The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx - Seminar Paper

Karl Marx studied law initially as a career, but changed to philosophy and then to journalism. Law was seen as a respectable profession, whereas revolutionary journalism was not

The communist Manifesto was a description of the practices of communism and how Marx thought society should be, a way for the Proletariat, the working class to overcome the exploitation of the Bourgeoisie, the ruling class and in a sense replace them. He believed communism would be the final stage in society and would only be fully achieved through a revolution.

It was written by Marx and Engels in 1847 and is now seen as one of the most influencial political doctrines. He and Engels believed that the destruction of classes could never occur through a natural change in government or society but that a revolution was the only way.

In the decade after the Communist Manifesto was published, Marx looked at the way people were carrying out his work and claimed he was not a Marxist because that was not how he intended his work to be interpreted.

Part 1 – Bourgeois and Proletarians

Marx claims that societies all over the world have always been faced with class struggle. The first section of this talks about class struggle between the ruling class, those who own the means of production like factories (the Bourgeoisie) and the working class, those who work for a wage (the Proletariat), where he states “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” He believes that the Bourgeois continually exploits the Proletarians in terms of manual labour, working conditions and cheap wages to make a profit for themselves and talks about the constant battle between the oppressor (Bourgeoisie) and the oppressed (Proletariat).

Through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Marx believes they will rise to power through revolution, such as riots and creations of unions. He talks about how whenever the opposition ends it is either through revolution or ‘common ruin’, where the oppressed continue to be oppressed and lose. He says about how there has always been an “arrangement of society in various orders” throughout history and the continuous ‘ranking’ of people. He believed that ultimate communism was the key to class equality among citizens.

Instead of society learning from it’s mistakes he talking about the continuation of the class struggle problem, and how the classes are just being replaced by new classes that are also taking the role of the oppressor and the oppressed.

He goes on to talk about the Industrial Revolution, and how manual labour is being replaced by machinery – “steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production”, and the general growing market.

He puts the Bourgeoisie down constantly in the bit where he talks about how passion and sentimentalism have all been replaced with moneymaking ideals by the Bourgeoisie and says “has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family into a mere money relation”. ‘personal  worth’ was not important to the Bourgeoise, instead they have “given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country”. This just eccentuates the difference between things like trade and cosmopolitan lifestyle, like city-type industries.

He then talks about the Proletariat, and their focus on work, along with the effects of the Industrial Revolution, which had turned them into resembling soldiers and slaves in a way. “Crowded into the factory, organised like soldiers” and “they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine”.

From the lecture and from the reading the most prominent thing is that the P had nothing to lose, or so Marx believes. They have no ownership of anything, so are ideal to start a revolution. He believes in this uprising because the Bourgeoise has “stripped him of every trace of national character”, and so they should end their exploitation once and for all.

Part 2 – Proletariats and Communists

10 point program - “nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

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 hands 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 wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

8)   Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9)   Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country

10)                   Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Could this have influenced Hitler’s 25-point plan for Nazism?

This section also defends communism from various criticisms such as the idea people would not work because they would have no incentive. He stresses the need to abolish bourgeois property, not just property in general.

An interesting point he made was when he talks about political power not being anything more than “the organized power of one class for oppressing another”. In a way, I think this is quite true, because in a society, you cannot have a ruler without people being below that ruler for them to rule. Even though in the most extreme cases it is obviously wrong for one person to have so much power, for example Stalin, Hitler etc, political power is needed to an extent for a society to work.

Part 3 – Socialist and Communist Literature

This section kind of sets communism apart from any other political standpoint of that time, dismissed for not appreciating the oppressed role of the Proletariat. Because of the success of Marx’s work, these other doctrines became insignificant by the end of the nineteenth century.

He also describes three types of socialist and communist literature –

1)   Reactionary Socialism – all of these fought against the rise of the Bourgeoise and the rise of modern industry during the industrial revolution.

