I'm a little confused

[Yr Arth Coch]

I'm confused.

I'd like to get a few things out of the way before I get into it though. Firstly, I'm a layman. I might piss a lot of people off with this post. I'm not sure that I've communicated my point across clearly. I'm not sure whether I have a point.

Okay, let's get to it then.

I tried giving the Communist Manifesto a read several years ago. Not in a fit of revolutionary fervor or anything like that. I was curious. Going in, I had high expectations. I was expecting to be blown away! In my (contagiously vivid) imagination, this book was already legendary. This mere book had given life to the Russian revolution! It fueled the toppling of the redundant Tsars and paved the way for a glorious communist state in which the working class man had a relevant and valued role.

I don't remember much about it. At risk of sounding purposefully controversial...I found it dead fucking boring and incredibly difficult to follow. I understand that it's relatively old literature and whatnot so it's not going to read like a modern day novel. But this is, in my mind's eye, where Leftist movements begin to suffer.

Complicated political theory and a Utopian leftist society seem to be mutually exclusive. One of the key issues I have with politics in Australia (where I currently reside) is its elitist and unwelcoming nature. The complicated political system and white collar politicians alienates the large working class. The political jargon just seems like a weapon used by the elite to maintain their monopoly on the nation's policies.

Anyway, I digress. My point is, while I personally find political theory and its debate very interesting, the vast majority of people in major nations don't. Furthermore, a model leftist government should be as accessible by the masses as is reasonably possible (I think). So, why is literature like the Communist Manifesto so highly regarded? Why are ideologies dissected so finely?

[RedWorker]

There are two matters brought up in the original post.

As to matter A:

It is exactly the fact that the doctrine of communism has content that angers the pseudointellectuals and philistines. The 'disappointment' of finding content in communism - is delicious. It is what makes it worthy.

We have nothing in common with pseudointellectual apoliticism which finds its expression in being devoid of content, which in reality has a social meaning of nothing but tolerance for the status quo. We are not the kind that try to look "cool" and then don't fill it with real ideas. We want to be boring -- in the way boring is being regarded here.

We have not one bit of sympathy for "critics of society" and pseudo-philosophers who avoid taking a real political stance. We would rather be viewed as the followers of an old tradition who are locked in a short-sighted worldview, rather than as some cool "critics" who keep being cool because they don't articulate real content.

As to matter B:

Communism is not just looking for an "improvement" of society. It is looking for a radical re-construction of society. This requires theory. This theory can't be replaced for two anti-status quo sentences. The analysis must be thorough, and the conclusions taken must be consistent.

That does not mean, however, that everyone should be made to read Das Kapital. The pamphlets communists deliver will not be big theory books. Instead, they will be calling for real action in the today.

[BIXX]

Holy shit more people are in all seriousness using the word philistines. Awesome.

Regarding the OP, I would recommend reading some more contemporary things. If it's a solid piece of theory I don't think you should have to read any old shit to understand it so I think you'd be fine (most that's written more than 50 years ago bores the shit out of me too).

[John Nada]

The Communist Manifesto is an important historical document, yes. But it's not the only document Marxism draws from, hell dare I say not even close to the most important. It was a pamphlet written at the beginning of the Revolutions of 1848 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848), with insurrection in the air, and all the possibilities imagined. Capitalism was still developing, fuck in much of the world only just barely.So some of it's going to be outdated (ie, there's state banks, bans on child labor, public education, progressive taxes, many of the potentially allied progressive parties no long exist, ect.). Marx and Engels later said it was outdated, and they developed their theories a lot in the decades afterwards. But the overall message is still true.

The Communist Manifesto wasn't widely publicized until much later on after 1848. Look at the dates of the prefaces to the later editions: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm The 1872 edition was just after the world's first dictatorship of the proletariat(workers' rule), the Paris Commune (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune). Also important Marxists and German Social Democrat leaders Liebknecht and Bebel were arrested on treason charges for agitating against the Franco-Prussian War. At the trial, the prosecution had to read the Communist Manifesto as evidence. This enabled it to bypass censorship and the sensation popularized it.

The original Russian translation of the Communist Manifesto was by the anarchist and First International member Bakunin in 1869, in Geneva due to censorship. The 1882 Russian edition was a more accurate translation by the early Russian Marxists Plekhanov. This happened after the Narodnik revolutionary group The People's will(which Lenin's older brother was a member of and got executed for his involvement) whacked Tsar Alexander II.

