Political Science 85 - Book Review - Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels THE REVOLUTIONARY ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL TREATISE THAT HAS TRANSFIGURED THE WORLD.

A Book Review

Submitted To: Prof. Editha B. Enumerabellon

Submitted By:

James Ryan S.

Penalosa POLITICAL SCIENCE 85 Professor Political Science

III-AB Major in

“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers". - Thomas Sowell (American Writer and Economist, b.1930)

“Marge, I agree with you – in theory. In theory, Communism works. In theory.”- Dan Castellaneta (American Actor b. 1958)

“Communism aims to break the cycle and ruling of Class System, but ironically, this ideology also breaks the cycle and ruling of human nature.” - James Ryan S. Penalosa (AB Political ScienceIII. b. 21 August 1990)

“Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff.” - Frank Zappa (American Composer, 1943-1993

“Communism destroys democracy. Democracy can also destroy Communism.” -Andre Malraux (French Author,1901-1976) “Communism is a proposition to structure the world more reasonably, a proposition for changing the world. As such, we have to analyze it and, if we deem it reasonable, act upon it.” Friedrich Durrenmatt

“It has been the acknowledged right of every Marxist scholar to read into Marx the particular meaning that he himself prefers and to treat all others with

“Matter as matter rather than matter as symbol is a conscious political position, essentially Marxist. “- Carl Andre “The Marxist analysis has got nothing to do with what happened in Stalin's Russia: it's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain. “- Tony Benn

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/communism retrieved last August 13, 2009

III- AB Major in Political Science CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION August 13, 2009, 10:03PM: While making this part, I was discussing this book review and the book itself to my grandmother. That Communist Manifesto aims to go into opposing and overthrowing the higher class of the society, and eventually relating it to the present opposition leaders and members of the present administration that they are just around when political issues come into sight, sturdily criticize & belittle and give the culpability to the government the allegations. Similar to the communist manifesto, it attempts to over throw the ruling class, but then, everything is theories and a collection of fancy group of words exercising futility...action is nowhere to find. The book as a whole, I said to my grandmother, suggests utopia – a state or condition by which jam-packed perfection is fully defined. I began to ask her, “Is there really a perfect place and a person? My grandmother just said, “Of course, there is… Perfecto Villanueva (the most murdered name of my grandmother’s neighbor in her town, when someone in their locality asks the same question).” My eyes were filled by intermittent light of absurdity. Indeed, perfection is nowhere to be found. I suggest, perfection is linked to happiness – it is as always subjective. Happiness and perfection is fully realized when flaws or are around, yet, satisfaction dominates in the feeling of human mind and behavior. It is where we find it.

CHAPTER II - ANALYSIS The Communist Manifesto was premeditated as a state-of-the-art programmatic account of the Communist League, a German revolutionary group of which Marx and Engels were the leaders. The two men published their expanse in February 1848, months before much of Europe was to blow up in social and political mayhem, and the Manifesto appeared to be a sign of the political

climate of the period. At the same year, in the midst of summer sun, youthful revolutionary groups, along with the urban cast outs, set up barricades in many of Europe's capitals, fighting for an end to political and economic oppression. While nonconformists had been waging war against absolutism and aristocratic privilege since the French Revolution, many of the new radicals of 1848 set their sights on a new rival that they believed to be accountable for social volatility and the intensification of an impoverished urban underclass. That enemy was capitalism, the system of private ownership of the means of production. The Manifesto portrays how capitalism divides society into two classes: the bourgeoisie, or capitalists who own these means of production (factories, mills, mines, etc.), and the workers, who sell their labor power to the capitalists, who pay the workers as little as they can get away with. Although the Communist League was itself apparently too disorganized to throw in much to the 1848 uprisings, the Communist Manifesto is a call to political action, holding the remarkable banner, “Workers of the world unite!” On the other hand, Marx & Hegel used this book to imply some of the basic legitimacies, as they view it, about how the world exert. In the Communist Manifesto we see early versions of essential Marxist concepts that Marx had expounded with more scientific meticulousness in established writings such as Das Kapital. Conceivably most imperative of these concepts is the theory of historical materialism, which affirms that historical change is driven by collective actors attempting to bring to fruition their economic aims, resulting in class struggles in which one economic and political order is substituted by another. One of the innermost ideologies of this theory is that social relationships and political coalitions take shape around relations of production. Relations of production depend on a given society's manner of production, or the particular economic organization of tenure and apportionment of labor. A person's exploits, mind-set, and viewpoint on the social order and his politics, loyalties, and sense of collective belonging all originate from his location in the dealings of production. History engages people as political actors whose distinctiveness are made up as exploiter or exploited, who form unions with others similarly identified, and who act based on these identities.