2)   Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism and Communism – He stated the people who belonged in this group were people like economists and organizers of charities and societies, who wanted to look at the advantages of the modern industry but did not want the danger that came with the revolution.

3)   Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism – these looked for new social conditions and laws to free the Proletariat. However because they were looking for a Utopian society (much like Thomas More), it was idealistic and not necessary a reality for society.

Marx thought all the groups’ underlying aims was to quieten the Proletariat and they were all working in the interest of the Bourgeoisie.

Part 4 – Position of the Communists in relation to the various existing opposition parties

This is the conclusion of the Manifesto and it talks about the communist opinion on class struggles in the nineteenth century over Europe. It ends with powerful support for the Communist revolutionaries – “let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win”. “Workers of all nations, unite!” This is kind of propaganda-type writing, inspiring the people unhappy with their lives – the Proletariat to change their situation and come together to oppose the Bourgeoisie. The mention of chains reminded me of Rousseau when he said “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains” – this applies especially to the Proletariat and it is interesting that Rousseau was an inspiration behind the French Revolution – so there is a common theme of revolution.

Week 2 – Seminar – Mary Wollstonecraft – ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ Chapter IV. ‘Observations on the State of Degradation to which Woman is Reduced by Various Causes’

Mary Wollstonecraft was the first prominent feminist, and the whole book is in response to Rousseau. She was key in the feminist movement and influenced suffragettes, especially Virginia Wolf. ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ was not really an attack on men, but more on the superficial ideas of women and their need to become free.

She believed understanding had been denied to women and instinct, sublimated into wit and cunning, for the purposes of life has been substituted in its stead. This struck me as an interesting thought, because women were always seen as adopting the caring, nurturing and understanding role, however wit and cunning would be seen as stereotypically male traits. Perhaps her point is to reverse the roles as a form of empowerment.  She had some empiricist views, and agreed with Locke in that she believed knowledge came from a person’s own observations and experiences.

She did not think that a woman only existed for a man, and saw beauty as a weakness. The idea was that women lacked reason, and she compares women to the rich throughout the chapter. This quote was originally about the rich but can be applied to women too – “to be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency, and approbation, are all the advantages which they seek”.

“Civilized women are, therefore, so weakened by false refinement, that, respecting morals, their condition is much below what it would be were they left in a state nearer to nature.” This is a direct link to Rousseau and his ideas to transform mankind back to its natural primitive state.

She saw the French Revolution as an opportunity for a change in feminism.

She states how women are enslaved to their emotions as they are seen as the weaker sex – “to their senses, are women made slaves, because it is by their sensibility that they obtain present power”

“Fine by defect, and amiably weak” – She talks about how women are created to feel rather to understand and that the power they obtain is from their charms and weaknesses rather than their reason. It was thought that men were made to reason, and women were made to feel. This can be taken to mean that men have power in public but at home women have more power because they are serving their purpose, therefore being strong by being weak.

The point she disagreed with Rousseau on was “the more they resemble our sex the less power they will have over us”, and her response was, “I do not wish them to have power over men, but over themselves”. She believed women wanted it for themselves, not to be better than men. What Wollstonecraft and Rousseau agreed on though, was to “educate women like men”.

One of her main issues was with polygamy. Her idea was that because women are the stronger sex, there are more women in the world, and the stronger sex would dominate and produce a stronger sex baby, therefore there would be a sort of female cycle. Men would then become weaker, and women would be stronger. However, she did believe the best way to be was married – one man and one woman.

She believed women matured much quicker than men, a fact which is still debated over today, and that female beauty is the perfection of a woman visually, whereas male beauty was judged by the mind and the strength of the body. I found this interesting because I think it’s still very evident today; I feel like women are more judged on their appearances, especially in the celebrity culture and column or tabloid journalism especially.

Another key point of hers was when a men seduces a woman, the man should then legally be obliged to maintain the woman and her children, regardless of the situation. I couldn’t help but apply this to modern relationships; perhaps it would be a good way of reducing teen pregnancy?!

