A Spectre Haunting Europe

by China Miéville

In 1848 a strange political tract was published by two émigrés from Germany. Marx and Engels's apocalyptic vision of an insatiable system that penetrates every corner of the world, reduces every relationship to that of profit, and bursts asunder the old forms of production and of politics, is still a picture of a recognizable world, our world, and the vampiric energy of the system is once again highly contentious.

The Manifesto is a text that shows no sign of fading into antiquarian obscurity. Its ideas animate in different ways the work of writers like Yanis Varoufakis, Adam Tooze, Naomi Klein and the journalist Owen Jones.

China Miéville is not a writer who has been hemmed in by conventional notions of expertise or genre, and this is a strikingly imaginative take on Marx and what his most haunting book has to say to us today.

This is a book haunted by ghosts, sorcery and creative destruction.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Economics, Audiobook, Theory

320 pages, Hardcover

First published May 5, 2022

About the author

A British "fantastic fiction" writer. He is fond of describing his work as "weird fiction" (after early 20th century pulp and horror writers such as H. P. Lovecraft), and belongs to a loose group of writers sometimes called New Weird who consciously attempt to move fantasy away from commercial, genre clichés of Tolkien epigons. He is also active in left-wing politics as a member of the Socialist Workers Party. He has stood for the House of Commons for the Socialist Alliance, and published a book on Marxism and international law.

Excerpted from Wikipedia.

Reviews

[Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was sent to me by the publisher, Head of Zeus (via Bloomsbury), at no cost. It’s out now.

It’s a joke some people make to say that I’m basically a Communist. I’m not; I’m not dedicated enough. I am happy to wear ‘vaguely socialist’; there are a lot of things within the ideals of socialism – and, yes, communism, depending on how you talk about it – that I absolutely subscribe to. And yes, of course I know that the whole concept of communism is now utterly tied up with the various 20th century versions that claimed to putting it into practise. I am a history teacher.

Mieville, too, is open about his context. In the introduction he explains that he’s trying to present the historical aspects in such a way that a reader of any political persuasion will be able to read it (without frothing in a rage is, I think, the subtext). He is clear that the final chapter is much more subjective but again hopes that people will be able to engage thoughtfully. I deeply appreciate that he’s not pretending to be neutral, which is something that would be impossible (and that anyone who knows his background wouldn’t believe anyway).

All of that is context around the fact that I think this book is incredible and anyone who wants to make any claims for or against communism in the 21st century absolutely needs to read it.

First, it contains the entire text of the Communist Manifesto. I’ve read bits and pieces but I don’t think I’ve ever sat down and read the whole thing from cover to cover (it’s an honours thesis in length! Only 12,000 words!). And every paragraph is numbered and every time Mieville refers to something from the Manifesto, it’s right there for you to refer to. I present: integrity. Bits that shook me: reading about workers being alienated from the products of their labour while watching Severance; also that the bourgeoisie / capitalism “has resolved personal worth into exchange value” and nothing else.

Second, I am deeply appreciative of Mieville giving the historical context not just of Marx and Engels, and not just of Communism (not completely comprehensive, which Mieville acknowledges) but also the context of manifestos as a genre. That’s pretty great and something I’ve not seen before. He also examines various criticisms of the Manifesto, from different times and perspectives, and discusses their validity or not. Mieville is in no way suggesting that the Manifesto is perfect, and accepts some of the problems quite readily; those he doesn’t, I think he deals with thoughtfully.

Finally, the bit that may well have some people frothing at the mouth and that particularly struck me is the chapter in which Mieville examines the utility of the Manifesto for the 21st century. And the important thing here is that Mieville comes across as angry. Really quite angry about the piles and multitudes of inequality and despair and awfulness in the world today. I can’t adequately give an overview of this chapter, because he has several points and I haven’t entirely decided whether I agree with all of them. But what I am is convinced that this rushed (although still missing its deadline), somewhat incomplete, more than 150 year old document still has something to offer – even if it’s largely as a starting point, and it’s definitely not perfect.

[Neal Spadafora · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having now read many of the classic introductions to communism and Marxism, I’m convinced that A Spectre, Haunting is not only unparalleled in its historical work and contextualization of the Manifesto and Marx, but in its ability to read Marx and the Manifesto with 21st century eyes. While many Marx scholars have recently turned their attention towards Capital (Heinrich and Harvey, for example) and others have focused on Marx’s political writings (such as Mike Davis), Miéville excavates that oft under appreciated work: the Communist Manifesto.

