to convey is that the world is rosy as long as you’re Jewish (or, at least, can pretend to be). There appear to be no shades of grey.

Sexual politics don’t fare much better. The novel’s female protagonist, Nina, Samuel’s girlfriend and Samir’s mistress, is little more than a sexual pawn in the power struggle between the two men. She has no agency in the novel outside of her relationship to these two rivalrous men, neither of whom seems to be drawn to anything other than her physical beauty.

All of her characters, in fact, suffer from two-dimensional stereotyping: in Tuil’s world, all men are controlling, manipulative, pathologically ambitious and borderline misogynistic: “Samuel believes that conflicts are resolved by sexual dominance. Aggression as erotic power. Hostility as fuel for desire.” This may be Samuel’s scene, but it could belong to any of Tuil’s men. All Tuil’s female characters, meanwhile, are passive, obliging and inexplicably devoted to unworthy men, even in the face of emotional and psychological abuse, whether they’re rich Jewish New Yorkers or poverty-stricken French Muslims. This limited characterisation makes for a cast it’s difficult to believe in, much less care about.

There’s a sense in reading The Age of Reinvention that Tuil’s aim was to write a state-of-the-nation novel and clearly it must have chimed with French readers. In the UK, however – and, one suspects, in America – the simplistic portrayal of racial and sexual politics may fail to strike a chord.

The Age of Reinvention is published by Simon & Schuster (£12.99). Click here to buy it for £10.39



02/09/2017

UNITE, REJECT & RETHINK BREXIT NOW!


 Also, we're in September now, time to start again, the real new start of the year.

Other news from the UK, for those who want to build another country that what Mrs Theresa May has in mind... I talked about the Brexit negotiations with the Chinese international television network this week, CGTN, and it is not looking good.

Courage, my friends, courage. We create our reality.


UNITE, REJECT & RETHINK BREXIT NOW!

Circumstances have changed: Parliament must catch up

The tide is turning. If you are one of the growing majority rejecting the UK’s current path out of the EU, you are not powerless and it is not too late.
The British public is increasingly concerned about Brexit; poll after poll shows a bigger majority for staying in the EU. As the reality of our exit from the EU becomes clear, we hear frustrations from those who voted and campaigned to leave, but now believe that the country is headed for disaster. But the Government is not listening. It is up to us to make them hear.
The European Union has offered the UK an olive branch, a way to stop all this, a way out of this madness. Taking no-Brexit is officially on the table, offered by the EU. This is the option our Government must take to protect our future and that of generations to come.

Saturday 9th September 2017  @ 11 am

Rise Up! Speak Up!

Enough is Enough

In June, Theresa May demanded a mandate for her cliff-edge Brexit and instead we took away her majority. Public opinion today does not support any Brexit, let alone the Tories’ extreme variety.
Regardless of the growing public dismay, the Government and opposition are hell bent on the most destructive Brexit possible. This is neither in the national interest nor is it democratic. It is time for us – the ignored masses – to say enough is enough.

People's March - The Brexit Kid

Be the Change

The will of the people has changed and we can only show this by coming out on the street and making Parliament listen. Only we can reclaim our future. This is our chance to be the change and stand up for our country.
Join us and march to show the strength of feeling as we demand the return of common sense in Britain’s political leadership. Today’s political decisions bear no relation to the interests of the public or the country.

Our Message: Country before Brexit

Numerous industries now warn against job losses and closures should we leave the single market; neither polls nor the election result support a mandate for an extreme Brexit. Yet the government refuses to reconsider its negotiating stance.
Every day more damaging news emerges but, despite the pleas of sensible politicians, the cabal of leaders continues on a path that no longer holds credibility inside Westminster let alone on the streets of Britain.
Austerity opens us to terror attacks through underfunded security, health failures through an underfunded NHS and the deaths of hundreds in our underfunded social housing. Yet, we see our parliament spending money that could be used to improve our lives on dodgy deals to prop up their plans for a kamikaze departure from the EU that the public does not support.
From the outside looking in, the lunatics seem to be running the asylum. 