CHAPTER III – THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

The influence of Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) on world history has been so great that even several journals in America and in different parts of the world staunch advocate of capitalism, has called him one of the three greatest modern thinkers (the other two being Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein). Marx, who came to England after being exiled from his native Germany for proposing revolution, believed that the engine of human history is class conflict. He said that the bourgeoisie (the controlling class of capitalists, those who own the means of production of wealth – capital, land, factories, and machines) are locked in conflict with the proletariat (the exploited class, the mass of workers who do not own the means of production). This bitter struggle can end only when members of the working class unite in revolution and throw off their chains to bondage. The result will be a classless society, one of free of exploitation, in which everyone will work according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. Marxism is not the same as Communism. Although Marx supported revolution as the only way that the workers could gain control of society, he did not develop the political system called communism. This is a later application of his ideas. Indeed, Marx himself, felt disgusted when he heard debates about his insights into social life. After listening to some of the positions attributed to him, he shook his head and said, “I am not a Marxist” (Dobriner 1969b:222). When Feudal System broke up, masses of peasants were displaced from their traditional lands and occupations. Fleeing to the cities, they competed for the few available jobs. Offered only a pittance of for their labor, they dress up in rags, went hungry, and slept under bridges and in shacks. In contrast, the factory owners built mansions, hired servants and lived in the lap of luxury. Seeing this great disparity, between owners and workers, Marx concluded that social class depends on a single factor – the means of production – the tools, factories, lands, and investment capital used to produce wealth (Marx 1844/1964; Marx & Engles 1848/1967). Marx argued that the distinctions people often make among themselves - such as clothing, speech education, paycheck, or today, even the type of car they drive – are superficial matters. These things camouflage the only dividing lines that counts. Modern society, said Marx, is made up of just two classes of people: the bourgeoisie, those who own the means of production, and

the proletariat, are those who work for their owners. In short, people’s relationship is to means of production determines their social class. Marx did recognize that other groups were part of industrial society: farmers & peasants; a lumpenproletariat (marginal people such as beggars, vagrants, and criminals); and middle group self-employed professionals. Marx did not consider these groups and classes, however, for they lacked class consciousness – a common identity based on their position in the means of production. They did not see themselves as exploited workers whose plight could be solved only by collective action. Consequently, Marx thought of these groups as insignificant in the coming worker’s revolution, which would overthrow Capitalism. Capital will grow ever more concentrated, Marx said. This will make capitalists and workers increasingly hostile to one another. When the workers realize that capitalists are the source of their oppression, they will unite and throw off the chains of their oppressors. In a bloody revolution, they will seize the means of production and usher in a classless society, where the few will no longer grow rich at the expense of many. What hinders the workers’ unity and impedes their revolution is false consciousness, workers mistakenly thinking of themselves as capitalists. For example, workers with few Philippine Pesos in the bank may forget that they are workers, instead see themselves as investors, or as entrepreneurs who are about to launch a successful business. The only distinction worth mentioning, then, is whether a person is an owner or a worker. This decides everything else; Marx stressed, for property determines people’s lifestyles, shapes their ideas, and establishes their relationships with one another. What makes Communist Manifesto out of the ordinary nowadays, according to many book critiques is the ideology itself that contains a lot of heavy allegorical declarations; despite of that, the book has its unique substance. The Manifesto state publicly quite clear on one aspect of Marxism that his modern day disciples have left behind: The concept that as a socio-historical occurrence, capitalism is good or at least necessary. "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more

