Old Ideologies Often Produce Stale Results
Marco Rubio (left); Bernie Sanders (right). Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons (left); Wikimedia Commons (right)
“Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat.”
At its very core, perhaps the most radical, upsetting thing (to some) about The Communist Manifesto was that its authors believed that even the most entrenched institutions deserved to die if they weren’t effective.
On a fundamental, human level, change is scary. That’s just as true now as it was then — and always will be. At the same time, we hunger for it. Change is often the bedrock of the campaigns — on both sides of the aisle — for our nation’s highest offices:
In 2008, Barack Obama made his way into the Oval Office thanks at least in part to the platform he centered on change. Bernie Sanders galvanizes millions with his calls for a “political revolution.” Marco Rubio envisions “A New American Century.” Whether politicians actually deliver on their promises is immaterial here. The point is that, as Marx and Engels say in their manifesto, when leaders and their ideas become more reactionary than revolutionary, change is needed.
Extreme fear of communism — not helped by the totalitarian or militaristic regimes that sprang up in its “name” throughout the 20th century — gripped the United States and much of the West, helping poison the merits of its foundational text in the minds of millions. And yet, most of the manifesto’s messages are not just agreeable, but universal. Perhaps, then, the most revolutionary aspect of The Communist Manifesto is how often we have failed to understand, recognize and realize its meaning.
Next, remember the horrific 20th century conflicts informed by communism, with these moving Korean War photos and this Vietnam War photo history.
