Friedrich Engels (1820–1895)

I got a lovely old edition of this from the University Library. It has a slightly grudging introduction by Engels and appendices of resolutions by the General Council of the International Working Men's Association. Most interestingly, there is a speech given by Lenin in 1908 on lessons from the Commune, which brings out the point that the initial French Revolution has begun a tide of European nationalism, but by the turn of the 20th century patriotic feeling had become damaging to the show more revolutionary cause. This is also notable as the international significance of the Commune seems to be judged by history as much smaller than the 1789-94 revolution. Which is emphasised, I suppose, by the title of this book, 'The Civil War in France'. Although the Commune had geopolitical significance, its ideas didn't reverberate around the world in the same way as those of the initial ('Great') French Revolution.

As Lenin was speaking decades after the Commune, his tone is measured. Marx's central work, by contrast, is very angry indeed. It consists of an address delivered mere days after the fall of the Commune. He spends quite a bit of it personally abusing Thiers, the French president he holds personally responsible for the repression of the Commune and resulting wholesale slaughter. More broadly, his analysis brings home the sheer complexity of political factionalism in France at the time. It also highlights the achievements of the Commune's short lifespan, which were impressively pragmatic economic and administrative reforms.

As mentioned before, it is fascinating to compare the 1789-1794 revolution with the Paris Commune, which could be seen as a later manifestation of the former's ideas. What strikes me, in this commentary and elsewhere, is that the first revolution was one of young, idealistic men, whereas the Commune consisted of middle aged men, disillusioned by war and political infighting. Whereas strong personalities emerged from 1789-1794, there is no Robespierre or Danton in 1871. That said, the Commune didn't last long enough, managing a mere 70 days, for this happen. Moreover, you could argue that the lack personality politics demonstrates a more fundamental democracy was at work, a genuine 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Marx certainly really doesn't single out particular Communards for praise, despite excoriating many on the other side by name.

I recommend this book to supplement your understanding of the Paris Commune and its immediate aftermath, but not as an introduction. Marx assumes total understanding of events straight off. I suggest, 'That Terrible Year' by Alaistair Horne as a good starting point. show less

Everything that seemed abstract and difficult to comprehend, is today clear. As we are living through yet another crisis of late capitalism, the sheer bestiality of the ruling class which clings to its privilege at the cost of billions of lives (and that's only human lives) is on spectacle for the most willfully blind to see.

The mass of wage earners is sinking so the rich could scale to some pharaonic height on their corpses. The system is crashing so badly it, as the Manifesto predicted, show more has to feed the slaves instead of being fed by it--and that's IF the rulers decide we should be alive at all. Won't robots soon turn out to be better consumers too?

Precarious jobs between no jobs resulting in nothing but precarious existence, billions of people hanging on threads while a small group in power tells them they are free--free for what, free how? We are only free to vote to keep the rich around.

Anyone who feels they have a stake in human society ought to read this. Anyone who thinks they are a humanist, a good and moral person, anyone who gives charity but is pro-capitalist, ought to read this.

It's a brilliant book and it's everything you need to begin to understand what must be done if we love life, if we love life in everything living. show less

A thought provoking and landmark book. The Manifesto was a reaction against the industrial revolution and untethered capitalism, which resulted in extraordinarily unfair labor practices and a heavy skew between those few at the top of the economic pyramid, and those at the bottom who were shouldering the load. Perhaps that was always true throughout history, but post-Enlightenment, and in the 19th century in particular, leading thinkers and artists said, “enough.” Marx and Engels just show more took it a step further than others, by stating that all private property needed to be abolished and made collective.

How could they have taken such an extreme position? As Pozner says in the introduction: “Few people today have even the remotest idea of the horrors of mid-nineteenth-century labor. … Marx was sickened by what he saw, as were many others, among them Charles Dickens. But differing from everyone else, Marx set out to discover whether there was any rhyme or reason for this situation, any basic underlying motive for this state of affairs, anything resembling a law. … Where Marx differed from Thomas Jefferson and most other thinkers was in his certainty that a decent livelihood (the pursuit of happiness) was not possible without two basic elements: political equality and economic equality. … He may have been an idealist in believing that once the conditions of human existence were changed, once private ownership of property was abolished, once exploitation disappeared, people would change as well. He believed that in a society where there were no have-nots, where one’s livelihood did not depend on struggling to make money, where instead of competing against one another people worked together…”

In his list of ten measures to be taken by all nations, there are some that I agree with unequivocally and which you may take for granted today (progressive income tax, free education for all children in public schools), some that are arguable (abolition of inheritance, equal liability to all in labor), and some that I disagree with (abolition of private property, centralization of production by the State).

As Capitalism was extreme in 1848, so was Marx and Engel’s counter. They swung the pendulum too far the other way, and were too idealistic in doing so. Furthermore, they could not have foreseen what perverted forms their theories were to take in practice in the following century, where private ownership was replaced by state ownership, not public, and individual liberties were crushed by totalitarianism.

It was dangerous in its time to declare “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!.”, and it was dangerous more than a century later. Being branded a communist during the Cold War in America led to loss of work, black balling and exportation; the communists were “the enemy”, without much thought outside of intelligentsia as to what communism actually stood for. Read it for that.

Quotes:
“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.” show less

I've been so accustomed to Marx being demonized that I was surprised to hear his rational, warranted concern for the working class in society. His intent seems pure. That being said, I still disagree with his ideas on communism. Marx is right that the working class of his time (what we might now see in developing countries) needed proper representation but his solution is misguided. He also justifiably decries the income gap, but again his solution is misguided. This solution is an show more "overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy" and the "abolition of bourgeois property" (13). The result seems ideal, the working class now have representation and there is no longer an income gap. I might have been swayed at this point if I did not have history on my side. Communism has never been fully realized, and all of its offshoots were failures. This is because man is at heart acquisitive and self-centered. Where there might have been communism, leaders and administrations formed, as seen in Eastern Europe and Russia. Even in these pseudo-communist systems, black markets formed and were the most effective means of acquiring goods and services.

So while the conditions of developing nations may seem despicable, history has shown us that upholding private property and free markets as the goal has led to great advances in wealth and technology. While the impoverished still exist in America, Japan, England, and Australia, that number is extremely low in comparison to developing nations. Obviously we can see that the progression of private property and free markets leads to goods. Communism is an enticing idea—I actually wish it could work—but our nature does not allow it, history shows us this flaw in our character. With this evidence we should now be working to exploit this flaw for the betterment of society, not using the betterment of society as an incentive to work against mankind's character. show less