Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto"

[Q Classic]

well, boring i wouldn't say is preferred. like, i'm sure if smith wrote a manifesto, or durkheim, or keynes, i wouldn't really enjoy it either.

i like the reasonableness, the reasoning.

i like seeing the train of thought, of why a certain thing is claimed so that it must be so.

i don't like having polemic without strong reasoning to back it up, not for a scholarly paper.

reading something like that is like reading an apton argument gone bad.

[Timexwatch]

For kicks, why doesn't someone ask all of the anti-communists for their opinion on Marx's concept of dialetic materialism, economic determinism, or his theories of things like surplus value, work, labor theory of value or self-alienation. Then we'll have a real debate on Marxism

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The three salient points have been made:
1) The manifesto isn't the only thing Marx wrote, and isn't even representative of his other writing
2) The revolution as Marx envisioned it has never even been tried, with the possible exception of the Paris Commune, so there are no real world examples of its failure
3) The Marx-Engles Reader, edited by Robert Tucker and published by Norton, is a good place to start (though it doesn't contain all of Marx, as previously stated; it does contain useful representative samples and even more useful footnotes).

To this I would add:
4) Marx was writing it in 1848, at a time of extraordinary revolutionary upheaval in Europe. The manifesto should be considered a piece of propoganda, not a policy document, and thus be seen to have the usual flaws of propoganda. Common Sense is a similar document -- old Tom Paine sure gets me fired up, but I wouldn't have wanted him to write the Constitution once the war was over. Provocation and administration are two very different talents.
5) Marxists have been rethinking Marx for much of the twentieth century, in the same way that classical economists have been rethinking Smith, psychoanalysts have been rethinking Freud, and biologists have been rethinking Darwin. A "Marxist" today is actually much more likely to be indebted to Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Sartre, Althusser, Gramsci, Hall, or Negri -- or even crazy Jean Baudrillard -- than to Marx, in the same way that a "classical" economist is going to be way more indebted to Friedman than to Smith and Ricardo. In fact, Marxists who still treat Marx the way fundamentalists treat the Bible -- as the one true word, unneeding of revision, update, or interpretation -- are often dismissed with the epithet "vulgar Marxists" by other Marxists.

In short, Marxism is, internally, a dynamic, living intellectual and political philosophy, with all the power and problems that come with the territory. It is only from the outside that it is first ascribed soley to (some) writings of one guy in the 19th century, and then caricatured as out-of-date and irrelevant. I know that, and I'm not even a Marxist.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP
I haven't read more than a few paragraphs of either. Is the Manifesto more turgid?

Kapital is by far the more scholarly work. Manifesto was just that; a manifesto. If I could assure myself I correctly remember the definition of "turgid", I'd agree.

[Az]

I wanted to paste all this about 13 hours ago . but then the computer crashed and I went to bed.

. A cave man gathers food for himself and his family. He simply does not care for the man in the cave next door. Thats not his concern

yeah , maybe in a 'Flintstone' Episode ..
that was great , really

wait , let me chill from the last one...

OK . I am ready now .

By Marxism standerds...Computers would not be allowed for varouis reasons

various reasons .... and they are ?

If somebody came and clamed dalgetti's CPU for the "Good of the State" i bet he'd be pretty freakin angry. But yet despite thriving under the current Capitalist System...he continues to advocate for a Corrupt and Impotent form of not only governing, but living.

first of all , living under Soviet rule , I've never heard of cars , for example , being commandeered . So what is your point ?

yes I enjoy life . but wouldn't it be better if everyone would ? and noone would live in huge houses , and noone would live on the streets ? impotent ? why do you thing that a more orderly , and planned scheme is wrong ? and a corrupt form of living ????? WTF ????? why is that ?

You cannot just produce the "needs" of a society

well the advertisement "industry" does that pretty well.
advertising is important , because it lets people know about new products , and drives innovation.
but the ads these days don't sell a product but an image. I am talking about EVERYTHING. appliances , cars ,clothes , electronics....

There have always been merchants and traders, merchants and traders work not for the state...but for themselves.

so , they were always the people that got the needed stuff. But now , with the technology we possess , wouldn't it be easier to unite all of our knowledge ? a simple computer search, and a needed material can be sent. no middle men, doing nothing.
I've worked a year ago in a shipping agency (summer job), and all they do is protocol procedures mostly. money is important though , because it gives a measurement of efficiency.

[Provost Harrison]

I am going to go through this later on when I get home as it is a little on the long-winded side. But I think the greatest point that has been missed is that The Communist Manifesto was written in the context of the mid 19th century where many things were different. Modern capitalism is a different beast although with the same heart pulsing underneath. It has different methods, different means of controlling the population now which are more subtle, so you really need to analyse the Communist Manifesto for it's takeaway message, which still applies in the modern era. At the time the working class was very directly oppressed, and this was a call to arms, a wake up call, relevent for that day and age, and was apt for the way people thought then. It was not a theistic document, but used language that would sink in with the working class of the mid 19th century, so hence it may seem a bit preachy. But the message still stands when you read it and analyse it. It is just a shame the writer off this essay didn't quite appreciate this, and went off on a tangent which was completely and utterly irrelevent to Marx's document.

[Saint Marcus]

Thank God there are some people here who actually read Marx' works other than the Manifesto. Thank God for people with common sense. It's so funny how most people have a strong opinion of Marx based on what happened in Russia (Stefu), or based on the Manifesto alone (just about all other posters here besides the "educated few").

I strongely applaud Krazy Horse, Rufus T. Firefly, Timexwatch!

