This tract by Marx and Engels is too enormous in implication to review fully in the small little space that GR allows, so what I'll do for now is take extracts from it and comment on them, piece by piece.Per the Maifesto:""Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour. Marx and Engels are here addressing a snapshot in time of European history. I don't have much knowledge of conditions during the industrial revolution in the rest of Europe, but have researched the situation relatively extensively as it was in Britain, as a background to a lot of criticism that was launched against the status quo by a lot of Victorian writers of fiction.In the feudal system, "labor" did not remove laborers from their families at all, in fact, it rather strengthened family ties since most of what can be seen as the proletariat of feudal times, were indebted laborers on the fiefdom of their feudal lord.So, the only labor which compromised the family situation, was the kind of labor done by men, women and children in mines and factories during the industrial revolution, from around 1750 to the early 1900's. If you read up on reforms in Britain, you will see that by about 1831, public outcries against child labor and the conditions that adults and children were made to work under in mines, caused public commissions to be instituted by government, which started a slow and gradual reform of conditions via legislation, to the point that all kinds of laborers are pretty well-protected and well-represented at the present day.Ironically, the big bad fat cats these days are not the kind that deal with direct labor, but rather the type who deal in/with secondary products (like financial products) and services. (By services we do not mean of the "labour" kind that Marx addressed- Marx was addressing the kind of workers who were exploited in mines and factories.)Note that the industrial revolution, although it started off bringing such untold misery to so many, also had the following effect: average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. In the two centuries following 1800, the world's average per capita income increased over tenfold, while the world's population increased over sixfold. Finally it was within the grasp of those born outside of nobility to make a decent living for themselves. A lot of workplace reform has taken place since the IR started.. and not through rabble-rousers like Marx, but because people with a conscience raised their voices and cried out against the injustices being done by capitalists against fellow human beings. Authors like Charles Dickens, for instance, and Victor Hugo, helped to encourage the privileged to look upon their less fortunate brethren with greater sympathy, and to call for social reform in the name of conscience....so, Karl Marx is being a great opportunist here. At a time when history and society is in great flux and inner revolution, when a new era is dawning and social conscience still needs to become cognizant of the suffering of some of the members of society, Karl Marx exploits the situation, ironically by making use of the exploitation by one element of society, of another.It is the poor and the ignorant that is being exploited, and Karl Marx exploits their helplessness, ignorance and gullibility to shout for revolution instead of evolution. Marx and Engels call for violence where no violence is necessary, because peaceful change was already taking place in any case.Per the manifesto:But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus. The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.The implication is obvious. According to the authors, the implication is that marriage is a bourgeois, patriarchal institution for the exploitation of women, a form of prostitution. You would think that anybody who is even in the slightest familiar with history, would be able to see immediately how fallacious and false such an accusation is, since marriage is a social institution that evolved gradually over many centuries, but has always been something that protected rather than exploited women. Remember, for centuries and centuries, women had no recourse save sexual abstinence (for which the best path was to become a nun) against falling pregnant. Women had exactly three choices: Be a prostitute, be a nun, or have the protection of marriage, where you could at least have the privilege of raising your children in a protected environment, and in which the father of the child had the responsibility to care for the children and their mother on a material level.It is only through birth control, which we at last have 99% effective technology for, that woman is emancipated from the hearth and can take her place next to males as a fully economically productive partner, since she doesn't have to be tied down in a perpetual cycle of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing anymore.This has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie except that it was people out of the horrible, terrible ranks of those dastardly bourgeoisie, that modern medicine was developed, modern medicine, which keeps child- and maternal mortality at bay, has brought better health to people of all walks and stations in life, and has given us the technology to be able to choose when we do or don't have children. (..except if you let The Pope tell you, of course).I have an overwhelming feeling that Marx was simply exploiting women's emancipation movements to gain more supporters for Communism, when he says the following:He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. Yes, women were being marginalized, but by the fact that we were excluded from property holding rights (something Marx scorns in any case) and from having an equal right to vote (something else which he scorns too).Let's analyze this carefully:How are bourgeois males exploiting women by marrying them? ..by having sex with them and expecting of them to have children? ..but it is usually women who want children in the first place. Certainly, in feudal times, children sons were deemed an essential item for males to acquire in order to continue the family line, but, since the human species would discontinue should women stop having children, calling it an exploitation of women by men sounds like a rather strange, roundabout way of putting things.Certainly in the time that capitalism has steadfastly taken root, children have become really more of a liability financially speaking, than a prize...and calling a married woman more of a prostitute than an unmarried woman would be, who will still be used for sex, just this time by the entire mob instead of her husband, (unless the married woman decides to swing which will be HER decision to cuckold her husband - unless they both agree to swing) just sounds a bit crazy.In fact, if you think about it, it is Marx who is making the implication that women are mere objects, property to be owned like cows or camels, by suggesting that they will be seen as fair game ("community of women", as he puts it, having a similar meaning to "community of property") under Communist rule.I just can't help finding his attitude massively patronizing and