Scan barcode
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
3.0
Smith VS Marx
When 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 Income
Entreprenaural 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.
Manifesto
The 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 Today
If 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
When 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 Income
Entreprenaural 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.
Manifesto
The 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 Today
If 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
shelbymarie516's review against another edition
Hating capitalism before the capitalist millionaires, billionaires, and now trillionaires are a thing.
stargazerfish0's review against another edition
4.0
Jones does a great job contextualizing the Manifesto beforehand (with a whopping 184-page introduction, not to mention footnotes for the actual text of the Manifesto), and connects the reader to many other philosophers and social theorists in Marx's influential circle. In fact, this edition seems more like a history book than simply another published copy of the Manifesto. As for Marx, his opinions on the harm of capitalism are very well elucidated, but when it comes to his solutions, they are very vague and seem to be merely based on what happened in the French Revolution. His thoughts on capitalism make it all worth it, however, and thus I will move on to his other works, especially [b:Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844|85954|Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844|Karl Marx|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1521042866l/85954._SY75_.jpg|82945].
fraugremlin's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
enzyme9134's review against another edition
challenging
informative
4.0
schwer zu lesen. Spannende Argumente. Letztes Kapitel noch nicht gelesen. Guter Einblick in Marx und Engels Ideen.
rosietakesonliterature's review against another edition
4.0
The true reason we have not seen an example of Marxist communism since the nascence of the idea is because it is impossible. The manifesto states they support democracy and aim for unification of all democratic parties. At the same time, the abolition of all current structures of power is necessary. But, make a new ruling class out of the proletariat, who is described as unskilled and lacking values. Socialism is bad, bourgeoisie is bad, communism is good, but the exact way communism can be achieved is not outlined. Steps are given but they are unattainable and at times absurd.
Do I agree with the ideology? Somewhat, but even i understand the absolutely impossible nature of it.
Do I agree with the ideology? Somewhat, but even i understand the absolutely impossible nature of it.