Lonestar, you're raping a dead horse. nobody pays attention to Marx anyway.

GP displaying his knowledge of philosophy. Dozens of books on Marx are published every year, and Marx is considered to be among the great philosophers. I strongely suggest you go back to school GP, and take Lonestar with you.

[rah]

Ok, it's been decades since my Poly Sci years in school, but I'll take a wack at this despite the rust. The following are just my opinions.

I agree that Marx's call for revolution was based on the circumstances prevelant at the time. Massive oppression by owners in factories. The workers had no rights. The manifesto was a propaganda piece aimed at the lowest common factors. One must read his works to get a true feel.

Having said that, communism will only work in isolated situations in smaller groups of people. Why? Because only in smaller groups can the people actually participate in the role of government. Which is deciding the real needs/wants of it's members. These could be luxuries. (contrary to what others have stipulated). And controlling the means of production to satisfy those needs. If those needs are met, then issues of private property and owning the means of production become unneccessary because all needs are satisfied.

Also motivation to help your "extended family" should be enough to guarentee sufficient efficencies. Once the size of the community is too large and you don't care/know your "extended family" that motivation is not guarenteed. This extends to the raising of children. While people claim that Marx makes it sound harsh and will take your children away, it doesn't necessarily mean that. When we were growing up, our neighborhoods were close knit. All the parents in the neighborhood took responsibility for all the children that lived there. The father down the street was willing to teach/discipline any child that lived in the area, and most parents wouldn't complain of anything short of a beating. I think Marx was more thinking along these lines.

Once the neighborhood gets to big, the group has a harder problem coming to a concensus. Someone must be empowered to make those decisions. That's when Marx falls flat on his face. He envisioned that this could be done for large scale countries and once the mechanisms were put into place the State would "wither away". That was his biggest problem in ignoring human nature. POWER IS NEVER ABDICATED without the use of force.

These are the reasons that I feel that his philosophies would never work on a larger scale. History has somewhat supported this. Power does corrupt.

On the plus side, I think labor unions were an outgrowth of Marx's call to revolution. And they were so successful that the need for them has somewhat "withered away"


RAH

[chequita guevara]

When the Manifesto was reissued in 1872 in Germany, Marx wrote that many things in it were already outdated, but that he felt he did not have the right to change it as it had become "an historical document." From old Karl:

The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. . . .

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.

But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.

From the perspective of the socialist movement, the Manifesto was really unimportant. It wasn't as widely translated as Marx and Engels believed. It really only reflects a particular point of view at a particular time in Marx's poltical development. Now, having said that does not mean that the Manifesto should be tossed aside. Marx's subsequent writing supercede the Manifesto, add on to it, further develop it. If you really want to understand, however, the context in which the Manifesto ws written, you should read Engles, Condition of the Working Class in England (published under various, similar titles).

I would disagree with Firefly on one thing. Most modern Marxists do not look to Western Marxism more than the old man. Most probably adhere to Mao (sheer numbers of Chinese). In the West, Trotsky probably has the most followers now that the children of Stalin have retreated back into their shadows. The mandarins of Western Marxism only have adherents in the halls of academia. On the streets it's Trotsky, (if you're a Marxist).

[Buck Birdseed]

I'd argue that most modern Marxists are in fact democratic leftists or even social democrats. But then, being a ****ing splitter trot, you obviously cannot see sensible politics as being remotely marxist according to your pseudo-religious perspective.

[chequita guevara]

I love you too, Snappie.

[Timexwatch]

I strongely applaud Krazy Horse, Rufus T. Firefly, Timexwatch!

Thank you very much, Dutchie


Of course, I whether or not I believe in some of Marx's hogwash is another issue entirely.

I think that Marx is like the Gene Siskel of socioeconomics...better of being a critic than a creator

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Mark L
Thank God there are some people here who actually read Marx' works other than the Manifesto.

I strongely suggest you go back to school GP, and take Lonestar with you.

Ironically, Marx didn't believe in God. And I'm already at school (Pisshead 04! Ay, ay, ay!)


It looks like the Political Science class I'm taking next semester is going to make me read some Commie books, so maybe I'll be able to post more coherant anti-commie ramblings sometime in March.

Course, I'll also have to read Mein Kampf in this class....Governments of the 20th century my arse....


Anywho, where was I? Oh yeah, Communism sucks.

[Provost Harrison]

Well lets face it, I have never had a love of Stalin or Mao...and for the working class man in a western society, Trotskyism is the tradition to pay attention to and learn from...it is the most relevent to the modern day society IMO...although I think all need to be modified to adjust to the present day scenario, but this is as Trotsky and Lenin did with Marxist principles in the light of the revolution in Russia...

[Stefu]

It's so funny how most people have a strong opinion of Marx based on what happened in Russia (Stefu)

Are you implying that I only base my opinion on how well Communism did in Russia (and other countries)? No, no, no. While communism's basic utopianism and misunderstanding of human nature go against it, all I really need is to look at how 'well' it did when actually applied. For instance, compare North and South Korea. When Korea still was one, North was rich industrial area and South poor and agricultural. Now, it's the other way around. From unified Germany of pre-WW2, communism transformed East Germany to empty hulk that West Germany still has to support to get it to same level as itself. And East Germany was supposed to be the showcase of Soviet socialism to the world.

What? That wasn't true communism? It's the truest kind of communism man can achieve. If we all were perfect, communism would work dandily. So would libertarianism. And fascism. And theory that if everybody was hit in the head with a mallet, we'd have just, equal and peaceful society.