How many Americans have ever actually read "The Communist Manifesto"?

[karlschneider]

No doubt a lot of us are horrified at the title while knowing nothing about its content. I will once again (as I did 40 years ago) suggest having a look. Even if you think you know you will hate it, take a look.

(No, I'm not a communist. Not really.)

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

[Jerseycoa]

1. I have nt

[JaySherman]

2. I have

I think it's required reading for anyone wants to be politically aware or active, whether you agree with it or not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I suspect any college educated

Amerian who has taken a poli sci or history class has, at least a section of it

And yes I have

[Yupster]

39. Same here

required reading from my commie Poli Sci professors.

[Nobody]

4. I did so I could find out some missing information

All through HS we were constantly being told how evil Communism was but no one ever told us just what Communism was.

So I went to the library and devoured everything I could find from the source. I read the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and more.

This wasn't the only topic that was all propaganda all the time.

[tkmorris]

5. I have as well

What has bothered me since is that there is a lot of stuff in there that provokes thought. I agree with a good deal of it, some I find questionable (or at least I did. It's been 15 years now) but the frustrating thing is that I can't talk to anyone about it.

I read it as part of an optional reading list given by my Philosophy professor in college. I was attending college during the day, by night I was an Electronics Technician in the US Navy. Yes, I was stupid enough to bring the topic up with my "shipmates", and yes, I paid severely for that indiscretion.

Since leaving the Navy I have found that almost every person I meet has either: A) Not read it, B) Has a kneejerk violent reaction to the term "communist", or C) Both. It is frustrating in the extreme.

[karlschneider]

6. I probably should have stipulated that I did imagine most DUers have!,

my question was more rhetorical, I guess...thinking about how many people would find the proposition of reading it tantamount to treason.

I'd ask the question over at FR, were I allowed to. It's a rather ironic exercise in black humor imagining what the replies would be.
:eyes:

[ParticipatoryDem]

7. Why? Has it changed?

I'm sure it's still a good example of how not to run things.

[tkmorris]

10. Let me guess

You've never read it.

:eyes:

[ParticipatoryDem]

11. Bad guess. Now let me guess

You agree with it.

[tkmorris]

31. I agree with large swaths of it yes

There are a number of misconceptions people seem to have about this work.

If you believe for example that the "communist" governments that failed in the USSR, Poland, East Germany, and so on were very respective of Marx, you are wrong.

You know what? I just reviewed in my head the essay I was about to write which would demonstrate this but I realize it's a Quixotian effort at best. Not worth the trouble. Please do have a smurfy day but I encourage you, on some day when you can apply some objectivity, to read the book and think about the societal and political problems he describes as well as the solutions. It will make you a more rounded person, I assure you.

[IndianaGreen]

13. You obviously have not read it!

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[maggrwaggr]

28. a fantasy. Even children have a pecking order, levels of status

among a group. And they're not dealing with money or production of goods.

I say watch children if you want a primer on basic human nature.

People forget to do that.

Marx had a fantasy. It was a nice fantasy, but it was a fantasy. Human nature will never allow his utopia to happen. It's like thinking people will never be jealous if we all have sex with each other.

[blindpig]

44. the thing about humans is we can exceed our hardwiring

yeah, we are a hierarchial species, but that doesn't mean we're stuck with it. After all, behaviors such as cannibalism and infanticide,not uncommon in earlier human societies are rare and considered beyond the pall today. Hell, we're even working on rape and sexism! If our species is not able to transend inappropriate instincts we're doomed to destroy our civilization, or possibly our species or the biosphere.

[maggrwaggr]

48. you make an interesting point but .....

38 percent of the population is the type of temperment type known as the "guardian" type. These folks actually WANT someone in status above them, with authority, telling them how to live their lives.

Of course, along with that they also believe in having people below them in rank in the heirarchy who are supposed to take their orders.

Think of cops and many military men. Without this heirarchy they can get very psychologically stressed out.

The people that ran the totalitarian governments after communist revolutions were more than likely also this type.

[worldgonekrazy]

53. Where do children learn behavior?

Because behavior is learned...virtually all of it.

So yeah, if they grow up in our kind of society, they are going to end up the same way. But don't think that means that it couldn't be any other way.

