Sign in with Facebook
Jeremy's Reviews > The Communist Manifesto
The Communist Manifesto
by
by
Long overdue update (2013): I read this book five years ago and in almost every respect, I have mellowed considerably.
You can read my review below. It's unchanged. You can read the comments below that. Also unchanged.
I never seriously expected anyone to read this review, much less love or hate it so strongly. I am not apologizing for my view of the book or Marx. He put his entire life into this slender and influential book, and I respect that. I understand a bit more about where he was coming from historically, and it doesn't seem as inherently ridiculous as I might have claimed five years ago. But I still largely stand by my original take on it. What Marx predicts is an oppressive totalitarian regime which would be able to commit all kinds of human rights abuses far too easily. I'm not OK with that. And I don't think it works from a philosophical point of view, mainly because I think it neglects the realities of human nature. I think free market capitalism does the exact same thing, though the end results are different. Or are they?
It's funny. People commenting here seem to think I'm a proponent of free market capitalism (I do consider myself a capitalist, but not of the lassiez faire variety...its track record is poor as far as I'm concerned). I'm not. Whereas on other posts and comment threads on this same site I've been accused of being a socialist. Now that's funny!
Anyway...
Disclaimer: I read this book with a heavy bias against Marxist thought. That being said, I like to think of myself as a logical person so I have framed my thoughts as logically as possible instead of in the 'Communists are bad! They just are!' line of reasoning. That being said...
The spectre of Communism is still haunting the world...it has died.
Suffice it to say that I was sorely disappointed with Marx's argument. So much so that I fail to believe that anyone over the age of twenty-one could take him seriously even on a theoretical basis. Perhaps a century and a half of perspective is to blame. Maybe I'm missing a dimension of Marx's argument. It could simply be that the manifesto is a by-product of the industrial revolution that looks quite silly in "post-industrial" America.
Summing up Marx in two sentences: Class struggle is the defining injustice and condition of human society. We, the proletariat, must rise up through a violent and sudden revolution and overthrow our capitalist oppressors.
Let me get this straight. We're going to overcome class struggle by perpetrating a class war against the bourgoisie? If a major goal of communism is to eradicate social classes, why does it temporarily aim to establish the proletariat as the ruling class?
Oh right. Becauase once the proletariat gains power it will someday voluntarily abdicate said power for the greater good of society. As Mugatu said about Zoolander when he points out that all of the latter's 'looks' are actually the same: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" It makes little rational sense.
Now onto more specific arguments regarding Marx's "generally applicable measures" that must be established by the proletariat after the violent overthrow of capitalism. It's pretty scary, actually.
No ownership of land, a heavy income tax, no rights of inheritance, seizure of all property from "rebels" (whatever that means...presumably political enemies) and emigrants, centralized credit and capital in the hands of the state, state ownership of the means of transportation and communication, establishment of 'industrial armies', equitable distribution of the populace in town and country, and an abolition of child labor with concurrent establishment of public education (actually that last point I agree with).
Such a strategy will ALWAYS lead to a totalitarian government that needlessly and wantonly causes suffering and economic hardship for the vast majority of its citizens.
I have yet to hear anybody move beyond theoretical praise of Marxism. Even the most ardent supporters will be forced to conclude that in real life the Marxist state is not preferred over the capitalist state because there is still an inequitible division of power between the ruling class and the common man. And the 'evil capitalism' that they rail against is actually the governmental imperialism of capitalist states, not the economic structure of said state.
The argument against capitalism is too much capital in the hands of too few. But Marxism advocates all capital be concentrated in the hands of a totalitarian regime that gives too little to the vast majority.
You can read my review below. It's unchanged. You can read the comments below that. Also unchanged.
