There are an infinite number of reviews of this book, mostly in the form of essays that appear in the front of books that also contain the Manifesto. I think these essays mostly serve to pad the book, since the Manifesto itself is only about 30 pages (plus another 15 if they include all the prefaces to every edition of the thing). I will not attempt a full analysis; there are plenty of other sources for that.
I give this book a "strong 0," meaning it is bordering on a "+." It is well worth reading as a historical document, but I can't hide my disappointment in it. There is less to get out of it than you might think.
It is worth noting that this is essentially a marketing document. When Marx wrote about a unified proletariat, seething with bitterness toward the bourgeosie, fully recognizing that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"-- he was not writing what was true at the time. He was writing what he wanted to create. There was no Communist Party in 1848; Marx was trying to found one, so he wrote a "manifesto" and claimed that it had been drawn up by an elite group of Communists meeting in London. Actually, he himself dashed off the Manifesto in a matter of weeks.
The Communist Manifesto was further used for marketing by Lenin in 1917. The Russian proletariat did not read the Manifesto and rise up as Marx always imagined -- most lower class Russians in 1917 were illiterate! Lenin wanted to stage a revolution, so he cast about for propaganda, and conveniently found Marx's manifesto. He interpreted it for the Russian people, turning it into political rhetoric.
Knowing that takes some of the steam out of this document. But anyway, what is Marx saying? He is reacting against the rise of the Industrial Age, which is causing factories to spring up in areas that used to be dominated by family farms. People are working hard at fairly repetitive tasks, with less time to spend with family. Increasingly, they do not directly benefit from their work, but rather exchange their labor for a monetary wage. Marx suspects that society is bifurcating into those who own capital (the bourgeosie) and those who must "sell themselves" to fuel industrial production (the proletariat). The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Marx's vision is that the proletariat will rise up against their bosses and engage in a final revolution that will end all revolutions. Class boundaries, which Marx believes are the cause of all strife, will be dissolved. Harmony will be established through a central State that ensures fairness for all by disallowing the ownership of private capital. (Note that he doesn't quite say private property, although that's what we all think of today).
I am trying to be careful about imposing too much historical knowledge and present-day prejudice on the Manifesto-- after all, I know Communism has largely failed, while capitalism, despite its many problems, remains "the worst system except for all the others." But still, there are many problems with Marx's text that can't be overlooked. I won't go through them all, but here are a couple:
Marx is very inconsistent about national identity. He curses the fact that evil bourgeosie factories are reducing local cultural identity through the establishment of a "global" economy. And yet, he also asserts that workers everywhere are more like each other than they are like the bourgeosie, and that's a good thing. (So it's beneficial for workers to be united globally, but not the economy?). But then he backs away from the concept of unified workers and has a whole section on how the Great Revolution will have to take different forms in different countries because of their differing cultural histories. So which is it?
And finally, we are left with the concept of the overarching State-- which he never quite locates in space (is it all of Europe? Or will there be different Communist States for each nationality?). This is very confusing. Apparently Marx wants to have his cake and protest against it too.
Also, who is this mysterious "State"? Governments are run by real people in offices. They are elected, or they grab power, or whatever, but there are actual people executing the matters of State. Marx provides no means to install these people in their positions, nor provisions such as checks and balances or term limits to prevent their assuming more power than an ideal Communist ought to. (And we all know what happened in reality...). Anyway, this part of his Grand Vision seemed especially weak. As if government was a "detail" that didn't need much attention. (Yet another flaw with believing that everything is about class).
Anyway, it's a thin little book, in many ways. Take a look if you're curious. I think the Manifesto's main appeal is historical-- it shows what sorts of reactions came about as a result of Industrialization, which was, after all, a major shake-up for society. And Marx's ideas, even if half-formed in the Manifesto, took hold among many societies worldwide over the next century-and-a-half. It even affected the United States in quite profound ways throughout the Cold War era, and particularly through McCarthyism. That's a pretty impressive legacy.
And finally, don't forget that we are currently living through another great societal shake-up: the transition out of Industrialism into The Information Economy. Don't fool yourself into believing that there will be no political ramifications; people are already starting to react to the different cultural conditions that are sweeping the globe. Maybe a 30-page leaflet (or web page) will spawn the next revolution, changing the political landscape in ways that we haven't imagined yet.
Copyright © Kim Allen 2000
