The Communist Manifesto (Penguin Classics)

I remember reading the Communist Manifesto thirty years ago when I was at University. At the time it seemed tedious and impenetrable. Recently I re-read it and was amazed at how clear it seemed and what an effective piece of propaganda it was and how clear was the writing.

Reading through the program one realises the distance that has been travelled since it was written. Some of the major planks are the Abolition of Child Labour, the creation of a progressive income tax and Free Education.

Perhaps one of its major weaknesses is that Marx was a person who tended to carry a grudge. Thus a third of it is devoted to attacks on some of his contemporary enemies and rivals. These disputes have so long passed into history they are incomprehensible.

The modern notion of Communism of course stems not from Marx but from Stalin and Lenin. Marx wrote at a time when the only democratic country in Europe was France. England, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire all had limited franchises and Russia was of course an autocracy. One of the major reforms he battled for was the introduction of democracy. It was his belief that the implementation of his program would flow from that.

Following Marx's death his movement evolved into a parliamentary movement the Social Democratic Party. Communism as a modern political phenomena dates from 1917 when splinter Social Democrats followed Russia's lead and developed small conspiratorial parties who were committed to the seizure of power by force. Stalinism is an offshoot of this system and is a form of state terror aimed at ensuring the survival of unpopular anti democratic regimes.

Reading through the Manifesto one can see the basis of a system which was not only an effective for mobilising political movements, but came to influence intellectual debate for the next century. There is also perhaps a sense of a naive optimism which could not contemplate the sorts of disasters which were to occur over the next hundred years.

The Communist Manifesto is one of those classics which every educated person should read. I do suggest, however, that one have some knowledge of European history first. I first read this book as an undergraduate, and have now just finished reading this modern edition edited by Hobsbawm a decade later, and I got a lot more out of reading it the second time. Part of the difficulty with reading the Manifesto is the archaic language it uses (although this edition does have notes which explain some of that), but there is also the problem of not understanding historical references if you are totally unfamiliar with 19th century Europe.

Perhaps the most useful aspect of reading this book is the authors' discussion of the various "socialist" movements of the time which stood opposed to capitalism and how they differ from Communism. Many of these movements simply don't exist anymore, at least not as distinct phenomena, but have more or less merged into various positions supporting the social welfare state.

It is often forgotten that the revolution that Communists sought was not merely economic or political - it was social, and involved the destruction of the family, centralized control of education, and no limits on the regulatory power of the state. Reading this book makes that clear. Even where Marxist economics has been discredited, these themes live on with abundant strength.

It is also imperative to read this book to with an eye to the laws of economics. Otherwise, there is no way to really understand where Marx and Engels went wrong. For example, the authors argue (p. 43) that the price of labour is equal to its cost of production, and (p. 45) that industrial development "nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level." This is a misunderstanding; the cost of labour is determined by the balance between the supply of labour and the demand for labour, and because the supply curve for labour (amount of labor available) is never perfectly elastic (i.e. supply of labour is limited), increasing demand increases the price - i.e. economic growth increases wages.

On the same page the authors go on to argue that improvements in technology make workers' livelihoods "more and more precarious," an idea that was held by many up until fairly recently. We have seen in recent decades, however, that technology tends to increase productivity, and over time, increase wages.

One key issue in the Manifesto which is very alive today is that of free trade - indeed, the authors argue (p. 38) that capitalism "has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - free trade. In one word, for exploitation..." This prediction violated the law of comparative advantage, which has shown over and over again that countries benefit when free trade allows each country to produce those items in which it is the most productive producer. Thus even while workers in the U.S. lose their jobs, they can transition to other jobs, per capital GDP increases and unemployment stays low.

The key idea here is that Marx should be read not because one thinks that he is right or that he is wrong, but that his thinking, having influenced so many modern movements, is essential to understanding the modern political landscape. Even where he is wrong, reading Marx brings understanding.

My five star rating is based on the quality of this handsome edition of one of the classics of political philosophy. Classics of this magnitude, whether Adam Smith's THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, Tocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, or THE FEDERALIST PAPERS have achieved a status that makes the assigning of a rating rather silly. Regardless of one's feelings about Marxism or Communism, a work of such gigantic influence is of such a status that rating it is almost silly. It is one of the constitutive artifacts of our culture.

The particular edition I am reviewing is the recent reissue on Verso with an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm. There are a host of editions of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, and virtually any of them will do the trick, but I very much enjoyed this edition, partly for the handsome jacket and binding, and partly for the superb intro by Hobsbawm. It is not a new translation, and indeed it isn't clear that there will ever be much of a demand for a new translation. The MANIFESTO was first published in 1848 and this translation in 1888. Moore's translation is the standard one for a simple reason: Engels examined it closely and helped Moore in editing the final draft of the translation.

Although I had read a fair amount in the writings of Marx over the years, this was my first time to read the work from cover to cover. I found it surprising on several levels. First, it was a much easier to read work than I had anticipated. This is upon reflection hardly surprising. The work was intended as a pamphlet for the masses, and it was essential that it be as understandable as possible. Also, the concepts and ideas articulated in these pages have become a part of the intellectual landscape of Western civilization. A host of ideas are commonplace, even among those who do not consider themselves sympathetic towards Marxism. It has become a commonplace of the past decade that Communism and Democracy clashed, and Communism lost. But the fact is that Marxist thought has exerted a massive influence on the way we view the world, and many things introduced by Marx are now central constituents of our world. Just look at the way we write history now. Before Marx a detailed consideration of the economic factors in an era was unheard of; now it is considered essential.

As a credo, I find myself conflicted over its contents, just as I always find myself conflicted in reading Marx. Marx's analyses of the dynamics governing capitalist society have always struck me as dead on. No one writes more presciently or timelessly about the structures of exploitation that are inherent in capitalism. Nonetheless, I find his positive proposals as to how to transcend capitalism to be untenable, and the post-capitalist world he describes to be undesirable. The best way to express this is that I find Marx the critic to be convincing and impressive, but Marx the visionary to be irrelevant. I want us to pay attention to Marx's critiques, but not to his proposals for change.

I was delighted in reading the book to find the word "highfalutin" in the text. The world seems somehow to be a more charming place for the unexpected presence of such a light-hearted word in the midst of a serious text.

Though listed as the work of Marx and Engels, Marx was the primary creator of the work. He also did the bulk of the writing. It isn't sufficiently commented on what a beautiful writer Marx could be when he tried. Too often he adopts the try academic style begun with Christian Wolff and continued by Kant, Fichte, and Hegel. But a host of exquisite phrases such as "All that is solid melts into air" shows that Marx could turn a phrase when conviction didn't prevent him.

Everyone interested in political thought or modern history needs to read this book. Its influence--its ongoing influence--is incalculable. Its critique of the exploitative nature of capitalism remains astonishingly relevant. And its predictions about the future course of history, even if no longer inspiring or convincing, are crucial to grasp if one is to understand many of the political impulses of the past one hundred and fifty years.

What many don't realise is that this book sits at the top of a larger body of work which forms Marx's philosophy. Beyond the manifesto, Marx has been extremely influential in the areas of philosophy, psychology, ethics, aesthetics as well as the more obvious areas such as political economy. This book therefore is a consequence of a much more complex philosophical analysis of his times. In other philosophical discussions of Marx, you will rarely if ever come across references to the manifesto which puts it into perspective relative to his other, philosophically more important writings. However, as a polemic and a political manifesto this book is spot on for it's time even if Marxism, due to the subsequent events of history needs to be seriously reworked and comtemporised.

If you have ever wondered about Communism and its true roots...read this.

Any Political Science Major should have read this book cover to cover.