Scan barcode
A review by leonard_gaya
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels
5.0
With a profuse beard, a Beethovenian hairstyle, a knack for well-chosen demonstrations and ground-breaking political ideas, Karl Marx was (still is) an idol. And The Communist Manifesto, although extremely short (alongside [b:Das Kapital|325785|Capital A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1|Karl Marx|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1635585841l/325785._SY75_.jpg|345846], which is extremely long), is one of the most influential texts in Western history, probably on par with the Gospels. Indeed, there is (still is) the same sort of bigotry and anathema around Marx, the same dogmatism and heresies, the same confrontations and bloodshed as there were, centuries earlier, around Saint Paul or [a:Martin Luther|29874|Martin Luther|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1209357172p2/29874.jpg]. The “wars of religion” around Marx were at their apex during the Cold War and the disastrous Soviet regime. But they haven’t entirely stopped, since the Chinese government still adheres (apparently with some success) to Marxist doctrine, while the Western ruling elites only swear by neo-liberal capitalism and free trade as the only conceivable economic/political model (which is probably contentious)—sometimes twisting it toward a sort of protectionist populism.
Marx’s and Engel’s political pamphlet was published in London in 1848, almost two centuries ago and, obviously, is a text of its time. What they describe is, essentially, the new economic order ushered in by the late 18th-century industrial revolution, the end of Christian feudalism and the advent of secular capitalism. The mechanisms of exploitation it brings to light are the very same Charles Dickens or Victor Hugo described in [b:Oliver Twist|18254|Oliver Twist|Charles Dickens|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1327868529l/18254._SY75_.jpg|3057979] or [b:Les Misérables|24280|Les Misérables|Victor Hugo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1411852091l/24280._SY75_.jpg|3208463]. In that sense, the Manifesto is dated, but this doesn’t mean it’s aged.
In fact, its visionary power is almost miraculous. Marx catches sight of the fundamental features of industrial capitalism as we know it, notably: the essentially antagonistic and competitive nature of the economy, the stark inequalities, the exploitation of one part of society by the other, the globalisation of trade, the continual trend towards technological innovation, standardisation, consumerism and overproduction, and the endless cycles of relative prosperity and devastating crises.
Some terms and concepts would have to be transposed to understand how they can still make sense to a 21st-century reader. For instance, Marx uses the term “bourgeoisie” to name the factory owners. Nowadays, we would use “shareholders” as another, more abstract notion to designate the owners of “the means of production” (i.e., the companies, the firms). Similarly, the term “wage-labourer” or “proletariat” is a concept coined by Marx to name the working class of artisans of his time. It would, instead, make more sense to us if we spoke of “employees”, in other words, people who forgo their freedom to earn their crust in exchange for their time and work—and this includes every sort of employee, from the factory worker to the chief executive. And the concept of “class struggle” between the two categories is extraordinarily illuminating. To some extent, it could even be projected as a model for the colonial and post-colonial relationships of exploitation of Western over Third-World countries.
Marx’s and Engel’s analyses and proposals also have glaring limitations. First, the political programme outlined at the end of the Manifesto is, to a large degree, utopian and highly debatable; e.g., the abolition of private property (inspired by [a:Proudhon|114439|Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1268693024p2/114439.jpg]), the proletarian revolution and dictatorship to overthrow the bourgeoisie (inspired by the French 1789 Revolution), the end of bourgeois marriage, the end of the nation-state, etc. And, in essence, their prediction that capitalist society would be replaced by socialism was wide of the mark (just like the Gospel's prediction that the end of times was nigh).
Also, the features of 21st-century “neo-liberal” capitalism elude almost entirely some of Marx’s arguments. For example, the gradual transition from a wage-based economy towards a “gig economy” and widespread self-employment or “Uberisation”; or the new incentive schemes of equity compensation offered to the upper management; or the wealth accumulation by financial markets and pension funds. All these recent developments tend to jumble together the old Marxist categories and his worker vs capitalist antagonism.
Nevertheless, the Manifesto, unlike any other political or philosophical work (say, Plato’s [b:Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386925655l/30289._SY75_.jpg|1625515] or More’s [b:Utopia|18414|Utopia|Thomas More|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388190168l/18414._SY75_.jpg|2798280]), is among the very few texts that redefined the framework of civilisation across the globe, even to this day.
Marx’s and Engel’s political pamphlet was published in London in 1848, almost two centuries ago and, obviously, is a text of its time. What they describe is, essentially, the new economic order ushered in by the late 18th-century industrial revolution, the end of Christian feudalism and the advent of secular capitalism. The mechanisms of exploitation it brings to light are the very same Charles Dickens or Victor Hugo described in [b:Oliver Twist|18254|Oliver Twist|Charles Dickens|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1327868529l/18254._SY75_.jpg|3057979] or [b:Les Misérables|24280|Les Misérables|Victor Hugo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1411852091l/24280._SY75_.jpg|3208463]. In that sense, the Manifesto is dated, but this doesn’t mean it’s aged.
In fact, its visionary power is almost miraculous. Marx catches sight of the fundamental features of industrial capitalism as we know it, notably: the essentially antagonistic and competitive nature of the economy, the stark inequalities, the exploitation of one part of society by the other, the globalisation of trade, the continual trend towards technological innovation, standardisation, consumerism and overproduction, and the endless cycles of relative prosperity and devastating crises.
Some terms and concepts would have to be transposed to understand how they can still make sense to a 21st-century reader. For instance, Marx uses the term “bourgeoisie” to name the factory owners. Nowadays, we would use “shareholders” as another, more abstract notion to designate the owners of “the means of production” (i.e., the companies, the firms). Similarly, the term “wage-labourer” or “proletariat” is a concept coined by Marx to name the working class of artisans of his time. It would, instead, make more sense to us if we spoke of “employees”, in other words, people who forgo their freedom to earn their crust in exchange for their time and work—and this includes every sort of employee, from the factory worker to the chief executive. And the concept of “class struggle” between the two categories is extraordinarily illuminating. To some extent, it could even be projected as a model for the colonial and post-colonial relationships of exploitation of Western over Third-World countries.
Marx’s and Engel’s analyses and proposals also have glaring limitations. First, the political programme outlined at the end of the Manifesto is, to a large degree, utopian and highly debatable; e.g., the abolition of private property (inspired by [a:Proudhon|114439|Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1268693024p2/114439.jpg]), the proletarian revolution and dictatorship to overthrow the bourgeoisie (inspired by the French 1789 Revolution), the end of bourgeois marriage, the end of the nation-state, etc. And, in essence, their prediction that capitalist society would be replaced by socialism was wide of the mark (just like the Gospel's prediction that the end of times was nigh).
Also, the features of 21st-century “neo-liberal” capitalism elude almost entirely some of Marx’s arguments. For example, the gradual transition from a wage-based economy towards a “gig economy” and widespread self-employment or “Uberisation”; or the new incentive schemes of equity compensation offered to the upper management; or the wealth accumulation by financial markets and pension funds. All these recent developments tend to jumble together the old Marxist categories and his worker vs capitalist antagonism.
Nevertheless, the Manifesto, unlike any other political or philosophical work (say, Plato’s [b:Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386925655l/30289._SY75_.jpg|1625515] or More’s [b:Utopia|18414|Utopia|Thomas More|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388190168l/18414._SY75_.jpg|2798280]), is among the very few texts that redefined the framework of civilisation across the globe, even to this day.