Indeed, Miéville’s form and content alike are noteworthy; his style fluid and florescent, his content rigorous and researched. There are few books on Marxism, A Spectre Haunting being one of them, that neither read like a 16th century census nor obfuscate 19th century issues for 21st century issues. Miéville presents Marxism at its best: self-reflexive, attentive to criticism, quick to delineate between essentials and non-essentials, and cognizant of reason’s limits. Miéville is able to sublate many dead debates on race, climate, neoliberalism, and more.

While the book could have benefited from further inspection of different readings of Marx (e.g., value-form criticism, falling rate of profit, to name a few), it more than fulfills its hope of illustrating the Manifesto’s lamentable applicability. A Spectre, Haunting will be the first book I recommend to new and seasoned readers of Marx alike.

[Theo Logos · Rating 2 out of 5]

A caveat before beginning. My reaction to and rating of this book were hugely affected by the expectations I had going in, and your own particular mileages may vary greatly from mine.

As a writer of speculative fiction, China Miéville is unique and unparalleled. He is one of my favorites. His work is challenging, bizarre, and thought provoking. I knew that he was a noted political philosopher as well, so when I heard he was writing this book I was full of anticipation. I waited two year for it to be published, and grabbed it up at my first opportunity. I was expecting to see something of his crookedly original vision applied to this examination of the world’s most consequential manifesto.

Well, I was massively disappointed. Yes, this is a well researched, tightly reasoned critique of the manifesto, and it definitely contains real value. But it is mainly a straight up scholarly work. Miéville left all of his unique weirdness home in his fiction cabinet when he was writing this. Where I was hoping to find an outrageously original work of political philosophy I found just another dry text.

My reaction to the book was almost certainly also effected by the narrator of the audiobook. The narration wasn’t quite a monotone, but was delivered in a disengaged, exaggeratedly clipped accent that did no favors to the text.

The work definitely has value, as you can ascertain from reading some of the other reviews here. The most useful information I gathered from it came in the first chapter, where Miéville details its particular genre, what a manifesto actual is, how it works, and what we should expect from it. He explains that much criticism it has received over the years springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the genre actually is and what should be expected of it. This was a particularly strong start.

I felt bad giving this book only two stars, because its information is solid. But the first criteria that I have for giving three stars is that I liked the book. Probably because of my disappointed expectations, I couldn’t honestly say that about A Spectre Haunting.

[Gerhard · Rating 5 out of 5]

'It’s for the sake of love that, reading it today, we must hate more and better than even The Communist Manifesto knew how.'

Review to follow.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

The longer I sat with this the better I liked it. I prefer his fiction to his political writings. That said I’ve read less interesting, less compelling, insider writing coming from some libertarians, open-market capitalists, Mormons, Buddhists and Christians. It is impossible to be neutral, so Miéville, doesn’t even pretend to. Liked it better than his book on the October Revolution.

(Later thoughts: Miéville does a good job in pointing out some of Marx/Engels blind spots- feminism/nationalism/globalism/imperialism/race).

[Ruxandra Grrr · Rating 5 out of 5]

After finishing The Book of Elsewhere, I got lost in a rabbit hole of video interviews with China Miéville (and Keanu Reeves, at first) and then got to this interview with Miéville about A Spectre, Haunting. I love the way he speaks, kind of softly and gently, but with determination, and so the prospect of listening to eight hours of him whispering mellifluously for 8 hours about the Communist Manifesto sounded massively appealing. And it was!

CW: The heavy mentioning of Tr*mp as a bygone thing (which even I, a European, found challenging to listen to these past few days) in a latter section in the book.

That's how these communists get you! I'm just joking, I basically love this book because I already agree with most of everything that's in it and some of the stuff on love and hate was very thought-provoking. It's another angry book, very legitimately so! I am *that bitch* who was only able to read the Manifesto as a comic book, because at that time (early 2022), my brain was not ready for that kind of language (theory, philosophy sort of language). My brain has grown a lot since then and I was able to follow China's book quite well.

