21 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
All three writings share in common a revolutionary spark, August 11, 2005
This review is from: Manifesto: Three Classic Essays on How to Change the World (Paperback)
Manifesto: Three Classic Essays On How To Change The World collects "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg, and "Socialism and Man in Cuba" by Ernesto Che Guevara. All three writings share in common a revolutionary spark; here are ideas that transformed the world, with repercussions resonating to the modern day and beyond. A preface, introduction, and brief notes on the contributors round out this vital collection concerning political power, social consciousness, and the need for societal transformation, especially recommended for library and educational reference shelves.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Powerful Insight Into Marxist Views & Political History, July 28, 2005
This review is from: Manifesto: Three Classic Essays on How to Change the World (Paperback)
Three very insightful essays. You can certainly learn and gain valuable insight to the ideals that literally have changed the world in many ways. Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto; Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution and Che Guevara's Socialism and Man in Cuba.
I really think this book is very enlightening and is a highly valuable read. And with that, I would like to comment on the second essay, the essay by the Polish Jew and political activist who attended Zurich University, Rosa Luxemburg. This essay was published in 1898, nineteen years before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.
Rosa Luxemburg's essay consists of an attack on Eduard Bernstein's book entitled "Problems of Socialism," Seen from today's lenses reveals her erroneous absolute and dogmatic views, lacking in comparison to the logic of Bernstein. It's so obvious from the scientific Marxist views. Marx's and Engels views were based on rational science, Hegelian dialectics and like science, an exact blueprint of rational analysis. Today they call this "vulgar Marxism" and few follow it.(You can find a good analysis in Allan Bloom's, Closing the American Mind). Marxism today is not based on an exact science. That is the old view, the original view. And the obvious result of her attack on Bernstein is that everything she has attacked has come true, her defense for Absolutism, for exact science in economic history through Hegelian dialectics has proven false and inaccurate. Bernstein, on the other hand, has proven the greater prophet. And the answer lies in Luxemburg's very words of attack. In this she attacks him for his integral approach of aperspectivism in integrating multiple paradigms which allow the relative nature and uncertainty of the various shades and levels of both Liberal Democracy and Socialism. Bernstein's sees the differing aspects and refutes absolutism in Marxist science and dogmatism in its Hegelian nature. History, nor economic history, is not an exact science. And If I may take this a step further there are levels of subjectivity, objectivity, cultural and social aspects or the I, We and It (&Its) (the big three or the 4 Quadrants of Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology).
Bernstein sees the problems of socialism and the need for liberal democracy to reform slowly, even rejecting both (vulgar or original scientific, Hegelian) Marxism and Socialism and choosing to remain a liberal democracy but with socialist-liberal facets of nature (Roosevelt's domestic policies for instance), while Luxemburg seeing Marxism as an exact science sees revolution the only real way to bring forth Socialism. And although both thinkers are basically reduction in inter-objective social systems or political system theories, there still exists a major difference between both and that 150 years of time has vindicated (relativlty speaking: the low wages, poor and homeless in the U.S. are in large numbers) Bernstein's flexible and integral insight with greater value than Luxemburg's "flatland," which in Integral Psychology means interpreting realty or in this case, economic political history, as only in objective terms, failing to understand its relativity in dealing with the individual and collective human subjective nature.
AND now I will contradict myself: Luxemburg was right, Bernstein was not. After reading Howard Zinn's Peoples History of the United States, it is evident; the only reforms come from revolution. Socialism is always adamantly fought by the wealthy, compromises are extremely rare.
Now the essay by Che Geverra is the only without such a materialistic, Hegelian science and Marxist exactitude of empirical societal observation on economic meaning. It is much less dogmatic and in that sense less scientific, being much more utilitarian in practical means to achieve a socialist revolution and common sharing good of the Cuban society.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
All three writings share in common a revolutionary spark, August 11, 2005
This review is from: Manifesto: Three Classic Essays on How to Change the World (Paperback)
Manifesto: Three Classic Essays On How To Change The World collects "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg, and "Socialism and Man in Cuba" by Ernesto Che Guevara. All three writings share in common a revolutionary spark; here are ideas that transformed the world, with repercussions resonating to the modern day and beyond. A preface, introduction, and brief notes on the contributors round out this vital collection concerning political power, social consciousness, and the need for societal transformation, especially recommended for library and educational reference shelves.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
