|
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. However, that is not the case.
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.
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. As mentioned above, wherever you stand on Communism, you will get something out of this book. It is a very simple and short book, intended to be a pamphlet easily understood by the masses. Wherever you stand on the topic of Communism, you should read this book. The actual Manifesto only comprised a small portion of the thickness of the book. Many of the one-star reviews here on Amazon have some personal beef with Communism, and they explain nothing about the actual book. I think that many people would share that opinion, if they would only just honestly examine communism straight from the source, The Communist Manifesto.
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. 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. In the Manifesto, Marx outlines exactly what Communists stand for and what they want government to be. If you have to, read it only to eliminate ignorance. 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. My version was loaded with introductions, footnotes, and end notes. I assume that it will be the same wonderful story with this publication.
Don't purchase this edition if you want the best available. 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). 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. Currently there's no way to do this. But one can always hope.
The problem with this forced equality is the necessary function of hierarchy in an organization. It would have done Marx a great deal to investigate history in more detail. The problem again is leaving the matter entirely up to State officials. 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. Free education for all children in public schools.
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. I have often heard people say that the communism practiced in the USSR, China, and Cuba is not true Marxist communism. For instance, the United States' working class has long employed the use of workers' unions to avoid oppression by the upper class. Combination of education with industrial production.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 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. That is, there will be no ditch-diggers supervised by the yachting elite. Any hint of government control in our lives is always shot down with the utmost intensity. It is true that the working classes were forced into unbearable conditions, all at the hands of those in charge of these industrialized revolutions. 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. 7.
Thus, this "class" will inevitably hold power over the money and therefore over the people. Agriculture is forced to compete on the same economic level as Coke or AOL. The disastrous results of a State-controlled information media would mean the end of free expression, thought and analysis. 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. While this may be true, it does not necessarily follow that all capitalist systems of economy are destined to yield corrupt results. 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. 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).
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. 5. Marx is referring here to ensuring that everyone work equally. The upper of middle class constitute the bourgeoisie while the working class make up the proletariat. In actuality, case by case decisions should be made as to the outcome of this property. 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.
It seems though that the combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries would serve little realistic purpose. 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. That is another discussion). This centralization of communication and transport has its positive and negative aspects. 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.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Communism, on the whole, is a valuable lesson learned, one that should be studied, remembered and never repeated. With the advent of megamedia corps, a centralized system of communication (tv, radio, news, internet) would inevitably spell disaster. 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. 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 very nature and purpose of communism is to replace capitalism with its brand of so-called freedom. 3. This is a sweeping and ill-thought generalization of capitalism. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. In hindsight, Marx actually got what he wanted. 10.
Who will ensure the fair disbursement of funds; the State. Marx goes on in attempts to describe in detail how the upper class inevitably oppress the lower. 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. The simple truth of the situation is that the USSR, China, and Cuba are the inevitable results of Marxist thought. Is it not the right of every man to do with this wealth as he chooses. 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.
If so, he would have seen not only the economic depravation, but more importantly, the depravation of the human spirit. The only problem with this is that a communist State is inevitably more dangerous than the capitalist system it was trying to overthrow. 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. 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. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Conclusion: Marx then delivers and entirely contradictory set of circumstances concerning the means of revolution by the proletariat.
He brings this opposition to a simplified form relating directly to Europe's then current class system: bourgeois and proletariat. It has proven to fail and is still proving to fail on a large scale. 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. Citizens of every nation have only to benefit by means of education throughout each generation. 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.
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. Whether this domination is intentional or not, Marx does not entertain this debate. This intensity stems from our historical memories of totalitarian frameworks such as fascism and communism. Today's agricultural industries are largely infused with the industrialization process. 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. Once again, he who has the money has the power. 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.
There is no greater instigation of rebellion than that of a heavy tax. 4. In general, he insists that a capitalist society cannot exist without the absolute oppression of its working class. 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). Doesn't Marx realize that the State he professes will indeed be that ruling class he so despises. 2.
Who is going to stop them, the military, the police, a political party. 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. 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. While his historical accounts appear to be quite accurate, his venom for the bourgeoisie seems more out of anger than rationale.
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. 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. Abolition of all right of inheritance. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. This does not mean the oppression of the labor force is inevitable, it its merely a necessity of function.
Who is to say that the State can determine that direction better than the man himself. This portion of Marx's agenda is, for obvious reasons, the wisest. His epoch at the time was one of great change throughout the world, especially in the form of industrialization. Not to say that current systems are flawless, but some compromise must be sought. 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. Within the Manifesto, Marx states in general terms how throughout man's history, there has existed a constant antagonism between classes. Perhaps Marx feared that this industrial trend was overtaking the world. It is almost certain, however, that the upper class would not surrender their hard-earned property without a fight.
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. Abolition of children's factory labor has thankfully occurred, yet free and equal education for all is not quite perfect. 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. This would of course bring the working class instant equality in economic terms to the upper class. Often I hear the rumblings of neo-communists touting the benefits of Marx's ideology with little regard to the true nature of communism. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. In order to establish this communist society, the working class must overthrow the upper class and thus organize itself as the ruling class.
Instead, the upper class of society, as he infers, is inherently corrupt solely by means of their economic status. 8. And this, as Marx has so stated, is the very concept he is trying to escape: one class having power over the next. 9. Certainly a number of actual people will be charged with this sole purpose of maintaining this Communistic State.
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. But as the old saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those who are thrust into power rarely relinquish it willingly. It has always been, as he states, that one class has always dominated and inevitably oppressed the one(s) below it. This, as it turns out, is not serving the agriculture industry as well as Marx would have hoped.
These people will indeed need a certain amount of power to ensure that every man is equally funded. 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. It seems that with the onslaught of industrialization, agriculture was pushed to the background with little emphasis placed on its vitality. 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.
That is Marx's fatal and most obvious ill-logic. Marxist ideology will lead to a dictatorship every time. Someone must be in charge and delegate responsibilities to the labor force.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 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.
Communism does not give the underclass more freedom, it merely elevates all to the level of proletariat. Who will execute this distribution; the State. However, where the government serves as a means of regulation, the private industries provide the development and means of transport and communication.
It is for this simple reason that Marx's ideology can never work. 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.
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.
|