Stand up for your Country: Reclaim your future

This September 9th we will speak up louder than before. We will get our voices heard on the international stage. With leading organisations, politicians and public figures behind our cause, we will show that the British people will not be led blindly over a cliff’s edge.
The British public most of all want a return of common sense; a parliament that prioritises our wellbeing and national prosperity over the Eurosceptic fantasy that is undermining every aspect of British life today.
Come to the People’s March for Europe on Saturday 9th September 2017 at 11am. Join the march and share the collective experience. Be part of an event that shows we can create a better future. If you want to do more there are many ways you can Help Out, including volunteering, sharing images and videos for a Visual Archive of the event, and promoting the march through TwitterFacebook and other social media.
We are raising funds for the march on Saturday 9th September 2017. The money from our GoFundMe will be used to provide a safe, secure and respectful march. We will be bringing key speakers and worldwide media attention.
Please give what you can to help mark 9th September in UK history as the day we stood up and said NO!
Our Facebook page is a great place to connect with others that believe our future can be better and brighter. You can find others travelling to the People’s March for Europe, and find out more about the coaches in our Travel Hub stay up-to-date with what is happening. Sign-up through the Facebook Event or Eventbrite.

People's March - Camera People

Who are the People’s March?

The People’s March for Europe is grassroots and inclusive of any organisations which are actively campaigning for continued UK membership of the European Union.
In the wake of the EU referendum, people from all walks of life and political affiliations formed local pro-EU campaign organisations. These organisations set out to resist Brexit in their cities, towns and communities. Together, these organisations can make a difference – collectively we are the popular opposition to Brexit this country deserves.


Marx' history: About Mary and Lizzy Burns


 Just sharing today this short but acute insight into the lives of Mary and Lizzy Burns, who played an important role in Friedrich Engel's life and writing.

The sisters were Irish workers in Manchester who helped Engels in his research about the English working class from 1843.

Mary has a very important role in Raoul Peck's film, The Young Karl Marx, about Marx' youth and first activities in journalism, philosophy and writing, that led him to write the Manifest of the Communist Party in 1848. A book that literally changed our world.

The film is out in France on September 27th, as I already mentioned, and I was incredibly lucky to work on the research the filmmaker conducted from 2005 to 2009 to prepare the film.








