Customer Reviews

The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition

5 star:		(157)
4 star:		(61)
3 star:		(39)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(59)

 

 

My five star rating is based on the quality of this handsome edition of one of the classics of political philosophy. Classics of this magnitude, whether Adam Smith's THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, Tocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, or THE FEDERALIST PAPERS have achieved a status that makes the assigning of a rating rather silly. Regardless of one's feelings about Marxism or Communism, a work of such gigantic influence is of such a status that rating it is almost silly. It is one of the constitutive artifacts of our culture.

The particular edition I am reviewing is the recent reissue on Verso with an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm. There are a host of editions of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, and virtually any of them will do the trick, but I very much enjoyed this edition, partly for the handsome jacket and binding, and partly for the superb intro by Hobsbawm. It is not a new translation, and indeed it isn't clear that there will ever be much of a demand for a new translation. The MANIFESTO was first published in 1848 and this translation in 1888. Moore's translation is the standard one for a simple reason: Engels examined it closely and helped Moore in editing the final draft of the translation.

Although I had read a fair amount in the writings of Marx over the years, this was my first time to read the work from cover to cover. I found it surprising on several levels. First, it was a much easier to read work than I had anticipated. This is upon reflection hardly surprising. The work was intended as a pamphlet for the masses, and it was essential that it be as understandable as possible. Also, the concepts and ideas articulated in these pages have become a part of the intellectual landscape of Western civilization. A host of ideas are commonplace, even among those who do not consider themselves sympathetic towards Marxism. It has become a commonplace of the past decade that Communism and Democracy clashed, and Communism lost. But the fact is that Marxist thought has exerted a massive influence on the way we view the world, and many things introduced by Marx are now central constituents of our world. Just look at the way we write history now. Before Marx a detailed consideration of the economic factors in an era was unheard of; now it is considered essential.

As a credo, I find myself conflicted over its contents, just as I always find myself conflicted in reading Marx. Marx's analyses of the dynamics governing capitalist society have always struck me as dead on. No one writes more presciently or timelessly about the structures of exploitation that are inherent in capitalism. Nonetheless, I find his positive proposals as to how to transcend capitalism to be untenable, and the post-capitalist world he describes to be undesirable. The best way to express this is that I find Marx the critic to be convincing and impressive, but Marx the visionary to be irrelevant. I want us to pay attention to Marx's critiques, but not to his proposals for change.

I was delighted in reading the book to find the word "highfalutin" in the text. The world seems somehow to be a more charming place for the unexpected presence of such a light-hearted word in the midst of a serious text.

Though listed as the work of Marx and Engels, Marx was the primary creator of the work. He also did the bulk of the writing. It isn't sufficiently commented on what a beautiful writer Marx could be when he tried. Too often he adopts the try academic style begun with Christian Wolff and continued by Kant, Fichte, and Hegel. But a host of exquisite phrases such as "All that is solid melts into air" shows that Marx could turn a phrase when conviction didn't prevent him.

Everyone interested in political thought or modern history needs to read this book. Its influence--its ongoing influence--is incalculable. Its critique of the exploitative nature of capitalism remains astonishingly relevant. And its predictions about the future course of history, even if no longer inspiring or convincing, are crucial to grasp if one is to understand many of the political impulses of the past one hundred and fifty years.

I remember reading the Communist Manifesto thirty years ago when I was at University. At the time it seemed tedious and impenetrable. Recently I re-read it and was amazed at how clear it seemed and what an effective piece of propaganda it was and how clear was the writing.

Reading through the program one realises the distance that has been travelled since it was written. Some of the major planks are the Abolition of Child Labour, the creation of a progressive income tax and Free Education.

Perhaps one of its major weaknesses is that Marx was a person who tended to carry a grudge. Thus a third of it is devoted to attacks on some of his contemporary enemies and rivals. These disputes have so long passed into history they are incomprehensible.

The modern notion of Communism of course stems not from Marx but from Stalin and Lenin. Marx wrote at a time when the only democratic country in Europe was France. England, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire all had limited franchises and Russia was of course an autocracy. One of the major reforms he battled for was the introduction of democracy. It was his belief that the implementation of his program would flow from that.

Following Marx's death his movement evolved into a parliamentary movement the Social Democratic Party. Communism as a modern political phenomena dates from 1917 when splinter Social Democrats followed Russia's lead and developed small conspiratorial parties who were committed to the seizure of power by force. Stalinism is an offshoot of this system and is a form of state terror aimed at ensuring the survival of unpopular anti democratic regimes.

Reading through the Manifesto one can see the basis of a system which was not only an effective for mobilising political movements, but came to influence intellectual debate for the next century. There is also perhaps a sense of a naive optimism which could not contemplate the sorts of disasters which were to occur over the next hundred years.

A concept born in a simpler time used as an excuse for many things from Socialism to controlled capitalism. As with any pivotal work, one should read it for his/her self. There is always the chance of misinterpretation by an individual, but if you do not read this then you are just accepting someone's word anyway.