substantial and more immense productive forces than have all preceding generations together," Marx wrote. Worldwide capitalism, of the ruthless and manipulative form that we now complain about, was viewed as a indispensable predecessor to rebellion. The dealings and judgment of populace influenced by Marxism in the present day are often so at odds with Marx's views about the inexorableness of worldwide capitalism that it's become almost chestnut to label them "Marxism without Marx." So returning to this text won't necessarily give you a complete understanding of communist thought — but perhaps what it can give you is Marx without Marxism

CHAPTER IV - CRITIQUE While reading this book, I am going through a stage where I see myself more communist or socialist than anything else, even so I found this mind-numbing and some parts are neither here nor there to present day. Marx and Engel's manage to irk, Engel's almost managing to out bore "The Conditions of the Working Class in England" which I read up until the 80th page and then flung to the corner in my room. Only read this if you are into politics or history. “A Specter is Haunting Europe!” Or so the first line of the manifesto goes. I found the book to be an easy read but full of meaning in its context. For those people who associate communism with the idea of standing on line in Russia waiting for a loaf of bread have no clue. It is significant to be aware of the concept of the proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. A truly communist civilization would be a government which would never exist for the reason that man ‘will never let the little guy take the proper piece of the pie.’ The Communist Manifesto is known as one of the most significant political manuscripts. Communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote it, but the Communist League custom-built it. The substance laid out the League's rationales and objectives. This novel conveyed the communists' opinions about the benefits of communism and its superiority. Marx affirms the communism is the society that would thrive capitalism through the socialist system. I counsel this book to anybody that is fascinated in history or communism. I feel that after

reading this book i identify with the world a little bit more. Even though it's a easier said than done novel to figure out, if you pay attention to the text and look up certain things you may not know based off aforementioned knowledge. Even more so during the downturn, some people deemed that if we practiced communism our cost-cutting measures wouldn't be as appalling as it currently is. The inopportune thing about Marx’s replica for society is that when put into practice it has always concerned a cream of the crop bunch of ideologues that inflict their will on the actual issues of the society and hold back rebels by cruel means. These elite also enjoy privileges of their positions, making them simply a new description of the ruling classes they claim to bring to an end. George Orwell’s Animal Farm comes to mind and an image from his book, 1984 that sums up the relentless grey oppressiveness of Soviet communism aptly. “A boot stamping on a human face forever”.(Orwell,G.) Marx should have got a paper round, looked after his kids and laid off the politics. The groundwork of contemporary communism and socialism is debatably one of the most important books of all time. It is indispensible, even to a curb capitalist it is precious to appreciate as it was the first social surveillance of its kind in history. I don’t think anyone should send away it or refuse to read it for any good ideological reason. We have to keep in mind that while Marx founded communism, he had nothing to do with the way it was practiced in the twentieth century. Nowhere in "the Communist Manifesto" (or in any of Marx and Engle's other works for that matter) does it put forward the kind of authoritarian dictatorships that arise in Russia (the USSR) and red China. All of that came later, and in fact, I find that Marx leaned towards Democracy more than anything else. Many people believe Capitalism and democracy are one and the same, that they are joined at the hip and cannot continue to exist in other state of affairs. This is simply fallacious and closed minded. All Marx really wanted was to better the fare of the lower class, to bring about a more equal and just society.