Her big point was about education. She was incredibly angry at how women were degraded, especially in terms of education and compared to a well-educated man. Women were generally given a low standard of education for domestic jobs like sewing. They were not allowed any goals of aims; the main aim of the woman was to get married, only then had they achieved their life goal.

This raised the point of women looking after the children. Even though it is less odd to have a househusband these days, why should men automatically assume the role of the breadwinner? She believed women should be a real companion to their husbands and not just a slave, feeling power had been denied to women.

A couple of questions were raised with regard to gender expectations and generalizations;

-       Why does a man have to hold a door for a woman?

-       Why does a man have to pull out the chair for a woman?

For the first question we thought society had moved on and anybody holds a door open for anybody these days, not just men for women, but the latter question still applied. Why is it assumed the woman cannot do this for herself, or is it just a question of whether or not chivalry is dead? From childhood men were educated to earn money and provide for their families; was this unfair to women?

We discussed the fact that men and women are not born equally physically, but now is it seen that principally we are born equal? We may never know our purpose in life as a man or a woman, but it shouldn’t matter what gender we are either way.

Week 1 – Lecture – Rousseau, The French Revolution & Mary Wolstencraft

ROUSSEAU

Rousseau’s main creative force pre-enlightenment was Christianity, however it had disappeared in the enlightenment, which knocked Christianity from elements of society. The vacuum this left was filled with a “god of the gaps” – a belief in the divinity of nature and romanticism. Rousseau believed mountains were something to marvel at, there is a famous image of him stood on mountains in Switzerland and the image is of him, as an individual stood on the mountain alone, contemplating something great so it seems. He was a key philosopher in the idea of Romanticism, and explained it in a political way.

He believed that listening to waves was a very intense experience, and by doing this eradicated all the pain of the past and anxiety for the future. All that he was left with was the sense of being and this transformed his ideas. The interaction with nature made him believe everything before this was a lie, but that you could find beauty and truth in nature.  Romanticism as a new cult of sensibility was a political time bomb, and incredibly controversial. Before this, people had been very pro-science and pro-reason, and it clashed with Romanticism.

Rousseau thought nature was the answer to everything, not reason, and this belief in beauty in nature also applied to mankind. He believed that nature and innocence was beauty, and that civilization had corrupted man. He did not approve of the civilization of the 18^th century, and believed in a golden age when the natural man was virtuous, at some point in the past. Humans had become puppets and the noble savage, with no civilization, was purely human, and beautiful.

“No one has used such intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. After reading your book one feels as if one should walk on all fours.” One of many critics of Rousseau; Voltaire did not agree with Rousseau’s dismissal of all the progress humans had made in civilization.

We moved on to Tahiti, and the paradise the primitive people lived in there. With no civilization, humans were closer to an animalistic state, and this is what Rousseau wanted. Compared to Hobbes who he believed animalistic instincts were dangerous, John Locke was quite similar to Rousseau, and thought people were generally good in a state of nature, but believed limited governments were needed to control arguments over property.

ROMANTICISM

It totally contrasts the scientific exact measurements and understanding machine, and it was a reaction against the enlightenment, as Rousseau believed in the supremacy of emotions. With regard to the first ever person to decide he owned his own land, he believed it led to civilization; hence it led to misery and ownership, and passionately believed someone should have stopped them.

“Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains” – Rousseau

He was adamant that humans must return to nature and the goodness of a primitive man was unbeatable, because that is the state in which we are born.

Brian then went on to talk about the significance of ‘the statue’, the idea that civilization has corrupted us and has left us alienated. Rousseau saw civilization as a machine that extinguished passion and heart. The image of ‘the statue’ presents the idea that when it is first put up, it is clean and pure and beautiful, then over time it is worn down and covered in decay; a metaphor for civilization. He believed mankind were trapped by self-esteem, and that the constant competition destroyed self-confidence in humans.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

This again links back to both Hobbes and Locke; Hobbes believed that the idea of a social contract was bad, and that one person was needed in charge to keep everybody in order. However Locke had a more liberal point of view. True, he believed in government, but that they should deal with disputes and not interfere personally. He believed that the law should have nothing to do with people not doing anything, you should be free, but there is a limit to the freedom.