I never seriously expected anyone to read this review, much less love or hate it so strongly. I am not apologizing for my view of the book or Marx. He put his entire life into this slender and influential book, and I respect that. I understand a bit more about where he was coming from historically, and it doesn't seem as inherently ridiculous as I might have claimed five years ago. But I still largely stand by my original take on it. What Marx predicts is an oppressive totalitarian regime which would be able to commit all kinds of human rights abuses far too easily. I'm not OK with that. And I don't think it works from a philosophical point of view, mainly because I think it neglects the realities of human nature. I think free market capitalism does the exact same thing, though the end results are different. Or are they?
It's funny. People commenting here seem to think I'm a proponent of free market capitalism (I do consider myself a capitalist, but not of the lassiez faire variety...its track record is poor as far as I'm concerned). I'm not. Whereas on other posts and comment threads on this same site I've been accused of being a socialist. Now that's funny!
Anyway...
Disclaimer: I read this book with a heavy bias against Marxist thought. That being said, I like to think of myself as a logical person so I have framed my thoughts as logically as possible instead of in the 'Communists are bad! They just are!' line of reasoning. That being said...
The spectre of Communism is still haunting the world...it has died.
Suffice it to say that I was sorely disappointed with Marx's argument. So much so that I fail to believe that anyone over the age of twenty-one could take him seriously even on a theoretical basis. Perhaps a century and a half of perspective is to blame. Maybe I'm missing a dimension of Marx's argument. It could simply be that the manifesto is a by-product of the industrial revolution that looks quite silly in "post-industrial" America.
Summing up Marx in two sentences: Class struggle is the defining injustice and condition of human society. We, the proletariat, must rise up through a violent and sudden revolution and overthrow our capitalist oppressors.
Let me get this straight. We're going to overcome class struggle by perpetrating a class war against the bourgoisie? If a major goal of communism is to eradicate social classes, why does it temporarily aim to establish the proletariat as the ruling class?
Oh right. Becauase once the proletariat gains power it will someday voluntarily abdicate said power for the greater good of society. As Mugatu said about Zoolander when he points out that all of the latter's 'looks' are actually the same: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" It makes little rational sense.
Now onto more specific arguments regarding Marx's "generally applicable measures" that must be established by the proletariat after the violent overthrow of capitalism. It's pretty scary, actually.
No ownership of land, a heavy income tax, no rights of inheritance, seizure of all property from "rebels" (whatever that means...presumably political enemies) and emigrants, centralized credit and capital in the hands of the state, state ownership of the means of transportation and communication, establishment of 'industrial armies', equitable distribution of the populace in town and country, and an abolition of child labor with concurrent establishment of public education (actually that last point I agree with).
Such a strategy will ALWAYS lead to a totalitarian government that needlessly and wantonly causes suffering and economic hardship for the vast majority of its citizens.
I have yet to hear anybody move beyond theoretical praise of Marxism. Even the most ardent supporters will be forced to conclude that in real life the Marxist state is not preferred over the capitalist state because there is still an inequitible division of power between the ruling class and the common man. And the 'evil capitalism' that they rail against is actually the governmental imperialism of capitalist states, not the economic structure of said state.
The argument against capitalism is too much capital in the hands of too few. But Marxism advocates all capital be concentrated in the hands of a totalitarian regime that gives too little to the vast majority.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Communist Manifesto.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
November 3, 2008
– Shelved
Started Reading
November 24, 2008
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 76 (76 new)
message 1:
by
Christine
(new)
Nov 15, 2008 10:21AM
Are you preparing for something?
reply
|
flag
Yes. I'm preparing to lead a revolt of the proletariat against the oppressive capitalists who control the means of production.Just kidding. Actually, I'm reading this so that I can figure out more fully how and why I disagree with communist/socialist philosophies. Especially since I've had a few discussions with people I know about redistribution of wealth and class struggle. It kind of frightens me that people believe a bigger government is the only means of curing society's ills...
Nice job, Jeremy. I may have to read it at some point...
You made a great point on who really gets the power after the revolution on the few ruling class.
Marx's Manifesto is not meant as a point by point description of how his form of government would work, it is a manifesto. Think of it in the same way that you would think of "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, its a pamphlet, not much substance, its more about the spirit of it than anything.