Frederick Engels and Mary and Lizzy Burns


Sisters Mary and Lizzy Burns were two Manchester Irish women who became the lovers of socialist writer Frederick Engels and played a significant role in his life.
After a brief visit as teenager, Frederick Engels came to Manchester in December 1842, aged 22, to work in the family firm Ermen & Engels. Engels had been born in Barmen (now Wuppertal) in Germany in November 1820 into a conservative wealthy family that had made its money in cotton manufacturing. At the age of 18, he had become involved in radical politics, contributing two anonymous articles to a local newspaper which exposed the conditions endured by workers in the mills and factories.
In 1841 Engels did military service in Berlin, though he spent much of his time attending philosophy lectures at the university and debating ideas with the Young Hegelians in numerous drinking establishments.. He also began contributing articles to the radical newspaper Rheische Zeitung, published in Cologne. His family were appalled at his political ideas and hoped that by sending him to work in the family firm in Manchester, he would be cured of them. On his way to Manchester he called into Cologne to meet the new editor of the paper, Karl Marx, though at their first meeting the two men did not get on particularly well.
Engels worked in the firm’s business office on Southgate (the factory was in Weaste, now demolished). At some point he met Mary Burns, probably early in 1843. They may have met at the Owenite Hall of Science on Deansgate at which Engels was a regular visitor, although some historians have suggested that Mary worked in the Ermen & Engels factory. According to research carried out by Roy Whitfield, Mary and her sister Lydia (known as Lizzy) were the daughters of Michael Burns and Mary Conroy and lived off Deansgate, then an area of foetid courts and narrow alleys.
Marx’s daughter Eleanor described Mary in a letter to Kaut Kautsky written in 1898, as “a Manchester factory girl, quite uneducated, though she could read, and write a little”. She also said Mary was “pretty, witty and altogether charming” and that her parents were very fond of her and always spoke of her with the greatest affection. 
Whilst in Manchester Engels made a detailed study of social conditions in Manchester. It seems likely that the Burns sisters guided him around the city, ensuring his safety in areas where a well-to–do foreigner was a rare sight and potential target. Engels left Manchester in August 1844, returned to Germany and finished writing the book. It was published in Leipzig under the title The Condition of the Working Class in England (It was not published in translation in Britain until 1892). The book was dedicated “to the working classes of Great Britain” and Engels wrote that:
“I wanted to see you in your own homes, to observe you in your everyday life, to chat with you on your conditions and grievances, to witness your struggles against the social and political power of your oppressors. I have done so. I forsook the company and the dinner-parties, the port wine and the champagne of the middle-classes and devoted to my leisure hours to meeting plain working men.”
Twenty years later Marx wrote to Engels about the book:
“I have read your book again and I have realised that I am not getting any younger . What power, what incisiveness and what passion drive you to work in those days. That was a time when you were never worried by academic scholarly reservations! Those were the days when you made the reader feel that your theories would become hard facts if not tomorrow then at any rate on the day after. Yet that very illusion gave the whole work a human warmth and a touch of humour that makes our later writings – where ‘black and white’ have become ‘grey and grey’ – seem positively distasteful.”
Engels and Marx became firm, indeed life-long, friends on their second meeting in Paris in the summer of 1844 where Marx has been living since the previous autumn, having been forced to leave Germany. They met again in Brussels in the spring of 1845 – Marx now having been forced to leave France) and then journeyed on to Manchester in July. Here they worked together studying texts in Chetham’s Library. The table at which they worked can still be seen. 
In 1870 Engels wrote to Marx “in the last few days I have often been sitting at the four-sided desk where we sat twenty-four years ago. I like this place very much, because of its coloured glass the weather is always fine there.”
On their return to Brussels in August 1845 Mary Burns accompanied Engels. Marx and Engel lived next to each other and spent their time in discussion with other exiles and drinking. Mary seems to have returned to Manchester later that year.
Both Marx and Engels took part in the 1848 revolutions in Germany. After the defeat of the revolutions in the summer of 1849 both men had to leave Germany again. In 1850 they came to Britain which would be their home for the rest of their lives. They struck a deal: Marx would research and write while Engels would support him with the money he earned as a partner at Engels & Ermen. 
Frederick Engels arrived back in Manchester in November 1850, living at 70 Great Ducie Street, and re-ignited his relationship with Mary. The firm’s office was at 7 Southgate. In a letter he complained to Marx about the gloomy view over a pub yard, probably that of the Star Hotel. Nearby was another public house where James Belfield was the landlord. Engels sent money regularly to Marx and they corresponded almost every day. Many, but not all, of their letters have survived. 
Engels now embarked upon an elaborate double life which was unearthed after meticulous research by local historian Roy Whitfield in his book Frederick Engels in Manchester. For his public life as a respectable businessmen Engels kept a set of rooms in which he entertained his business friends, joined the Albert Club (a club for German businessmen named in hour of Prince Albert; it was situated on Oxford Road) and rode regularly with the Cheshire Hunt. 
In the private part of his life Engels lived with Mary Burns who, together with her sister Lizzy, ran boarding houses, moving from time to time to different parts of Manchester. Engels was often registered as a lodger at these houses but used different names, presumably for the purpose of concealing his identity from the prurient. This did not always work. In April 1854 he wrote to Marx “the philistines have got to know that I am living with Mary”, forcing him to take private lodgings once more.
In April 1862 he wrote to Marx, “I am living with Mary nearly all the time now so as to spend as little money as possible. I can’t dispense with my lodgings, otherwise I should move in with her altogether.”
Both Engels’ private and public lodgings are all long since demolished. There is a plaque to him on Thorncliffe House, a University of Manchester student residence, which is built on the site of 6 Thorncliffe Grove, Chorlton-on-Medlock, one of Engels’ “official” residences.
Engels and Mary Burns never married. She died suddenly on 7 January 1863 at 252 Hyde Road, Ardwick. Her burial place is lost. At some point Frederick and Lizzy became lovers. Eleanor Marx was a frequent visitor to the household and friends with Lizzy. She later write to Karl Kautsky that Lizzy “was illiterate and could not read or write but she was true, honest and in some ways as fine-souled a woman as you could meet.” According to Paul Lafargue, Marx’s son-in-law, Lizzy was “in continual touch with the many Irishmen in Manchester and always well informed of their conspiracies.” He even suggested that “more than one Fenian found hospitality in Engels’ house” and that they were involved in the dramatic rescue of the Fenian leaders Kelly and Deasy in September 1867. There is no evidence for this, although their house at 252 Hyde Road was close to the rescue site.
Engels, to his great relief, finally retired from business on 30 June 1869. Eleanor Marx, who was staying with them, later wrote:
“I shall never forget the triumph with which he exclaimed ‘for the last time!’ as he put on hi boots in the morning to go to his office. A few hours later we were standing at the gate waiting for him. We saw him coming over the little field opposite the house where he lived. He was swinging his stick in the air and singing, his face beaming. Then we set the table for a celebration and drank champagne and were happy.”
Frederick and Lizzy left Manchester for London in September 1870, taking a house at 122 Regents Park Road, Primrose Hill, just ten minutes walk from Marx. The comfortable house was an epicentre for the burgeoning Socialist movement, with endless correspondence and visitors. Lizzy suffered much ill-health in her later years and died on 11 September 1878, being buried in Kensal Green cemetery. She and Frederick had married just before her death. Marx died on 14 March 1883 and was buried in Highgate Cemetery. Finally Engels himself – by now the Grand Old Man of International Socialism – died on 5 August 1895. At his request his ashes were scattered at sea off Beachy Head.
Article by Michael Herbert
-
-