[karlschneider]

21. Snicker. You remind me of the phonetic resemblance between

bourgeois and bush-wa.

It might behoove you to consider the similarity of Marxian philosophy and that of a rather well-known icon called Jesus. If you're willing to go to the trouble, you could have your very own epiphany and not even need to travel to Damascus.

[Orangepeel]

8. I read it in college. n/t

[many a good man]

9. Its a great book

You know, I bet about 98% of Americans have no idea what Marxism really is about. He didn't mean for it to be totalitarian. People really ought to refresh their memories with a little background on what conditions were like in mid-19th century industrial society and then read this book. It really is quite idealistic.

"Communism" was supposed to be the last stage in a long process of the progression of human society. Its ultimate goal was a classless society, a materialistically prosperous version of the "primitive" communism practiced by pre-contact Native Americans. Its attainment could only be reached by replacing selfishness with altruism.

Its a classic work that should interest anyone concerned with social justice. Of course, there is much to criticize about it (even Marx came to disagree with some of it before he died) but it will make you think more deeply about society and what can be done to make it better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. the ironic part is that the GOP

nnd Cheap Labor conservs want to return us to the SAME CONDITIONS
that led to the writing of Das Kapital.

Ironic

I know

[maggrwaggr]

27. no joke! Communism was a perfect karmic response to industrialism

and the nasty side effects of unregulated capitalism.

These people are blind to that. Fools.

[mmm]

14. LOVE IT!

True, all true

[schultzee]

15. I read it when I was in colleg a long time ago.

[Solly Mack]

16. Me. Me. Me

long time ago...

[jbm]

17. I think that the descriptions of

social and class structures and struggles are very accurate,but if I'm remembering right,it then makes a leap and tries to solve the problem by redefining property and making it communal.I think that solution goes against human nature and makes the theory unworkable. It does a great job of explaining the basis of the conflicts though.

[Tyler Durden]

19. Communal Property against human nature?

You mean like the highly stable and long lasting Native American Cultures, and their inability to fathom ownership of property?

Yep. Guess you're right. Never work. NOT.

[jbm]

22. ok..good point..

It actually crossed my mind as I was writing the response that communal property would not be a bad idea IF the culture was such that it would accept such a thing. Theoretically it may be possible,but realistically it's not going to work in our culture. I love the way the manifesto illustrates the problem,but it doesn't offer us a workable solution.

[maggrwaggr]

25. it depends on what you're referring to as communal property

Look at human nature and you'll see that people love to own things and call them their own.

This is especially evident in children. As children grow up, they don't change that much. Everybody wants their own personal stuff. From culture to culture that changes, but it is human nature to want your own stuff.

That was the biggest problem with the theory of communism.

I believe the native Americans could be a bit territorial as well, buddy. You're over romanticizing them.

[Character Assassin]

40. Hey, nice romantacized generalization

You mean like the highly stable and long lasting Native American Cultures, and their inability to fathom ownership of property?

Ah, I see. So not one subset of Native American cultures had even the slighest concept of private property?

Fa, it is to laugh.

[many a good man]

43. Property is not a laughing matter

Marx clearly distinguishes between private and personal property. If not in the Manifesto, then certainly later. Your oversimplification on this point only points to your ignorance. I don't mean that as a slam, but rather just that you would do better to explore it more deeply.

Marx and Engels were deeply influenced by Native Americans' concepts of wealth and social responsibility, albeit the somewhat romanticized notion that was predominant in most intellectual circles. In most eastern woodlands cultures, property (land, at least) was held communally but individuals often took responsibility for or "ownership" of one section, at least within the tribal unit. The bounty was to a large extent shared with those in need.

Personal property was held, but the concept of "wealth" was very different than that of western societies. Instead of wealth being attained through hoarding, wealth was determined by how much personal property one can give away. Thus wealth was determined by generosity, not by accumulation. Concepts like this flourish in a society that understands that the group is stronger when it cooperates than it is when it acts purely in self-interest.

[Character Assassin]

46. What are you talking about?

Marx clearly distinguishes between private and personal property. If not in the Manifesto, then certainly later.

I'm not disputing that. I was addressing the poster's comments on Native Americans.

Your oversimplification on this point only points to your ignorance. I don't mean that as a slam, but rather just that you would do better to explore it more deeply.

