The Communist Manifesto

[Eric]

I leafed through the English translation of "The Communist Manifesto" this afternoon in the pub. (It is worth noting the fact that all Marx's and Lenin's works are translations. Without translations there would be no international revolution of the proletariat and their fellow-travellers.)

Many people (especially in North Korea, no doubt...) read this little piece of rhetoric as they would the New Testament, the Koran, or Mao's Little Red Book. But when you think about what is written there, isn't it really a feel good factor slither from one vaguely defined term to the next?

What indeed is the "bourgeoisie" now, anno 2010? In our technologised society, does it still make sense to divide the world into two teams, one the wicked capitalist exploiters and factory owners (like Friedrich Engels) and the other team being the oppressed proletariat (never mind rural matters with fields and things that grow, let's stick to Blake's satanic mills)?

Have any of you out there in WLF cyberspace actually read that liitle tract by Marx this millennium? What makes it relevant in the early 21st century?

Lectures, please.

[Omo]

The day of thread-making for you, isn't it?


(It is worth noting the fact that all Marx's and Lenin's works are translations.

What do you mean by that?


[...]Have any of you out there in WLF cyberspace actually read that liitle tract by Marx this millennium? What makes it relevant in the early 21st century?

I read it when I was in my early adolescence, and I remember reading it as a historical piece rather than something "relevant in the early 21st century". I don't think the text itself is relevant, its influence is.

[Eric]

The translations comment was to point out that texts that have made it onto the world stage have to be translated. Because in the Anglo-American world translations are very rare. And yet famous books would not have reached us English speakers without translation.

But the comments about the contents of the "Communist Manifesto" are to point out that this tract is written in very simplistic language, like a fairy-tale for action, obviously to get people to do something rather than philosophise. Terms such as "bourgeoisie" are incredibly vague, when juxtaposed to "proletariat", etc. It's almost like writing "baddies" and "goodies" This turns the pamphlet into something of a caricature of a political tract. Yet millions of people, especially in the Soviet Bloc and China will have read this little book.

I'm sure people like Kolakowski have mapped out in painful detail the influence of the "Communist Manifesto" on the development of Communism as a real-life philosophy, as opposed to remaining a harmless piece of wish-fulfilment written in a London library by a scholar (if indeed it was written in the British Museum). It just strikes me a rather shallow and repetitive booklet, where Marx goes on and on about how the bourgeoisie have achieved this and that, before pointing out that they are no longer the vanguard. Feudal > bourgeois > Communist is the route of Marx' idea of progress. Why is it then that the only country where it is taken seriously today is North Korea, starving and underdeveloped, as even the Chinese have been clever enough to use Communism to keep order nationally, while allowing capitalism in by the back door - because Communist economics doesn't work.

I also read the pamphlet first at about the age of twenty and today, decades later, was the first time I took a good look at it again. When I was twenty I had had no experience whatsoever of any country where they had tried Communism, or had it imposed upon them. I thought it was all rather stirring. But now, having examined what Communism did to the Soviet Bloc by having lived there for a short while and spoken to people, I read all this stuff about rising up and making revolution in quite a different light.

Like Hitler, Marx had his obsessions. For Hitler it was the Jews who were to blame for everything. As Marx was himself a Jew, he did not of course pick out the Jews as the baddies. But he was very critical about what he termed the "bourgeois family". I'm sure he was basing this on his own middle-class German background and extrapolating from Trier to the whole world. The "bourgeois family" has not disappeared. It is the most solid way of bringing up children invented by God or man. For Marx, the bourgeois family is simply an arena where mutual exploitation for money is played out. I don't think that many people see that sort of family so negatively nowadays, when you see the destructive result of too many single parents and broken homes and similar in society.

Read it again, Omo, especially the numbered list of aims towards the end of Part II. It is an interesting novella, if taken as a work of fiction. But as the basis upon which to tear down the old rotten society and erect a new one, it is dangerously simplistic.

[kpjayan]

Of course, I have..

Eric, the world is still divided. The "have"s and the "have not"s , in whatever language you call them. While I am not a communist, I still hope that there will be a day when the entire human folks will have 'equi-opportunities" to live in this world, instead of a few holding on to the natural reserves.

Also, it looks different from a developed nations point of view.. It is very different for three fourth of the world..

[waalkwriter]

Man, Eric you are conservative.

I mean this right here:


I'm sure he was basing this on his own middle-class German background and extrapolating from Trier to the whole world. The "bourgeois family" has not disappeared. It is the most solid way of bringing up children invented by God or man.