The 1883 German edition was the year Marx died. 1888 English edition was when another Anti-Socialist law was enacted in Germany, as well as shortly after the publication of the English edition of Capital, Vol.I. 1890 was the year the Anti-Socialist law in Germany was repealed, legalizing the Social Democratic Party, and at the fourth edition of Capital.

So I don't think that one pamphlet singelehandedly caused revolution, but it was a propaganda piece that people found relevant to a revolutionary situation. One of many pamphlets going around, but with historic importance.

"Dull and hard to follow" is subjective. I like Marx's and Engels's writing style. I actually found the Manifesto interesting when I first read it. Keep in mind they were writing in an era before television. Reading in one's spare time for entertainment, say a break at work, was common. A book was a nice treat to be lucky enough to buy.

But even then, not everyone could read, and it's still unfortunately the case in some instances, particularly in some underdeveloped countries. Even Engels's partners Mary Burns and (later)her sister Lydia were illiterate. In many countries that had revolutions illiteracy was rampant. In pre-revolutions Russia and China about 60-80% of people were illiterate. This was disproportionately among the poor peasantry and proletariat, the Communists' support base. Revolutionary workers, well versed in Marxist theory, had to deal with this. The internet, cheaper books(both mostly uncensored) and higher levels of literacy is a big privilege we now have, so more workers than ever can learn revolutionary theory to teach others.

Not everyone is interested in politics and theory. Many are busy with other things, like school, jobs, families, hobbies and social events that interest them more. If they not very knowledgeable in politics or economics, it's not usually because they're "stupid", just they've developed skills and interests in other areas. Capitalist society tends to have a division of labor where some things might not seem practical in that regard. They don't have to memorize all three volumes of Capital(Marx's masterpiece and probably his most important, but long as fuck). Just break it down in layperson's terms to friends, family, acquaintances and co-workers.

[Kamp]

i agree to 100% the communist manifesto and a lot of other communist content are hard to read and boring. I guess that it fills its functions in a university hall, but its a heavy read for the average worker that's just trying to get a deeper knowledge into a ideology that would profit him and his family.
I find Lenin to be a bit easier, but then again. i read up on lenin 3 years ago while i was living 6 months in a tent and didn't have anything better to do.. I just bought the third international after lenin by trotskij and it seem to be the best so far.

OT: If anyone have any post-sovjet books that are easy to read and works on the flaws of the USSR system ideas that they would like to recomend, please PM.

Best Regards.

[The Idler]

I have just the thing for you
The Communist Manifesto Illustrated (published by Red Quill Books)
http://redquillbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Communist-Manifesto-Illustrated-Chapter-One-English.jpg

[Guardia Rossa]

It's hard as fuck to read old books. Any old books.
The language changed too much and at that time the only people who could afford to read were a very little minority of intellectuals.

The Communist Manifesto, IMHO, it's just a pamphlet and not very good as a pamphlet.
Also, you will never understand what is communism by simply reading ~20 pages.

[ckaihatsu]

I have just the thing for you
The Communist Manifesto Illustrated (published by Red Quill Books)
http://redquillbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Communist-Manifesto-Illustrated-Chapter-One-English.jpg


I'm a little confused -- how does historical materialism help us deal with that huge blue dude who's knocking over Big Ben -- ?


= D

[Kamp]

No one knows, but im sure that the crime fighting due captain marx and his trusted companion Engels will stop it !

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm confused.

I'd like to get a few things out of the way before I get into it though. Firstly, I'm a layman. I might piss a lot of people off with this post. I'm not sure that I've communicated my point across clearly. I'm not sure whether I have a point.

Okay, let's get to it then.

I tried giving the Communist Manifesto a read several years ago. Not in a fit of revolutionary fervor or anything like that. I was curious. Going in, I had high expectations. I was expecting to be blown away! In my (contagiously vivid) imagination, this book was already legendary. This mere book had given life to the Russian revolution! It fueled the toppling of the redundant Tsars and paved the way for a glorious communist state in which the working class man had a relevant and valued role.

