Liberal, Nazi, fascist, socialist, anarchist, communist...

Reading Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto is something I’ve been meaning to do on my own for quite some time, and this history class gave me the chance along with some academic motivation. I think it’s important to read and understand differing viewpoints, even if you have a pretty good idea that you’ll disagree with it before going in. I kept this in mind when reading The Communist Manifesto, and tried not to let my prejudice towards communism interfere with learning. What I gained most from my reading is a better understanding of the differences in varying forms of socialism, communism, and the ideas of Marx and Engels. It is easy to group these all together when discussing politics or government, and it is in my opinion that doing so is a huge mistake. This mislabeling of political ideas has always been an annoyance to me, and I think now it will be greater.

The most common perpetrators are unfortunately those with the greatest exposure: political commentators. On any given night, it’s easy to find Glenn Beck calling President Obama a socialist, or read an article online outlining all the reasons Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a fascist war criminal. This practice of broadly labeling political figures has rubbed off on the American People, and is evident in TV interviews or discussions with friends and family. It’s frustrating for me with what little knowledge I have, so I can’t imagine what it’s like for political scientists and economists to hear the misappropriation of political views constantly. Before the 2008 election, I spent a considerable amount of time watching candidate debates and reading commentary, but quickly realized this was going to be little help. Political “experts” were calling Barack Obama a liberal Nazi, which I didn’t know existed, and dismissing Ron Paul as a crazy old man, while I was 18 years old and agreed with much of what Paul had to say. Over time I learned to select my sources carefully, take everything with a grain of salt, and read opposing views. Then I could decide on my own.

So what I’m getting at with this blog post is the answer to the discussion question asking the purpose of The Communist Manifesto in a post-Communism world. My answer is to provide a direct source, and the opportunity to form your individual opinion instead of merely picking a second-hand idea you sort of agree with. I’m so glad we have the chance to read this and to really understand the basic principles of communism, socialism, and Marxism. I also champion the writings of people such as Hamilton and Hayek, who are once again the original source for many political ideas being currently practiced or that could possibly be practiced. I wish more people took the initiative to read these early writings, as I think it would end a great deal of confusion or for no other reason than to avoid sounding like a fool. Referring to a leader’s ideas under the wrong name in a political discussion is on the level of telling a friend you hope Tiger Woods hits a home run through the goal post, and that’s just awkward for everyone.

Cartoons are Supposed to be Funny

My parents, and particularly my dad, are avid newspaper readers. Growing up, they would always show me the political cartoons. As a child, I was much more interested in the caricatured interpretations of people I saw on TV than the message. They would explain them to me, and I wouldn’t think much more of it. As I got older, I thought they were lame and was not impressed with the goofy drawings or whatever boring statement was being made. Cartoons are supposed to be funny, and these were not. Once in high school, my AP US History teacher would spend time showing us political cartoons from whatever time period we were studying at that point in the semester. It wasn’t until then that I realized these cartoons had significant cultural and historical importance. Now in college, I don’t ever look at the newspaper but I am a regular reader of The Economist. I make a point to look at the political cartoons in each weekly edition, as well as KAL’s cartoon online, and finally have a genuine appreciation for both the work and message.

Studying the depictions of Napoleon Bonaparte in political cartoons was very interesting this week, and I’m glad we had an entire class period to spend. It’s interesting that the overall style of political cartoons hasn’t changed too much in all this time, although their significance has. In Napoleon’s time, many were illiterate and could understand a simple drawing better than struggling through a block of text. Although literacy rates are much higher now, we still use cartoons in news publications. They may not carry the weight that they did 200 years ago, but they are often the most affective way to get a point across. I don’t think political cartoons from our time period will be considered as much an important part of recorded history like the ones about Napoleon, but they are definitely of cultural importance. We no longer have to worry about political leaders destroying newspaper print shops or arresting a dissenting blogger, but they are still a valuable way for people to show how they feel about prominent figures and world events.

The cartoons about Napoleon were brutally honest, and definitely showed me he was not viewed by everyone as the exalted military leader he’s often depicted as. It’s easy to forget there are at least two sides to every historical event or person, and the cartoons were a great way to get in touch with what the average person may have felt at that time.

Dare to know or status quo?

German philosopher Immanuel Kant used the phrase Sapere Aude, or "dare to know," as the motto for the Enlightenment movement. While this sounds impressive and contributes to the idea of the common people forming their own ideas, rising up, and confronting the established societal norms, I'm not so sure this was the most descriptive motto.

The philosophes were educated men who had the means to spend their time contemplating things such as education, slavery, and of course religion. These were issues undoubtedly on the minds of common people, but not at the top of their priorities when compared with survival and fulfilling their assigned role in society. The increasingly widespread access to the writings of philosophes was good in the sense of the masses having another opinion other than that of the church or their king's, but I don't think it was the catalyst for a widespread craving of knowledge. In my opinion, the majority of people during the Enlightenment didn't start to form their own ideas, but instead chose a philosophe who they mostly agreed, and followed. It was not the "maturing" of people as Kant had hoped, they were simply choosing to rely on a different source. I think this can be attributed to the lack of widespread recorded knowledge, and don't blame the philosophes. But I also don't think they should be given credit for sparking a large scale thirst for learning and philosophical movement.

I believe the age we live in today is the first truly enlightened time, as we have achieved the pinnacle of Diderot's Encyclopedia with the advent of the Internet. It is now much more difficult to remain "immature" with access to the greatest resource and exchange of knowledge in history at our fingertips. So, perhaps "now you have two choices instead of one" is a better motto for the Enlightenment. It's just as catchy, right?