Trouble With the Manifesto

[Ostrinski]

I recently started reading The Communist Manifesto and I'm having some trouble understanding it. Is there anything in Marx & Engels' original texts that I can't get out of, say, David Harvey's work?

[Rjevan]

What parts do you have problems with? Maybe we can answer some of your questions here.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Marx can be extremely difficult to read, he had a certain way with words that made reading something as simple as the Communist Manifesto a chore for beginners. In terms of content it is actually extremely simple and could be summed up in just a few paragraphs, but Marx had a very complex way of using language. I didn't really read Marx for quite a while at first, I stared off with Engels, Lenin, and various abridged and annotated versions of Marx's works. One of the first books I read was Marx in His Own Words by Ernst Fischer, an Austrian Communist Party member, he basically took everything Marx ever wrote, works on labour, class struggle, historical materialism, everything, and made it really easy to understand, if you can track down a copy I would highly recommend it, you'll learn a lot more from a book like that than you will from the Communist Manifesto, which is really just a tiny pamphlet with little educational meaning today.

[ed miliband]

Maximilien Rubel's book on Marx is also quite good. It mostly consists of large chunks of Marx's writing ordered topically, so for example the chapter on The Materialist Conception of History consists of large excerpts from The Holy Family, German Ideology, Capital, etc. Arguably you might not get the full picture but you train yourself up to reading Marx properly. I can only really liken it to reading something like Paradise Lost - at first the language makes little sense, you're left scratching your head and wondering what the fuck he's going on about, and then something clicks and it all seems clear. It's a nice feeling.

[graymouser]

There is a ton that you won't get from other writers, including the original unvarnished opinions of Marx and Engels. The Communist Manifesto is not a difficult work; it's quite short, and its summation of the historical materialist ideas of Marx and Engels is relatively without peer. Marx's works are tremendous reading and there really is quite a lot that you won't get without reading the man himself.

If you're having trouble with the Manifesto I would suggest you try to find a study group in your area, or start one online. There are plenty of people who could help you with the ideas or the language, and it's more important that you learn how to grasp these ideas - get over this hill, so you can get over the more complex hills of Marx's very important historical and economic writings - than that you quickly assimilate someone else's ideas of what Marx said.

[Volcanicity]

If you're having problems understanding certain words or terms that are used in the Manifesto try looking them up at this link http://marxists.org/glossary/index.htm. For David Harvey his series on Marx's Capital are great but I would'nt tackle that until you understand the Manifesto.

[Hit The North]

RG,

Personally I find David Harvey's work more difficult to read then Marx's. Marx was a much better writer.

Aside from all the great advice given to you in this thread, you could always try listening to the audio book of the Manifesto here: http://www.ejunto.com/marx.html

[revolution inaction]

If your problem is not understanding what is meant by particular words or phrases then you could try read it quickly without worrying if you understand everything, and then again more slowly later, it sometimes helps to have a general idea of where something is going before you try to understand all the details.

[BIG BROTHER]

I just helped a Comrade read through the Communist Manifesto. You can post any questions you have here and I'll help you answer it.

The problem is that to read Marx you gotta know the historical context of the time, and the time's language in order to understand the references he uses.

[Sixiang]

I just helped a Comrade read through the Communist Manifesto. You can post any questions you have here and I'll help you answer it.

The problem is that to read Marx you gotta know the historical context of the time, and the time's language in order to understand the references he uses.

I absolutely agree with this. I had trouble with the Manifesto the first time I read it, too. I've read 3 times now and each time I come out with some answers and some more questions. Just take it slow. I recommend taking notes while you read. That helps me a lot.

[Impulse97]

I read the Manifesto and had a lot of trouble too.

75% of what I've learned has come from RevLeft or wikipedia/Cuban Wiki.

What if we got a list of important leftist books available free online and sticky'd the list here? Also, if we created a sister thread so people could as specific questions on certain books. Dunno, lemme know what you all think.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[devoration1]

I share the opinion held that TCM is an historical document, and should be treated as such- not as 'The Book' of Marxism or communism. Many understand this implicitly, but many more (not out of any fault of their own) take it to be 'the book of Marxism', which it certainly is not; and can affect how you read and interpret it. There are many kernals of Marxism within it (historical materialism, etc) but the 'easiest' parts of the manifesto to understand are the political criticisms of tendencies that haven't existed in over a century, and a political platform of the Communist League that was said by its authors to be obsolete by the time it was published.

The fundamental kernals of Marxism are ( I think) easier to quickly digest in the works of the Bolsheviks- Bukharin's ABC of Communism, Lenin's State & Revolution, and (while I abhor the man and his legacy) Stalin's Dialectical & Historical Materialism are all easy to read and understand. Marx was much easier for me to appreciate after having a good grasp of the most important content of his work.

[yobbos1]

Communist Manifesto has given me little trouble, Capital on the other hand...:crying:

[Ostrinski]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. I'm looking into Marx in His Own Words, ABC of Communism, State & Revolution, and Dialectical & Historical Materialism.