I don't remember much about it. At risk of sounding purposefully controversial...I found it dead fucking boring and incredibly difficult to follow. I understand that it's relatively old literature and whatnot so it's not going to read like a modern day novel. But this is, in my mind's eye, where Leftist movements begin to suffer.

Complicated political theory and a Utopian leftist society seem to be mutually exclusive. One of the key issues I have with politics in Australia (where I currently reside) is its elitist and unwelcoming nature. The complicated political system and white collar politicians alienates the large working class. The political jargon just seems like a weapon used by the elite to maintain their monopoly on the nation's policies.

Anyway, I digress. My point is, while I personally find political theory and its debate very interesting, the vast majority of people in major nations don't. Furthermore, a model leftist government should be as accessible by the masses as is reasonably possible (I think). So, why is literature like the Communist Manifesto so highly regarded? Why are ideologies dissected so finely?

I'm not sure what your complaint is, to be honest. That Marx was a bad writer? Obviously some people are going to dislike Marx's style. But, what about it? The founder of American Trotskyism, Jim Canon, is generally acknowledged as a terrible writer, for example. The renegade Shachtman was an excellent writer, on the other hand. That has no relevance when assessing the politics of these men.

Or that Marx had theoretical positions at all, particularly those that can't be reduced to some simplified "leftism" or, the Elder God preserve us, "common sense"? Well, he did, and we do, and what sense would it make for us to abandon the struggle for the revolutionary abolition of capitalism commodity production and wage labour in favour of some unclear fight against "elites" or for a "left government" (our goal is not a left government, but a transitional workers' semi-state leading to no government at all)?

No one is forcing you to try to understand socialist theory. If you don't want to, then you don't want to. But you can't say that you're incapable of understanding it because you're a worker. Many workers, including self-educated ones, were capable of understanding it. I don't think anyone here would claim that they possess any extraordinary mental capacity, and if they do, most likely they're fooling themselves. It's doable.

If you want to try to understand, you can ask other people when something is unclear.

[ckaihatsu]

No one knows, but im sure that the crime fighting due captain marx and his trusted companion Engels will stop it !


Not bad....

I'm gonna go with:


The-Specter-of-Communism-Haunting-Europe Takes on London


-- or --


'The Communist Manifesto: The Pan-Galactic Edition'


=B^)

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, when's the 3D-Lego-animated-movie version gonna come out *already* -- !

[Sewer Socialist]

I don't have a college education either, and found it difficult to read Marx at first. Some of it is the fact that it was written 150 years ago, and some of it out Marx himself. But I've gotten used to it, and in fact find his writing indispensable. You can find abridged versions of Capital, but I'm not sure about any that have been rewritten to be easier to understand. Also, the Communist Manifesto is not really so important a work to communists as people make it out to be.

[ckaihatsu]

As loath as I am to see the self-initiated silliness subside, I *will* note that on 'historical determinism' the hands-down best treatment of it is Chris Harman's _People's History of the World_. (Maybe do a web search on it right now and see what happens...!)

[Yr Arth Coch]

There are two matters brought up in the original post.

As to matter A:

It is exactly the fact that the doctrine of communism has content that angers the pseudointellectuals and philistines. The 'disappointment' of finding content in communism - is delicious. It is what makes it worthy.

We have nothing in common with pseudointellectual apoliticism which finds its expression in being devoid of content, which in reality has a social meaning of nothing but tolerance for the status quo. We are not the kind that try to look "cool" and then don't fill it with real ideas. We want to be boring -- in the way boring is being regarded here.

We have not one bit of sympathy for "critics of society" and pseudo-philosophers who avoid taking a real political stance. We would rather be viewed as the followers of an old tradition who are locked in a short-sighted worldview, rather than as some cool "critics" who keep being cool because they don't articulate real content.




I'm not sure what "Matter A" refers to within my own post? Could you please explain further?

[#FF0000]

Anyway, I digress. My point is, while I personally find political theory and its debate very interesting, the vast majority of people in major nations don't. Furthermore, a model leftist government should be as accessible by the masses as is reasonably possible (I think). So, why is literature like the Communist Manifesto so highly regarded? Why are ideologies dissected so finely?