I'm quite familiar with the text, thanks.

Marx and Engels were deeply influenced by Native Americans' concepts of wealth and social responsibility, albeit the somewhat romanticized notion that was predominant in most intellectual circles.

'Deeply' influenced? I see no evidence of that. Hegel, sure, but Native Americans? Got a link?

In most eastern woodlands cultures, property (land, at least) was held communally but individuals often took responsibility for or "ownership" of one section, at least within the tribal unit. The bounty was to a large extent shared with those in need.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I was addressing.

[many a good man]

47. American Indian influence

Sorry, it appeared to me that the poster you were replying to did not understand Marx's distinction between personal and private property. It struck me that you were mocking him. If you were aware of this distinction I would have thought that you would bring it up instead of mocking.

Its still not clear to me exactly what you were addressing.

As far as links to the influence of Native American thought I'm sorry if I can't recommend any specific links as I learned of this before the Internet really got going. I had a political economy professor from Poland in the early '80s who was exiled because he came down between the Communist hardliners and the Solidarity advocates. He spent the first couple of weeks in class teaching the fundamental concepts of Marxism in the way it was taught in the eastern bloc. It was quite fascinating to say the least.

He discussed the Native American influence on Engels and Marx over a few beers in the tavern after class. He also pointed it out in class when discussing primitive communism. Here is a link or two I found by googling:

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pen-l/jan98/0027.html
http://www.mayanastro.freeservers.com/engels1.html

[maggrwaggr]

52. some things only work in a tribal context

and I think that's one of them.

Nations are too large for this.

I feel we are hard-wired to lean toward a tribal utopia in a way.

Thus the success of almost all sitcoms such as Friends, Cheers, Mash .... the list could go on and on.

These are all tribal fantasies.

We all long for that now, I think. Unfortunately in a world where every stranger you meet might be a criminal or might be a good guy, well, the tribal thing just ain't gonna happen.

[Tyler Durden]

18. copy on the shelf.

Next to DAS KAPITAL, the GITAS, the UPADISHADS, BOOK OF FIVE RINGS, THE RED BOOK OF MAO, and THE ART OF WAR. They are right next to my copies of FOXFIRE 1-5, HOMEMADE POWER, BARN BUILDING, and EMERGENCY MEDICINE AND SURGERY.

That way, they can be collected in a hurry.

Nothing wrong with modern capitalism as practised by this country that a revolution of the proletariat wouldn't cure.

[maggrwaggr]

29. uh ... exactly which country might be your role model?

or is your role model a fantasy one that has not yet existed?

Just wondering.

I'm not averse to revolution if done for the right reasons. I just don't think a communist revolution is the way to go. It hasn't had a real high success rate.

[Touchdown]

20. No. but I just finished Starship Troopers

Talk about manifesto!:scared:

[maggrwaggr]

26. I think about that movie more and more

at the time it was made I thought it was odd and strange and a bit silly

Now it seems weirdly prescient. Just replace the bugs with terrorists and you've got Amerikka 2004.

[solinvictus]

23. I own it

Bakunin heckled Marx in their day as being a forerunner to a centralized and intrusive state. I agree with Bakunin completely because Marx's works seem to have little regard for the individual unless as they exist as part of the collective.

[Scott Lee]

24. I had to read it in college

It was a walk in the park compared to the four volumes of Das Kapital that we had to read for another class.

[Selwynn]

30. I have. There's nothing horrible about it ...

...in theory.

And you know, I think Marx made a lot of correct and appropriate critiques of captialism. However, as we all know communisim in its practical manifestations seems to more frequently fail at acheiving its idealistic ends. It becomes yet another system of corrupt power.

The real problem isn't so much the weaknesses of any one political system. The real problem is the weaknesses of the human heart which undercut even the best intentions - every single time.

How's that for holiday cheer :P

[w4rma]

32. Never read it. But, I'll scan through it over the next few days.

I'm a bit curious as to what the thing actually says. Wars have been fought and many people have died opposing or siding with this thing. It has been either held aloft or demonized by many. It has been both used as propaganda and targeted by propaganda.

Of course one can say the same thing about Mein Kampf, which I haven't gotten around to browsing through, either. Polar opposites of the economic political spectrum.