For a thorough examination of Marx's argument for communism, the series "The Capital" is where it is at. It's obviously a much heavier and longer read but its necessary if you really feel the need to discredit Marx.
For a thorough examination of Marx's argument for communism, the series "The Capital" is where it is at. It's obviously a much heavier and longer read but its necessary if you really feel the need to discredit Marx.
You have to read Hegel to understand Marx. You also cannot take Marx and shove him into today's context, the world was completely different in the mid 1800's.
It should be said (adding to your last paragraph) that capitalism at least lets the masses put the capital into the hands of the few by choice in exchange for something, whereas communism (and all forms of socialism) take from the masses without any check on the exchange rate. The most important difference is the freedom to choose.
not obvious on this review that the text was assimilated with any attention.
"Maybe I'm missing a dimension of Marx's argument."Like all of the dimensions.
Dang. Sticks and stones. I get that people have strong feelings about Marx. I'm OK with that. I just don't.
Dude, Marx's (and of course Engels) opus spans 50 volumes...It's awesome you read the manifesto to confront texts aversive to your beliefs but I agree with Matt Heckler, if you really wanna test them you're going to have to base your conclusion on a lot more than a polemical pamphlet.
I appreciate that. I read this when I was younger from a purely economic standpoint, and tried not to be too uncharitable. The funny thing is that I am like 97% left of center or straight-up liberal. I don't view socialism as the big evil, I simply don't think it makes a very good economic system (but I'm not a lassiez faire capitalist by any means). That said, I have come to appreciate that there are aspects of socialism in most modern developed countries and that it works quite well in many of those areas. I guess I would have to find time to read more of Marx and Engles and their intellectual ancestors. I just don't feel compelled enough right now to make time for it.
You don't even know how to spell bourgeoisie, please. You did not read the script, with your description of how you understood Marx. Your whole argument sounds exactly like how mainstream American politicians would want you to. You're right about your bias against Marx and you missing a big part of his argument. You would want to read Capital in order to understand more of his view because it seems like you did not realize capitalism is not just about the economy, it's a social relation - let alone an unequal power relation between classes and that system is reproduced through the power that capitalists have via the privatization of the means of production. If you're gonna view capitalism strictly as an economic system and has no social consequences, you're missing out on a lot of what Marx is saying.
What about what's happening in syria?
I am going to have to read the book again to understand his thought process a bit more but I will say one thing. I agree with you on every point. I will add that the Communism Marx seemed to propose will cause a one world Communist government with a class structure (which he believes, full heartedly, will not exist) as follows: those that 'deserve' to be on top will rule over the rest of us (who disagree with him). His theory of course came true in the Soviet Union and I don't think I have to remind anyone how that worked out.
Karl Marx did not 'put his entire life' into this pamphlet. This was a publication that captures the zeitgeist of the 1848 revolutions. For the love of God, please read Das Kapital/The German Ideology or something and get acquainted with the method of historical materialism.
I like the review. I don't agree with you in every aspect of it but i think this is a logical response to the pamphlet. I am a little less pro-capitalism than you seem to be and personally believe that the working class is the only class capable of eradicating class altogether, but don't believe that a completely non-monetary system as Marx and Engels propose here would be ideal. I'm actually quite fond of many social-capitalist models of government around the world which allow for basic necessities to be met by all but expression and progress to be made by those who work for it. As mentioned above this isn't Marx's life work summed up into a small pamphlet but a manifesto developed at a time when clarity was needed and deserved on the ideals of the communist parties around the world. The book improved my opinion on some marxist ideas as well as removed some positive ideas on him. Well worth reading, not my political bible by any stretch.
Marx is saying that owners of production means are the state, the State is not other thing but the ruling class's state : that's totalitarism!! So marx is requering, "hey workers! the class struggle is the motor of history, wake up, we are mayorities subordinates to the minirities that explote us! Let's smash capitalism and fight for a new state with production means developed and in favor of masses...where do you find totalitarism there, please tell me!