If you want to read more, here is an article by The Smithsonian Magazine


How Friedrich Engels’ Radical Lover Helped Him Father Socialism

Mary Burns exposed the capitalist’s son to the plight of the working people of Manchester


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-friedrich-engels-radical-lover-helped-him-father-socialism-21415560/#GFzQ8JBTDxd3jjzZ.99
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter



smithsonian.com 



Friedrich Engels’ life appears replete with contradiction. He was a Prussian communist, a keen fox-hunter who despised the landed gentry, and a mill owner whose greatest ambition was to lead the revolution of the working class. As a wealthy member of the bourgeoisie, he provided, for nearly 40 years, the financial support that kept his collaborator Karl Marx at work on world-changing books such as Das Kapital. Yet at least one biographer has argued that while they were eager enough to take Engels’s money, Marx and his aristocratic wife, Jenny von Westphalen, never really accepted him as their social equal.
Amid these oddities lurks another—a puzzle whose solution offers fresh insights into the life and thinking of the midwife of Marxism. The mystery is this: Why did Engels, sent in 1842 to work in the English industrial city of Manchester, choose to lead a double life, maintaining gentleman’s lodgings in one part of the city while renting a series of rooms in workers’ districts? How did this well-groomed scion of privilege contrive to travel safely through Manchester’s noisome slums, collecting information about their inhabitants’ grim lives for his first great work, The Condition of the Working Class in England? Strangest of all, why—when asked many years later about his favorite meal—would a native German like Engels answer: “Irish stew”?


To answer these questions, we need to see Engels not as he was toward the end of his long life, the heavily bearded grand old man of international socialism, but as he was at its beginning. The Friedrich Engels of the 1840s was a  gregarious young man with a facility for languages, a liking for drink and a preference for lively female company. (“If I had an income of 5,000 francs,” he once confessed to Marx, “I would do nothing but work and amuse myself with women until I went to pieces.”) It was this Engels who arrived in England in December 1842–sent there to help manage a factory part-owned by his wealthy father, by a family desperate to shield their young radical from the Prussian police. And it was this Engels who, to the considerable alarm of his acquaintances, met, fell for and, for the better part of two decades, covertly lived with an Irish woman named Mary Burns.
Burns’ influence on Engels—and hence on communism and on the history of the world in the past century—has long been badly underestimated. She makes at best fleeting appearances in books devoted to Engels, and almost none in any general works on socialism. And since she was illiterate, or nearly so, not to mention Irish, working class and female, she also left only the faintest of impressions in the contemporary record. The sterling efforts of a few Manchester historians aside, almost nothing is known for certain about who she was, how she lived or what she thought. Yet it is possible, reading between the lines of Engels’ writings, to sense that she had considerable influence on several of her lover’s major works.


