|
The introduction to the Manifesto by Gareth Stedman Jones is very detailed and insightful in terms of important figures that helped influence the contents of the Manifesto, and also touching upon the relationship between Capitalism and Religion.For those familiar with the concepts of Communism or even those who have studied Psychology or Politics, this may be a bit easier to get your head around, but the introduction confused me quite a bit. I have heard Marx work discussed before reading this, and from the way he's discussed and the enthusiasm about him presented from those talking about him, you would think he is someone who would remain objective and just seek to present his idea of how to fix which the broken and selfish society of his time.You would be also forgiven for thinking that his ideas would be a way of allowing cooperation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in creating an idea that would satisfy both sides in the distribution of wealth.
Although his disdain towards the bourgeois is understandable, the venomous hatred comes across a bit too heavily in the Manifesto and I find myself accepting why Communism doesn't work as, the way it's presented by Marx, implies that for it to work, it would mean the total elimination of the bourgeoisie.This hatred becomes quite off putting and although I agree in principle to some of the arguments that he tries to put across, but the venomous hatred expressed makes it understandable to know why Communism by many is considered a dirty word. However, that is not the case.
I had recently read a biography of the Communist dictator Joseph Stalin and the idea of Communism intrigued me so I decided to get this as the works of Marx are frequently mentioned. His hatred for the bourgeoisie class is apparent from the start.The Manifesto presents the ideas of Communism and how they propose the abolition of private property would fix society and help in creating a kinder human nature.
This is still a fantastically helpful book for those who are more knowledgeable in the terms of such social problems, but for me, I think I'll return to this when I've read something along the lines of Communism for Dummies. I must make it clear at this point that upon purchasing this I knew absolutely nothing about Communism and only had a really vague idea thanks to the brief references in the Stalin biography.I have to be honest and say that although I learned a little more about the concepts of Communism, I felt I should have started somewhere simpler in terms of the history of the manifesto and Communism.
In terms of the Manifesto itself and I am taking into account the time of which this was written, Marx is extremely passionate about his cause and it really shows.
I think that many people would share that opinion, if they would only just honestly examine communism straight from the source, The Communist Manifesto. The actual Manifesto only comprised a small portion of the thickness of the book. Wherever you stand on the topic of Communism, you should read this book. It is a very simple and short book, intended to be a pamphlet easily understood by the masses. My version was loaded with introductions, footnotes, and end notes. Communism is certainly one of the most misunderstood words in America. Personally, I am not to fond of Communism in history, but I think that certain aspects of Communism are very applicable to today's society.
However, this is much more to be gained from this book.One final word about the Communist Manifesto; I do not own this version of it. If you have to, read it only to eliminate ignorance.
Whether it confirms what you feel, makes you question your beliefs, or makes you wonder about things you have not wondered about before, the Communist Manifesto will do something for you. There may or may not be something wrong with communism, but there is nothing wrong this book.
In the Manifesto, Marx outlines exactly what Communists stand for and what they want government to be. Many of the one-star reviews here on Amazon have some personal beef with Communism, and they explain nothing about the actual book.
I assume that it will be the same wonderful story with this publication. As mentioned above, wherever you stand on Communism, you will get something out of this book.
It is used as a swear word in many cases, "He's a commie." If everyone were to read this book, it would eliminate much of the ignorance that plagues the modern world.
Don't purchase this edition if you want the best available. Currently there's no way to do this. Just so all who are thinking about buying the Kindle edition know: the Signet Classic edition features an introduction by Martin Malia, which is outstanding in every respect. Instead, get Amazon to request the Signet edition in Kindle form (please). But one can always hope. The link from that edition takes you to the one you are thinking of buying now, but which is actually a different edition of the Manifesto. The Signet edition is worth buying just for Malia's introduction.
If he amasses a certain amount of money or property by his own labor, whether it be physical or mental labor, is it not his reward to choose the direction of his fortune. Thus, this "class" will inevitably hold power over the money and therefore over the people. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
These people will indeed need a certain amount of power to ensure that every man is equally funded. Agriculture is forced to compete on the same economic level as Coke or AOL. 2. Once again, he who has the money has the power. Abolition of children's factory labor has thankfully occurred, yet free and equal education for all is not quite perfect. The problem again is leaving the matter entirely up to State officials. Within the Manifesto, Marx states in general terms how throughout man's history, there has existed a constant antagonism between classes. This portion of Marx's agenda is, for obvious reasons, the wisest.