This was a really great book, I have pulled a lot of excellent quotes in the updates. I love how it commented on the text as a literary text and placed it in the context of manifestos as a genre. It also addressed a lot of the criticism of the O.G. text (from gender and racial standpoint, for instance). But I do want to read it again in a physical copy, because he keeps referring to bits of the text that are numbered in the back! So that's a project for another day.

I have to say the passion in the narration / text of the book was super evocative, feelings-wise, and it felt cathartic considering... *waves at everything around us*.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unfortunately I was rather disappointed by A Spectre, Haunting: On the Communist Manifesto. Miéville makes some decent points about reading the Communist Manifesto in the 21st century, but none that really stood out as hugely original or compelling. Re-reading the manifesto itself, which is included as an appendix, really emphasised this. The historical context was all fine, albeit not new to me. The discussion in a contemporary context was, for me, marred by not very clear writing. Miéville uses nuance as a verb, which made me grind my teeth, and then this:

And there are those for whom the heuristic should be neither class versus race, not class plus race, but to see class as indelibly inflected by race. That is, again to verb a noun, a 'racing' of class.

As 'racing' is already a word with a totally different meaning, this struck me as unnecessarily confusing. The concept has been definitely explained more coherently elsewhere. I was surprised to see such a mannered nonfiction style from a writer whose fiction I admire so much. I also really enjoyed October: The Story of the Russian Revolution, his narrative history of the Russian Revolution, so am baffled as to why he went for a stuffy quasi-academic style in this case. I found paragraphs like this rather a struggle:

All of which is to say that in this Marxian model, alongside the imbrication of powerful social norms and structures must be added the question of another, concomitant and connected relation, though one definitionally less socially dominant: oppositional bottom-up political strategies.

I wondered whether I was just in the wrong mindset for this book or otherwise being uncharitable, until I reached the manifesto itself - which fucking rocks, as always. It remains electrifying and amazingly relevant. These paragraphs stood out to me on this occasion:

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

The culture, the loss of which he laments is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

I appreciated A Spectre, Haunting: On the Communist Manifesto for getting me to read the Communist Manifesto for the first time in a few years, but didn't get much from the accompanying commentary. To be fair, not many commentators on Marx can live up to the standard set by the man himself. I must tackle Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy this year; perhaps that can be my summer holiday read?

[Jamrock · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a much tougher (as in demanding) read than I expected and it took considerably longer than I planned, or would have liked, given the related books I wanted to read this summer. It was a very rewarding read and will require some partial re-reads as I try to commit as much as possible to memory. Before I start, it might be useful to mention that I learned of this book after, quite by chance, hearing an interview between Michael Portillo and the author, China Mieville, Is the Communist Manifesto relevant today?. If you want a taster of this book, or don't have time to read it, then this is a solid primer and an extremely articulate critique of sclerotic capitalism argued, in good faith, by Mieville, against an icon of modern day neoliberalism and capitalism-apologist, Portillo.

One small criticism before the gushing praise; Ideally this work would be accessible to a blue-collar working-class reader, keen to finally understand the history and modern relevance of the Manifesto. Much of the work reading this was a result of Mieville's sesquipedalian loquaciousness (this phrase means excessively 'wordy' with use of unusual and prosaic language!). When I now describe the pusillanimous and fissiparous "Left" then these are just some of the words I had to look up whole reading this book and, to be honest, while I am used to academic documents, it was the main reason for the slow, slightly jarring read. My vocabulary probably doubled while reading this.

This is a well written and extremely passionate defence of the Manifesto, not just in its historical context, but as contemporary, relevant an increasingly urgent call to action today. The introductory chapters cover a lot of the historical context of the Manifesto and situate it in the wider body of thought and writing by Marx and Engels. What follows is a close reading and analysis of the Manifesto, chapter by chapter, with references to the full text in the appendix. Although this also caused slower reading, it was useful to flick to the actual text and read it with the explanatory context. It was this section that took longest to digest.

What follows is an exciting rollercoaster as Mieville urgently explains the current relevance of the text. He expertly embraces and confronts some genuine criticisms of the Manifesto before absolutely, unflinchingly tearing apart modern capitalism and its impact on society and the planet. If you have experienced Mieville at his exhilarating best, in any of his weird fiction, then you will know it's time to hold on to your hat. The breathless enthusiasm and robust arguments made me believe that while real, lasting, change may still not be likely, it is starting to feel like it could be possible.