Let us begin this attempt at recovered memory by sketching the main setting for the tale. Manchester, it must be said, was a poor choice of exile for a young man whose left-wing convictions had so concerned his family. It was the greatest and most terrible of all the products of Britain’s industrial revolution: a large-scale experiment in unfettered capitalism in a decade that witnessed a spring tide of economic liberalism. Government and business alike swore by free trade and laissez fairewith all the attendant profiteering and poor treatment of workers. It was common for factory hands to labor for 14 hours a day, six days a week, and while many of them welcomed the idea of fixed employment, unskilled workers rarely enjoyed much job security.
Living conditions in the city’s poorer districts were abominable. Chimneys choked the sky; the city’s population soared more than sevenfold. Thanks in part to staggering infant mortality, the life expectancy of those born in Manchester fell to a mere 28 years, half that of the inhabitants of the surrounding countryside. And the city still bore the scars of the infamous Peterloo Massacre (in which cavalry units charged down unarmed protesters calling for the vote) and had barely begun to recover from the more recent disaster of an unsuccessful general strike.
Engels had been sent to Manchester to take up a middle-management position in a mill, Ermen & Engels, that manufactured patent cotton thread. The work was tedious and clerical, and Engels soon realized that he was less than welcome in the company. The senior partner, Peter Ermen, viewed the young man as little more than his father’s spy and made it clear that he would not tolerate interference in the running of the factory. That Engels nonetheless devoted the best years of his life to what he grimly called “the bitch business,” grinding through reams of stultifying correspondence for the better part of 20 years, suggests not so much obedience to his father’s wishes as a pressing need to earn a living. As part-owner of the mill, he eventually received a 7.5 percent share in Ermen & Engels’ rising profits, earning £263 in 1855 and as much as £1,080 in 1859—the latter a sum worth around $168,000 today.


What made Engels different from the mill owners with whom he mixed was how he spent his wealth (and the contents of Peter Ermen’s petty-cash box, which was regularly pilfered). Much of the money, and almost all of Engels’ spare time, was devoted to radical activities. The young German fought briefly in the revolutions of 1848-9, and for decades pursued an intensive program of reading, writing and research that resulted in a breakdown as early as 1857 but eventually yielded a dozen major works. He also offered financial support to a number of less-well-off revolutionaries—most important, Karl Marx, whom he had met while traveling to Manchester in 1842. Even before he became relatively wealthy, Engels frequently sent Marx as much as £50 a year—equivalent to around $7,500 now, and about a third of the annual allowance he received from his parents.
Few of Engels’ contemporaries knew of this hidden life; fewer still were aware of Mary Burns. As a result, almost all of what we know of Burns’ character comes from Engels’ surviving correspondence and a handful of clues exhumed from local archives.
It is not even certain where they met. Given what we know of working-class life during this period, it seems likely that Mary first went to work around age 9, and that her first job would have been as a “scavenger,” one of the myriad of nimble children paid a few pennies a day to keep flying scraps of fluff and cotton out of whirring factory machinery. The noted critic Edmund Wilson took this speculation further, writing that by 1843 Mary had found a job in Ermen’s mill. But Wilson gave no source for this assertion, and other biographers argue that Engels’ less-than-gallant pen portrait of his female employees—”short, dumpy and badly formed, decidedly ugly in the whole development of the figure”—makes it unlikely that he met the “very good natured and witty” young woman whom Marx remembered on the factory floor.