The fact that it is interpreted that there is an advocacy of a massive state at all once a society reaches a communist status tells me that there is a massive misunderstanding of the book and Karl Marx's definition of communism itself. For starters communism in its final form requires a STATELESS and classless society.
marx did not pour his entire life into a little unfinished manifesto that he wrote in his 20s.
Jeremy. Capitalism is really great, but due to corruption and lobbying, it always leads to corporatism (which you see in the United states) then eventually we fall in a sad state of an oligarchy-like structure. Capitalism ALWAYS fails 100% of the time. We have actually, believe it or not, have never had a true communist society-just societies that have taken Marxism, and twisted it. There is no better system than Marxism. The only unfortunate part is, we are not advanced yet to have a fully Free market, capitalist society, we are too dumb and too greedy to have it. A society that is pure capitalist, and runs off of the free market, without corruption, can be the freest way to live in society, it's just that, with religion, ethics, nationalism, different currencies, etc. this all breeds conflict! A one world communist govt. that redistributes wealth is only doing this because society in the free market, is too greedy. It is easier to have a government to monitor, and that is by paying attention to poverty levels, wages in the workforce, and so forth. If the govt. fails to provide a good level of income for its workforce, people will be up in arms. In this current corporate society, minimum wage is set, and then it is the company who you work for who decides your pay if they want to pay you more than the min. Wage. And if it's shitty pay, you're like, "shit, guess I'll try to find something better." In a Marxist society, every worker in society has an awesome pay rate and can actually live a good life without struggling and working 40 hours a week and just paying bills, and then going back to work, and then going strait home to have an avg meal, and then sleeping and doing it all over the next day like a fucking robot. A lot of people do this in our world and never get to live life. You have people like that, who just work and struggle to pay their bills, and the you have people like bill gates.Bill gates has got at least forty billion dollars behind his name, which is ridiculous if you ask me. Sure, he worked hard, but he also is a unique individual, not many humans are like him, so, if the man had 30 million to his name, do you think he would still live a good life......of course! If you make 150,000 per year right now in this country, you are having a pretty good enough living. But 150,000 dollar range is considered in the top 20 percent of wage earners in this country. So the rest of the 80 percent of the population struggle to "try" and have a good life.
The problem with capitalism is that the capitalist refuses to cap off his surplus, and how does he refuse and make his wealth? By building his corporation bigger and bigger and by lobbying govt to pass laws in his/her favor, and in the process, you need to exploit your workforce and pay them as little as possible, and if that work force gets paid too much in your opinion, what happens, outsourcing happens where they pay humans less money because they know these humans will work for whatever because they had nothing before!
How can you support greed? Marx will be proven right: The end result will be marxism, it's just that there is still more conflict and evolving as humans to be achieved before a true communist, one world order can come into play. Once this society comes into play, then maybe, just maybe, there can be a system where free markets come into play, but seriously, capitalism is greed-driven and is never successful in a healthy society.
I read this many years ago in high school. I'd like to see if it makes more sense now...
He did NOT "put his entire life into this slender and influential book". He was just 29 when he wrote it. ;-)
The idea is to go beyond Marxism. To reach the ideal state of Marxism is to give everyone a level playing ground to start with.
What should happen beyond marxism is a decentralized power system for every area in a city/town/village. The people should be elected to power here. More like a democracy.
Ok all that said: Down with the Capitalism. Long live the Proletatiat's Dictatorship!
Ok all that said: Down with the Capitalism. Long live the Proletatiat's Dictatorship!