The Manifesto is still an instruction manual for us and continues to be a spectre haunting Capitalism. I will be selectively re-reading and quoting this book for a long time.

[Rachel Ashera Rosen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love Miéville's nonfiction almost as much as I love his fiction—I just find myself nodding along every time he makes a good point, which is frequent. Each of the essays is an introduction of sorts. They deal with why it's still relevant today, particularly in a climate of anticommunism without communism (a framing I've never encountered before and which...yes), the historical and personal context of the Manifesto's writing, critiques of the Manifesto, both unserious and valid, and the Manifesto in today's context.

Critical point that I knew but cannot be stated often enough: The name of the organization Marx and Engels were part of when they wrote the manifesto translates to the League of the Just, which evolved out of the League of Outlaws. Or...as it is often translated, the Justice League.

Look, I would read China Miéville writing a book comparing different types of toothpaste, but it's especially fun to see him geek out about a thing that I have a reasonable level of knowledge about. He's insightful and nuanced—he places the Manifesto as both a product of its time and form, but also a document that has use beyond its rhetoric and history. The last essay in particular captures a lot of his thoughts about left unity and movement building that I find practical and productive. Even writing nonfiction, he can't resist literary flourishes, putting him in good company with Marx and Engels in terms of writing about political economy in a manner that someone would actually want to read.

Parts of the last essay before the final piece (a catechism, because of course it is) are sticking with me the most. One invokes "salvage communism," which is a term I think Miéville had a hand in inventing along with Richard Seymour and others in that group. It's such a useful construct that when reading, I was like "why are we on the left not talking about this more?" The last section of the essay, surprisingly, is on hate. It's a compelling and complex meditation on the role of emotion in politics that typifies why I think that Miéville's political writing is so good.

[Craig Werner · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book I've read on what Marxism is and why it continues to matter. Written in a clear straightforward style that doesn't back off the complexities when necesssary.

Miéville pinpoints the core of Marxism in its demand that we subscribe to the ideas that "inequality and oppression aren't states of nature; that our social reality is controlled by the few; that it's so controlled in opposition to the needs and rights of the many; that we have the capability, at the very least, to make it worth attempting to change the world. That if we succeed, it will be better for the vast majority." (p. 155).

That's the core, but he does a brilliant job discussing what approaches to that have worked, where they have encountered limits inherent in the context in which Marx and Engels wrote, how capitalism has proven much more adaptable than most "Marxists" anticipated. Very good sections on the relationship between the Manifesto and contemporary complications posed by race, nation, and gender.

He's no apologist, but he's convincing that, the self-serving claims of "capitalist realists" who say "There Is No Alternative" notwithstanding, those of us who desire greater justice and a sustainable future, can at the very least take this germinal text with the seriousness it deserves.

[Linnea Lucifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whatever you do, don't buy the audiobook version! If it wasn't against my principles, I would return it for a refund, that's how painful it was to listen to. I really wanted to read this book because I like Miéville and I've been looking forward to this release. Unfortunately, I had to DNF it at the 50% mark, and I only made it that far because I genuinely wanted to read the book. I believe it is a great read that I'd probably rate four or five stars. If it wasn't. For. The fact that. The narration. Of the audio. Book is. Atrocious. (Written, slightly over-exaggerated, example of narration.) For now, I'm giving it three stars because it neither adds nor detracts from the average. (As an audiobook it deserves 1 at best.) I'll come back with a proper review once I've read the e-book. Whenever that will be. There's a reason I primarily "read" audiobooks. So disappointed... =/

[Peter Z. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I recommend visiting a communist country that gained their freedom, and ask some people who remember the old system if they want it back. Better yet, read about the tens of millions of innocents slaughtered in pursuit of the unreachable utopia. Read some of the first person accounts of survivors of "re-education" camps. Or of family members of people thrown in prison for not crying enough at the death of some local communist leader. Or those let to starve because they didn't have anything with which to bribe the local officials to get food.

Here's a real thinker: if the means necessary to achieve a goal are not noble, the goal itself is not noble.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall this was a fine book with beautiful writing, as is to be expected from Miéville. He expertly consolidates thousands of pages of socialist debate and polemic into piercing, satisfying sentences. I found the arguments by and large unobjectionable.