I don't really have any questions pertaining to terms or content; the language is what the difficulty is coming from. I'll look into reading more of Marx when I become more enlightened.

[Impulse97]

OTP

Tried to post RG's Trotsky quote on fb as a status and it said I didn't have permission to. Lame shit.

Good luck with it RG. I'm gonna look up those books too.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[ComradeOm]

I don't really have any questions pertaining to terms or content; the language is what the difficulty is coming from. I'll look into reading more of Marx when I become more enlightened.Enlightenment has nothing to do with it. English, as with all languages, has evolved since the 19th C. This can be disconcerting for a modern reader who is not used to the structures and style that were fashionable a century and a half ago. If you're struggling with this then you'll struggle with any another work by Marx or Lenin* because they use the same language

The only thing I can advise is to either get a more recent translation (I have no idea when the latest was) or, preferably, simply practice by reading as much of Marx as you can. You might struggle with the latter at first, and it will be a case of rereading every sentence a few times (I've been there), but its the only way you'll familiarise yourself with the language. After thoroughly reading a few of his works, and getting used to the terms and punctuation, you'll have little trouble. Until you come to Kapital

*More actually. The Manifesto's language is pretty straightforward when compared to Marx or Lenin's typical output. Probably a combination of Engels' influence and the purpose of the pamphlet

[Ostrinski]

Really? I took a look inside The State and Revolution and it seemed to make much more sense.

[ComradeOm]

If you can't read the Manifesto then I'd stay away from S&R. The latter was written specifically for a Marxist audience and assumes that the reader is familiar with the terms and arguments it employs. It also quotes extensively from Marx

[mikelepore]

Enlightenment has nothing to do with it. English, as with all languages, has evolved since the 19th C. This can be disconcerting for a modern reader who is not used to the structures and style that were fashionable a century and a half ago.

I know that historical references may be unfamiliar to some readers. Some readers might say "'patrician and plebean, guildmaster and journeyman' -- huh? what does that mean?" But I didn't know that some readers were having difficulty with the older styles of language. What language is causing some people difficulty?

[ComradeOm]

I know that historical references may be unfamiliar to some readers. Some readers might say "'patrician and plebean, guildmaster and journeyman' -- huh? what does that mean?" But I didn't know that some readers were having difficulty with the older styles of language. What language is causing some people difficulty?Its mostly the punctuation and style of writing. The proliferation of commas and subclauses is particularly uncommon today where authors favour 'cleaner' prose with shorter sentences. Its very rare that you'll ever encounter a sentence as tortured as this in a modern work:

This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another).You can easily get lost in this if you're not used to it. Its not a major problem, not like reading Old English, but I have seen the style cause trouble for people and did take me some time to become familiar with originally. Which is actually one reason why I advise people to read the Manifesto first - even today the language is very readable and the ideas come across very well

[Ostrinski]

If you can't read the Manifesto then I'd stay away from S&R. The latter was written specifically for a Marxist audience and assumes that the reader is familiar with the terms and arguments it employs. It also quotes extensively from Marx Again, I don't really have an issue with the terms or arguments, just how they're communicated. And considering S&A was published almost a century after TCM...

[BIG BROTHER]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. I'm looking into Marx in His Own Words, ABC of Communism, State & Revolution, and Dialectical & Historical Materialism.

I don't really have any questions pertaining to terms or content; the language is what the difficulty is coming from. I'll look into reading more of Marx when I become more enlightened.

Ok so I would suggest to not give up on your quest to read the Manifesto. Try going to your local library(if were you live there is a good one or if there is one at all, I'm just assuming you are from the US or Western Europe) and get the latest edition that you can find. They usually have good footnotes added by Academic Marxist that help you understand the context.

Also going to Wikipedia to get a quick overview of the manifesto and the historical issues at the moment will help you a great deal.

[Lucretia]

Again, I don't really have an issue with the terms or arguments, just how they're communicated. And considering S&A was published almost a century after TCM...

I don't understand this at all. If the way M&E are expressing their arguments is not confusing you enough to prevent you from understanding their arguments, why bring it up as an issue? The point of reading the document is to understand their arguments, right?

Is there a specific passage you have in mind?

The Manifesto really is the most simply stated articulation of M&E's general theoretical framework. I would advise you not to move beyond it until you have a pretty solid mastery of it. By the way, a good version of it that explains some of the more difficult wording is Phil Gasper's presentation, which has notes in the margins elucidating the denser or more obscure parts. You can get it at any major online book retailer.

[Rooster]

You should watch a lot more period dramas.

Anyway, I got TCM as edited by Frederic L. Bender (A Norton Critical Edition) and it has a pretty good introduction. Has all of the prefaces by Marx and Engels and has an extensive collection of interpretations and essays at the back by many different authors, including a section from Lenin's State and Revolution. I'm sure S&R quotes extensively from the Manifesto, doesn't it? It's a good compliment I guess, if only to get Lenin's ideas from it. But if you read that then you really should go back to the Manifesto itself. And if you're getting the S&R as edited by Robert Service then you should probably realise that there's bias in his introduction. Some of it laughable.