I dislike the bourgeois family as well and would certainly not characterize it as the most solid way of bringing up children. I'd call it way to bring up complacent children who regurgitate the ideals of their parents and have an extremely narrow world view.

and this:


because Communist economics doesn't work.

Pure communist economics have never been tested, and in any case are too idealistic to work. But the basic idea of removing wealth away from the rich and too the poor is a very good one. I often joke that the only reason I am taking economics classes is to be able to recreate a modern Marxism.

People often pass up the fact though that the Russia was a 90% Peasant, backwards society before the Communist, and world super power when they collapsed. Until the decripit rule of Brezhnev, (1970s), the Russian Economy was growing faster than the United States'.

Capitalists always love to drone over that bullshit about Communism not working. Totalitarian communism doesn't work, no, but open government, free market communism has never gotten a good show, though Sweden makes a good case for it in some ways. Both systems have their flaws, and both tend to crush the invididual. Marx failed to realize that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just as oppressive to the individual and his happiness as the dictatorship of the bourgeosie was, that was the undoing of his philosoophy. I do however greatly admire his ideas of class warfare and social justice, societal interactions, religion and prefer to call myself a Neo-Marxist in my politics. Marx makes many great points, like how the customs and culture of a population are always merely those of it's ruling elite and change when they change. He makes a great case to end nationalism and racial boundaries, and was a great humanist.

The best way to put Marx's ideas into action is through Keynesian Economics really, modified, extreme Keynesian economics, and that is my goal. Everybody should be able to get rich, but everybody should also have a comfortable standard of living.

[Haribol Acharya]

Of course, I have..

Eric, the world is still divided. The "have"s and the "have not"s , in whatever language you call them. While I am not a communist, I still hope that there will be a day when the entire human folks will have 'equi-opportunities" to live in this world, instead of a few holding on to the natural reserves.

Also, it looks different from a developed nations point of view.. It is very different for three fourth of the world..

This is the truth whether or not we accept it. The world is really torn between the two the ruling class and the ruled classes. So long as this gulf will not covered I see plenty of fights and killings.

[Igu Soni]

Why did this thread stop? I was just starting to get really interesting.

Also, could someone please tell me what a bourgeois family is?

[Omo]

But the comments about the contents of the "Communist Manifesto" are to point out that this tract is written in very simplistic language, like a fairy-tale for action, obviously to get people to do something rather than philosophise. [...]

It's a party program to prepare for German/March revolution, not a piece of philosophy. It roughly outlines the main issues and is supposed to get people acting, sure. What else do you expect from a party program?

[Occasionally, before election, I find myself reading some party program(s) from one or two "obscurer" parties, and it's quite interesting. Always recommendable to read the actual stuff instead of reading filtered information in dominant pulications.]

But I cannot understand how you come to your judgements - if you wish to discuss Marx' works you'd obviously need to read some of his actual works where he delevops his theories (and some Hegel before that :p), and not infer from later political developments to the original theory. Instead you take this small pamphlet and smash in propagandistical manner against everything, and I do not see for what purpose?
North Korea, China are communist, the Soviet Bloc was? I'm seeing party dictatorships there, and partly socialism.
And the comparison with Hitler is beyond distasteful. Is there any specific personal reason why you are so very hateful on this topic?

I openly admit - I'm not nearly interested enough in the topic to seriously read these works, but from what I have gathered only a small part of it is about how society should be but rather an analysis of - back then - current society and how it came to be like that, and argument with former theories.

I think Communism is an idea with good intentions but simply goes against human nature. Sure, society forms us as individuals, in that it acquaints us with culture, ideas and views of life, but all of that is kind of the ?berich compared to the Es of our nature, and in the end we all meet at the Ich. I do not see how people could be re-modeled so that Communism, a kind of organised anarchism if you want, could function.

[Eric]

Waalkwriter, you've got the message: I'm conservative. This means that I would like to conserve things in society that work or are beneficial to man, and only uproot things that turn life into a mess. Revolutionaries have the envious and adolescent wish not only to destroy rotten things, but to turn everything upside-down. Fine, when you're twenty years old and own nothing, have experienced little. But don't try telling someone over forty that they should burn down their decadent bourgeois house and join a people's collective with its collective kitchen, and queue for the collective toilet.

Most people who dislike the bourgeois family are still kicking against the kind of family they were brought up in, as was Marx, by the look of it. Most Communist leaders and manipulators of the weary and gullible working classes (these latter work; have little time for polemics) were from the bourgeoisie. All those creepy New Labour types who, in Britain, are now lecturing the rest of us about tightening our belts were once "trendy lefties" as we used to call them in the 1970s. These hypocrites are people from wealthyish and privileged homes who thought they understood the world at the age of twenty - and wanted to destroy it; now, they have adopted positions of power, power, power. Now, they want to preserve their own privileges and be paid a million for every speach they make.