Perhaps the fault lies with my expectations, but I was hoping for something of a radically novel rationale for the self-activity of working people, world-opening for contemporary minds. Instead I found the book a bit overfull of caveats and academic-style ass-covering, which watered it down and grated against the spirit of the manifesto itself. It would have been improved by a more courageous approach, or at least by offending more people.

I’ll still read anything Miéville writes though, he’s politically astute and a master rhetorician and storyteller.

[Adam McPhee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provides context and history. A useful close reading of an important text.

[Bas · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5/5 stars

This was my first CM book and it will certainly not be my last. It is very beautifully written and a very compelling read. Miéville analyses , explains and criticises the Communist Manifesto and gives basically an excellent introduction to the work. It's written by somebody who is absolutely sympathetic to the core message of the Manifesto but he also engages with the criticisms of it and explains in which way it has fallen short ( seeing that I recently read it, I felt very happy that some of my criticisms were addressed). While I find the writing accessible the topic itself is not always very easy and the writing can become a bit denser at times. That's not a bad thing but it's book where you need to be able to focus to keep following Miéville's arguments. Where he tries to contain his sympathies a bit in the main text ( and largely succeeds though in the sense that he is still clearly left-wing but has a critical outlook towards his own side of the political spectrum) but in the afterword he shows all his cards and it's amazing to read. I would recommend this to anyone who has an interest in the Communist Manifesto , Marx and leftist politics in general

[Tom J · Rating 2 out of 5]

astonishingly, seismically bad. not just a bad book but a catastrophic fumbling of what is an absolute layup of an idea by someone who absolutely should have known better.

this book needed an editor, or on the off chance it had one, a better editor. sentences have endless interruptions and digressions, and occasionally form entire paragraphs on their own. the subject or tense of a sentence will change with no warning. there are constant asides and tangents that act as brick walls for the reader to unwittingly slam into.

these are minor quibbles however, compared to the almost comically poor choice of words that mieville uses. in his fiction works his use of language is masterful, here it appears that he’s terrified of not being taken seriously as an academic and has searched synonyms for some words to make the book appear more complex. here is a non-exhaustive list of bullshit, pointlessly obscure terms he uses:

- recrudescent
- apophatic
- vatic
- integuments
- minatory
- imbrication

and then he has the gall to criticise marx for “the rich but obscure language marx inherited from hegel”! my brother in christ you have written a book that cannot be read.

who is this for? anyone who is willing to engage with it that is accustomed to the academic or obscure language used throughout is unlikely to be surprised by anything in it, and anyone who is genuinely interested but completely uninformed is not going to be able to decipher it. this book is somehow the worst of both worlds.

when it deigns to be comprehensible, the book occasionally shows flashes of what it was that animated mieville to write it, and his passion and insight can shine through. the section right at the end, where he writes in an easily understood, common language prose, is easily the most engaging and relatable part of the entire book. this, along with the small bits of new information and context that i could gain, is why it has 2 stars.

it’s a shame that the rest is so pointlessly esoteric and complex, because a well written discussion of the manifesto and it’s historical context, as well as it’s place in modern history, would be a book i’d buy five of, in order to give to people who wanted to know more. i wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone, except as a perfect example of how a certain subsection of the left has completely lost its ability to talk to the average person

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Actually it would be okay if only Europe would have been haunted by the killing fields. Yet, the disease has long been exported: Asia, Africa, the Americas.

At first I thought this is some sort of satire. But no, this is the thinking of Ingsoc: *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*

[Joaquim Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Las primeras 150 páginas son un comentario casi-académico relativamente rápido sección por sección del Manifiesto, añadiendo algo de contexto además de una crítica moderada a sus debilidades y fortalezas. Supongo que para alguien con menos recorrido del tema puede irle bien, a mí me ha dado un poco igual, aunque agradezco tanta bibliografía. Aún así cumple con tomarse el Manifiesto (y con ello a Marx y el Comunismo) como algo actual y digno de tratarse de forma comprensiva, me parece buena actitud.