The Manchester slums of the mid-19th century were the subject of Engels’ first book, and a district that—thanks to his lover Mary Burns—he came to know remarkably well.
If Mary was not a factory girl, there were not too many other ways in which she could have made a living. She lacked the education to teach, and the only other respectable employment available was probably domestic service; an 1841 census does suggest that she and her younger sister, Lizzie, worked as servants for a while. A ”Mary Burn” of the right age and “born in this parish” is recorded in the household of a master painter named George Chadfield, and it may be, as Belinda Webb suggests, that Burns took this job because it offered accommodation. Her mother had died in 1835, and she and her sister had to come to terms with a stepmother when their father remarried a year later; perhaps there were pressing reasons for their leaving home. Certainly a career in domestic service would have taught Mary and Lizzie the skills they needed to keep house for Engels, which they did for many years beginning in 1843.
Not every historian of the period believes that Mary was in service, though. Webb, noting that Engels described taking frequent, lengthy walking tours of the city, argues that Mary would scarcely have had the time to act as his guide to Manchester had she labored as a factory hand or servant, and may instead have been a prostitute. Webb notes that Burns was said to have sold oranges at Manchester’s Hall of Science–and “orange selling” had long been a euphemism for involvement in the sex trade. Nell Gwyn, King Charles II’s “Protestant Whore,” famously hawked fruit at Drury Lane Theater, and the radical poet Georg Weerth–whom Mary knew, and who was one of Engels’ closest associates—penned some double entendre-laced lines in which he described a dark-eyed Irish strumpet named Mary who sold her “juicy fruits” to “bearded acquaintances” at the Liverpool docks.
That Engels’ relationship with Mary had a sexual element may be guessed from what what might be a lewd phrase of Marx’s; taking in the news that Engels had acquired an interest in physiology, the philosopher inquired: “Are you studying…on Mary?” Engels did not believe in marriage—and his correspondence reveals a good number of affairs—but he and Burns remained a couple for almost 20 years.
Nothing is known for certain about Mary’s involvement in Engels’ political life, but a good deal can be guessed. Edmund and Ruth Frow point out that Engels describes the Manchester slum district known as Little Ireland in such graphic detail that he must have known it; Mary, they argue, “as an Irish girl with an extended family…would have been able to take him around the slums…. If he had been on his own, a middle-class foreigner, it is doubtful he would have emerged alive, and certainly not clothed.”


Engels’ acquaintance with Manchester’s worst slums is a matter of some significance. Though he had been born in a business district in the Ruhr, and though (as his biographer Gustav Meyer puts it) he “knew from childhood the real nature of the factory system”—Engels was still shocked at the filth and overcrowding he found in Manchester. “I had never seen so ill-built a city,” he observed. Disease, poverty, inequality of wealth, an absence of education and hope all combined to render life in the city all but insupportable for many. As for the factory owners, Engels wrote, “I have never seen a class so demoralized, so incurably debased by selfishness, so corroded within, so incapable of progress.” Once, Engels wrote, he went into the city with such a man “and spoke to him of the bad, unwholesome method of building, the frightful condition of the working people’s quarters.” The man heard him out quietly “and said at the corner where we parted: ‘And yet there is a great deal of money to be made here: good morning, sir.’ ”
Making the acquaintance of the Burns sisters also exposed Engels to some of the more discreditable aspects of the British imperialism of the period. Although born in England, Mary’s parents had been immigrants from Tipperary, in the south of Ireland. Her father, Michael, labored on and off as a cloth dyer, but ended his days in miserable poverty, spending the last 10 years of his life in a workhouse of the sort made notorious in Oliver Twist. This, combined with the scandal of the Great Famine that gripped Ireland between 1845 and 1850, and saw a million or more Irish men, women and children starve to death in the heart of the world’s wealthiest empire, confirmed the Burns sisters as fervent nationalists. Mary joined Engels on a brief tour of Ireland in 1856, during which they saw as much as two-thirds of the devastated country. Lizzie was said to have been even more radical; according to Marx’s son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, she offered shelter to two senior members of the revolutionary Irish Republican Brotherhood who were freed from police custody in 1867 in a daring operation mounted by three young Fenians known as the Manchester Martyrs.


Thanks to Manchester’s census records and rates books from this period—and to the painstaking work of local labor historians—it is possible to trace the movements of Engels and the Burns sisters under a variety of pseudonyms. Engels passed himself off as Frederick Boardman, Frederick Mann Burns and Frederick George Mann, and gave his occupation as bookkeeper or “commercial traveler.” There are gaps in the record–and gaps in Engels’ commitment to both Manchester and Mary; he was absent from England from 1844 until the very end of 1849. But Burns evidently retained her place in Engels’ affections through the revolutionary years of 1848-9. Webb notes that, after his return to Manchester, “he and Mary seem to have proceeded more formally,” setting up home together in a modest suburb. Lizzie moved in and seems to have acted as housekeeper, though details of the group’s living arrangements are very hard to come by; Engels ordered that almost all of the personal letters he wrote during this period be destroyed after his death.
Engels seems to have acknowledged Mary, at least to close acquaintances, as more than a friend or lover. “Love to Mrs Engels,” the Chartist Julian Harney wrote in 1846. Engels himself told Marx that only his need to maintain his position among his peers prevented him from being far more open: “I live nearly all the time with Mary so as to save money. Unfortunately I cannot manage without lodgings; if I could I would live with her all the time.”
Engels and Mary moved frequently. There were lodgings in Burlington and Cecil Streets (where the Burns sisters appear to have earned extra money by renting out spare rooms), and in 1862 the couple and Lizzie moved into a newly built property in Hyde Road (the street on which the Manchester Martyrs would free Thomas Kelly and Timothy Deasy five years later). But the years–and perhaps Engels’ long absences on business, private and revolutionary—began to take their toll. In her 20s, Eleanor Marx recorded, Mary “had been pretty, witty and charming…but in later years drank to excess.” This may be no more than family lore—Eleanor was only 8 when Burns died, and she admitted in another letter that “Mary I did not know”—but it seems to fit the known facts well enough. When Burns died, on January 6, 1863, she was only 40.

