🔨UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!!🔨

The website is currently underconstruction, including this page! Future changes are likely to be made so come back later to see those! :3🌠🌠🌠

My Thoughts

Thoughts and Takeaways from the Manifesto of the Communist Party

Thoughts:

I've read the communist manifesto once or twice before but I never rlly but an effort into studying it or any other marxist work for that matter. I've, in the past, taken an unrigorous approach to learning marxist theory, which is completely ignoring the fact that I've scarcely managed to engage in any praxis whatsoever for a plethora of reason but that's not the point. So this summer I've decided to engage in a thorough and more rigorous campaign to study not only the marxist classics but some supplementary works as well. Studying marxism can't simply be done by reading on it's own. You are studying marxism afterall, consequently you'll need to take notes as well. In addition to that you're not just studying for studying sake, you're studying these things to apply the lessons in the theory into real world praxis. All knowledge comes from experience afterall, and the knowledge we gain from theory should serve the ends of improving our praxis. Basically that is to say that I constantly had the ideas of Mao's "on practice" when reading in order to orientate my understanding of things and so if you haven't I would urge you to read it (It's only abt an hour and is on s4a's channel, less than an hour without the commentary at the end).

Anyway, in regards to what I actually think of the manifesto, after re-reading, or rather studying, it certainly changed my opinion that it is an "outdated text". When I first read it back in 2023, 2 years ago now so long ago, I couldn't really understand it all that well, partially cus I didn't know all the vocabulary and partially cus I didn't have it read to me in audio form making it much harder for me than it should've been. Consequently the little I could make out from it was talking about the state of things as they were unfolding in the mid to late 1800s so I concluded that it was an outdated text. I now understand the content of the text in full and how the it is still relevant for today. I was also able to make direct connections from the things described in the book and things in the real world. I still think tho that the manifesto should be updated for modern times, or at least a modernized counter part of the manifesto written for communism in the modern day. Some things written in the manifesto either no longer exist, reactionary socialism (which ig kinda exists but not in the form as described in the manifesto), utopian socialism, some things or perspectives are outdated, the perspective taken of a burgeoning bourgeois society, focus exclusively on europe, etc. Sections 1 and 2 on the whole are good, some things here or there may be in need of updating but overall are accurate for the modern day, the final section tho would need to be updated quite heavily as it describes things as they were way back in the 1800s.

In regards to the content of the manifesto, that I don't have critiques of, I was actually a little surprised by the prefaces. Particularly about support of natlib. Given how much you hear (internet) leftcoms, orthodox marxists, orthodox leninists, and other left-revisionists talk of their opposition to national liberation and their supposed true upholding of Marx and Engels I was actually not expecting there to be any discussion of nations or if there was for it to be in support, to whatever degree, of the left-revisionists position, but found the opposite. In the preface to the 1892 Polish edition it is stated,

"And the restoration of an independent and strong Poland is a matter which concerns not only the Poles but all of us. A sincere international collaboration of the European nations is possible only if each of these nations is fully autonomous in its own house."

Generally the proletarian revolution can't happen without a bourgeois revolution of some form. The bourgeois revolution establishes the necessary national autonomy for a given nation's bourgeoisie to grow. And from that national autonomy serves the basis for a proletarian revolution. This, or rather the general concept that the bourgeois revolution is the necessary basis for the proletarian-socialist revolution, is discussed around pages 17-18 on the marxists.org pdf version of the manifesto.

"The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern working class – the proletarians."

But what about the USSR and China where bourgeois revolutions hadn't taken place? Well in those instances the development of capitalism and the productive forces were managed under the directions of the communist party. In doing so there was no private accumulation in the hands of a few but rather accumulation under the direction of the state with the aim of the development of the productive forces and public wellbeing till things were developed enough to launch the proletarian-socialist revolution. China under the CPC developing this concept to its highest stage. Tho that is as how I understand it I should add. I'm not an expert in any of this and haven't done sufficient investigation to make any conclusive statements. I just have a general idea based on my "readings" I've done, I'm relatively confident that I'm vaguely close to the correct line on this matter. I don't think the right-liquidationist line that revolution in the "backward" countries should be opposed instead just giving way to national bourgeois rule and waiting for the productive forces to develop and then launching a proletarian revolution later, whenever that later may be. I also don't think that the line held by "left-oppositionists" and the like that the CPSU and CPC were actually purely bourgeois or petty bourgeois parties for engaging in capitalist development when obviously that is the necessary basis for the proletarian revolution which these parties, under Stalin and Mao, did carry thru.

Anyway, those are my main thoughts I had on the manifesto. I had a very open eye and focus on what should the marxist position be on revolution in the "backward" countries. Consequently that's what most of my thoughts on the manifesto were about aside from my thoughts on what should be updated in the manifesto.

Takeaways for Marxism:

It is possible for revolution to take place in "backward" countries
Revolutions in the "backward" countries still require a "bourgeois" revolution of sorts which is resolved with the concept of "the new democratic revolution" under the leaderhsip of the communist party
Marxism is not just a political revolutionary ideology but a social revolutionary ideology as well (communists must advance society forward)
Communists shouldn't fear being portrayed negatively by the class enemy, bourgeoisie, as that is an indicator that we are engaging in truly revolutionary action and hold truly revolutionary positions against the current state of things
National autonomy, that is to say national liberation, is an important foundation for the friendly association of nations
Communists aren't so much "anti-capitalists" as they are "post-capitalists" recognizing that capitalism once had a progressive role to play in history but that function has been used up and is now a reactionary force.
When the day of revolution comes a section of the old ruling classes may join the ranks of the proletariat in their revolution
The peasantry can be revolutionary insofar that they recognize their impending proletarianization and thus join ranks with the proletariat (at least that is what the mainfesto says)
The role of the proletariat is to abolish all previous modes and current state of things which is necessarily a global act
Bourgeois rule produces its own grave diggers and conditions for its overthrow
Communists shouldn't position themselves opposed to the workers movement and worker's parties but rather should position themselves as their guide
Communists must tear themselves from the (reactionary) beliefs and traditions of the old society
Communists should support all movements aginst the existing social and politcal order of things where the property question is challenged (that is to say progressive revolutions generally and in particular progressive revolutions in relation to property)
Communists shouldn't conceal their views

Takeaways for Transition:

Opposition, especially the most vitriolic and vile opposition, shouldn't deter or demoralize the struggle for a successful transition. On the contrary if transition is opposed, defamed, or decried as impossible it reveals that the true line of liberation is being upheld and should be taken as motivation to continue the struggle and carry it to the finish
In the process of transition all that was once considered good and righteous will flip on its head and become wrong and vile, and vice versa for what was once considered wrong and vile. This being a good thing as the new, correct, worldview and understanding of the self takes root.

Quote:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

[Proletarians of the World, Unite]!

CRITICISMS

all critiques can be directed to my email - AvawaveForward@proton.me and I will eagerly try my best to learn! :3