“Taking men as they are, and laws as they might be... “

The problem: “Find a form of association, which defends and protects with all the common force, the person and goods of each associate and by means of which each one while uniting with all obeys only himself and remains as free as before”

®    Rousseau admits there is no way back to nature, and like a pet released into the wild, it would not survive.

®    Taking men as they are – A Machiavellian idea

GENERAL WILL

Rousseau had the idea of a new Utopia, and a new form of government, which would create laws everyone agreed with and everybody would follow, and it would result in no loss of freedom. His idea was that if we all contribute to the shaping of the general will, by obeying the laws that everybody agrees on, essentially we only obey ourselves, therefore the consensus is no loss of freedom. The example Brian used was if there was a new law, that everybody should eat toast for breakfast, and everybody liked toast, then it would not be like obeying a law, you would just be obeying yourself, whereas if you did not like toast, and instead preferred cereal, then there would be a loss of freedom there.

“For it to be driven by appetite alone is slavery and obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is freedom”

Direct democracy meant no one person in charge and no representation.

There is a contrast with the liberal point of view though, between the public and private sphere. Rousseau saw the idea that you couldn’t do something in public that you would happily do privately as a loss of freedom. He believed that public and private was the same thing and people should be free within the law.

However the dangers of general will was that it is a new kind of dictatorship, exploiting the tyranny of law, for instance anyone who refused to obey the general will would be “forced to free”. The freedom exists only in service, and our freedom starts where the law begins.

LEGACY OF ROUSSEAU / DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN

The main right for a man is that he is born equal and free and should remain this way in rights. The expression of general would mean that every citizen would have the right to participate personally, of through a representative, in it’s foundation.

The French Revolution in 1789 was one of the biggest events ‘ever’ – we were assured this is no exaggeration. Before the revolution, France was bankrupt, and they just did not have enough money to survive as a country. The King, who was chosen by the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, so apparently chosen by God, could not run the country. It was split into three estates, the first being the Aristocracy, the second being the clergy, and the third was the commoners. The first and second estates were capitalists, and the third were the socialists, who revolted. We also found out that even to this day the Press are often referred to as the fourth estate. The beginning of the revolution was pedantic and slow moving, with the commoners breaking off to assemble their own constitution – the National Assembly. They were heavily influenced by Rousseau, and saw a ‘New Dawn’, where the aristocracy was finished with and they were all about passion and the change of old regimes.

“Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven” – Wordsworth. To be young was to be at your most free. Wordsworth also believed the revolution was bringing Rousseau’s ideas of the ‘natural man’ to life and to action. Wordsworth was there during the revolution as one of the radicals, through all the mayhem, murder and dramatics, which they saw as amazing and blissful. The Revolution changed everything, there were new calendar months, the year numbers started again at zero, and they brought about a ten day week, it was a new world.

It was in the September massacres where things got especially nasty; there was a power vacuum, as nobody knew who was in charge. The rest of Europe wanted to stop the revolution, and there was a general abandonment of reason.

REIGN OF TERROR - named by the government itself

In 1792 it looked like Paris was to be attacked by Prussia, and so Paris citizens at this time were then armed, and in 1793 the King was guillotined, seen as an egalitarian way of execution. Marie Antoinette was also guillotined, as it was seen to show no preferential treatment when it came to death. However the rest of Europe did not agree with or like the revolutionaries killing royalty.

And so the Reign of Terror was announced, as they were deliberately using violence. Robespierre, an influential character in the Revolution, believed this terror was virtuous, and the word of a so-called virtuous person was enough proof to convict someone of being against the revolution, a reason to kill him or her. He saw the terror as a purge, and the only evidence needed was a person of ‘virtue’ to call them counter-revolutionary. The government did not believe in rational thinking.

MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT

She loved philosophy, and much of her writing was in response to Rousseau, who she found intoxicating and annoying. Working as a governess, her prospects were small and she didn’t expect much.  She believed that the education given to women at that time was superficial and shallow. In a way she created education for women, however at first believed she had no voice. Some of her ideas came from Locke, and his idea that if you fully educate someone, it will produce rational, respectable citizens. She saw education as they key to women’s freedom, and was won over by Locke’s idea of the blank slate because she found it liberating. It insinuated that men and women were born equal. She agreed with Rousseau’s egalitarian nature and his hatred of sophistication, and took his ideas of freedom to not just apply to men, but to women too. His description of women angered her, but he also intrigued her. She went to see the French Revolution because it was a huge change of an old regime, and made her think that equality for men and women was a possibility. The world was changing and she wanted to be part of it.

She believed that men and women are both human beings, and should remain non-sexual until they are in love and only then can they assume a gender identity. Her beliefs in equality applied to a professional setting also, and the idea that gender is not important unless developed in a relationship through sexuality. Her idea was to limit areas where men and women were restricted, and believed we could change our destiny by what was put into our minds – education. With the best education, gender would no longer be important.

John Locke, Newton & The Clockwork Universe

John Locke was one of the most influential enlightenment thinkers, and one of the finest empiricists, believing that knowledge is based on experience. He disagreed with Descartes and the idea that we have innate ideas within us from birth. In 1689 he wrote ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’, stating that human understanding comes from our experience, and that we are born with a blank slate and nothing but the capacity to reason. He believed that God gave man the ability to discover knowledge and mortality, and believed in revelation, but not if it was forced by the Church and/or state.

In Book I he argues that the mind is a blank slate, that ideas are from experience and attacks Descartes’ innate ideas, and in Book II he presents an argument for the existence of an intelligent being. In the Epistle to the Reader he states “nothing of them in the mind but a capacity to know them”, and this reflects his beliefs.

Locke was the founder of philosophical liberalism; his thinking reflects the revolution taking place at the time. He argued for the law of nature, granting us each natural rights, to life and liberty.

Locke’s main opponent was Descartes, who wanted to base society on 100% certainty and solid knowledge. He broke everything down; stripping everything he knew and asked what was left. He is famous for the quote “I think therefore I am”, believing that if he wasn’t thinking, he would not exist.

He believed that God gave mankind the ability to discover knowledge and morality, so that innate ideas aren’t needed, and that individuals should be guided by revelation that should be checked by reason. He tried to separate religion from the state.

Newton was also an empiricist, and the start of enlightenment science. He discovered the law of gravity, the three laws of motion, and created infinitesimal calculus. Locke cleared the ground for scientists like Newton, who was criticised by the Cartesian school, who were against things like magic. Newton said that natural philosophy can only demonstrate that a certain force operates in the world, not why. He believed science should not make things up, it should admit ignorance when it did not have data, and that the universe demonstrated God’s freedom and omnipotence.

Locke’s ethic is utilitarian; for the greater good, and he accepted Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. He had a theory of knowledge, which linked philosophy and politics. He was interested in how we come by human knowledge and what precisely it is, and his philosophy was that we don’t learn from reason, we learn from experience.

His idea of a blank sheet was also known as ‘Tabula Rasa’; that human knowledge is not innate in us at birth, but we use reason to draw conclusions from experience. The primary qualities In his ideas were those that are inseperable from the body; actually in the body. The secondary qualities were things like colours, sounds and smells.

“Reason” was an enquiry as to what things we know with certainty, and an investigation of propositions, which it is wise to accept in practice. Locke believed that our ideas are from sensation and perception, and it is important that men should be guided.

David Hume - causation, induction, inference

Hume represented philosophical idealism, and was an open atheist, who would have been seen as blasphemous at the time, and he would have been executed.

