The Communist Manifesto

Rating:
Summary: Decent critique of modernity, but poor remedies for it.
Review: This tract requires little in the way of historical background, but I will obligingly provide some. As young men, both Marx and Engels were members of a loose confederation of radicalized German-speaking students known as the Young (or Left) Hegelians. The Young Hegelians stood in opposition to a group of entrenched faculty members and mainstream thinkers at Prussian universities -- specifically at Berlin -- known, predictably enough, as the Old (or Right) Hegelians. As the names imply, both groups asserted some form of intellectual or ideological fealty to the then recently-deceased Prussian philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel used system of explanation known as the dialectic, which has been around since at least the time of Socrates. Dictionary.com defines the dialectic as "a method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions." Hegel applied his dialectic to human history and determined that Prussia in the 19th century was by far the most advanced and greatest civilization to have ever existed and that all prior civilizations/cultures/nations had merely been precursors set to pave the way for Prussia. After Hegel's death in 1831, the Old Hegelians continued on in this tradition by making basically the same claims. The Young Hegelians, by contrast, disagreed with Hegel's conclusions, but found his dialectical system to be incredibly useful. Marx and Engels determined that there was still much progress to be made in the way of civilizational advancement, and they believed (on a basic level) that the dialectical system of opposing ideas -- as applied to civilizations -- would eventually produce a stateless utopia in which the notions of class, private property, and inequality before the law (and eventually the law itself) would cease to exist. "The Communist Manifesto" is therefore a threefold description of the past, the present, and the future interpreted through the dialectical lens. It is for this reason that the Marxist conflict theory is sometimes euphemistically referred to as "dialectical materialism" by intellectuals who would prefer to avoid the stigma of Marx's name.

Writing in the middle of the 19th century, Marx and Engels looked to the past to try to understand how it was that history had progressed to that point. The Marxist dialectical engine asserts that modernity -- and industrialization in particular -- led to the destruction of the king-based feudal order of Old Europe in that it displaced the serfs -- the proletariat -- from their land and deposited them into the factories of industry. This had the effect of creating a new type of servitude: this time, it was economic enslavement based on the exponential/pyramidal exploitation of the working classes by the capitalist captains of industry. To Marx and Engels, this situation was completely unacceptable, but one that was of manifest necessity in explaining the dialectical progression of history. The explicit claim is that it is an historical inevitability that the working classes will overthrow their political/religious/economic/whatever oppressors and create a perfect world in which all are equal and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" would be the new categorical imperative.

As my title implies, I find the Marxist critique of modernity and the Marxist delineation of historical progression up to the 18th century to be fairly helpful if not somewhat accurate, but the whole system of thought is based on the a priori assumption that the proletariat is inherently good and the bourgeousie is inherently evil. This sets up a false dichotomy that need not exist in any practical application or method of explanation. The idea that conflict drives the historical progression of time is not an entirely fallacious one, but it really depends on what it is that one defines as a "conflict." Is it an abstract battle of ideas? Is it a literal war? Is the conflict truly inevitable or is it something that might possibly happen? The didactic reading of historical progression was nothing new to Marx or even to Hegel before him; that doesn't mean it's correct. Everything can be construed as a conflict if we apply basic Newtonian physics -- for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. Is labor a consequence of management or is management a consequence of labor? Is the idea of the ground I walk on the abstract antithesis of the idea of my stepping feet? Is my walking the synthesis of these separate and hitherto irreconcilable differences?

The dialectic can be twisted in any way that one chooses. Examine the highly divergent dialectical conclusions of Socrates, Plato, Jesus Christ, GWF Hegel, Karl Marx, Francis Fukuyama, Michael Moore, and any number of other various pundits. In summation, "the Communist Manifesto" is good for descriptive purposes, but not for prescriptive ones. That said, this is still a highly significant work for various reasons. This is the essential framework for understanding what drove most of the conflicts of the previous century. This is also the most accessible introduction to entire "academic" fields of inquiry that one is likely to find. If you go to a university, find out if your school offers any classes or programs for Critical Theory or Critical Studies; these are euphemistic schools of thought based on the ongoing application of dialectical materialism in the world. I would advise students of economics to avoid this book in favor of Marx's incredibly dense "Das Kapital"; I know it's long, but it's also more lucid and it is far more helpful to understanding the economic sectors of Marxism (to briefly digress, I would recommend an economic program of study in this order: Adam Smith -> Karl Marx -> J.M. Keynes -> Friedrich von Hayek).

Rating:
Summary: Communism, a great big sham.
Review: Few books have had so large an impact as The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This short book has communicated an idea with a tremendous effect still lasting in politics, society, economics, and history. As an ardent capitalist and libertarian, I disagree with a large portion of this book. Economist Ludwig von Mises destroys any prospect of communism in his short book "Economic Calculuation in the Socialist Commonwealth". Reading Marx and Engels will not yield a greater understanding of truth, but rather, the benefit comes in a better understanding of a dangerous philosophy that is still quite prevalent.

The Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, reads very easily. The authors write in a passionate and yet comfortable tone. Hints of humor, sarcasm, and arrogance are found on nearly every page. The introductory and concluding lines are especially poetic:

"A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of communism..."

"...Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKINGMEN OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!"

Without a workable understanding of Communism and Socialism, one might think that they were destroyed at the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately, this is not so. What the authors predict a communist society will resemble is, sadly, often similar to contemporary America. This includes a progressive income tax, a national bank, compulsory public education, wage and labor regulations, and the death tax. Socialist ideology is alive and well.

For supporters of liberty, it is vital to both have an understanding of capitalism and the "freedom philosophy", but also to know the agenda of socialists. The subversive thinking of socialists must be mastered in order to ably defeat them. Sun Tzu sums it nicely "Know your enemy and know yourself". In order to do such, I suggest to all economists, political philosophers, and advocates of liberty to read this small yet immensely influential book.


Rating:
Summary: A little work which helped bring about great disaster
Review: This little work is one of the key statements of the Communist theory which came to rule in the Soviet Union. However idealistic and innocent , and there is no doubt question about this, the authors were in their analysis of exploiting capitalism, and a proletarian which would inevitably revolt and overthrow it the fact is that the Communism which came into the world in the wake of this book and Kapital was a great disaster for mankind. Millions of lives were sacrificed to the utopian goals outlined in this manifesto. It is remarkable that anyone today after the horrors brought about the Soviet Gulag could think to defend this work's analysis of the capitalistic system.

Rating:
Summary: Important work, but boring and evil.
Review: This is a pretty short book that is a pretty good introduction to Marxism or Communism.(And yes, Marxism and Communism are different.) Marx wrote lots of stuff and this is just an introduction. Marx's famous quotes like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and "Religion is the opiate of the masses" are NOT in this book.

Why then is it a good introduction? Because it is self-contradictory and full of nasty generalizations and insults to everyone who thinks differently than the authors. And this is the essence of Marxism. With no one to hate, there is no Marxism and no proletariat to manipulate for your own selfish ends. There is no forgiveness nor understanding in Marxism. Toleration consists of believing and doing what you are told with nary a doubt or thought that maybe the other fellow might have a point-of-view worth examining. Absolute truth is relative to the needs of the fascist who is promulgating these truths.

One particularly nasty aspect of the book is the misogyny of Marx. He basically sees the role of women as prostitutes. I find it interesting that none of the Marxist reviewers mention this.

Another rarely discussed aspect of Marx is his religious and racial bigotry. You'll find plenty of bigotry in these pages.

Marx advocates violence, greed and envy as the solution to the world's problems. No wonder his intellectual children from Hitler, to Stalin to Mao are responsible for the deaths and imprisonment of billions of souls. Mao Zedong is the greatest mass-murderer the world has ever known being responsible for the death of 100 million of his own people. Stalin deliberately starved to death 10's of millions of his own people. Hitler was responsible for the death of 20 million Russians, 20 million Germans, and the assorted odd millions of everyone from Jews to Americans. (Hitler was a National Socialist and followed many of Marx's beliefs to the letter, so yes Nazi's are a type of Marxist.)

On a literary level, this book is deadly boring and filled with words and concepts that don't mean any thing. Take the slogan, "Worker's of the world, unite!" Unite about what or around whom? This can really mean anything.

This kind of nonsense is true Marxism. State some vague sentiment. Write some inflammatory statements about "them". (Doesn't matter who they are.) Rant a little, insult some vague "class", state that history is on your side, and voila!, you too can be a revolutionary.

The last part of this book is full of Marx insulting other communists and socialists. Reminds me of the scene from the Monty Python movie "Life of Brian" where revolutionaries are explaining that the Judean People's Front is good but the People's Front of Judea is bad. It's really quite funny to hear nut-cases dissing other nut-cases who haven't hired Marx to write a political tract for them. Almost as funny as some of the reviews here that claim that Marx is a a good writer or that this deadly boring and confusing book is exciting and profound. Read it for yourself and see! But don't say I didn't warn you.

Given that this book is boring, evil, nasty, and confusing, how then can it be important? Marx was wrong about just about everything. He predicted the more advanced countries would accept Marxism first. Etc., etc.. But his movement still exists, controls huge numbers of the intelligentsia worldwide, and governments that believe in him control billions of people. Pretty heady results for a nutcase, but hard to ignore. And many of the things that Marx wished for are practiced in western countries daily from state control of children and their education to abortion and day-care.

Should you read this book? Yes, but check it out of your library rather than buy it. You will be amazed that this convoluted trash is so zealously presented as something profound. One Russian Marxist, Lenin, summarized Marxism with the phrase "Kto kvo" - that is "Who does what to whom". Read this and you'll have no doubt what he means. And when you're done reading, read something of value to wash your mind of this filth, so to speak.