insulting, both towards men and women, as much as I decry the patriarchy of the past, because Marx himself is speaking with the very voice of patriarchy and sexism that he supposedly decries. He speaks their language, the language of the white, supremacist patriarchal 'master'.Also from the manifesto:"The education of all children,from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense." ...and our children must be taken away from us and brought up in some state institution. See: Communist Party Education Workers Congress, Communist quotes: We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists.... We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists.It is generally accepted knowledge that institutionalized care away from any sort of notion of family, is psychologically unhealthy for children.See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstit.....so Marx wants to pull down the very fabric of society, to the point of removing even the notion of family - to remove from children the prerogative of having your own mother and father, of having brothers and sisters, and instead, humans must become cogs in the wheel of Communism, mindless automatons who have no individuality, no sense of self.No thanks, I don't buy into the hive-mind insect-think. This review is a work in progress, so more to follow soon.EDIT: Dear reader, if you feel you need to comment, please take the time to read the discussion thread below first - these issues and even more regarding Marxism, Communism, etc, are discussed EXTENSIVELY in the comment thread below, and I fear that comments are starting to become repetitive, with clear indications that commentors are not bothering to check if their arguments might already have been discussed a few times over. Unfortunately all that is discussed cannot be worked into the review itself, since GR limits review space, and this is a HUGE subject.I'd also like to mention that I am absolutely to a large extent a fan of Socialism in general and a great fan of the Scandinavian mixed system. What I am criticizing in this review, is specifically this document, 'The Communist Manifesto', and not Socialism itself.I promise to make time soon to work more of the discussions into the review itself, but some very well-read and intelligent Marxian apologists have commented, so it might be worth your time to read the discussions in any case.Thanks. :)
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.
What do You think about The Communist Manifesto (2002)?
No one should feel the need to agree with this short polemic to realise that it is one of the most important books ever written. It should be required reading in schools really, but anyone who hasn't read it should nip out and get a copy straight away, and put her or his nose in it. Most though not all of Marxism is summed up in it, and unless one is really dedicated, very little else is needed for an understanding of "Marxism". I was one of those people and have read a lot of Marx and Engels and their followers over the years, and still dip into their works from time to time. They were misunderstood by practically everybody, most crucially by their followers and even themselves, yet pregnant with astonishing insights that can help anyone make sense of a confusing world. Sadly, Marx opened up the possibility of distorting his methods and his insights, as well as his beliefs, in a way that enabled later "Marxists" to employ the most incredible methods in his name, and it is now hard, even impossible, not to associate him with mass murder and truly crazy political methods and systems. He would no doubt have been horrified to see what was done in his "honour", but I am not sure it is possible to exonerate him on that basis.Even so, this little book is a must for any thinking person. Combined with the preface to the Critique of Political Economy - and just a few pages of that really - nearly everything most thinking people need to know about "dialectical and historical materialism" may be found.For a searching critique of Marx's methods and outlook, Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies is wonderful. Popper is also essential reading in my opinion for anyone wishing to be literate in political philosophy.
—Steve Evans
Smith VS MarxWhen Adam Smith in his 'Wealth of Nations' established basic rules of capitalism, he was able to show justifiction in among incomes of different types of workers - although he was somehwhat critical of incomes in form of rent but as far as profits are concerned, he thought they were justified as they were always in propotion to risk involved. His stand though was mostly for freedom of trade because he believed most restrictions were benifical to none and harmful to some. He backed this belief with several instances and arguemnts.A century and a half later; Karl Marx enters the scene to find a society divided between (what he calls) Burgoises and Prols.The workers are working in worst possible conditions (something Smith probably never imgined) at very low wages - and became critical of whole system of capitalism. Risk for owners of means of production was low - probably because they were too wealthy to be much affected by anything (earliest version of too big to fail).Sinful IncomeEntreprenaural risk was so low that Marx doesn't see any - he end up seeing these Burgoises as vampires who live on blood of workers. Profits according to him were not reward of risk (there was no risk to his eye) but rather a part of workers' wages stolen by those who happen to own means of production. Thus if means of production were owned by workers in common, their average wages are bound to increase.According to Marx, Burgoises do not deserve those profits - and we can agree risk free profits are best example of sinful income. Merely being in possession of means of production - already an accident of birth; should not mean a risk free income. All this was good - we could have loved him, but than he goes on to suggest violent action to make the desired social change The communists .... openly declare that their end can be attained only by forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. ... which has given his marxism the bad reputation we know it carry today. Of course he has every reason to be frustrated at such an injustice but calling for violence is a bit too far.ManifestoThe problem is none of above except the worst parts comes in Communist Manifesto, perhaps I will have to read Das Kapital to find his real theory. All we have here is a ragging academic trying to popularise his opinons. The whole communist manifesto reads like a political document roughly arguing that what we say is truth while all others are idiots. He makes a few good, very good points, here and there - mostly about evolotion of society to present conditions ... but mosltly it sounds too political. The reson I dislike it so much is that it seems to paint Burgoises, a whole section of society, in black. Such philosophy where a whole community is painted as villains always breads violence. Moreover as Orwell showed in Animal Farm; even if you were to make all equal today; they shall be unequal again tomorrow. Socialism TodayIf we eliminate his call for action (which is mostly what Manifesto is all about), we could have something to talk about. I believe that at least some extent of socialism is crucial for any society to prosper. I mean atleast a standard acess to basic neccessties like food, clothing, sheltar, education and medical care. Even in USA, the best example of Capitalist economy, there are demands for reforms that seek to make distribution of wealth more equal on these grounds. Marx could have been really popular if he was alive these days