Ahora bien, las siguientes 50 páginas ya són de Mieville el escritor profesional, el que sabe prosar para que avancen sus temas. No es increíble, pero sí hace propuestas interesantes (la política del odio de clase o una incertidumbre militante), actualiza cuestiones esenciales (como el decrecimiento o la configuración del partido y su democracia interna) y reluce cierto estilo narrativo (algunos fragmentos brillan con pasión, algunas citas están elegidas con mucho gusto).

Esperaba más comentario del estilo del Manifiesto y menos acercamiento académico, pero es una aproximación loable con buenas intenciones. También incluye el propio Manifiesto con varios apéndices, que no sobran supongo.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the kind of book that makes me miss teaching.

[Tanner Sturgeon]

Near impossible to give a rating, as I came to this without having read the source text, but as a great admirer of China’s works. He eases newcomers into the greater context of the Manifesto, a document and larger political ideology treated with vehement scorn here in this country and others strangled by the greed of Capitalism. While acknowledging his biases and shortcomings of the Manifesto both at the time of publication and in our modern age, he analyzes and presents the pros and cons of the document in his signature style. Recommend this to anyone with even a passing interest in learning about the Manifesto and Communism as a whole.

[Brendan · Rating 5 out of 5]

As always, Mieville proves his adaptability and capacity to make me think and reflect (especially the discussions/reflections on class reductionism and on hate). Mieville cannot be defined by genre, although this book definitely feels much more in line with something like Terry Eagleton's "Why Marx was Right" than anything Mieville has written before - it felt very different from October, and from his fiction, of course.

I will hopefully do a more in-depth review later, but for now, in the words of the late great Ursula K. Le Guin, "You can't talk about Miéville without using the word brilliant." This was different, and I think I might need to do a re-read to digest everything...

[Sanjida · Rating 4 out of 5]

This exegesis is quite dense, at least in audiobook form, and required a lot of rewinding. I wished I had gotten it in book form instead. I found it helpful and persuasive though.

[Sergio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Creo que está bastante bien y que es más un libro de 4,5/5 estrellas que de menos de 4, leyendo la mayoría de críticas muchas de las personas que lo han puntuado bajo ha sido por la versión audiolibro, comentarios deshonestos hablando de los "100 millones de muertos" y gente decepcionada porque no tenía el mismo estilo que sus libros de ficción

Creo que el libro consigue en cierta medida lo mismo que el propio Manifiesto comunista en sí consiguió en su momento, e incluso que "copia" en cierto modo ese estilo de mezclar un análisis más serio con un cierto tono poético.
Temía que fuese a ser excesivamente académico o rojipardo pero me parece una lectura muy accesible y de un compromiso político genuino que sabe reconocerse ignorante en ciertos aspectos y abierto a cambios. Creo que es una lectura que merece la pena sobre todo si te gustaría adentrarte más en política.

"Sí, cambiaremos el estado actual de cosas. No lo haremos en el sentido de que sea inevitable, sino que lo haremos en el sentido de que no es imposible; en el sentido de que es necesario, de que la apuesta y la lucha valen absolutamente la pena. En el sentido de que vivir con ese «Sí» ardiendo en lo más íntimo de tu ser, de forma simultánea, y con tanta fuerza, o finalmente más fuerte incluso, que el ardiente «No» de esa parte de odio necesario, es la única manera de acercarse a existir, y a vivir como un ser humano en un sistema tan repulsivo, monstruoso, inhumano y antihumano. Sí.

Sí, cambiaremos el actual estado de cosas."

[vanessa · Rating 5 out of 5]

a poetic and powerful primer.

Miéville engages well with the common critiques of the Manifesto—from its purported rootedness in an inevitabilistic view of history and technological determinism to its lack of analysis of the compound problems of gender, race, empire and the nation state. He shows why many of these critiques lose their valence once 1) we read the text as it should be read: as an intervention to a situated political discourse of the 1848/49 Revolutions, and 2) see that Marxism—and Marx’s thought—are dynamic adaptive systems whose dynamism is a sine qua non of its view of the material/ideal worlds.

