Sorry for my slightly, irrelevant stupid previous post about famines in socialist and capitalist nations, but anyways
Context: I’ve always avoided the fucking Manifesto, because I was a lib-adjacent before, being put off by what others said about the Manifesto (even from other Communists).
But I did read in all the Principles of Communism beforehand, by Engels which clarified things as well. Other than that, I relied on other Marxists’ interpretation of our world, especially Marxist Leninists.
Eventually, after some afternoon boredom, I fully read back the Manifesto, along with the Critique, and oh boy, I may have not understood all of it but it was a ride.
One thing I noted was the existence of Feudal, Petty-Bourgeois, and Utopian socialism, which go against the grain of the modern scientific socialism. That, and the importance of political movements beyond hollow slogans like “Eat the Rich”.
Hearing this, I think back about people like Haz of Infrared, and some in the Democratic Socialists of America.
P.S Any somewhat not cumbersome texts of theory to put in my list?
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels is a short but essential read. Judging by what stood out to you about the Manifesto it might hit just right.
And if you like Utopian and Scientific, read the Anti-Dühring, it contains the former and expands on it while dunking on old German philosophers.
This is one of my favourite passages from Engels:
We have already had more than one occasion to make ourselves acquainted with Herr Dühring’s method. It consists in dissecting each group of objects of knowledge to what is claimed to be their simplest elements, applying to these elements similarly simple and what are claimed to be self-evident axioms, and then continuing to operate with the aid of the results so obtained. Even a problem in the sphere of social life
“is to be decided axiomatically, in accordance with particular, simple basic forms, just as if we were dealing with the simple … basic forms of mathematics” {D. Ph. 224}.
And thus the application of the mathematical method to history, morals and law is to give us also in these fields mathematical certainty of the truth of the results obtained, to characterise them as genuine, immutable truths.
This is only giving a new twist to the old favourite ideological method, also known as the a priori method, which consists in ascertaining the properties of an object, by logical deduction from the concept of the object, instead of from the object itself. First the concept of the object is fabricated from the object; then the spit is turned round, and the object is measured by its reflexion, the concept. The object is then to conform to the concept, not the concept to the object. With Herr Dühring the simplest elements, the ultimate abstractions he can reach, do service for the concept, which does not alter matters; these simplest elements are at best of a purely conceptual nature. The philosophy of reality, therefore, proves here again to be pure ideology, the deduction of reality not from itself but from a concept.
And when such an ideologist constructs morality and law from the concept, or the so-called simplest elements of “society”, instead of from the real social relations of the people round him, what material is then available for this construction? Material clearly of two kinds: first, the meagre residue of real content which may possibly survive in the abstractions from which he starts and, secondly, the content which our ideologist once more introduces from his own consciousness. And what does he find in his consciousness? For the most part, moral and juridical notions which are a more or less accurate expression (positive or negative, corroborative or antagonistic) of the social and political relations amidst which he lives; perhaps also ideas drawn from the literature on the subject; and, as a final possibility, some personal idiosyncrasies. Our ideologist may turn and twist as he likes, but the historical reality which he cast out at the door comes in again at the window, and while he thinks he is framing a doctrine of morals and law for all times and for all worlds, he is in fact only fashioning an image of the conservative or revolutionary tendencies of his day — an image which is distorted because it has been torn from its real basis and, like a reflection in a concave mirror, is standing on its head.
It is incredible how relevant it still is.
I’m starting to think epistemology is the basis of nearly all rational disagreement. I never read Anti-Dühring in full, but I came to the same exact conclusions Engels made in your excerpt, only in relation to gender and the desire of LGBT-opponents to define some essence, or pure identity, of the ideal Woman/Man, in order to make sense of someone not gender-conforming.
But it goes even further: this essentialism — reduction of humans to essences based on a priori concepts of race, nationality, ethnicity, class, etc. — seems to form the boundary between progressive thought patterns and reactionary ones. Because once someone is in their very essence black, or American, or gay, then a progressive shift in these categories undermines the very nature of this person, and would seem a logically impossible operation.
Therefore the ideal categories end up constraining and negating the real person, rather than their real existence being immediately valid and the concepts being contingent on the person (or rather, the aggregate of all people in society). It would mean that we never break free from the shackles of race, e.g., because we would have reified race as a category, outside of its historical context. But these ideal categories are subject to change on the basis of shifting material conditions, just like Marx concludes about economic categories like value and capital. So the key to Marxism is the recognition of the historical contingency of all social forms.
What’s you’re talking about is ontology—the question of being—not epistemology, the question of knowledge.
It’s an ancient discussion, coming at least from Plato vs Epicurus, and even back then Plato, the philosopher of the ideal platonic forms, was the reactionary, and Epicurus, who Marx and Engels would defend as a ‘materialist’, was the progressive philosopher that encouraged women and slaves to attend his school.
I haven’t really tried to predict someone’s politics from their ontology, but as far as I remember right now, an idealist tends to use the great men theory of history, believe that money is a scarce resource instead of a social construct, and other things that when followed upon lead to reactionary conclusions.
I do remember when I came across this distinction, I was fascinated by it and kept telling my friends and family about the difference between idealism and materialism. It was like a missing piece for me, something that at the same time was fundamental to my world view and I wasn’t aware of.
I’m sorry I can’t develop this further right now, I’m currently on the train.
If you want to dip your toes into the anarchist side, Malatesta wrote two really good pamphlets on revolutionary violence:
And
For anyone reading this who avoids reading theory because it’s hard, takes a long time or whatever: read the manifesto, it’s a super easy quick read. Lenin’s State and Revolution would be my next rec, but that is denser and takes some time. Parenti is also super accessible.