Logical Positivism

This was a school of philosophical thought, and a modern philosophy of science. It was an approach underpinning the approach of medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. and social science. Hume was impressed by Newton, and he tried to apply Eutonian theory to human behaviour.

Hume heavily influences journalists, his ideas that knowledge should be obtained and verified, along with synthesis and analysis.

Einstein was very different to Hume – he didn’t believe in law within the universe.

Hume, similarly to Descartes and Cartesian doubt, along with other Logical Positivists don’t believe in truth or certain knowledge, but believe that everything is a gamble, and nothing is ever certain, for example, the sunrise to Hume, was just an illusion.

Causation

The idea that one cause causes another, however Hume didn’t believe this happened in nature, but only in your mind. In the reading he uses an analogy of billiard balls to describe causation – the idea that you can hit the white ball, and yes another red ball may go into the pocket, but how can you prove it was the white ball that made the red ball go in? It is the idea of not jumping to conclusions, something a journalist can relate to, because you must find the absolute root of the story and research it in so much detail before it can go out.

Induction

Logic is a specific method for analysing claims, and we as journalists can use logic to see if a claim is internally consistent.

There are two types of logic –

-        Analytical logic – something that is always true, and the conclusion is derived from the subject. For example, all bicycles have two wheels, this is logically true, so two wheels means a bicycle, three wheels would be a tricycle and one wheel would be a unicycle. All computers run on analytical logic

-        Synthetic logic – something you can add knowledge to. An ‘axium’ is the starting point in a chain of sythentic logic. For example, “all men are mortal” can be challenged. If you accept the axium, then Socrates is a man (analytical) and therefore Socrates is mortal (synthetic).

Inference

For example, the idea that smoking causes cancer. Scientists have proved that more people that smoke get cancer as opposed to people that do not, but how can we make the direct link that smoking causes cancer? The data is inferring it, not actually proving it. Nothing is known for certain.

Hume believed you cannot derive “ought to be” from “is”, for example “It is cold today ,but it ought to be warm” – it is what it is and people are what they are.

Logical Positivism and Hume assert the independent verification principle, that there is no actual truth, just verifiable and non-verifiable – almost sounds like the idea that anything can be proved if you find the right evidence.

Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal

“A modest proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.”

-        By Dr. Jonathan Swift 1729

I should probably start by saying this is a purely satirical essay, something that I didn’t know before I read it, hence was horrified to read it thinking it was actual ideas of a human! However, now I know, and it was actually quite amusing to read back. It was published anonymously, and it suggests that the Irish living in poverty would ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food to the richer class. It is designed to shock and mock British officials, one way he does this is by describing in great detail the way in which  the children are prepared to eat, “a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled;”

The “Advantages” of the proposal

1)     It would greatly lessen the number of Catholics, or “Papists” as Swift refers to them, in the nation, seen as the “most dangerous enemies”

2)     The poor tenants would be able to pay the landlords rent, because of their possession of something valuable – their children.

3)     The money saved on the bringing up of children past two years of age can be put back into the economy, “And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture”.

4)     Along with money going into the economy, the parents will save an awful lot, and also earn money by selling the children.

5)     Taverns, where the cooked children would more than likely be served, will receive good custom because of the well presented and prepared quality of the food, and they can charge as much as they want for it because of the quality.

6)     Apparently it would be a positive thing for a marriage to have to sell a child. Mothers would show more care towards their babies because it would be a profit as opposed to an expense. It would generate “healthy” competition between wives as to who could produce the fattest child to the market, and would cause men to be more fond towards their women as opposed to beating or hitting them as they would before, obviously.

According to Swift’s satire, the flesh of a pig has nothing on “a well grown, fat yearly child”, roasted whole.

It’s safe to say I was extremely relieved to find this was a satirical essay, as the thought of eating anybody human, let alone a year old baby, makes me sick to my stomach. He uses sarcasm and wit to shock his audience, and make the reader side with the Irish and detest the speaker, in this case himself.