Regarding Marx's philosophy on revolution, I think it is a complete misunderstanding of the text to assert that the rise and the opposition of the proletariat becomes a class demand for power. Rather, what Marx believes is that in order to negate not only internal conflict of the oppressed worker, but external conflict between worker and his despotic exploiter (the greedy member of the bourgeoisie, who profits off of unneeded surplus while controlling the means of production) than revolution is necessary to destroy the "idea of power" and oppressive class struggle, in opposition to "claiming power;" which are exponentially different terms to understand while reading Marx. Thus, put more simply, Marx believes that once the amassed subordinated class eradicates the oppressive class, then power becomes a virtually nonexistent concept and will no longer exist in an economic system- as the oppressed class never had an identity to begin with under corrupt praxis of capitalism; which, therefore, creates equilibrium between man and his social relations with his other fellow men. Understanding foundational dialectics is crucial when reading Marx, as he is constantly writing about the divergence of opposites that inevitably create conflict and he believes the only way to negate that conflict is through some sort of revolution. When you read Marx under a purely economic or reductionist lens, you are practically ignoring the idea of how social connectedness relates to the economy itself. Which, Marx would argue, is a pure byproduct of bourgeoise education that involves blinding the nepotistic (selected few) with non-relational intellectualization so that man can retain no ties with his fellow man, but with surplus capital and profit; thus creating a relationship based on exchange value and "egotistical calculation."
Outside of these concepts though, my main criticism of Marx is his tendency to identify work and social environment as the main contributor to the conflicts between power/peace without considering the importance of human biology. Society, in itself, may not be the sole component of what makes us human and is not what makes us entirely greedy or hardworking. In fact, there may be a set of innate traits that attracts us to either end of the spectrum and thus, the balance of power under Marx could potentially lead to the cyclical abuse of power-as those who are naturally drawn to its very conceptual and corrupted ideas (whether proletariat or bourgeoise) are more likely to create conflict and injustice.
I agree with Cody, capitalism does not work.Never, because the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
Where as communism makes everyone equal. And the communist manifesto explains how.
Communism has indeed been proven to bring equality. We can all be equally poor, equally hungry and in most cases we can equally be the victims of genocide and famine if only we would embrace communism. Pack of idiots.
"Let me get this straight. We're going to overcome class struggle by perpetrating a class war against the bourgoisie? If a major goal of communism is to eradicate social classes, why does it temporarily aim to establish the proletariat as the ruling class?"Marx advocated for a state that was horizontally structured. When the bourgeoisie is eliminated there is no more classes - everyone is worker. All classes, are substrates of the former or the latter and only exist by reciprocation.
"Now onto more specific arguments regarding Marx's "generally applicable measures" that must be established by the proletariat after the violent overthrow of capitalism. It's pretty scary, actually."
I'm going to assume two things:
1. You have not read the preface of 1888, where Engels says that the measures to achieve socialism at the end of section two aren't to be rigidly adhered to- Marx and Engels came up with them in 1848, and he said (in 1888) that he would have already changed them had he released a new Manifesto now. Engels (and Marx) puts great emphasis on the fact that the path to socialism is dependant, and not independent of the material and social conditions of a given country.
2. You have not read any of Marx's theoretical works. The measures become much less ghastly when you realize Marx also proposed the introduction of labour vouchers in place of money. But more importantly, I feel you didn't read the Manifesto carefully enough. He stresses the nature of the "proletarian state" as in a state of proles. Marx and Engels did not hold nationalization in especially high regard, though it could be useful for achieving socialism it did nothing to abolish capitalism itself. For example, in Capital Marx discuses the aspect of the "national capitalist" - a single capitalist controlling all the MOP which very much could be the state.
"I have yet to hear anybody move beyond theoretical praise of Marxism. Even the most ardent supporters will be forced to conclude that in real life the Marxist state is not preferred over the capitalist state because there is still an inequitible division of power between the ruling class and the common man."
There are many theoretical approaches to communism that have never been tried - Marxism-Leninism is a faliure. But it's not like the shortcomings of the system weren't pointed out by Marxist until it was to late. Rosa Luxemburg fronted a critique of Lenin in the 1920's.
"The argument against capitalism is too much capital in the hands of too few. But Marxism advocates all capital be concentrated in the hands of a totalitarian regime that gives too little to the vast majority."