I agree with Omo that Communism is a good idea, but that it goes against human nature. That is where the "reactionary" idea of original sin (i.e. that people will cheat others automatically, if given the chance) is closer to the truth than the phoney ideal where you can socially engineer mankind into a kind of drooling submission, as the gin-soaked tears of Orwell in the last page of 1984 suggest.

As for anarchists, another great idea, but logically speaking don't expect the police to rescue you if you are threatened. The police are the repressive and porcine arm of the bourgeoisie, remember?

As for the theory, it is only in bourgeois society where young idealists can read about and act out their Communist and other fantasies, without being spied on by the secret police (e.g. Stasi). Or if they are spied upon, they will be ignored and laughed at rather than sent to a prison camp to die a lingering death chopping down trees on starvation rations. The mad decadent Marquis de Sade must surely have invented the GULag. (Why do I spell it so funny? Learn some history.)

[waalkwriter]

I don't really care for your condescension personally. I think the only human nature to be preserved is the intellectual evolution of man. It takes reactionaries to bring mankind forward. Man reinvents itself as necessary, always seeking a greater and more perfect existence, taking the good and moving away with the bad as his life changes. Since his existence is not stationary, neither should his ideals be, as yours so obviously are.

Society is not what it was 50 years ago, and nor will it be 50 years from now. It is a truly more complex ideal, communism, a set decent minimum standard of living, etc. I'm afraid you generalize communism far too much and set too much store on outdated Revolutionary ideals propagated by Marx and Lenin. I consider myself a Free-Market socialist personally.

[Manuel76]

[QUOTE=Eric;56386]
I'm conservative. This means that I would like to conserve things in society that work or are beneficial to man, and only uproot things that turn life into a mess. Revolutionaries have the envious and adolescent wish not only to destroy rotten things, but to turn everything upside-down. QUOTE]

It's interesting that definition of conservative, anyway everybody has his own definition!!

But defined that way I don't think you must oppose revolutionaries to conservatives. In spanish we use the word "Progresista", in english I think it's "liberal". Revolutionaries would be the extreme opposite I think. So I think it's simplistic to do credit to conservative points of view by opposing radical ( radically good or radically bad) points of view.

And the main point, the main ambiguity, in that definition is: why and how do you decide which things are beneficial to which man and which things turn life into a mess??. That's difficult enough!!

And bourgeois family would be perhaps as you say the most solid way of bringing up children invented by God or man if it weren't because of that "reactionary" idea of original sin of yours (i.e. that people are individuals if given the chance and fallible whether they want it or not) is closer to the truth than any phoney ideal....you know, as with communism!! well perhaps we're invented by God but after all we're men.

[waalkwriter]

Let me try to go into this in more detail than I did last night.

While I am probably far more conservative in my literary tastes than you are, I am a radical reformist at heart. I am the epitome of what Eco was criticizing when he said something close to "We must protest people through humor for those who have an insane zeal for a truth which does not exist" I hope I haven't mauled it too badly. Well, I personally have to believe an absolute truth does exist, otherwise there is no purpose for living. I am one of those with insane zeal for establishing absolute truth through cold hard logic; emotion is good, emotion is nice, but it's nice kind of like the beers you may sit back and have on a Saturday evening--an indulgence, not a lifestyle. It's just as important to be able to look past emotions, and indeed your own programmed outlook to see the bigger picture, to be able to create a fair understanding of history, politics and the way the world works that is absolute, and not fall into Eco's hopeless fatalism.

But it's a very flexible absolute truth; the absolute truth is humanity and how much it is capable of experiencing and doing. It is ridiculous, and I've told my conservative friends this, to try to claim that traditional Christian systems hold the monopoly on moral values and just societies.

I may get angry and call myself a Marxist, I am not. Marx is far to radically idealistic and he fails to realize that the dictatorship of the Proletariat is as oppressive, ultimately, to the average individual, as neo-liberal capitalism, (the kind propagated by Thatcher and Reagan that has directly led to the long term economic issues we face right now), is. However his heart was in the right place, and I don't blame his tone considering the time period in which he was writing.

However that is a big deal, understanding that, a socialist who does not is like a Christian who does not understand the Jewish society in which the Bible was written and therefore can't hope to untangle the timeless wisdom from the biases and crap that permeate it from it's more limited era.