I agree with where you're coming from. I think Marx's work is important but modern Marxists are remarkably bad at communicating ideas to the modern layperson. If you ask me, it's a result of the communist movement getting the shit kicked out of it throughout the 20th century to the point we're at now where it's mostly restricted to academics and windbags w/ egos who care more about maintaining their cult or getting speaking gigs than building an actual movement.

[Yr Arth Coch]

Thank you, that's pretty much exactly what I was trying to get at. :)

[RedWorker]

I'm not sure what "Matter A" refers to within my own post? Could you please explain further?

You expected some legendary criticism of the status quo, encountered it, then found it boring. Why? Because the content was an actually legendary criticism of the status quo, not a bunch of pseudo-intellectual, unspecific, meaningless blabber. That would be a falsification of the former.

[Yr Arth Coch]

You expected some legendary criticism of the status quo, encountered it, then found it boring. Why? Because the content was an actually legendary criticism of the status quo, not a bunch of pseudo-intellectual, unspecific, meaningless blabber. That would be a falsification of the former.
Honestly, I'm still not a 100% sure what you're trying to say. Are you telling me that I'm a pseudo-intellectual that spouts unspecific, meaningless blabber?

I very much admit that my expectations weren't set in reality. In fact, I tried to display this in my original post. This post wasn't an attempt to attack the manifesto or its relevance.

I feel that I have to add a disclaimer. I'm not a hardcore communist that is familiar with every political theory or even very well read on the topic. I identify with the movement and agree with the very basic concepts. I'm here to dig deeper. This is the Learning thread after all.

[RedWorker]

Honestly, I'm still not a 100% sure what you're trying to say. Are you telling me that I'm a pseudo-intellectual that spouts unspecific, meaningless blabber?

No. But there is no other interpretation to your post than you were disappointed because the Manifesto contains actual, real, articulated, specific criticisms of society, not metaphysical rambling, new age stuff and buzzwords. Criticisms that cannot be articulated in two broadly anti-status quo sentences, but rather require a deep background, a deep analysis over specific events and concepts and taking consistent and specific conclusions which require accurate commitment. This is 'boring'.

[Yr Arth Coch]

No. But there is no other interpretation to your post than you were disappointed because the Manifesto contains actual, real, articulated, specific criticisms of society, not metaphysical rambling, new age stuff and buzzwords. Criticisms that cannot be articulated in two broadly anti-status quo sentences, but rather require a deep background, a deep analysis over specific events and concepts and taking consistent and specific conclusions which require accurate commitment. This is 'boring'.
I see where you're coming from, although I can't help feel as though your responses have been a tad condescending. Thank you all the same.

[Lord Testicles]

I can't help feel as though your responses have been a tad condescending. Thank you all the same.

That's because they have been.

People should remember that this is the learning forum and should therefore act accordingly.

[RedMaterialist]

So, why is literature like the Communist Manifesto so highly regarded.

Because Marx and Engels said things like this:


"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles...Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

Can you deny that the 99% are in a constant struggle with the 1%?


The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

In whose interest do you think the modern state functions? Why do you think it was the banks and GM who got bailed out?


The bourgeoisie...has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.

The entire basis of modern capitalist economic theory is that of rational self-interest.


The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

A perfect description of globalization, there is no place on the planet which capitalism has not taken over.

And that is just the first few paragraphs. What's so confusing about that?

[ckaihatsu]

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimg.org/nmlxvtqlt/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zbpxjshkd/full/)

[The Idler]

Hey, when's the 3D-Lego-animated-movie version gonna come out *already* -- !
UJmyihoRZjs

[ckaihatsu]

UJmyihoRZjs


Wow -- it's like they had a video camera there when it actually happened in history....


= )

[#FF0000]

Redworker's 'tude is a good example of what's wrong with a lot of communists n communist orgs. No idea how to talk to people who aren't totally immersed in their sect.

[Guardia Rossa]

Redworker's 'tude is a good example of what's wrong with a lot of communists n communist orgs. No idea how to talk to people who aren't totally immersed in their sect.

Signatured.

[BIXX]

You expected some legendary criticism of the status quo, encountered it, then found it boring. Why? Because the content was an actually legendary criticism of the status quo, not a bunch of pseudo-intellectual, unspecific, meaningless blabber. That would be a falsification of the former.

Honestly I don't think that because something is exciting it means it is "psuedo-intellectual, unspecific, [or] meaningless".