CHAPTER V - SUMMARY

Marx was a German of Jewish origin who lived much of his life in exile in France and Great Britain. He institute much to object to in the ubiquitous political philosophy of his host countries - a philosophy then known generally as liberalism, as elaborated by such thinkers as John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, and Jean-Baptiste Say. Liberals saw themselves as advocates of liberty, and by liberty they meant the right of individuals to do as they pleased with their own lives and their own property. Marx was persuaded that the world should take the notion of the materialist conception of history (a.k.a. historical materialism / dialectical materialism) very seriously indeed. He held that society can, and will, change when the material conditions are in place to precipitate this change. He accepted that society changed in a series of shifts. An existing form of society would be challenged by another more viable form of society to produce a new phase of society. This phase would then become open to fresh challenges and to similar change itself. Marx held that there were initial phases of society that showed deficiencies and which gave rise to adapted forms of society. The early settlements eventually proved lacking and gave way to feudalism. Feudalism was itself displaced by a bougeoise phase of social organisation. From the increasing deficiencies and internal contradictions of bougeoise society it was inevitable that Communism would arise. Thus the materialist conception of history sees a close interplay between the forms of society that are possible, or likely, or indeed "inevitable" and the material basis of society.

Communism, which is also described as "Revolutionary Proletarian Socialism" or "Marxism," is both a political and economic philosophy. The condensation of Communism is together with this in two principal writings: (1) The Communist Manifesto, which was first published in 1848 by Karl Marx, and; (2) Principles of Communism, by Friedrich Engels. At the appeal of the Communist League, a forward looking group they were members of, Marx and Engels together are the person behind The Communist Manifesto. The main aspiration of The Communist Manifesto was to capture focal point on class fight backs and trigger off the common

people to riot. And also, it was deliberated to envisage a sculpt government, whose economics would destroy the upper class - liberating the lower class from tyranny.

In summary, the Communist Manifesto calls for: •

Abolition of Private Property.

•

Heavy Progressive Income Tax.

•

Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.

•

Confiscation of Property Rights.

•

Central Bank.

•

Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.

•

Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.

•

Government Control of Labor.

•

Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.

•

Government Control of Education.

 Basically, The Communist Manifesto was an upheaval against the tremendous poverty of the inferior class. CHAPTER VI – THE BOOK REVIEW PROPER

A spectre [Eng : specter] is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to jettison this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been criticized as communistic by its foes in power? Where is the antagonism that has not throwed back the trademarking reprimands of communism, in opposition to the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its backward-looking adversaries? Two things result from this veracity: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself. To the closing stages, Communists of a range of nationalities have brought jointly in London and drafted the following manifesto, to be in print in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

I Bourgeois and Proletarians

The contemporary bourgeois world that has germinated from the wrecks of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but instituted innovative classes, new environment of oppression, new shapes of fight backs in place of the old ones. “...Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature. It has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes facing each other - bourgeoisie and proletariat...”

(Marx was prepared to give recognition to the bourgeoisie "phase" of society for many and immense achievements) The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has mercilessly tattered asunder the miscellaneous feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left enduring no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than unsympathetic "cash payment". It has masked the most heavenly elations of religious dedication, of gallant keenness, of philistine sentimentalism, and the icy water of egotistical reckoning. It has determined individual merit into exchange value and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms has set up that single, unconscionable freedom Free Trade. The bourgeoise has been the first to show what man's doings can convey about. It has consummated marvels far exceeding Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals... The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the apparatuses of production, and by this means, the relations of production, and with them the whole dealings of society... In one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer well-matched with the already urbanized productive forces; they became so many shackles. They had to be rupture asunder; they were burst asunder. A similar pressure group is going on ahead of our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has fabricated up such gargantuan means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the hindmost world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of manufacturing and trade is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the subsistence of the bourgeois and of its rule.

