They referred to books weaponized in the last century. As far as that goes, The Bible and Uncle Tom's Cabin, sure. But "Das Kapital"? Was that even widely read? How was it weaponized, e.g. did people refer to it, even though nobody had read the book?
As for a book causing change "by itself":
One thing about the Bible is that the content itself is nothing compared to the claim that it's the word of God. It could have completely different content, as long as there were people seriously devoted to it being the word of God, it would have an effect. That's why it usually it involves missionaries or being raised into it. Is it even possible to encounter that book "by itself"? And it didn't exist for a few centuries when the things it supposedly causes already were done.
A book breaking a taboo for example, and that in turn faciliting social change that was a long way coming, is not the same as a "book causing social change by itself". I don't know enough about it and the context, but it says on the Wikipedia page about Uncle Tom's Cabin:
> Uncle Tom's Cabin first appeared as a 40-week serial in The National Era, an abolitionist periodical, starting with the June 5, 1851, issue. It was originally intended as a shorter narrative that would run for only a few weeks. Stowe expanded the story significantly, however, and it was instantly popular, such that several protests were sent to the Era office when she missed an issue. Because of the story's popularity, the publisher John P. Jewett contacted Stowe about turning the serial into a book.
So at the very least, there was something there already. I'm sure it was weaponized, but how did it cause social change? Did it cause people who loved slavery to now dislike slavery? Did it make formerly happy slaves unhappy? I honestly don't know, and since my asking for examples is taken as the claim "there are no examples", I would ask you to treat my questions as actual questions.
Das Kapital was written to prove an scientific underpinning for a labour movement that already existed, long after the Communist Manifesto. So here too I'd ask, what social change did it cause by itself?
To weaponize means to make something that wasn't a weapon before into a weapon.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were a fabrication for a very clear and narrow purpose, it was a weapon from the get go.
I would say the same about Mein Kampf, but nobody read that. The Nazis rose to power on Hitler's speeches and violence, not on this book which nobody really read. Yes, everybody had it, but that's about it.
Did the Sayings of Chairman Mao really cause anything that wasn't already caused by the jackboots that forced people to have and quote from it?
How was the The Communist Manifesto weaponized in the last century? Who read or quoted from it?
> Public pressure led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act; the latter established the Bureau of Chemistry (in 1930 renamed as the Food and Drug Administration). Sinclair rejected the legislation, which he considered an unjustified boon to large meat packers. The government (and taxpayers) would bear the costs of inspection, estimated at $30,000,000 annually. He complained about the public's misunderstanding of the point of his book in Cosmopolitan Magazine in October 1906 by saying, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."
So it was weaponized by large meat packers? Because other than that, I just see Roosevelt agreeing with some things -- which is hardly anything being "weaponized" -- and the public only caring about contaminated meat, at least in this WP article. Or are you referring to something not mentioned in it?