The Communist Manifesto and it's importance

[Saullos]

[EDIT: How embarrassing. "The Communist Manifesto and *its* importance"]

I took a glance at "Beginners Guide to Marxism" by the Marxists Internet Archive, and they stated The Communist Manifesto as the, "the main document stating the principles of Marxism."

Now, obviously this is a students section, and is aimed primarily at the early thought of Marxism: largely unconcerned with the arguable developments which occurred later on.

However, I've always regarded The Communist Manifesto with little importance. I regarded it as being written for an audience, and not as serious or as analytical as his other works. Is this correct, or does the text have strong merit?

[Tablo]

The text is popular and clearly states its goals, but in all honesty I don't know why so many Marxists point to it. It has many out of place things in it as it was written before Marx and Engels ideological perspective had matured.

[CartCollector]

Engel's Principles of Communism is better for introducing people to Communism in my opinion:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-theory-faq-t23569/index.html

[flobdob]

The Manifesto has some very interesting elements in it, provided it is read in the context of the formation of the thought of Marx and Engels. For instance, the famous statement summarising capitalist crisis can be seen in a formative way, a first stab at understanding the laws of motion of capitalism but in a simple and understandable fashion. However, beyond this it's hardly a fundamental work of theory; I'd recommend anyone read it for it's historical value, rather than as a work on the same level as, say, Capital, the Grundrisse, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, etc.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The text is popular and clearly states its goals, but in all honesty I don't know why so many Marxists point to it. It has many out of place things in it as it was written before Marx and Engels ideological perspective had matured.
This.
I remember when I was introduced to Marxism and read the Manifesto I thought I was an all knowing communist. Then I found out that communism was a classless, stateless, etc, society which was not very well explained in the Manifesto in my opinion. Although I don't think it was because they hadn't matured enough, reading the German Ideology which was written before the Manifesto gave me a much better perspective on communism then the Manifesto did.

[Red Commissar]

This.
I remember when I was introduced to Marxism and read the Manifesto I thought I was an all knowing communist. Then I found out that communism was a classless, stateless, etc, society which was not very well explained in the Manifesto in my opinion. Although I don't think it was because they hadn't matured enough, reading the German Ideology which was written before the Manifesto gave me a much better perspective on communism then the Manifesto did.

I think you have to remember that when Marx was discussing his ideas, they were referring a lot about the transition socialist state which would arrive at a communist society, which was discounted as being too utopian by Marx's time. Marx saw through the use of a "scientific" socialism that communism could be actualized. Marx and Engels were confident that their readers were familiar about the communist society. They wanted to discuss how we could arrive at that.

As for the Manifesto, it is an outdated document, and Marx wished to update it following the Paris Commune uprising (the 10 goals of a socialist state, for instance). It shouldn't be a blueprint for a Marxist state because the Manifesto, as the name implies, is a declaration of aims of the Marxists. It is useful still as a historical document and gives an opening for anyone beginning a study of Marxism, but it shouldn't be the ONLY document analyzed. I find it amusing that people read the Manifesto and ignore the wealth of other works by Marx and Engels, and other Marxists that really delve into the finer points of Marxism and criticisms of the capitalist system. But it shouldn't be ignored either.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think you have to remember that when Marx was discussing his ideas, they were referring a lot about the transition socialist state which would arrive at a communist society, which was discounted as being too utopian by Marx's time. Marx saw through the use of a "scientific" socialism that communism could be actualized. Marx and Engels were confident that their readers were familiar about the communist society. They wanted to discuss how we could arrive at that.

As for the Manifesto, it is an outdated document, and Marx wished to update it following the Paris Commune uprising (the 10 goals of a socialist state, for instance). It shouldn't be a blueprint for a Marxist state because the Manifesto, as the name implies, is a declaration of aims of the Marxists. It is useful still as a historical document and gives an opening for anyone beginning a study of Marxism, but it shouldn't be the ONLY document analyzed. I find it amusing that people read the Manifesto and ignore the wealth of other works by Marx and Engels, and other Marxists that really delve into the finer points of Marxism and criticisms of the capitalist system. But it shouldn't be ignored either.
Yeah I get it's more about the socialist stage now, but as I was being introduced to communism I thought what they were writing was about the communist stage you know. It never really differentiates and says that the Communists want to establish socialism and then later will come communism which got me thinking "why not call it the socialist manifesto," when I first figured that out. But socialist is too broad a term and communism was used to describe a radical socialist as I've come to understand it in Marx's time.

What I find funny is that most conservatives today only look at the Communist Manifesto when they want to criticize communists(At least in my experiences) as if we believe the Communist Manifesto is some Holy Bible to us, especially the 10 goals. Just like I didn't understand in the beginning the Manifesto is more about the socialist stage than about communist society, they fall into the same argument and then you're in a predicament where two people are talking about different things but they both think they're talking about the same thing.:blink:

[chegitz guevara]

The Manifesto is an important primer for many people, as it encapsulates in simplified form many of the concepts Marx and Engels developed later on. As another comrade mentioned, The Principles of Communism is even better, however. As a work in popularizing Marxism, however, two works, one by Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and one by Kautsky, The Class Struggle, were actually far more important.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree with Tsukaes analysis, I have been told by various people who know I am a Communist that they read the manifesto and didn't understand most of it. I think for beginners it's something to leave alone, I know I didn't understand it at first.

[Alf]

This chapter from the ICC's book Communism, not a 'nice idea' but a material necessity tries to analyse the strengths and limitations of the manifesto in their historical context - a period when communism was a future perspective but not yet a material necessity or possibility

http://en.internationalism.org/node/3582