It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more portentously. In these crises, great parts not only of the existing products, but also of the previously-created productive forces are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there smashes out a plague that, in all previous epochs, would have seemed illogicality - the epidemic of over-production. Due to the extensive utilization of machinery, and to splitting up of labor, the employment of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, as a result, all appeal for the workman. He becomes an add-on of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most tedious, and most easily acquired capability, that is required of him. The increasing step up of machinery, ever more hastily developing, makes their source of revenue and income, more and more unstable; the clash between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to establish combinations (trade unions) in opposition to the bourgeois; they associated together in order to keep up the rate of earnings; they bring into being permanent associations in order to make stipulation ahead of time for these sporadic revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are triumphant, but only for a time. The real outgrowth of their battles is positioned not in the instantaneous result, but in the ever intensifying union of the workers. As a final point, in times when the class struggle nears the crucial hour, the advancement of termination going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole assortment of aged society, presupposes such a sadistic, conspicuous character, that a small part of the ruling class cuts itself aimless, and stick together the revolutionary class, the class that seizes the future in its hands.

Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the dignity went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a piece of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of understanding theoretically the historical faction and movement entirely. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is an authentically revolutionary class. The other classes putrefy and finally fade away in the countenance of Modern Industry; the proletariat is it’s out of the ordinary and vital product. All the previous classes that got the upper hand wanted to strengthen their acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of fraud. The proletarians can’t turn out to be masters of the productive forces of society, excluding the put an end to their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to shelter and to brace; their undertaking is to obliterate all preceding securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All prior historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the concentration of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, self-determining movement of the vast majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest echelon of our current society, cannot whisk, cannot hoist itself up, devoid of the whole superincumbent stratum of bureaucrat society being sprung into the air.

Even if not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national fight back. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all straighten out matters with its own bourgeoisie. The indispensable circumstances for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class are the development and intensification of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor respite exclusively on contest between the laborers.

The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, put backs the segregation of the laborers, due to rivalry, by the revolutionary mixture, due to relationship. The growth of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very base on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore creates, principally, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the triumph of the proletariat are likewise inevitable.

II Proletarians and Communists

In what connection do the Communists locate to the proletarians in one piece? The Communists don’t form a detached party opposite to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests detached and apart from those of the proletariat as a sum total.

They do not set up any sectarian philosophies and ideologies of their own, by which to shape and cast the proletarian movement.

The Communist is differentiated from the other working-class parties by this only:

1) In the national fight backs of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and

bring to the front the universal welfare of the whole proletariat, independently of all population.

2)

In the a range of stages of expansion which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere correspond to the interests of

the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most highly developed and resolute segment of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the lead of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the eventual general results of the proletarian movement. The instantaneous aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: configuration of the proletariat into a class put an end to of the bourgeois supremacy, take-over of political power by the proletariat.

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

“We Communists have been reprimanded with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is supposed to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of insignificant artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily... ...The proletariat will use its political preeminence to wring, by quantity, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to consolidate all instruments of production in the hands of the state, for example., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to boost the total productive forces as quickly as possible.”

Evidently, in the beginning, this cannot be resulted except by means of repressive inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of procedures, therefore, which appear economically inadequate, unsatisfactory and indefensible, but which, in the course of the movement, outperform themselves, call for further inroads upon the old social order, and are inescapable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. These dealings will, eventually, be poles apart in different countries. Nevertheless, in most highly developed countries, the following will be pretty generally pertinent.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work - establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. It summits mainly to abolition of children's factory labor in its current form – the amalgamation of education with industrial production, etc. When, in the course of enlargement, class dissimilarities have vanished, and all production has been given attention to the hands of an enormous organization of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political temperament, character & disposition. Political power, properly so called, is purely the organized power of one class for tormenting and oppressing another. If the proletariat during its dispute with the bourgeoisie is constrained, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class animosities antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have get rid of its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all...

The closing words of this Manifesto being: -

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists scorn to cover up their observation and aspirations. They openly speak out that their ends can be achieved only by the forcible overthrow of all presented social conditions. Let the ruling classes shudder at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE.

CHAPTER VII - LITERARY CITATION “Belling the Cat” Long ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. "You will all agree," said he, "that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighborhood."