Rating:
Summary: All working people need to read this book
Review: The Communist Manifesto is one of the great historic documents from one of history's greatest minds. I think, however, that people overlook the fact that Marx was, first of all, a revolutionary...like Lenin, Malcolm, Che and Trotsky...not the "intellectual pedant" that many intellectual pedants like to paint him up to be.

The Communist Manifesto was written right before the massive anti-monarchy European revolutions of 1848 that shook the earth and was the precursor of the Paris Commune in 1871 when working people took control of the government themselves for the first time. This book is great as "propaganda"...not meaning something "brainwashy" but meaning intended to reach the masses with words that speak to them, and expound ideas that working people have felt but not yet entirely formulated. It works great for those of us new to working-class politics, but also for those of us that have been engaged in politics for a while.

There are some antiquated passages in it, of course, and even Marx admitted that. The prospects for the German revolution were not nearly as great as he thought they were in the book in 1848, for example. Also, one of his demands at the end is for an end to all child labor and for universal mandatory schooling, and though these things may exist in 3rd world countries to a certain extent, they have largely been eradicated in the "advanced" aka "imperialist" European and American countries. Still, the basic fundamentals he writes about are correct even today, the situation of the worker that produces the value that the class that owns reaps JUST because they own; the eternal crisis the system we live under is in, since capitalism, unlike feaudalism or salvery, is constantly in flux instead of stationary ("everything solid turns to air" he says); the fact that the means of productions (us as workers) and the owners of the means of production (the bosses or capitalists) are constantly at war with each other; that money has personality and people do not (he has a great essay about this in the compilation "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844"); his "prophecies" of the further development of capitalism leading to worldwide monopoly of a few corporations over the majority, and as a result, of a few countries over the rest of the Earth; and, of course, that we working people hold the future in our hands...that working people are the sole hope of humanity, since we have the social weight, the numbers and the lack of any class interest whatsoever in human expoloitation and oppression-that because the only things that we truly "own" are our hands and minds to go out and work with.

Today with nearly ever capitalist country on the edge of financial collapse, with more wars over market share being fought than ever before since world war 2 (think "Operation Iraqi Freedom"), with more and more job layoffs and attacks on our unions and working conditions, with more of our social gains being taken away, with our pay being slashed dramatically...there is no future with people being sectioned off into different classes, in general determined by birth. Read this book to find out more. Socialismo O Muerte! (Socialism or Death)

Rating:
Summary: A Piece of Inspiring but Sloppy Rhetoric
Review: This short and extremely influential document is the ideology that the USSR and communist China founded their governments upon. It is indeed incentiary writing about how the "history of civilization is the history of class struggle" and as capitalism continues to exploit the workers (the proletairat) and thereby widening the social gap between them and the upper-middle class (the burgiose), a revolution was inevitable. He proceeds to outline what this is going to look like and what the results will be. Unfortunately, he frequently indulges in questionable logic, incorrect assumptions and worst, an assuption that once the proletariat is in control, they'll want to give up their power eventually. Hah!

Rating:
Summary: pretty sad really
Review: this is one of the most influential books of all time.im not gunna defend the book, becuase nobody has actually attacked its points, theyve attacked china and the ussr and communists, and insulted the book though. is it necassary to be so angry towards a piece of literature. its not like i leave negative comments at the review area for the king james bible. i think it should be noted that if communism or socialism is so bad howcome it is so pervasively influencing western government policy? I mean who actually opposes education or free medical care for a populace? i mean people point out the USSR and China but we dont talk about all the socialist influenced policies of western europe in places like sweden and those people dont seem very oppressed. i think maybe people need to acknowledge the value of evolutionary socialism, that it at least has some points. cant we all just get along?

Rating:
Summary: A sycophant of opression
Review: At one time the great adversary of democracy was considered to be communism. Since then it has been common for a person to jokingly call another person a communist when they say something that might be out of the norm or not something that person agrees with. After hearing this enough times, I wanted to know what a communist was. What are they calling people? All I knew of communism was the teaching that it was evil, and the USSR yielded it as a tool to oppress. After reading the communist manifesto I see many reasons why it is disputed amongst great thinkers, and I also see why other great thinkers uplift its name. In this realistic world we live in, nothing is black and white. A person can always find a bit of good in overall evil. I do not believe Karl Marx or Fredrick Engels where evil men. I believe they were just men who truly believed in communism as a virtuous theory to dispel oppression. I don't believe they planned this beyond theory however. There will always be those who wish to rule, who think themselves above the rest. be it blood, color, religion, whatever can set a man apart from other men will infect some men with the notion they are better. Communism gives a state power over all, life, work, production. Everything is filtered and governed through one head. Communism was a failed theory long before Marx put it to paper. I recommend this book to those who want to see how communism held, and still holds, parts of the world captive. My reasoning behind this books high rating, is due to the overwhelming effect it has had and continues to have on our world, and her people.