Miéville joins the increasing number of Marx’s interpreters (e.g. Kevin B. Anderson) in dispelling perhaps the most common charge (of course, I am talking only about the non-preposterous charges against Marxism and not the Cold-War-liberalism-of-fear, reactionary shortcut that Marxism => Stalinist gulags), that Marxism is a prophetic theory rooted in a false, deterministic view of history, whose prophecy ultimately failed and thereby should be overcome. I—a circumspect proselyte of post-Benjaminian Critical Theory—remain ambivalent on the question of determinism. Nevertheless, to make the argument persuasive, Miéville should have expanded on Marx’s identification of the obshchina or mir (the peasant village communes in Tsarist Russia) as the possible loci for revolution, and elaborated on its philosophical implications. However, that would be a book on Marx’s later corpus, not the Manifesto.

It is also extremely well written.

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating, thought provoking read. The Manifesto raises a number of issues which are as relevant today as they were at the time. 

Mieville's analysis and contextualisation are invaluable, particularly where he ventures into a themes which the Manifesto touches only briefly like race. Minus half a star for Mieville's propensity for five dollar words, which make it less accessible and a clunkier read. 

[Adriano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Een scherpe analyse van het manifest. Je moet het manifest uiteraard op voorhand al eens gelezen hebben om volledig te kunnen volgen. Een aanrader voor elke proletariër die het kapitalisme wil bestrijden.

[Jenia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finally read it! I think the last chapter (the communist manifesto nowadays) was the most interesting. Mieville is a v good writer.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

“How many times has the impossibility of change been proved, only for change to rock the world and throw up everything we thought we knew? Open up a glimmer to a life worth living, is it not possible, likely, that millions of people who now see no prospect of any fight ever making this a habitable world, who’ve been encouraged by our rulers to believe absolutely that the sum total of their input in the grand decisions of history is at best ten to fifteen crosses on a ballot paper for parties they don’t control and which betray them at every turn, might suddenly decide that in fact the fight is worth it, not only in principle, but because it might, just possibly, win?”

[TomHenry · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mieville's book begins with a survey of the Manifesto, historical contextualization, and a discussion of the manifesto format. It then ventures into analysis of critiques of the Manifesto, and an extended discussion of the Manifesto's applicability to modern politics.

I found the beginning sections very interesting and invigorating, especially the historical contextualization of the Manifesto and the evaluation of its arguments. Mieville does a great job contextualizing Marx and Engels in the group of ex-Young Hegelians and utopians who were active at the time of writing. He points out predictions made by the famous duo that turned out right, wrong, and more right than anyone expected.

However, I was underwhelmed by the subsequent discussions. I largely found them tangential to the main themes of the book. Often, an extended tangent would run several pages and really felt more like "Mieville proselytizing time" rather than a nuanced discussion of the Manifesto. Often, these tangents end with a paragraph that asks "What did this discussion have to do with Marx and Engels? Well, uh, they kinda wrote about some of the same topics I guess." I wish that the discussions had stayed more true to the subject of the book: The Communist Manifesto. Rather, Mieville sacrificed depth for breadth and it was largely lost on me, especially the frankly weird section about "hatred" that concludes the book. Furthermore, Mieville offers little in terms of how the modern reader can incorporate an understanding of the Manifesto into their own political life.

My biggest critique is the choice of language. One would hope that a book about a working class movement, ostensibly written for a working class audience, would not require a classical liberal arts education to understand. Be ready for Mieville to opt for a 13-letter word when a 4-letter one would suffice... every single time. It comes off as irritatingly posh and condescending. "Turpitudinous"? Dude, seriously? How about, I don't know, "vile"?

[Ginny · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an exemplary presentation of the Communist Manifesto reflecting upon its original and contemporary implications. The author brilliantly explains various aspects of the Manifesto enlightening readers to its relevance at its historical time along with its applicability today. For example, the author excellently addresses and informs readers on how Marx and his contemporaries viewed slave as well as women’s unpaid labor. In this respect the author offers a more modern understanding of Marx’s views of special interest groups that in praxis have been traditionally overlooked. Mieville also critiques ideas from various perspectives that will motivate many readers to explore previous and current implications. The author offers a fair presentation, analysis, and critique of the Communist Manifesto that all students interested in contemporary political perspectives should understand. This book requires multiple readings; it’s impossible to grasp the ideas, their meaning, and their implications after the first read. Group discussions perhaps would enhance readers’ interpretations and conclusions. In conclusion, this book potentially will become a classic for those seeking traditional as well as contemporary understandings of The Communist Manifesto. It is a must read for anyone interested in political theory and communism as it was originally conceived and more recently interpreted.