townesvanfaulkner

Writing Style-2.0
Originality-7.3
Plot-N/A
Enjoyability-5.5
Merit(whatever that means)-8.1
Overall-5.2

Ah, we finally have our first TVF non-fiction selection. Don’t worry, others are on the way. I just haven’t been as in the mood for non-fiction the last few months.

I think the Communist Manifesto is a pretty intriguing selection to kick off the non-fiction section of townesvanfaulkner with. I’ve been wanting to read it for some time now to see what all the fuss is about. I’ve often wondered, am I a communist?, am I a socialist?, am I a social-democrat?, am I a democrat?, am I a capitalist?, etc. In other words, I know that I’m pretty far to the left, but just how far, I’m not sure. So naturally, I’m intrigued by the philosophy and history behind leftist governments. And I must confess I’m pretty new to the subject, but I thought this was a pretty good jumping off point. So here goes.

Ok, my first impression is that throughout the book I would find myself reading one paragraph and going, “Yes, that’s exactly right! Amen, comrade.” And then the next paragraph would totally lose me and I’d go, “Dude that would never work.” or, “No, I don’t agree with that at all.” So it’s pretty much what I had expected going in. I dug the down-with-the-Man-up-with-the-common-worker sentiment, but then it would take it too far or wouldn’t give a realistic road map of how we go about setting up a society that truly fairly distributes wealth and/or power.

But, at least, it’s a step in the right direction. At least it recognizes the inherent evil in societies and governments that actively work to maintain social castes and power structures as they are. I sort of feel about communism the same way I have felt about the space shuttle for years. Sure the space shuttle is way more expensive and way more dangerous than they planned for it to be. And it doesn’t take off nearly as many times per year. And it doesn’t produce very good science. But, the long term goal of sending people into space reliably may very well pay off for mankind. So, there’s a learning curve there. We can look at the shuttle and say it’s a piece of junk and that humans have no business in space and forget it or we can chalk it up to the fact that it was the first try at a non-disposable vehicle. I sort of feel the same way about communism/socialism. It’s been a disaster so far, but there are lessons to be learned there and we shouldn’t give up on the goal of a fair (for lack of a better word) society.

Okay, some other criticisms of the Communist Manifesto. At times, it is terribly hard to follow. Unless you know some serious European history, I think that you will have trouble grasping some of the historical examples entailed. The book is rife with sweeping statements about some bourgeois society in some age in some country and then they move on to some other sweeping statement. I found myself wanting concrete examples to illuminate their points. For instance, they might make one of these statements and then tell how in France in 1752 King So-and-so did this or that and it was bad, thus proving our point. But they never do this. It comes across more as ranting and raving without firm historical examples to back up their assertions. They use language to make it feel as though they are speaking with great historical knowledge or a great deal of logical/scientific forethought, but the concrete examples or logical proofs just aren’t there. I don’t know much about Marx and Engels’ backgrounds but, it sort of feels like it’s written by lawyers instead of political scientists or historians.

Next, let’s look at some quotes and some examples to illustrate what I’m talking about. First, I think the greatest thing about the book, again, is the recognition and importance placed on class antagonisms and their history and the goal of doing away with them.

1. “In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed—a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.”

I’m particularly impressed with this second paragraph. It seems very prescient coming from a book published in 1888. We’ve seen the charm and pride in work decrease steadily from the days of tradesmen to industrial labourers. And with this, so goes people’s self-esteem and so goes family life and so forth. It follows with:

2. “Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.”

3. “No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants—all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.”

Again, I am particularly impressed with the second paragraph here. It foresees a disappearance of the middle class when laissez faire capitalism has been allowed to run rampant. Here’s more insight into capitalism’s flaws:

4. “Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells…”

5. “It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce… …The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.”

I’m reminded here of the Great Depression that occurs 41 years after this was written. Where a great economic boom in the 1920’s led to a concentration of wealth, which in turn, led to the market’s destabilization and then a necessary destruction of “productive forces”. I also key in on the statement that to avoid this, capitalism must constantly be in conquest of new markets or exploit old ones. For instance, it is no longer adequate for companies to simply turn a profit. They must constantly improve upon last year’s profits to stay viable. For instance, as huge and successful as Microsoft is, it is not satisfactory in this economic climate to continue to sell Windows PC’s at the same rate year after year and have their stock price hover at $25-$30 per share. No, they must constantly be expanding and return a profit, not on what they produce, but on the investments that people have made in them. Their options become either exploiting new markets (hope that the xbox 360 sells considerably more than the original xbox) or exploit their employees through layoffs or benefit cutbacks—or the third option of pulling an Enron and misleading investors into thinking they are doing better than they really are (but when the cover is blown here, all the employees lose their retirement savings). The capitalist in me would argue that this competition creates cooler video gaming systems, but still, it’s pretty scary really what companies are pushed to do in the name of returning profits on investments. I mean how long can the market continue to expand? And what drastic measures does society have to take in order to preserve this expansion? For instance, expansion into other countries or more exploitation of the proletariat, dwindling of the middle class, concentration of wealth, disaster.

So what is the communist solution?

6. “The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”

Okay down with the Man. I’m cool with that. And then:

7. “…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Huh? Does this mean I have to share my new Xbox 360 with my neighbors?

8. “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.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.”

Yes, I am horrified. And, I’m sorry, what about my xbox?

The Communist Manifesto is rife with paragraphs like this second one, where they don’t really make an argument they simply shrug you off saying, “Enough with your bourgeois attitude, your complaints mean nothing because you are of the bourgeoisie. Moving on!” Another good example of this:

9. “The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.”

10. “It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.”

Here’s a good list that the Manifesto offers of steps that a Communist government would take:

1. “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes”
2. “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”
3. “Abolition of all right of inheritance.”
4. “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels”
5. “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
6. “Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.”
7. “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”
8. “Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”
9. “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”
10. “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.”

Some of these I’m cool with and some are just plain crazy. And this leads us to the greatest critique of communism—that it leads to despotism. Check out this quote:

“Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

And there it is. The fatal flaw. In other words, with Communism, anything goes for the sake of the cause. Individuals don’t matter. A great read that I should recommend here is Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. It’s about precisely this.

One final critique—who the hell is the audience here? I mean I understand that this book has been influential and all, but if it’s supposed to be a wake-up call to the proletariat shouldn’t they have made it a little easier for an under-educated working man to follow?

So in summation, what we have here is a beautiful, rousing call to action on the part of the proletariat to seize power from the bourgeois. Then we have a very insightful, cogent, prophetic critique of capitalism and it’s particular, peculiar flaws. But, what I don’t see, is a comprehensive solution. Instead, I see a blueprint for how a despot can take advantage of demagoguery to seize power and then do whatever he pleases in the name of the long-term cause. I also see a comical reluctance to answer critics of Communism who have some pretty valid points.

I don’t know if this is really a book review anymore. Not sure what the hell this is. But fuck it, it’s my blog bitches.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!