Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by dingakaa
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels
5.0
A note before my actual review: I read the "Penguin Books - Great Ideas" edition which I could not find on here. My comments are largely based on the makeup of that print...
Forgive the following ramble. If you're into a tl;dr, it is this: It is important to read this book to understand the philosophical framework that motivated the birth of the this movement, especially the conditions that fostered it. Much of what we debate politically in North America today has parallels in Communist values of the time.
As a self-professed liberal and progressive (by Canadian standards), I often wrestle with, and subsequently defend, ideas like socialized medicine and other government programs when they come under attack. Whether it be by ignorant folk who wield the word "socialist" like a cudgel, or from the slightly-more-sophisticated-but-but-not-really perspective that government programs preclude autonomy, the criticisms levelled against social and political perspectives I support often reference the spectre of communism in countries like Russia and China. I defend these programs on moral (albeit arbitrary) grounds because I know it to be right (whether or arbitrary or not in this instance is irrelevant to me). However, the source of these criticisms, i.e. the thinly-veiled hate of communism and socialism, is somewhat obscured to me because I don't fully understand their origins. As such, familiarizing myself with Marx and the birth of Communism was my goal.
I was not prepared for how self-aware Marx and Engels were of their movement in this writing. While forceful and unapologetic, the text is aware that the revolution it is advocating is dependent on the socio-political circumstances within which it was born. This was revealed in the multiple prefaces, printed after the body itself, of subsequent translations of the Manifesto. In this section I found a statement that resonated with me more strongly than anything in the Manifesto itself, that the Manifesto is a "historical document" and that parts that were true in 1848 may no longer have applied at the time of any given translation, decades later.
There is a double-meaning in "historical document" that I'm not sure the authors intended. The first, literal meaning, which I believe they did intend, was to illustrate that despite certain elements of the Manifesto being no longer applicable, it should not be edited as the document is a useful anchor and placeholder to the ideas that birthed the Communist movement. This serves to defend the Manifesto, but also allows the movement the flexibility to evolve with the times, an admirable quality. However, the second meaning which I extracted, is almost more important to me as it directly reflects the goal with which I approached reading the text in the first place. Namely, it is "historical" in that it does a good job of explaining the historical context within which Communism was born. In so doing, it provides an antidote for reflexive (and often reactionary?) criticisms of Communism uttered TODAY that take the movement as one constant, all-encompassing idea applied uniformly wherever Communism and Socialism are supported. The result is that, yes, I learned about Communism, but also, learned about its scope and the ways in which it does, and does not, resemble 21st century Communism (and even Socialism, with which it is constantly interchanged in common parlance).
I will refrain from commenting on the ideas themselves, both because I do not feel well-informed enough to have a substantive conversation, but also, because I didn't approach this text for such purposes. Suffice to say reading The Communist Manifesto is a tool any person can use to better inform themselves on the myriad of discussions that take place in our socio-political climate today.
Forgive the following ramble. If you're into a tl;dr, it is this: It is important to read this book to understand the philosophical framework that motivated the birth of the this movement, especially the conditions that fostered it. Much of what we debate politically in North America today has parallels in Communist values of the time.
As a self-professed liberal and progressive (by Canadian standards), I often wrestle with, and subsequently defend, ideas like socialized medicine and other government programs when they come under attack. Whether it be by ignorant folk who wield the word "socialist" like a cudgel, or from the slightly-more-sophisticated-but-but-not-really perspective that government programs preclude autonomy, the criticisms levelled against social and political perspectives I support often reference the spectre of communism in countries like Russia and China. I defend these programs on moral (albeit arbitrary) grounds because I know it to be right (whether or arbitrary or not in this instance is irrelevant to me). However, the source of these criticisms, i.e. the thinly-veiled hate of communism and socialism, is somewhat obscured to me because I don't fully understand their origins. As such, familiarizing myself with Marx and the birth of Communism was my goal.
I was not prepared for how self-aware Marx and Engels were of their movement in this writing. While forceful and unapologetic, the text is aware that the revolution it is advocating is dependent on the socio-political circumstances within which it was born. This was revealed in the multiple prefaces, printed after the body itself, of subsequent translations of the Manifesto. In this section I found a statement that resonated with me more strongly than anything in the Manifesto itself, that the Manifesto is a "historical document" and that parts that were true in 1848 may no longer have applied at the time of any given translation, decades later.
There is a double-meaning in "historical document" that I'm not sure the authors intended. The first, literal meaning, which I believe they did intend, was to illustrate that despite certain elements of the Manifesto being no longer applicable, it should not be edited as the document is a useful anchor and placeholder to the ideas that birthed the Communist movement. This serves to defend the Manifesto, but also allows the movement the flexibility to evolve with the times, an admirable quality. However, the second meaning which I extracted, is almost more important to me as it directly reflects the goal with which I approached reading the text in the first place. Namely, it is "historical" in that it does a good job of explaining the historical context within which Communism was born. In so doing, it provides an antidote for reflexive (and often reactionary?) criticisms of Communism uttered TODAY that take the movement as one constant, all-encompassing idea applied uniformly wherever Communism and Socialism are supported. The result is that, yes, I learned about Communism, but also, learned about its scope and the ways in which it does, and does not, resemble 21st century Communism (and even Socialism, with which it is constantly interchanged in common parlance).
I will refrain from commenting on the ideas themselves, both because I do not feel well-informed enough to have a substantive conversation, but also, because I didn't approach this text for such purposes. Suffice to say reading The Communist Manifesto is a tool any person can use to better inform themselves on the myriad of discussions that take place in our socio-political climate today.