Scan barcode
falconintherye's review against another edition
5.0
"a specter is haunting europe - the specter of communism"
one of the best introduction sentences ever. it really gives me the chills fr i love it
one of the best introduction sentences ever. it really gives me the chills fr i love it
the_laibararian's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
lizziestudieshistory's review against another edition
2.0
Firstly, I should say that I fundamentally disagree with Communism, particularly for a modern political ideology and a framework of theoretical analysis for any period but the 19th century.
Secondly, I read this for my masters theory module to explore the roots of Marxism as a theory for class analysis, not a political ideology.
Communism is, in theory, a nice set of deluded ideas. It is a lovely idea that people could rise up, throw off oppression, and establish a utopian equal society. It fails to recognise a crucial aspect of human nature: our inherent selfishness. Not many people (I'm sure there are a select few) would voluntarily give of privileged power for the common good if they can exploit their position for their, and their loved ones, good.
As an academic theory to research class conflict Marxism is a useful framework for a limited perspective. If used in conjuction with Weberian class analysis it is potentially very beneficial. It can allow us to explore the relationship between classes; how classes are formed and maintained, how class identity can be regulated and enforced through systems like opportunity hoarding.
However, this only really works in modern history, or at least I would argue it does, Marxism (or Communism) is incredibly limited to a certain set of conditions as the text itself recognises in the case of Germany. It requires an industrial boom/revolution. It requires the fast production of new methods of building capital (money) by a middle class in order to overthrow the aristocracy, and create the middle (bourgeois) and working (proletariat) classes. This is a late 18th and 19th century phenomenon - at least for Europe which is what I can speak for with some confidence.
As such Marxism doesn't work for most periods prior to the industrial revolution. I am going to say this very loudly because Marx and Engels anmlyed me. THE BRITISH CIVIL WAR IS NOT MARXIST REVOLUTION.
Marxism doesn't work the period. It was a religious and political based uprising that temporarily installed an oligarchy (not bourgeois class) and the system eventually restored to a monarchy...
We can extrapolate a rough framework to examine class formation and relationships, but Marxism, as it's presented in the Manifesto, is dead. It's an obsolete framework that only works for analysis of the 19th/20th centuries at best. Marxism needs to be combined with other theoretical frameworks to give the historian a proper means to perform class analysis.
Secondly, I read this for my masters theory module to explore the roots of Marxism as a theory for class analysis, not a political ideology.
Communism is, in theory, a nice set of deluded ideas. It is a lovely idea that people could rise up, throw off oppression, and establish a utopian equal society. It fails to recognise a crucial aspect of human nature: our inherent selfishness. Not many people (I'm sure there are a select few) would voluntarily give of privileged power for the common good if they can exploit their position for their, and their loved ones, good.
As an academic theory to research class conflict Marxism is a useful framework for a limited perspective. If used in conjuction with Weberian class analysis it is potentially very beneficial. It can allow us to explore the relationship between classes; how classes are formed and maintained, how class identity can be regulated and enforced through systems like opportunity hoarding.
However, this only really works in modern history, or at least I would argue it does, Marxism (or Communism) is incredibly limited to a certain set of conditions as the text itself recognises in the case of Germany. It requires an industrial boom/revolution. It requires the fast production of new methods of building capital (money) by a middle class in order to overthrow the aristocracy, and create the middle (bourgeois) and working (proletariat) classes. This is a late 18th and 19th century phenomenon - at least for Europe which is what I can speak for with some confidence.
As such Marxism doesn't work for most periods prior to the industrial revolution. I am going to say this very loudly because Marx and Engels anmlyed me. THE BRITISH CIVIL WAR IS NOT MARXIST REVOLUTION.
Marxism doesn't work the period. It was a religious and political based uprising that temporarily installed an oligarchy (not bourgeois class) and the system eventually restored to a monarchy...
We can extrapolate a rough framework to examine class formation and relationships, but Marxism, as it's presented in the Manifesto, is dead. It's an obsolete framework that only works for analysis of the 19th/20th centuries at best. Marxism needs to be combined with other theoretical frameworks to give the historian a proper means to perform class analysis.