This is one of the more obvious holes in Marx's thought: he intends to take away the wealth (and thus the power) of upper classes and distribute it to the whole of society. Doesn't Marx realize that the State he professes will indeed be that ruling class he so despises. Today's agricultural industries are largely infused with the industrialization process. The premiss always sounds simple and wonderful, "all men will be truly equal." But this is hardly the case as we have seen in the former USSR, China, and Cuba. It is unlikely that even the most ideal heads of State would disburse this heavy tax in a truly equal and progressive manner; especially since the body who controls these funds will inevitably become corrupt as Marx himself has so stated.
Marx is referring here to ensuring that everyone work equally. Free education for all children in public schools. 5. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.
With the advent of megamedia corps, a centralized system of communication (tv, radio, news, internet) would inevitably spell disaster. Sure, everyone in the United States has the right to free public education, but it is quite clear, that depending on one's economic status, not all public education is truly equal. Marxist ideology will lead to a dictatorship every time. Who is going to stop them, the military, the police, a political party. But as the old saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those who are thrust into power rarely relinquish it willingly.
Abolition of all right of inheritance. The upper of middle class constitute the bourgeoisie while the working class make up the proletariat. Any hint of government control in our lives is always shot down with the utmost intensity. It has proven to fail and is still proving to fail on a large scale. Citizens of every nation have only to benefit by means of education throughout each generation. 6. In doing so, man is stripped of his individuality, as well as his desire to succeed, not merely through economic means, but through the rigors of life itself.
It would have done Marx a great deal to investigate history in more detail. For as much as Marx yearns for a utopian equality among men, he fails to realize that man cannot be forced into such a condition. Marx goes on in attempts to describe in detail how the upper class inevitably oppress the lower. Communism, on the whole, is a valuable lesson learned, one that should be studied, remembered and never repeated. In Marx's defense, he did not have the benefit of seeing his work put to use on a large scale, i.e., the USSR, China, Cuba.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. All have been consolidated into the hands of the State which ultimately fall into the hands of a few people at the top: essentially a dictatorship (Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Jong-il). Communism does not give the underclass more freedom, it merely elevates all to the level of proletariat. That is Marx's fatal and most obvious ill-logic. That is, there will be no ditch-diggers supervised by the yachting elite. I have often heard people say that the communism practiced in the USSR, China, and Cuba is not true Marxist communism. It has always been, as he states, that one class has always dominated and inevitably oppressed the one(s) below it. Marx describes how his current bourgeois system is utilizing the same oppressive methods of economy used by the Romans, and later the feudalists of the Middle Ages.
It is almost certain, however, that the upper class would not surrender their hard-earned property without a fight. 7. It is unclear as to why he has not seen the obvious similarities of his proposed "communist" system to his arch enemy's "capitalist" system which will be addressed below. This intensity stems from our historical memories of totalitarian frameworks such as fascism and communism. If Marx here is describing the untaxed (emigrants) and criminals (rebels), then provide a means by which they may be (fairly) taxed, and a means for them to reform their criminal behavior. However, where the government serves as a means of regulation, the private industries provide the development and means of transport and communication.
Whether this domination is intentional or not, Marx does not entertain this debate. Certainly a number of actual people will be charged with this sole purpose of maintaining this Communistic State. For instance, the United States' working class has long employed the use of workers' unions to avoid oppression by the upper class. In order to establish this communist society, the working class must overthrow the upper class and thus organize itself as the ruling class. Even if some of the more noble communists rise to power through revolution and relinquish it willingly, there are always others there ready to fill the void.
Who will ensure the fair disbursement of funds; the State. This centralization of communication and transport has its positive and negative aspects. This does not mean the oppression of the labor force is inevitable, it its merely a necessity of function. Is it not the right of every man to do with this wealth as he chooses. The disastrous results of a State-controlled information media would mean the end of free expression, thought and analysis. 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 plane.
As for the equable distribution of the population over the country, Marx once again fails to understand the human need to determine one's own destiny and to not have it determined by an all powerful State. While his historical accounts appear to be quite accurate, his venom for the bourgeoisie seems more out of anger than rationale. Perhaps not the same, physical, back power labor accustomed to the proletariat, but a hard brain power labor which indeed is attainable by all who have the foresight to achieve such. Simply put; his labor, his money, his choice (this of course relates to money earned honestly outside the scope of corruption that may or may not occur at the megacorporate level.