[IndianaGreen]

35. I read Mein Kampf when I was in high school

I wish everyone had read that damned book before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. Hitler was quite clear about his intentions towards Europe, social democrats, and Jews in that book. Lives could have been saved had people seen Hitler for the threat that he really was.

We made the same mistake in America when we underestimated Bush, calling him goofy and referring to him as the Chimp. Bush is truly a very evil man!

[Selwynn]

37. Don't think that comparison is fair.

[IndianaGreen]

38. I wasn't comparing Manifesto to Mein Kampf

I was describing my surprise at how clear Hitler was about his racism and designs on Europe in Mein Kampf. I wondered then, as I do now, if more people had read Mein Kampf early enough, would Hitler had been stopped before he did any serious harm.

Marx's Manifesto is a totally different topic.

[SheilaT]

33. I have.

About twenty-five years ago for a political sociology class.

[MSchreader]

34. I make a point of reading it regularly

About once every six months or so.

It's strange, though. I've probably read it about three dozen times, and each time I pick up something new in it. Without fail. My recommendation to people reading it for the first time -- or the 101st time -- is to do so slowly, taking in the implications (and thinking through what was going through Marx and Engels' minds when they wrote it) at each step.

Here's another link to it (including prefaces, etc.): http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

Martin

[DivinBreuvage]

36. I'm GOING to read it as a result of this thread

It sounds like any other political book: some ideas that make a lot of sense (so long as they're not carried too far), mixed with a certain degree of nonsense. I suppose I'll be attacked for saying this, but even Mein Kampf contains a few astute observations, not that those observations make up for the general viciousness and emptiness of the book or the colossal disaster that resulted when the author came to power.

In fact it would be far more remarkable if any tremendously influential figure such as a Marx or Hitler had absolutely nothing to offer but meaningless unadulterated drivel. But the mere thought of even having looked into such a possibility, as some other posters have pointed out already, is horror and anathema to the always enlightened and virtuous public -- sometimes even on DU. Don't give me the facts, my mind is made up!

I read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli a few months back. I expected to be shocked. But all along I kept asking myself, "Is this it? Is this 'The Murderous Machiavel' who was supposed to be so ruthless, so diabolically amoral?" The book was harmless. Machiavelli wasn't advocating anything that any ruler of his time or since hasn't enthusiastically indulged in; in fact Machiavelli was a good deal more temperate than many. His only fault is, Machiavelli dares to say it. And that's what horrifies everyone. That's the sin that cannot be forgiven. Not that evil is done, but that someone actually has the unmitigated gall to admit that it's done, and by inference that all of us are implicated in it. That is the great unforgiveable crime to the human race.

We are all children. We all love to stop our ears on something.

(edited for typo)

[ProfessorGAC]

41. I've Read It. What Was The Point Of Your Question?

The Professor

[loudnclear]

42. Here is is link for those of you who would like to use it.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=communist+manifesto&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D783ec8480b3f2247%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D3%26amp%3BuserQuery%3Dcommunist%2Bmanifesto%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fcsf.colorado.edu%252Fpsn%252Fmarx%252FArchive%252F1848-CM%252F%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fcsf.colorado.edu%2Fpsn%2Fmarx%2FArchive%2F1848-CM%2F

[loudnclear]

45. I think this except says it all

"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to
all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn
asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural
superiors", and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked
self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most
heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of
philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.
It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the
numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single,
unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation,
veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked,
shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."

[maggrwaggr]

54. can't argue with that

again it's a perfect karmic reaction to his "free trade"

Karma: cause and affect.

[Retrograde]

49. "all that is holy is profaned"

Apt words for this time of year.

I regret to say that I first read it only a year ago - I was scared off by Das Kapital in a German translation class many years ago. The Manifesto is surprisingly easy to read: must be Engel's work.

linda

[wanderingbear]

50. I dont agree with all of it ,but

there is some very interesting and useabe ideas in it.

[FDRrocks]

51. Good book, many people do not realize...

how badly misrepresented Marx's ideas have been in real life. His idea wasn't that people should revolt, but that the world Capitalist system would collapse upon itself and bring.... Communism, basically a return to humanity.

Very good read, very passionate words.