This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: "That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?" The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said: "It is easy to propose impossible remedies." - Aesop’s Fable Aesop’s fable, “Belling the Cat” is about mice discussing ways of containing their nemesis, the cat, and a fable that reminds me every time we have debates, discussion in assigned groups and the like. What relates the most in me are situations similar to what one encounters in academic, political, medical, legal & corporate life. I have been one of the ardent student (is that so?) majoring in Political Science for three years in the making – for that long (well, to some, years is not a big factor) years of toil, being successful in herculean tasks in both my major and minor class, the fable brings back memories of endless personal and group brain storming on thwarting this, innovating that, suggesting this, rejecting that. The fable is about a dialogue of the elders in a mouse community on how to abolish the threat of an unruly cat who was threatening their daily lives. The cat was an extraordinarily stealthy one and in not so few instances have their furry fellow mice been caught in pantry raids. Their cheese reserves were at their lowest level and would not last a week. Faced with the dire prospect of starvation they convened the best and most experienced minds in their midst to form a committee to address the problem.

They were hell-bent on producing the best laid plans of mice and... Plan after plan were broached and strategies were tossed around and bruited about. They reviewed Tom and Jerry situations, formulated feline repellant chemicals, designed doomsday machines and one even suggested forming a delegation to convince Mighty Mouse, to pick up their cause. None of these ideas seemed worthwhile besides Mighty Mouse lived in another country and the time and expense necessary to send emissaries was beyond their means. Near exhaustion from days of incessant and raucous debates the enthusiasm of the committee was beginning to wane and the conference room was shrouded with an ominous quiet, with not a

creature was stirring except for one fidgety mouse that seemed at the verge of an eruption. “Eureka!” he shouted, “I have finally come up with the answer to all our woes”. The idea was a marvel of simplicity. “Let’s bell the cat!” he said, and one mouse recognizing the genius of the plan stood up and repeated “Let’s bell the cat!” then another followed suit…”Let’s bell the cat!” and soon the room echoed with the phrase “Let’s bell the cat!” There was exultation all around, and then from the corner of the room a squeaky voice rang loudly “Who will put the bell on the cat? He asked. The fable ends here with the moral lesson “It is one thing to suggest and another thing to do. It is easy to propose impossible remedies.” -End CHAPTER VIII - Personal Point-of-View In different fields, endeavors, working or academic arena as and considering the present timeline, there would always be a boss or a leader with his/her subordinates. These domineering kinds of people [leaders and bosses] have great strategy for their goals and means to meet with flying colors. Unfortunately, a great idea is hard to enforce. In terms of being a leader, I consider myself not just a one way road but a three-way road – one goes left (radical leader); the other one right (rational leader; and the other one, to nowhere (laissez-faire leader). I accept the fact that I am totally inconsistent (well all of us are – but my level of inconsistency quite vary compared to the usual). In my personal experience in Political Science research (Political Science 79 [an experience to share to you]); we are tasked to make a sample dissertation regarding any topic that would interest us, preferably, campus-related issues. Part of this sample dissertation / research paper includes the statement of the problem. Since I chose ‘SU- College of Arts and Sciences Dress Code for SY 2009-10’, I had formulated a lot of questions, which eventually became a part of my statement of the problem element. For the recorded more than ten questions which is all inspired by my curious

mind (Since I was really intrigued in this issue to the extent that I made a thesis of this also last semester on my Basic Communication 25 course). The time of submission has finally come, and I was quite in no doubt on my paper because I have avowed many questions which for my part I see as comprehensive and very unambiguous. On the checking day, Dr. Nakao, as I observed her was slightly glazed on my statement of the problem. She said that I need to omit some questions and treat the remaining questions as sub questions. I am slightly waned in to the brim of humiliation, then…but learning goes that process. Well, the point of sharing this topic relates to the fable include above and this book review regarding Communist Manifesto. You see, Marx and Engle’s formulated this manifesto to encourage or to awake the lower class from sleeping to run against the present system during that time. The two political ideologists advocated that there should be no social stratification, manipulation and dominion to be worried and be honored. It is time to fight and go for what they have been clamoring for since feudalism fall. The communist manifesto only proves that seventh heaven and cloud nine form of government exists. The manifesto had many plans and promising provisions, yet, many flaws and a lot inapplicability to be aware of. Great plans, yet, great figure of theory and impossibilities would soon follow. Theory and research (according to Social & Hard Sciences) should always go together, but the outcome, the aftermath and the result is the most important… how will you prove this theory, how to conduct the research, and how can you give impact to that research, impressed by the outcome. Words are fancy, yes they really are…in chances that they will be group to form statements, they can even deceive you all the way through manipulated & jargonized terminologies… action can also be deceiving but more raucous than the latter. This would prove that you prove enough. In relation to my book review, symbolically, the cat in the story is the bourgeoisie class in Marx’s time who really gave their (Marx’s) locality an atmosphere of manipulation, demagogueries, exploitation, and exhibition of high horse of living. Indeed, a picture of great gap between the haves and have-nots.