His epoch at the time was one of great change throughout the world, especially in the form of industrialization. In hindsight, Marx actually got what he wanted. Once the communists have collected then disbursed the collective funds of the nation, it follows then that this new "class" will somehow abolish itself simply by means of its lack of economic power. The problem with this forced equality is the necessary function of hierarchy in an organization. Next, Marx creates an enumerated list of general intentions to be carried out by his communist party should they be triumphant in their crusade: 1. It is for this simple reason that Marx's ideology can never work.
10. Certain regulations are necessary for reasons of public safety and protection of public rights as would be the function of such Federal Departments as the FCC and the Department of Transportation. It should also be noted here, in defense of Marx, that his life-span did not enable him to see the results of an often complex but relatively balanced democratic society such as employed by the United States. The only problem with this is that a communist State is inevitably more dangerous than the capitalist system it was trying to overthrow.
That is another discussion). Someone must be in charge and delegate responsibilities to the labor force. 3. With the exception of leaving matters solely in the hands of the State, this ecological development is a wise decision for both economic growth as well as for maximizing environmental potential. Equal liability of all to labor. However, instead of systematic, peaceful attempts at reform, Marx calls for revolution by "force." More accurately, "They (the communists) openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." A powerful but rash statement. The simple truth of the situation is that the USSR, China, and Cuba are the inevitable results of Marxist thought.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. In doing so, he would inevitably find that all societies, indeed every man, will only succumb to the pressures of a heavy tax for so long before rebellion on all levels is eminent. 4. And by his design, the same State, which holds and disburses money, which controls all property, and which dictates the means of communication and transportation, will be exactly the same, identical oppressor as the bourgeoisie, and in fact more powerful. It is true that the working classes were forced into unbearable conditions, all at the hands of those in charge of these industrialized revolutions. We have seen that these two extremes of the political spectrum cannot yield positive results (fascism being the result of the extreme right-wing, and communism being the result of the extreme left).
There is no greater instigation of rebellion than that of a heavy tax. He brings this opposition to a simplified form relating directly to Europe's then current class system: bourgeois and proletariat. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Perhaps Marx feared that this industrial trend was overtaking the world. It seems though that the combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries would serve little realistic purpose. It seems that farming areas would tend to do better on their own if they weren't forced to compete with manufacturing facilities for resources.
Not to say that current systems are flawless, but some compromise must be sought. Who is to say that the State can determine that direction better than the man himself. Often I hear the rumblings of neo-communists touting the benefits of Marx's ideology with little regard to the true nature of communism. This wealth did not magically appear in the hands of the bourgeoisie, as the working class would be led to believe, but through education and hard labor. If so, he would have seen not only the economic depravation, but more importantly, the depravation of the human spirit. In general, he insists that a capitalist society cannot exist without the absolute oppression of its working class. Who will execute this distribution; the State.
For this reason I have attempted to address the basic tenants of communist thought by addressing the simplified doctrine of communism found in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." It is clear throughout this Manifesto that Karl Marx has captured the plight of the European working class of the latter half of the 19th century. Combination of education with industrial production. This would of course bring the working class instant equality in economic terms to the upper class. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. It seems that with the onslaught of industrialization, agriculture was pushed to the background with little emphasis placed on its vitality. I realize Marx is trying to avoid giving the elite too much power in a hierarchy, but forced equality of work is not a practical solution to progress.
Instead, the upper class of society, as he infers, is inherently corrupt solely by means of their economic status. It should be noted that these unions can only operate under conditions of a "free," democratic culture, one which Marx is convinced is highly inept. 9. It is these people who snatch the reigns of power, consolidate the economic, military, and political resources (that the people have so willingly given to the State), then turn around and proceed to rule the country under an iron fist.
Conclusion: Marx then delivers and entirely contradictory set of circumstances concerning the means of revolution by the proletariat. Instead of bringing economic wealth to those who are oppressed by the rich, it simply inhibits the flow of wealth to anyone but the State. 8. While this may be true, it does not necessarily follow that all capitalist systems of economy are destined to yield corrupt results. And this, as Marx has so stated, is the very concept he is trying to escape: one class having power over the next. The very nature and purpose of communism is to replace capitalism with its brand of so-called freedom.
This is a sweeping and ill-thought generalization of capitalism. This, as it turns out, is not serving the agriculture industry as well as Marx would have hoped. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Contrary to Marx's belief, the middle and upper classes (with the exception of a minority of wealthy heirs) had to work hard and earn their property. In actuality, case by case decisions should be made as to the outcome of this property.
It is really surprising to see that Amazon.com Sales Rank is #2,995 for this book in the US, while I never see anyone buying or reading this book inside China.
|