Jenny Marx—neé Jenny von Westphalen, a member of Prussia’s aristocracy—in 1844.
If it is Mary Burns’ death, not life, that scholars focus on, that is because it occasioned a momentous falling-out between Engels and Marx—the only one recorded in four decades of close friendship. The earliest signs of discord date back several years. During a sojourn in Belgium between 1845 and 1848, during which the two men wrote the Communist Manifesto, Mary went to live in Brussels, an unusual adventure in those days for someone of her sex and class. Jenny Marx had few acquaintances among working-class women, and was undoubtedly shocked when Engels held up his lover as a model for the woman of the future. Burns, Jenny thought, was “very arrogant,” and she observed, sarcastically, that “I myself, when confronted with this abstract model, appear truly repulsive in my own eyes.” When the two found themselves together at a workers’ meeting, Simon Buttermilch reported, Marx “indicated by a significant gesture and a smile that his wife would in no circumstances meet Engels’ companion.”
It was against this backdrop that Engels wrote to Marx to tell his friend of Mary’s death. “Last night she went to bed early,” he wrote, “and when at midnight Lizzie went upstairs, she had already died. Quite suddenly. Heart disease or stroke. I received the news this morning, on Monday evening she was still quite well. I can’t tell you  how I feel. The poor girl loved me with all her heart.”
Marx sympathized–briefly. “It is extraordinarily difficult for you,” he wrote, “who had a home with Mary, free and withdrawn from all human muck, as often as you pleased.” But the remainder of the missive was devoted to a long account of Marx’s woes, ending with a plea for money. “All my friends,” Engels fired back in anger, “including philistine acquaintances, have shown me, at this moment which hit me deeply, more sympathy and friendship than I expected. You found this moment appropriate to display the superiority of your cool intellect.”