This is more than an economics book it is a way of life. It sounds good on paper but makes many assumptions. Instead of worrying about workability, look at the logic that is built on assumptions of that time (written, in 1848). Add this to your library.

You can pick a side (pro or con) and make a stand if you like; but look at the size of this book and realize that many people will just use the title and build their own case. You will have read the real thing.

Be sure to balance it with "The Capitalist Manifesto" by Louis O. Kelso

The Capitalist Manifesto by Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler

No one can discount the importance this document has to the history of the modern world. This is not an "enjoyable" read by any stretch of the imagination, and the true power of its ideals are not in its wording, but its timing. This is where this document finds its relevance.

The reader would be well advised to understand the political climate of the age when it was written. Reading this from a modern "Western" context will likely lead to the scratching of your head while wondering how anyone believed these "ideals."

If you are a history buff or a student of a political nature, this book is an important read, or if you are a skeptical type, you may find this book challenging. At the end of this, the important question to ask yourself is; "Do I believe what I believe because of the merits of the idea or because of the emotions associated with its timing?"

Marx and Engels were brilliant men who lived in a time and place not that different from our own. Overrun by commmerce, mid-19th Germany and the millenial United States have much in common: A huge and seemingly inexplicable stratification of rich and poor; A general malaise and widespread social displacement which lead to violence and mental illness; and a progression toward fascist ideologies (particularly racism, nationalism, & militarism) as so-called leaders rise up and claim solutions to our problems.

As historians and observers, Marx & Engels knew something many intelligent adults strugggle with today: That the world seems to have always been like this, and that our way of life (government and economy) provides no way out. In a cultish, group-think manner its only proffered solution to any raised objection is merely self-perpetuation. In place of education about its real goals and methods, it offers standardized national platitudes and smoke-and-mirror explanations designed only to further the ignorance of the general populace who must be lulled into cooperation. To improve education, we cut school spending. To decrease violence, we have wars. To help the poor, we give to the rich.

If you, like many people, are looking for an explanation of these events -- and a possible way out -- you owe it to yourself to read The Communist Manifesto. A careful reading and discussion with others, both aligned with and opposed to these ideas, will be most helpful in dealing with your own questions.

If, on the other hand, you are a steadfast capitalist, you also deserve a reading of the Manifesto, if for no other reason than to know your enemy. The ideas proposed here have been tried and have worked, but you have to look past the propaganda to see the meanings of Marx's words. The Soviets started out with his ideas, but were not able to really implement them. Reading the Manifesto will quickly demonstrate that. One society which was successfully based on Communist ideas (in fact, predating the word) is that of the native Hawaiian population -- a subject also recommend for interested students and detractors of socialism.

If you have ever wondered about Communism and its true roots...read this.

Any Political Science Major should have read this book cover to cover.

The Manifesto is a short political tract, under sixty pages, but its affect on history has been enormous. We forget this today, especially after the Cold War, but if one reads into Marx's critique of capitalism, it still resonates even a century and a half later.

Of course, the tract is enunciated by a 19th century positivism that seems grossly misplaced in our postmodern, cynical world. Additionally, the rise and collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism (except in maybe today's North Korea and rhetorically in Cuba) has illuminated the weaknesses of the application of Marx's ideas. Nevertheless, it shows the costs of an unfettered market economy, in an industrial context, extremely well. Notice also the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto platform of action, to be implemented by a revolutionary state, which included some things we take for granted today--abolition of land ownership, progressive income tax, public and universal education, and nationalization of all railways, means of transportation, as well as abolition of child labor, and centralization of bank credit in a state bank.

If you're going to study 20th century politics and social movements, the Communist Manifesto is a must. It is a nice, more readable introduction to some of Marx's more obtuse works, such as his writings on German philosophy (The German Ideology), the 1848 revolutions, the 1871 Paris Communards (covered in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon and the Revolutions in France), philosophy (The Poverty of Philosophy), and the three volume set of Das Kapital [the last two of which Engels co-wrote and edited from Marx's writings and transcripts].

What many don't realise is that this book sits at the top of a larger body of work which forms Marx's philosophy. Beyond the manifesto, Marx has been extremely influential in the areas of philosophy, psychology, ethics, aesthetics as well as the more obvious areas such as political economy. This book therefore is a consequence of a much more complex philosophical analysis of his times. In other philosophical discussions of Marx, you will rarely if ever come across references to the manifesto which puts it into perspective relative to his other, philosophically more important writings. However, as a polemic and a political manifesto this book is spot on for it's time even if Marxism, due to the subsequent events of history needs to be seriously reworked and comtemporised.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel's ~The Communist Manifesto~ has affected probably more lives then most books of its time had (save maybe Upton Sinclair's ~The Jungle~). Marx and Engel's set forth a series of ideals as to achieving the perfect utopian society and abolishing with the "feudalistic class systems." In so doing, Marx creates probably the most relevant section of the little book, Section I.: Bourgeois and Proletarians. With this section, Marx paints a picture of modern capitalist society for the proletariat (or worker if you will) in order to play up his ideal classless society. Although his society was never achieved, the idea of alienation and exploitation in the workplace is still relevant today.

