I read the Communist Manifesto in 10th grade and it's definitely interesting to experience a different reading 10 years later.
The opening arguments were very powerful and provoking to me: due to Europe's tendency to cry 'Communist!' when faced with any kind of opposition, the Communist party is already affirmed as a power because it is a threat. I wonder when and where this 'fear' began. Was it immediately with the fall of feudalism? or was it at the onset of Modern Industry?
As for the work as a whole, I feel it's very idealistic, which I know is not an original criticism, especially given the historical outcomes of its attempted implementation. It's kinda like the first date I went on with this Canadian guy when after some drinks he confesses his dream of a world without money - so naive that I didn't even find it cute. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all about Capitalism - I don't believe that any pure system works. Hybridity is the way of future relevancy becacuse it gives systems the necessary flexibility adapt and develop in an ever-changing world.
Even though I have some prior knowledge of this theory, I have never used it in my literary analysis. Even though, Marx talks a lot about exploitation slavery, which are pertinent to my field of postcolonial Caribbean and West African literature, I feel like many of his claims are too extreme. They are like the Negritude of postcolonial African and Caribbean because in denying or demolishing the Other, you are intrinsically destroying a part of yourself, which, for better or for worse, has historically shaped your identity. Since Negritude, other theories have been proposed, such as Antillanite, in which, the realities of the past are recognized but not revenged.
I will have to disagree on some points by putting myself in Marx's shoes:
ReplyDelete1) The idea of a socialist society as idealistic or utopian dream is very much a idea born of Capitalist dogma. Just like those living in a feudalism system could not imagine world not shaped or motivated by feudalist motives, those living in a capitalist society cannot realistically fanthom a world without capitalism. But as the Communist Manifesto argues, if people's values have changed radically in the past,they are can certainly change again radically in the future.
2)And not to go all Ron Paul on you, but the idea of a world without money, in a litteral sense is entirely possible. Paper with people's face on it has not always been the dominant mode of currency. Grain, metals (gold and silver) used to be the norm at some point or another in history. That type of currency had their problems and money replaced them. But money itself is not without problems (the main one being that money is worthless in its own without the government's fiat or order). So it is possible to replace this flawed system with another one.
3) My other point is about Négritude. And on this I am bias because the Negritude movement in the Caribbean is an inherent part of my identity. Négritude, for me, wasn't really about the destruction of the Other, it was about the quest and revalorisation of the Self. How could you try to destroy the Other if for centuries you were only defined by the "Other" and only existed in function of "The Other"? To even have a concept of the 'Other' there needs to be a concept of the Self, the 'I' and that identity was missing. Slaves were not "I" they were "it". Hence the Négritude movement. It was really never about demolishing the Other but about trying to find a way to define ourselves without the intrusive and racist perspective of the "Other". Only when we could define that Self could we start evaluating the "apport" of the Other. Négritude paved the way for what you view as a "less-extreme" perspective.
So you are suggesting, a world free of money is an issue to be brought in only by a drunk mind? I was thinking to ask you out but now I have to reconsider it! lol (just kidding). Anyway, think it is totally possible and as Marie says, capitalistic societies cannot think of a world different to the one capitalism has shaped. Therefore, for Americans Cubans are the "others", without considering that for Cubans there's no need of all the "necessary" things capitalism has brought to the lives of Americans. For example, comunist societies don't need to compete for having a better house becuase they all have the same house. Now, isn't property an ideology? What else do you need beyond a place to live, food and clothes?? Does a title of property make you sleep better than I sleep in my rented place? Whether is form the state or my own, the point is to satisfy my needs. What I think is that capitalism has brought more misery to the world than comunism has. Cheers!
ReplyDelete"As for the work as a whole, I feel it's very idealistic."
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be help if you could point to specific parts of the text that you think are idealistic, and explain what you mean by this.
Indeed, in general basing your reading in the text itself would really help.