Proletariats even experienced alienation that Marx mentioned in Alienation of Labor, just the like the mice in the story who are the proletariats, cannot free themselves in doing what they like because they are ought not to play when the cat is around. They need to hide not to suffer or face the dimension of death. Like proletariats, there is no sense of freedom, they are the ones who are strained on their work to earn living, and continuously manipulated by people superior than them. They are born and would continually work for their capitalist superiors even if the task or the artifacts made is not connected or never relates on them even at the very small phase of their life (there, we can see that there is no connection, rather, the feeling and atmosphere of alienation is present). In the fable, there are the elders who proudly propose things that would surely thwart their mortal enemy – the cat. To bell the cat…many people applauded these “brilliant creatures” for a very brilliant idea, but an old fellow in their clan asked, “Who’ll bell the cat?” The council of mice began to wonder. See? Great plans can really lose you if you are in the midst of rainforest of brainstorming. Marx and Engles made a book that can never be applicable to the present society. The mainstream in the entire globe would rather die protecting a capitalistic, competitive, dynamic, parliamentary, democratic or federal form of government and retain their ideologies in this society, instead of submitting all the properties, our liberty and wealth to communist leaders and be distributed to other people who never work hard for it. Citing a basic academic scenario, in a high school class with a particular section, there are honor roles and class achievers. They are awarded by grading or after the school year for their hard work and good studying habits. In spite there is stratification even to the smallest unit of the academe; it only proves that there would always be superior, mediocre, and inferior in the class. Discrimination though is inevitable

– we are human beings and we are critical by nature. Human beings actions are influenced by both the external and innate factors of nourishment & nurture. Life also, in the midst of culture (defined as how people view norms and taboos as well as how they live as human being a certain territory) is based on reward orientation. If we did something good, we are awarded and appreciated for our hard work. The have-nots of these awards should be motivated in also doing well in class, for example. The haves should be an agent to promote and share their learning to those who need it. In a larger scale of society, a poor man, do its best to struggle from poverty. He looked for job and the fate was good to him. He worked hard and from janitor in a company office, he was then promoted as the head of the janitorial team. He has now a job though not a white-collar one, but is decent and was a product of determination and willingness to take part of the cycle of the society. Just like business firms, they started small, but as the years of problems, deficits fall and rise, they grew and branches spread along the cities of Manila, localities in Visayas, and places in Mindanao (such as: SM – Shoe Mart & Jolibee Foods Corporation). In general, we human beings are granted to do all the means (for as long as we do it in a humane and legitimate ways in attaining goals) to draw lines in our “living canvass”; it would be less humane, if we are strained or controlled by some people not to grow and motivate. The people around us are either indirect or direct agents of our motivation to do well in improving the quality of our life. In other words, we reap and sow the fruits of our labor. Communist Manifesto suggests a sort of egalitarian state or territory which would never work basing the status quo. We are in the age of globalization and fast-growing technology. The mind of the people in this generation is more critical, discriminating and can hardly be brain-washed or “hypnotized” compared to the people on Marx’s time that few people know the high horse of fashion, international education, economics, politics, international relations, Western influences, and the like.