II.
The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' may not always work out as seemed, and that so many claim to just take it in their stride is perhaps deceptive of them, or otherwise they take it personally and are offended before realising what they are reading. It is much like mentioning Hegel. Especially on a Valentine's Day, where the dichotomy as it were between the profane world and the heavenly realm is most pronounced. While it has been taken for granted that its first main section begins strikingly, this is mostly seen as hinging not on the statement itself or its truth - which was of course queried by Friedrich Engels - but on the exciting and appealing nature of class society to readers, which would nonetheless imply taking it and being encouraged to take it as a positive, when Marx and Engels are, much later, critical of it. However, as here they are discussing class society in the context of seguing into a description of capitalism, this is hence merely the drama of class society, and for a 'Manifesto' one might therefore wish to ask which of two alternatives they were attempting: either to turn the reader off the manuscript - from which they were expecting a glance at communism - or to make it accessible via the appealing nature of capitalism and class society to readers of the time, which would seem vulgar but is likely to occur at times to buttress and otherwise highly delayed subject-matter. In addition, that the 'Manifesto' is generally seen as an accessible, even highly accessible, book as opposed to Hegel and such, unlike later works such as 'Das Kapital,' and its many analogues, would necessitate that it be taken as one of the two, neither seeming too favourable. It must be remembered that none of this early segment is polemical.
However, the way the schema works out is treated as merely aesthetic when it is touched on, not so much as appealing as a question of praise or blame, rather than dealt with as a structure which is perhaps neglected compared to that of Das Kapital for instance because it is disorganised, this not however making it that different in focus. In this sense, as perhaps appropriate to its authors, it takes the form less of a work of advocacy as a nightmare of capital, where despite its dream-like progression and the abstraction of its apparently positive traits taken uncritically - and in this passage capitalism is seen mostly as the progress of the bourgeoisie, and these as its historical actors - but then this dream faces the loss of control - the primary flaw to be shown in it by this work - and is plunged into crises where it goes awry, and hence foreign things start appearing, which is displayed as well in the proletariat, which threaten it and keep it in fear. Usually, it would stop here, but Marx and Engels do by a conjuring trick manage to keep it going to a muted hope for a better future, although it might be unclear at this point what this improvement could be seen as in the context of the work if continuity is to be maintained, other than a reinstitution of the apparent harmony of capitalism upon a higher level of some sort, which is of course held to be impossible by this point. The work, despite their stress on bases, does not seem to give communism's explanation a basis in the work, other than capitalism, while giving this was purportedly the purpose of the work. Nonetheless, many seemed to take the work as in essence a personal polemic, whatever it may then go on to say, and one written against them, or in competition with them, which other than seeming like an inherently absurd but typical of a certain social system manner of reading a book which has not been promoted as positive by this system, is a slightly absurd perspective when it was generalised and spread or the attempt made to do so - or portray it as such a polemic against them - and as such you may wonder if such were not mostly seeing ghosts, as it were. The book itself has a reputation belonging to a book otherwise associated with the occult, such as the Bible, and this mysticism makes the book appear distinct rather than as it is a writing of words. Nonetheless, its early sections do have some strange transitions in perspective and subject, and you would be surprised if there was not some poltergeist afoot.
The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' may not always work out as seemed, and that so many claim to just take it in their stride is perhaps deceptive of them, or otherwise they take it personally and are offended before realising what they are reading. It is much like mentioning Hegel. Especially on a Valentine's Day, where the dichotomy as it were between the profane world and the heavenly realm is most pronounced. While it has been taken for granted that its first main section begins strikingly, this is mostly seen as hinging not on the statement itself or its truth - which was of course queried by Friedrich Engels - but on the exciting and appealing nature of class society to readers, which would nonetheless imply taking it and being encouraged to take it as a positive, when Marx and Engels are, much later, critical of it. However, as here they are discussing class society in the context of seguing into a description of capitalism, this is hence merely the drama of class society, and for a 'Manifesto' one might therefore wish to ask which of two alternatives they were attempting: either to turn the reader off the manuscript - from which they were expecting a glance at communism - or to make it accessible via the appealing nature of capitalism and class society to readers of the time, which would seem vulgar but is likely to occur at times to buttress and otherwise highly delayed subject-matter. In addition, that the 'Manifesto' is generally seen as an accessible, even highly accessible, book as opposed to Hegel and such, unlike later works such as 'Das Kapital,' and its many analogues, would necessitate that it be taken as one of the two, neither seeming too favourable. It must be remembered that none of this early segment is polemical.
However, the way the schema works out is treated as merely aesthetic when it is touched on, not so much as appealing as a question of praise or blame, rather than dealt with as a structure which is perhaps neglected compared to that of Das Kapital for instance because it is disorganised, this not however making it that different in focus. In this sense, as perhaps appropriate to its authors, it takes the form less of a work of advocacy as a nightmare of capital, where despite its dream-like progression and the abstraction of its apparently positive traits taken uncritically - and in this passage capitalism is seen mostly as the progress of the bourgeoisie, and these as its historical actors - but then this dream faces the loss of control - the primary flaw to be shown in it by this work - and is plunged into crises where it goes awry, and hence foreign things start appearing, which is displayed as well in the proletariat, which threaten it and keep it in fear. Usually, it would stop here, but Marx and Engels do by a conjuring trick manage to keep it going to a muted hope for a better future, although it might be unclear at this point what this improvement could be seen as in the context of the work if continuity is to be maintained, other than a reinstitution of the apparent harmony of capitalism upon a higher level of some sort, which is of course held to be impossible by this point. The work, despite their stress on bases, does not seem to give communism's explanation a basis in the work, other than capitalism, while giving this was purportedly the purpose of the work. Nonetheless, many seemed to take the work as in essence a personal polemic, whatever it may then go on to say, and one written against them, or in competition with them, which other than seeming like an inherently absurd but typical of a certain social system manner of reading a book which has not been promoted as positive by this system, is a slightly absurd perspective when it was generalised and spread or the attempt made to do so - or portray it as such a polemic against them - and as such you may wonder if such were not mostly seeing ghosts, as it were. The book itself has a reputation belonging to a book otherwise associated with the occult, such as the Bible, and this mysticism makes the book appear distinct rather than as it is a writing of words. Nonetheless, its early sections do have some strange transitions in perspective and subject, and you would be surprised if there was not some poltergeist afoot.
The part on the rception of the book is very new and good. The format is also an intresting focus and is conveyd differently and uniquely.
ReplyDelete