Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.64 AVERAGE
3.64 AVERAGE
informative
medium-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
When Olga’s grandfather sadly passed away last year, we took in a lot of orphaned books looking for a good home. Among them was the illustrated version of the Communist Manifesto (with drawings by Rodolfo Marcenaro). It was published in 1976, and everything from the pictures to the font types has that 70’s counterculture aesthetic. I hadn’t read Marx before, so I was really interested what it had to say.
The first thing that struck me was how it felt both dated at times and incredibly relevant at others. Marx and Engels published the manifesto in 1848. That’s only fifty years after the French revolution, less than 30 after Napoleon, with Europe in turmoil, no unified Germany or Italy, and democracy as we know it today still very much if not in its infancy, then at least going through a rough patch of puberty.
Yet some of his observations on runaway capitalism, on the increasing chasm between the 1% and the rest of us poor sods, and, especially, alienation (from each other, from our work and from ourselves) are no less relevant (on the contrary) today than they were 150 years ago. His solutions, on the other hand, could use some updating.
I think that Marx underestimated capitalism’s ability to adapt (and get support from the government) and thus survive any crisis it encountered (so far) by transforming itself. It’s a bit like fascism in that it holds on to incredibly toxic core beliefs, but presents a slightly different face to the world as it changes. A wolf that only changes its clothing. I am definitely not the first to think that Marx underestimated capitalism’s adaptability. Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev first wrote about it in the 1920’s, and got shot for his conclusions by Stalin.
Communism, as presented in the Communist Manifesto, is after all, very flawed. And I’m not event talking about the difference between equal and the same, as the manifesto does address those issues, but there’s significant issues with its views on domination over nature, relentless production and its extreme vulnerability to ‘strong’ men who want to take advantage of the system. Again see Stalin, or Lenin, or Mao, etc. who all warped a defective thing like communism into very different beasts indeed. Regardless of that, the manifesto is interesting to read to see how many misconceptions about communism we still carry today.
And since we’re talking idealist ideologies anyway, personally I don’t believe communism is the right answer to the real issues Marx observes, instead our effort should not be to produce more, but less. Our goal should be to produce what we need with the least amount of effort (labour), the least amount of impact on our environment and the highest possible durability. If we can disconnect personal value from labour value, only then can we stop alienation, create self-worth and find the equal worth in the other, regardless of their background, gender or income.
I’m currently reading Postcapitalism by Paul Mason, who poses that information and our worldwide connected technology might just get us there and end capitalism for good. Though again, as with fascism, I don’t believe it will go down quietly, and I don’t think there is a middle ground.
So, should you read it? Depends. If you are at all politically or economically interested, and want a wider, historical context for our current discourse climate, yes, go and read it. If you would rather watch The Voice on TV and forget about class struggle, then who am I to stop you.
The first thing that struck me was how it felt both dated at times and incredibly relevant at others. Marx and Engels published the manifesto in 1848. That’s only fifty years after the French revolution, less than 30 after Napoleon, with Europe in turmoil, no unified Germany or Italy, and democracy as we know it today still very much if not in its infancy, then at least going through a rough patch of puberty.
Yet some of his observations on runaway capitalism, on the increasing chasm between the 1% and the rest of us poor sods, and, especially, alienation (from each other, from our work and from ourselves) are no less relevant (on the contrary) today than they were 150 years ago. His solutions, on the other hand, could use some updating.
I think that Marx underestimated capitalism’s ability to adapt (and get support from the government) and thus survive any crisis it encountered (so far) by transforming itself. It’s a bit like fascism in that it holds on to incredibly toxic core beliefs, but presents a slightly different face to the world as it changes. A wolf that only changes its clothing. I am definitely not the first to think that Marx underestimated capitalism’s adaptability. Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev first wrote about it in the 1920’s, and got shot for his conclusions by Stalin.
Communism, as presented in the Communist Manifesto, is after all, very flawed. And I’m not event talking about the difference between equal and the same, as the manifesto does address those issues, but there’s significant issues with its views on domination over nature, relentless production and its extreme vulnerability to ‘strong’ men who want to take advantage of the system. Again see Stalin, or Lenin, or Mao, etc. who all warped a defective thing like communism into very different beasts indeed. Regardless of that, the manifesto is interesting to read to see how many misconceptions about communism we still carry today.
And since we’re talking idealist ideologies anyway, personally I don’t believe communism is the right answer to the real issues Marx observes, instead our effort should not be to produce more, but less. Our goal should be to produce what we need with the least amount of effort (labour), the least amount of impact on our environment and the highest possible durability. If we can disconnect personal value from labour value, only then can we stop alienation, create self-worth and find the equal worth in the other, regardless of their background, gender or income.
I’m currently reading Postcapitalism by Paul Mason, who poses that information and our worldwide connected technology might just get us there and end capitalism for good. Though again, as with fascism, I don’t believe it will go down quietly, and I don’t think there is a middle ground.
So, should you read it? Depends. If you are at all politically or economically interested, and want a wider, historical context for our current discourse climate, yes, go and read it. If you would rather watch The Voice on TV and forget about class struggle, then who am I to stop you.
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
Content Warnings
Moderate: Violence
Minor: Racism
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The Communist Manifesto reads very well, Marx and Engels clearly state what they want for and from their movement with a passion and vigor second to that of Nietzsche. However, reading well cannot save this book from its sadly unrealistic ideals. Marx and Engels clearly had a vision, but creating the first draft of a communist breakdown does come with its ups and downs, I guess.
As much as I love what’s being spoken, discussed, and proposed, I know that utopia won’t come. I’d say I lean more towards socialism, which is why I give this book a lot of leeway, but it’s really unbelievable that Marx believed promoting war and bloodshed would produce a happier, more unified society. Communism is a good night-light.
As much as I love what’s being spoken, discussed, and proposed, I know that utopia won’t come. I’d say I lean more towards socialism, which is why I give this book a lot of leeway, but it’s really unbelievable that Marx believed promoting war and bloodshed would produce a happier, more unified society. Communism is a good night-light.
Consiglio la lettura del “Manifesto” perché credo che in una cinquantina scarsa di pagine sia sintetizzato il pensiero di Marx (pensiero che condizionerà la storia successiva) e venga espresso in maniera tale da essere comprensibile per chiunque abbia la curiosità di approfondirlo oltre i libri di scuola (motivo per cui io stessa in primis ho deciso di leggere questo libro).
Sono rimasta stupita dalla semplicità del testo e dalla sua godibilità: sono frequentissime espressioni dal tono sarcastico e canzonatorio (come “il socialismo Cristiano è solo l’acquasanta con cui il prete benedice l’ira dell’aristocratico” o “nei suoi ultimi sviluppi questa corrente è sfociata nei postumi di una sbronza vigliacca”).
A prescindere dalla propria ideologia, è indubbiamente un documento storico di notevole rilevanza.
Sono rimasta stupita dalla semplicità del testo e dalla sua godibilità: sono frequentissime espressioni dal tono sarcastico e canzonatorio (come “il socialismo Cristiano è solo l’acquasanta con cui il prete benedice l’ira dell’aristocratico” o “nei suoi ultimi sviluppi questa corrente è sfociata nei postumi di una sbronza vigliacca”).
A prescindere dalla propria ideologia, è indubbiamente un documento storico di notevole rilevanza.
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Some great ideas, in theory. Just not practical once you involve selfish humans.
informative
medium-paced
Important to foundational ideas about socialism.