Marx didn't advocate for a totalitarian regime at all, you have not done your research and didn't comprehend what Marx advocates. Marx's critique of capitalism is actually regarding internal contradictions within the system. It's what he spend nearly 2000 pages in Capital analyzing. Your review isn't thoughtful, and you haven't done enough research to begin calling Marx a hypocrite.
Jeremy I think you confused socialism and communism at some parts- State ownership of transportation and communication, capital in the hands of the state etc. In ideal communism- which usually follows a spell of socialism- there is no concept of state. Power and wealth be will lie in the hands of self governing individuals. There will be security and justice systems in place however.
Isn't the ultimate goal of communism the disestablishment of the state once industrial production can satisfies everybody's needs (to each his need, from each his ability)?
I mean why is this the top review? This is not commentary on the "book" (pamphlet actually) but merely "I don't like marxism". I don't agree with Marx either but you misframe his argument, fail to understand the historical implications and fail to comment on the book itself. Many of the comments on this review are more insightful than the review itself.
These are the typical types of customer reviews you read when walking zombies read a book, that they obviously do not understand. If they even read it in the first place. (I call that into question too) Or perhaps "Jeremy" is writing reviews for the CIA? lol
I really enjoy the people who shout “ you don’t get it” then don’t refute a single point, they are quite a fun read in themselves.
Where Ican read the book
I think the appreciation of Marx usually stems from Das Kapital in case people were curious. It is a much more thorough body of work (as I have heard).
"...Marxism advocates all capital be concentrated in the hands of a totalitarian regime that gives too little to the vast majority."Blatantly untrue. Marxism calls for neither a totalitarian regime, nor does it demand a new arrangement for the management of capital.
Capital is not just wealth, but wealth in a specific historically developed form: wealth that grows through the process of circulation. Communism would bring an end to this process, and thus bring an end to capital as well.
Communism is a system based on the "free association of producers," a society where social labor is DIRECTLY social, not mediated by value.
That's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back
"If a major goal of communism...ruling class?" I'm sorry but I stopped reading your review at this point. I recently read Marx's manifesto and the above quoted line sounds like how men say, 'Oh if women want equality why is it called feminism because feminism refers to women's rights only.' I'm sorry for pulling in such a loose comparison but please read your Engels because that's basic homework for Marxian readers.
Good one, Jeremy; your perspective gives more food for thought about this insanity based on lazyness and lack of will to work.
“Realities of human nature”? I stopped reading the review right there. Once you bring in “human nature”, whatever that is, you’re already making bizarre assumptions.
Not to necro here, but you are misunderstanding a lot of the manifesto.The idea is that the proletariat is seizing power that the bourgeoisie already have. The goal is not for the proletariat to abdicate their power once it is taken, but to keep it. Since the proletariat is the majority class, if everyone keeps their power (which is expected) we all gain an equal vote in how everything is run.
Some other things you misunderstood about Marx:
- The total goal of communism is not about a heavy income tax, it is no income at all!
With that said, the path there is socialism which slowly moves everything to the state and in turn levies higher and higher taxes to get there.
- A totalitarian government is impossible under Marx, which defines a classless, stateless society.
There is no state since the proletariat has regained all its power. Everyone owns an equal share of its power and everything is decided democratically because there is no power imbalance.
I appreciate folks are reading it, but you've misunderstood a lot.
Marx didn't put his whole life into The Communist Manifesto - that was a little propaganda pamphlet. Nevertheless, your critique of his shit is good.
Darrien, why do you ‘appreciate folks are reading it” ?
Rick wrote: "Darrien, why do you ‘appreciate folks are reading it” ?"I appreciate folks are reading it because it broadens their horizons. Almost every nation in the world is capitalist. The willingness to read alternatives is I think something everyone should do whether they agree with it or not.
We are told capitalism is the only way from a young age, but to know there are alternatives and be able to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, rather than being told one system and being told it is right is very important.
"If a major goal of communism is to eradicate social classes, why does it temporarily aim to establish the proletariat as the ruling class?"Read the book and you can easily find the answer.
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