Engels in later life. He died in 1895, at age 74.
Marx wrote again, apologizing, extending more elaborate condolences and blaming his first letter on his wife’s demands for money. “What drove me particularly mad,” he wrote, “was that thought I did not report to you adequately our true situation.” Mike Gane, among other writers, suspects that Marx objected to Engels’ love of a working-class woman not on the grounds of class, but because the relationship was bourgeois, and hence violated the principles of communism. Whatever the reason for the argument, Engels seems to have been glad when it ended.
He lived with Mary’s sister for 15 more years. Whether their relationship was as passionate as the one Engels had enjoyed with Mary may be doubted, but he was certainly very fond of Lizzie Burns; just before she was struck down by some sort of tumor in 1878, he acceded to her dying wish and married her. “She was of genuine Irish proletarian stock,” he wrote, “and her passionate and innate feelings for her class were of far greater value to me and stood me in better stead at moments of crisis than all the refinement and culture of your educated and ascetic young ladies.”
Historians remain divided over the importance of Engels’ relations with the Burns sisters. Several biographers have seen Mary and Lizzie as little more than sexual partners who also kept house, something that a Victorian gentleman could scarcely have been expected to do for himself.  Terrell Carver has suggested that “in love, Engels does not seem to have gone in search of his intellectual equal.”
Others see Mary Burns as vastly more important. ”I wanted to see you in your own homes,” Engels wrote in dedicating his first book to “the Working Classes of Great Britain.” “To observe you in everyday life, to chat with you on your conditions and grievances, to witness your struggles.” He never could have achieved this ambition without a guide, certainly not in the short span of his first sojourn in England. And achieving it marked him for life. “Twenty months in Manchester and London,” W.O. Henderson observes–for which read 10 or 15 months with Mary Burns—”had turned Engels from an inexperienced youth into a young man who had found a purpose in life.”
Sources
Roland Boer. “Engels’ contradictions: a reply to Tristram Hunt.” International Socialism 133 (2012); William Delaney. Revolutionary Republicanism and Socialism in Irish History, 1848-1923. Lincoln : Writer’s Showcase, 2001; Edmund and Ruth Frow. Frederick Engels in Manchester and “The Condition of the Working Class in England”; Salford: Working Class Movement Library, 1995; Mike Gane. Harmless Lovers? Gender, Theory and Personal Relationship. London: Routledge, 1993; Lindsay German. Frederick Engels: life of a revolutionaryInternational Socialism Journal 65 (1994); W.O. Henderson. The Life of Friedrich Engels. London: Frank Cass, 1976; W.O. Henderson. Marx and Engels and the English Workers, and Other Essays. London: Frank Cass, 1989; Tristram Hunt. The Frock-Coated Communist: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels. The Life and Times of the Original Champagne Socialist. London: Penguin, 2010; Sarah Irving. “Frederick Engels and Mary and Lizzie Burns.” Manchester Radical History, accessed April 3, 2013; Mick Jenkins. Frederick Engels in Manchester. Manchester: Lancashire & Cheshire Communist Party, 1964; Jenny Marx to Karl Marx, March 24, 1846, in Marx/Engels Collected Works, 38. New York: International Publishers, 1975; Marx to Engels, January 8, 1863Engels to Marx, January 13, 1863Marx to Engels, January 24, 1863Engels to Marx, January 26, 1863, all in Marx/Engels Collected Works, 41. New York: International Publishers, 1985; Belinda Webb. Mary Burns. Unpublished Kingston University PhD thesis, 2012; Roy Whitfield. Frederick Engels in Manchester: The Search for a Shadow. Salford: Working Class Movement Library, 1988.


Rumeurs sur Bristol : musique et vidéos à La Colonie (Paris 10e, le 12 septembre)


Hello, Hello, hello! 

C'est la rentrée et pour fêter les 20 ans de 1997, l'une des années musicales qui a le plus marqué notre génération, j'organise une discussion animée d'extraits vidéos sur les groupes les plus percutants, iconoclastes et engagés qui ont marqué cette année-là... 

Un ton très bristolien bien sûr et ce sera le 12 septembre, à La Colonie, 128, rue Lafayette, Paris 10e... 

Après l'épisode 1 sur l'influence du punk en Angleterre, et l'épisode 2 sur la passion britannique pour le reggae, voici l'épisode 3... 1997-2017, 20 ans d'un nouveau son et nouveau ton.

-


1997-2017 : 20 ans d'une scène artistique forte, rebelle et engagée.

AU PROGRAMME : Discussion, un peu d'histoire et beaucoup de vidéoclips commentés. Les meilleurs, les plus coups de poing...



 De la sortie du 'Risingson' de Massive Attack aux début de Banksy, Bristol a marqué l'Angleterre au fer rouge de sons et visuels décapants, bruts, engagés et sans compromis. Après avoir fait la première partie de David Bowie et Radiohead, Massive Attack revient en 1997 avec un single sans concession, 'Risingson', annonçant leur chef d'oeuvre, 'Mezzanine'. 



Au même moment, Tricky (autoproclamé 'Nearly God') collabore avec Björk et PJ Harvey, Roni Size remporte le Mercury Prize avec le premier grand album de drum & bass ('New Form') et Portishead s'impose avec un sublime deuxième album. 

Quant à Banksy, il sort tout juste de l'ombre... 

1997 voit exploser un groupe d'artistes et scène visuelle et sonore venue d'une ville revêche et politiquement sans concession, qui impose sa vision brute, réaliste, et postcoloniale d'une Angleterre alors commercialement enrubannée dans les atours de la "Brit Pop" et du "Cool Britannia". 


Deux mondes que tout oppose!


-

Les infos  :

Rumeurs sur Bristol : 20 ans d'une scène artistique engagée