He describes “no one objection”, it is apparent that there are no flaws in his ingenius plan to eat babies, describing it as for the “publick good of my country”.

Seminar Paper – Addison and the Spectator & The Royal Exchange

“Whoever wishes to attain an English style, familiar but not coarse, and elegant but not ostentatious, must give his days and nights to the study of Addison.” Samuel Johnson

Joseph Addison was a very educated man, with a history in government and also an education at Oxford, best known for his essay writing. He was co-founder of the Spectator and of the Guardian between 1711 and 1714, and he also began work on his political paper, The Freeloader, by 1715.

Addison and the Spectator

What I picked up on from the essay was his slight disregard for Aristotle’s methods, “written with Regularity and Method”, going on to describe his own ways, “I have several Thoughts on a Subject without troubling my self to range them in such order, that they may seem to grow out of one another,” This slightly confused me because later he talks about how he likes methodical writing, and likens writing with no method to being in a “Wood” with the “greatest Confusion and Disorder”.

From reading his work, it seems he does think in terms of logic, as broad as his statements may be. He describes long publications as repetitive, whereas short works are more concise, probably in favour of his own style of writing, “do not expect to meet with anything in a bulky Volume”. I agree with this, because if something is concise, it is more to the point and the reader can pick up on what the writer is trying to convey, as opposed to a longer publication, which could be repetitive.

He does speak very logically, and with a lot of sense, explaining that when something makes sense to a reader, “your Eye commands the whole Prospect, and gives you such an idea of it, as is not easily worn out of the Memory.” This is very true and can be linked to all kinds of writing, from blog entries to magazine articles; the reader will always remember something that makes sense and is interesting to them, much like a journalist’s story.

It appears from his writing that generally he likes things to be methodical; “in a regular series”. He sees irregularity as only supportable in “Men of great Learning or Genius”, “often too full to be exact”, “throw down Pearls in Heaps before the Reader, rather than be at the Pains of stringing them”.

“The Advantages of a Reader from a methodical Discourse, are correspondent with those of the Writer. He comprehends every thing easily, takes it in with Pleasure, and retains it long.”

This relates so easily to Journalism, because there is a clear relationship between the writer and reader in any piece of writing. I think it is really interesting to see that at the start of real Journalism, of which Addison was one of the first, this idea was at the root of it and still is today.

He’s also right when he likens arguing men to Cuttlefish, in that when a cuttlefish is “unable to extricate himself, blackens all the Water about him till he becomes invisible”. This is a really interesting analogy, because when arguing, I think it’s likely to lose the focus of the argument, in Addison’s words, “to borrow a Phrase from the Dispensory, a barren superfluity of Words; the Fruit is lost amidst the Exuberance of Leaves”. This can be paralleled almost with the use of interviews and quotes in modern journalism, and probably even back in the 16^th Century, people can be misquoted to ‘blacken the water’.

Again showing his allegiance with the methodic thinker, he seems to favour Will Dry, a friend of his, a man of few words but a “clear methodical Head” as compared to Tom Puzzle, “a free-thinker”.

The Royal Exchange

From the start, as the reader we can gather Addison fancies himself as a “citizen of the world”, talking about the world and all it’s offerings, generally appearing to be very worldly. He refers to products from other countries across the globe, “The food often grows in one country, and the sauce in another”.  From both essays we see that he is very wise, and knowledgeable. However basic his points may be, there is no doubt about his logic.

He does, however, find a way to link almost everything back to Britain, and implying that Britain has a certain ownership over the World, which I suppose was a likely view given the British Empire at the time. “Trade, without enlarging the British territories, has given us some kind of additional Empire.”, “My friend Sir Andrew calls the vineyards of France our gardens, the spice-islands our hot beds; the Persians our silk weavers, and the Chinese our potters”

The repeated use of “our” implies a sense of everything belonging to the British Empire, and he seems very proud of this.