Yes, you should. Reading something doesn't mean having to automatically agree with it, but it will broaden your perspective. Read it critically, engage with the arguments being made, and use them to test your own world view. See if the arguments make sense to you, and whether you have strong counter arguments of your own to the ones being made.
Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Absolutely.
Fundamentally, only reading about ideas that you already agree with is bad for you. You will learn less about your beliefs than if you had read something that challenges your beliefs.
Let's say you're very pro-capitalist, and you want to know everything about capitalism, so you read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Great! You learned some things about the historical basis of your beliefs, and there's value in that. So then you read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Okay! So you're tripling down on the same ideas. You probably already know most of those ideas, though, right? There will be some new stuff, but ultimately it's more of the same stuff you already know.
So you try some more recent authors, and give a shrug to Ayn Rand, and you give Lions and Scavengers a shot. And maybe you pick up a new thing or two. But mostly, it's the same ideas that you're already familiar with.
Do you know what none of these books have? An angle of critique (except Smith, sort of). They're all just listing all of the good things about capitalism, and they're not telling you the bad things. Do you believe that Capitalism is a perfect system to organize a nation's economic policy, with no flaws? No? Then you should be interested in someone who elaborates on some of the negative aspects of capitalism, and what can be done to address those flaws, right? Because if there are flaws, you want to know what they are, so they can be fixed, right?
That's why you should read Das Kapital.
Absolutely. It's short.
Do note that most of how communism worked, on paper and in practice, originated later, though. Marx, a German who mostly lived in England, wrote the Manifesto in 1848 and died in 1883, while the revolution was in Russia in 1917. And there's stuff in the manifesto that obviously didn't age well, like the bit about the invention of trains leading to the end of nationalism.
Still, it's great historical perspective, and obviously inspired how the Soviet Union looked at things pretty heavily.
Whatever you think of Marx, it's undeniable he has literary value. I'd say read him.
I feel like you should read anything that people find so polarizing and taboo. It's short and its pretty dang hard to disagree with.
Honestly, I find almost everyone who reads the Manifesto and nothing else does not understand it at all. It relies on a lot of complicated ideas which it doesn't go into detail on, and the popular English translation also has misleading translation errors. People who read it end up filling in the gaps with preconceptions that they have been primed to interpret it as from liberal society, and thus end up interpreting it in a silly way that is not how it was intended at all.
It is better to start with lengthier, more in-depth works that try to actually build out their worldview, like Critique of the German Ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy, and Anti-Durhing.
For a one-and-done, while it's no substitute to dedicated study of in-depth works, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific does a much better job than Manifesto at conveying diamat, histmat, and the underlying process of socialist construction in a digestible way quickly. That's why Marx and Engels themselves noted how effective it was as an agitational pamphlet.
Yes. If I may, I would suggest "The origins of family and private property" from Engels. It's not explicitly political, but I find it serves excellently for dissolving some biases towards historical conditions and how they shape the current affairs.
Learning is always worth it
Yes, an education is worthwhile. Read many philosophies inluding Marx, Hegel, Kant, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Kropotkin, Stirner, Rudolf Rocker, Graeber etc. Though not my career, I keep studying for fun.
As with The Bible, there is a clergy surrounding philosophical figures. You may join their congregation. I choose not to partake. Read The Bible to understand society, but you don't need to join the congregation.
Iβd say that Das Kapital is more useful. The manifesto was a specific call to arms for a specific time. Itβs worth understanding as a historical note, but, itβs not really a theoretical work.
Das Kapital, is a work about a theory of political economy and layed out the actual basis of Marxist theory.
Everything else is sort of down stream of that. At least in regards to understanding what specific objections or concerns people in Marxist thought have.