In fact I think that if something is a real (sorry, legendary) crtique of the status quo (which to me seems unspecific, meaningless blabber) it would be damn exciting. I know that when I read something that even offers me a good for looking at the world I get excited. If you experience perpetual boredom though that would explain why you're a Marxist.

[Alan OldStudent]

i agree to 100% the communist manifesto and a lot of other communist content are hard to read and boring. I guess that it fills its functions in a university hall, but its a heavy read for the average worker that's just trying to get a deeper knowledge into a ideology that would profit him and his family.
I find Lenin to be a bit easier, but then again. i read up on lenin 3 years ago while i was living 6 months in a tent and didn't have anything better to do.. I just bought the third international after lenin by trotskij and it seem to be the best so far.

OT: If anyone have any post-sovjet books that are easy to read and works on the flaws of the USSR system ideas that they would like to recomend, please PM.

Best Regards.
The Communist Manifesto (CM) makes references to a lot of things young people don’t know much about. That’s why it can seem so unapproachable. The first few times I read it, it was a tough slog. But as the decades passed, I see more and more in it each time I read it. At the present time, it seems absolutely compelling to me. Remember Marx wrote it in 1847, which was just before 1848, a tremendously tumultuous year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848) that saw revolutions in almost every country in Europe.

I had read the CM when quite young several times. I didn’t understand parts, and other parts seemed dated. It certainly did not seem like sweeping literature.

But then about 1964, I heard a speech at a rally in the United States that caught my attention. This was at a very large protest rally. The speaker said he was quoting Marx, and he read this:

“When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.”

The 1960s was a time of deep social upheaval. Young people were questioning every aspect of conventional wisdom and conventional morality. We were rebelling against the hypocritical and smug quality of American society, the old, the staid, and the boring status quo. The 1950s were a time of the most stultifying conformism imaginable in the USA, and we were rebelling against that.

On the world stage, this was the era of the Algerian and Cuban revolutions, just about a decade-and-a-half after the great Chinese revolution.

This quote electrified the protestors. I thought “Wow! Where did that come from?” I knew I had heard it before, but I didn’t remember where.

Then I found it came from the Communist Manifesto. That quote seemed so profound to me, as we were questioning everything, and we hoped to change the world with our fight against Jim Crow and the Vietnam War.

Comrade Kamp, the Communist Manifesto made some amazing predictions. It predicted globalization, the expansion of capitalism in all parts of the world, the constant upheaval in social norms, the ever-quickening pace of change. Referring to the capitalist class as the bourgeoisie, the CM says this:

“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.”

Doesn’t this describe the computer revolution, the constant obsolescence of our goodies, the mad drive to buy more and more, the constant change in the job market? The CM says that modern capitalism and the market disrupt everything, cause social upheaval. Certainly that describes economic uncertainties we workers face, the housing crash, and the sheer irrationality of our system with its bubbles. The CM says this:

“All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”
How so very true, so sadly true!

Comrade Kamp, you should try to reread CM after you’ve had a bit more life experience and have gained a bit of perspective on life. In the meantime, try to read some more modern explanations of Marxism, communism, and socialism. Some find Engels a bit easier to read than Marx.

Probably some comrades will throw brickbats at me for saying this, but Trotsky was an excellent writer. I don’t agree with some of what he says, and I’m not a Trotskyist. I think that some of his followers are bonkers and hopelessly sectarian. But Trotsky himself is worth reading. Begin with “My Life” and the abridged version of his “History of the Russian Revolution.” I’m not really a Leninist, either, but try to read Lenin's “State and Revolution” at some point. Lenin was very insightful. This book explains why we can't win socialism via elections and gets at the root of what the state is.

Here are my parting shots:

If you hear something and it doesn’t make sense or seem reasonable to you, don’t just believe it because you respect the person telling you. Question assertions intelligently, no matter the source. Don’t believe something just because Marx, Jesus, Trotsky, Muhammed, Mao, or your daddy says it. It has to make sense to you.
Don’t be afraid to change your view in the face of new evidence or another rational argument. Nobody whose opinion matters is going to think you're stupid just because you changed your mind in the face of new evidence and argument.
We can often learn more from people who see things differently than we do. So learn to listen to points of view you disagree with and try to analyze why the other person holds them.


Alan OldStudent