EBC Book #3 - Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels

Someone finally figured me out after all these posts

For those reading the Penguin edition with the long introduction, how enlightening is this introduction? Personally, I've had a few "a ha" moments:

1. Generally speaking, the "path to Marxism," e.g. Hegelianism, Humanism, Chartism, etc. is now much more clear.

2. The massive role Engels played is also interesting. It almost seems at points that promoting the phrase "proletariat" and being the true radical were Marx' greatest contributions. Engels pretty much got to what is outlined in the Manifesto on his own. Marx was the one who turned it from a collection of ideas into a political philosophy.

3. Communism is the politics. Socialism is the economics. It would appear you can have S without C, but not C without S.

4. The contribution each of the Big 3 in Europe made to an intertwined Communist framework and the different routes they each took to get to the same point. For England, it was social. For France, it was political. For Germany, it was philosophical.

5. Individualism and subjectivity are what Marx and Engels despised about Christianity. This may seem ironic, since Christianity would tell you there is an objective moral order to the world and that we should all be one community (or Church). But Christianity doesn't mandate these principles through the barrel of a gun. It gives humans free will. Thus, the power and enforceability of the State must replace the free will of the Church if Communism is to stand a chance, after which point the commune would make the state irrelevant (according to Marx). It seems most forms of Communism since Marx have perverted this latter point and Communism has been used to increase the power of the state, not reduce it.

This is one example in our economics book club where it would be natural to take an historical deep dive into what was going on in England, France and Germany in the early-mid 1800s that became such a breeding ground for an anti-Church, anti-state, anti-individualism philosophy. While I'm sure we've all read something about this period, I think to read it through a "socioeconomic" and not just "historical" lens may be rewarding.

Obviously, the transition from a feudal system was tremendously sloppy, but I get the sense that sloppiness is what caused Marx and Engels to dismiss classical liberalism as opposed to the merits of classical liberalism itself.

Here's the ISBN:

0140447571

It's the one with the intro by Gareth Stedman Jones

It's a good point. He views the relationship between labor and capital as a zero-sum game, which is not necessarily the case. All labor isn't equal, and some will result in greater "augmentation of capital" than others, which should demand a higher price in a free market. He views all labor as an identical commodity, but then says regardless of this, labor ultimately has the bargaining power since capital requires labor and labor should thus use said bargaining power to demand a better outcome for themselves.

The problem is that while representing labor he is reducing laborers to nothing more than mere cattle. But remember, individualism was anathema to these folks, so they likely didn't have the ability to recognize human exceptionalism in the first place. While Communism didn't spread like Marx predicted, this is still the foundation for much of modern fiscally liberal thought in our world.

Thanks for putting the list together. It's interesting to see which of those that haven't been implemented yet are still receiving airtime today. This was more of a historical read than anything, but I think it's an important one for a complete understanding of modern economic thought. I really wish you'd have found a copy with the introduction - it was really good in that it ties together the social, political, philosophical, economic and religious context of the day in an attempt to understand where Marx was coming from. If you seriously wanted to read it, I could scan the pages or just mail you a copy of my book. I imagine any university library near you would also have a copy you could read for free.

quote:

---

To that, Marx might respond that we don't need much of the innovation we produce. For instance, Marx might argue that perhaps it's our consumption-based economy that makes things like fidget spinners desirable in the first place.

---

I agree that Marx might say that. But I wonder if he would recognize the power of the bourgeoise in demanding fidget spinners. It could of course be argued that capitalists create unnecessary demand via marketing strategies, but that argument risks belittling the intelligence of those who are most susceptible to such strategies. The argument could risk undermining his own philosophy.

The lessons for economic planners to take away from fads like fidget spinners as well as capitalists repurposing technology without central planners directing it (ex: microwave ovens coming from experiments with radar technology) is that much good can from decentralizing economic planning.

One of the newer fields to economic understanding is behavioral economics, which is basically encouraging a better understanding of consumer behavior (the bourgeoise). I'd love to see how modern Marxists view this field as well as the concepts introduced by this field, such as libertarian paternalism .