—Sidharth Vardhan
Well when thinking of a read over the Christmas holidays I usually go for A Christmas Carol. Forsaking that this year I decided to instead read this manifesto of the 19th century political-economic system known as Communism. Now Communism is older than Marx or "Marxism" but this pamphlet is what most people know as the genesis of Communism (despite Marx himself alluding to Communism pre-existing him) and I found a lot of interesting things in it. I don't have to tell you how practical it is in our modern world but you could usually find some gems in this work. Now I am not gonna hate on this work just because it has "Communist" in it but I will say I was somewhat disappointed by the lack of shock value in this work. Growing up in America we are often presented with the bogeyman of Communism (this has become increasingly irrelevant and cartoonish given the fact that the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and that China hasn't been communist economically since the 1980s) but this book did not scare me or disturb me. I laughed at it at times and nodded in agreement at times, and that was it. There is a lot I want to talk about in this book but it will have to wait until I properly transition my brain out of holiday mode; I smartly took a lot of notes while reading this so I will update my review in do course. Now I want to take a closer look at some of things in this manifesto that jumped out at me and did surprise me. To those looking for the usual controversy you might be disappointed because I'm not gonna go into detail on the 1st section of the manifesto, the legendary section Bourgeois and Proletarians because I had been well aware of that section for quite some time. What did get me about this manifesto was how much Marx seems to be even if reluctantly giving Capitalism credit for advancing society for the better in general. It seems his argument is that simply at a certain point it has to be replaced with Socialism-and not any kind of Socialism (I will be getting to that part soon) but the type of Communist Socialism that he prefers (and ironically refuses outright to go into detail about in this manifesto.He comes back to the topic of Globalization ("The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe") a lot. He is convinced that this has good and bad consequences and that after awhile the bad consequences will naturally out-weigh the good. This is one of the things that really caught me about Marx he was not exactly anti-imperialist he just notes that AFTER Capitalism brings "barbarians (his word)" into civilization Communism should be introduced. ("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 civilization.") "The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes." I Highlighted this statement because it instantly brought to my mind the effects the Cotton Gin had on preserving Slavery in America. And this statement had some irony in our age as now machines can not only increase the work load but can replace the workers themselves. I am appreciative of him clearing up his or Communism's stance on the ownership of property: "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. Then I get a little snarky when I read this,"But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products," (I wrote, in my notes, after this part, "you don't say!") He finishes the paragraph with, "that is based on class antagonism, on the exploitation of the many by the few." After this point I start making a few zingers were I thought Marx [and Engels] were being mightily presumptuous. I did give Marx credit where I though it was due like his argument on property here: "It has been objected, that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labor when there is no longer any capital." But than he gets silly again, "Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty." Marx's arguments for abolishing parents; talk about a cultural revolution.Than he gets all Dawkins-style new-atheist on me and I really roll my eyes, "The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination."After awhile he gives us a 10-point plan that will be the closes he comes to actually defining a clear type of Communism that he advocates. I will not reprint the whole thing here but a link to the list and my 10 responses which were, in order: 1. Unrealistic 2. Could be done if executed right 3. Unrealistic 4. Doesn't make sense 5. Good idea, for the most part 6. Already adopted in most countries that are able to manage it (Also explains why the Trans-Siberian Railroad was not picked apart after the Bolsheviks came to power.)7. Would have to know how this would be realistically managed 8. ...what?? 9. Not how that works. 10. The only point I agree with... This was among the paragraph that came after this list,"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another." I have so many notes and bookmarks on this pamphlet that I am not able to talk about everything that caught my eye but I have to go into how amusing that so much of this manifesto is devoted to discrediting other forms of what Marx [and Engels] calls Socialism. If I ever needed to hate Socialism overall Marx would love to tell me why most forms of Socialism that is not the brand he belongs to are fundamentally flawed. One surprise [to me] is that he considers Feudalism to be Socialism (bad Socialism, mind you) and makes a big deal over the transition out of feudalism into Capitalism or at least proto-Capitalism. at one point I remarked in my notes, "Ironic. Like Orwell would want me to paraphrase, 'some socialisms are more equal than others.'" The type of Socialism that George Orwell came to advocate is brought up and slammed by Marx as well. I was tickled how they were talking about this like an advertisement for a product or good, "try our Socialism against the competing brands," I still can't get over it. He even has a chapter called Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism. Can't forget those ironic in hindsight statements, "The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution, that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European Civilization...". It seems Russia, Asia, and Africa were not on his radar at all. I will say that in the end this manifesto had some interesting points to make but its age and reality have made large swaths of it dated or wrong. I think its importance is what it represented and still represents on the world stage and how it brought Hegelian philosophy crashing into politics and economics (though I would guess Das Kapital is more influential in the latter).
—Ken Moten
