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.
I’m on the same page with you. I like to think that I am a relatively informed person--I watch the news at some point most everyday and read articles online. But somewhere along the way taking the initiative to inform oneself is almost detrimental. Having an awareness of world events does little good when one gets information from sources that completely misconstrue the context of what is going on. Communism exemplifies this issue. I find it almost impossible to think of it without the most negative things coming to my mind at once. And in trying to take what we’ve done in class and consider it in a broader perspective, I have to agree with you: it was refreshing to read a primary source stripped of all the connotations the news media drills into our heads on a regular basis. Maybe turning off CNN and going to the library every now and then might be to my benefit. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you to certain extent. I do think that people put labels on the leaders in this country that do not quite fit. I do believe that it is hard to form an opinion on just readings. Some people may express their intent to do something and it will sound great on paper. These people will do this and it wont be so good in action. I think that life experience and living through different leaders is the best way to judge who has your interests at heart. I bought a house a few months before the new home buyer incentive was implemented and held a grudge about it. I was a new home buyer and worked hard to obtain a property, where was my incentive. My incentive was that I want to succeed in life and move forward not backward, most leaders in this country don't always make the right decision to help me do so. With that in mind I took it upon myself to move forward even if the government will not do things that help. I think that is the problem with society is that to many people rely on the government to help them. I think that people should get up and help themselves, because the government may help you one minute and turn it's back on you the next. There are a few exceptions to this and that of course falls onto people who physically cannot help themselves. People should not play the blame game, because it is a waste of time and only holds you back instead helping you move forward.
ReplyDeleteA post that is near and dear to my heart. So often I hear these terms bandied around and so seldom do I think the person using the word could actually give a correct definition of it. My favorite is when they are combined and somehow someone is a Fascist Communist pig. Seriously?
ReplyDeleteI think that your point about going to the source is a valid one (and also close my historian heart.) Too often, I think people shut down and fail to give Marx a fair hearing (or reading) because we all already know that Communism is evil, it failed and it is not the American way. Perhaps all three are true but if the idea has threatened us for over 150 years now, wouldn't you want to know why? Understanding Marx's criticism of capitalism is just as valid today as it was back then, if not more so. Now that capitalism seems triumphant, perhaps we can give Marx a chance to actually explain himself.