Marx sums up the situation of the worker in this first chapter very well. Marx first begins by comparing modern Bourgeois society to that of Feudalistic Europe, "The modern Bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of the feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression..." Just a few, short pages later, Marx introduces us to the Modern working class; the proletariat, "But not only has the bourgeosie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons - the modern working class - the proletarians." Marx describes the Proletarians as "slaves of the borgeois class" and as being "enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself."

Despite Marx's constent bashing of the bourgeosie, he has some interesting things to say about them as well. Marx says that the bourgeoisie "by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation." Marx even credits the bourgeoisie with another accomplisment: "[he] has rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." I think what Marx is trying to tell us is that the Bourgeoisie is essential to the progress and development of a nation, but it certainly should not be the end, there must be something beyond the bourgeois society.

Later on in Section II. (Proletarians and Communists), Marx sets down the ten steps that should be taken by the government upon establishing a Communist/Socialist government/economic nation.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work (different from Capitalism in which you have two choices: work and get money, or don't work and die). Establishment of industrial armies, especiaaly to agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

The only difference in the rules between today's capitalist based economies are rules 1, 3, 4, 5, and number 8. Remember, in a capitalist economy, you have the choice whether to work or not. The thing is, if you don't work, you're pretty much screwed. Marx states in the Communist Manifesto that, "the theory of Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Marx sets up a series of systems which the state will gradually ease off of into a different economic state. However, in the "Communist" countries we've seen that almost all of them haven't graduated off their strict form of socialism, skipping the fedualistic stages and the capitalistic stages. China however, has been able to gradually ease onto a more capitalistic economy but the nature and spirit of the country remain "Communist." Because of greed and impatience we may never know whether Communism (in its purest form) can actually work and if it leads to a Utopian society, but we do know that Karl Marx was a very, very idealistic man.

I highly recommend the Signet Classics copy of ~The Communist Manifesto~. It's an excellent buy... and a good print of the book (meaning the text is very readable). The Signet Classics copy also contains a very enlightening introduction by historian Martin Malia, and preferences on each edition (two on the various German editions, one on the Russian edition, and one on the English edition) written by Friedrich Engels.

"The Communist Manifesto" is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted books in the history of literature. Many people have written reviews for this book saying it is bad because of communist nations in our history...never fully realizing that they are not REAL communist nations in the first place. The version I am reviewing (the Pocket Books 1967 edition) begins with an introduction by Professor Francis B. Randall where he says that while we like to associate Marx and his ideals with "giant red banners born aloft by faceless thousands of marching men through the streets of a totalitarian capital," (page 7) that couldn't be any further than what Marx stood for! Marx was a fairly young man when he wrote the Manifesto, was anti-military, and he was against totalitarian governments like those of the Soviet Union and North Korea. Read deeply into the Manifesto and you will see how all the so-called communist nations break most of the rules Marx sets forth about communists.

If you can get pass the misunderstandings and read the book for what it is, you might find a surprisingly good read. Marx gives a fascinating view of how his understanding of the world in two main social classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat - and how they interact in today's world. The bourgeoisie, who at one point were the underdog in the old feudal society, are now the main rulers over the proletariat, and how the two societies interact. Small shopkeepers he lists as bourgeois, saying that they will trinkle down to the proletariat to protect their own interests. I was fascinated by the part where he mentions bourgeois powers going to other nations to mold them after their own society, which is a nice way of looking at the "White Man's Burden" attitude of the time, and I suppose in many ways you could look at today's modernization and globalization in the same light (although I am not trying to preach any cause here). Chapter III in particular is interesting because Marx examines the different types of "socialism" there are in the world, and I think deserves closer study than Randall's introduction merits. For example, when Marx speaks of false socialism (otherwise known as German or "True" Socialism) one thinks of the communist governments that many negative reviewers here have name-dropped. When he describes Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, one is reminded of many hardcore liberal spokepersons such as authors, celebrities, or even senators and representatives that, while they may speak big for the little man, certainly do not live like him.

Obviously, you can't disagree with everything Marx says. I doubt any one will protest to his wanting to make women equal with men (not just "mere instruments of production") and his hatred of child-labor has proven wise with the passing of history. And of course, who doesn't want free education for ALL children, regardless of what class, race, or nationality you are?

Did this book turn me socialist? Does it make me want to wear all red and charge headlong into the Capital building and declare a proletariat government? No, it didn't. But I enjoyed it nonetheless, and I read it as another interpretation of the world we live in, if not an example of the world Karl Marx certainly lived in, and much of it still fits with our world today. I would suggest reading simply because, as I said, it's been so influential and yet misunderstood, and really should be required reading to see the world in a different perspective.