Nor is it fair to use the existing incidences of communism. They are doomed to failure; perhaps not China but that is do to number of reasons, reform, pragmatism, and traditional Confucian values, but beyond that they all are and were doomed to failure because of one thing Marx got damn well right 140 years ago; socialism cannot succeed or work in poor, undeveloped agrarian nations, the redistribution of the wealth either fails within a new oligarchy, as in the U.S.S.R., or flounders under the constant violence of revolution, as under Mao. It only succeeds when you have a wealthy post-industrial society that is tired of capitalism and all it's inherently unequal and unstable travails. It can only be in such a society, that already has wealth and stability, that a general socialism can be created.

I am a secular humanist; humanity is the absolute standard, the quality of his existence is the absolute standard of what one does with one's actions and the absolute and only morality one needs to uphold is simply active using one's life to create better standards of living in the world and creating a world where people can experience the full breadth of their existence and continue prospering and moving forward into the future.

The tight, traditionalist, bourgeoisie family doesn't do that for me, it just doesn't cut it. My goal is to continue the movement away from the strictness of "moral" bourgeoisie dogmas and those of Christianity. Life becomes far more important and precious when you live under the assumption that it is all there is; every human life becomes infinitely precious: the greater good socialists lost track of this in fighting for the greater good.

But Marx was also wrong in being too humanist. People are not inherently equal, period. Some people are better than others. I am an interesting mix of Nietzsche-social Darwinism, and stringent social justice-humanism. Still, back to the main point, intelligence and value to society are not equal, therefore it is ridiculous to emphasize as Marx and Mao did, fighting such "mindsets" as harmful and trying to forcefully make people equal and utterly stall progress in oppressive regimes that quickly become crusty and outdated.

So I combine a free-market pragmatism with my socialism. The ultimate point of government is that it is the voice of the masses and it has ultimate authority over private enterprise but that does not necessarily mean it should invoke this authority. My policy view is that government should, through heavy, but not overwhelming, taxation, create a decent and acceptable minimum standard of living for the masses while creating a well-regulated and stable economy. One that does not have steadily increasing growth, but which is stable. There is nothing wrong with simply maintaining a stable moderately growing economy for a post-development country.

In this way though the incentives are maintained, personal responsibility is maintained, and overall scientific and society progress is not stymied. Society must constantly move forward with reason, towards a greater future. People must constantly be pushed on this slow path of being able to look beyond themselves, beyond their outlooks. I understand and empathize with the outlooks of all my opponents, I could almost let my self get trapped in believing them, but it is luxury I will not let myself afford. There is but one supremely justifiable position and that is the one I have chosen to sit on, very loosely albeit, very open to pragmatic adjustment as needed, especially in issues of economics. But it is a fact that allows me to argue people well, but my entire outlook is based on the idea that if you out-debate somebody they must instantly change their viewpoint to yours. It blows my mind when someone continues arguing the same point after it is discredited 6 ways from Sunday and finally just qualifies that they don't have to share your opinion.

People who oppose this system and want to go "Galt" fail to understand that the individual, while supremely important to me, does not exist in a vacuum. The individual, even the wealthy one, depends on society to give any meaning to his status. Ayn Rand was too narrow-minded to see this as well. No man is an island; society is the vehicle that produces the individuals wealth and comfort, therefore the individual bears some responsibility to society, that is enforced through the voice and embodiment of society, it's government, in the form of taxes and laws which also serve in their own way to maintain the framework that allowed the individual to become wealthy in the first place.

People who can't see one foot beyond their own viewpoint, who have no ability to empathize. People such as these, are, in my experience, conservatives.

Truthfully I have so many opinions and so many ideas and counter ideas and conflicting ideas within my outlook that is impossible to begin to do them justice here. I can even tie in, very easily my hatred of post-modernism; it's irreverent to the human experience. It is a flippant abandoning of everything the modernist strived for; sharing the human experience, depicting universal human truths, making people realize what makes them human, bringing emotion and the experience of art to a new level and they changed the forms to do this. The new generations thought, stupidly, they had to continue reinventing the wheel, when in this case, they weren't reinventing it for any sake but the sake of doing the thing itself which is always inherently flawed. The forests burn down regularly in nature to support new growth, but the ashes of the fire fertilize the new fields, the good of the past is fundamentally absorbed by the new.

There must inherently be reasons for rebelling, for change, and there are reasons with society. It is not through moving forward, it continues to, both culturally and technologically. Therefore the roles must evolve to. But with literature they are not doing anything but having fun mocking truth with pop references, humor, etc, all in their flawed, fatalistic purpose. They destroy the deep-seated aesthetics of art in doing so and shame 2000 years of literary development with their irreverence.

I'm just trying to briefly give a tiny smidgen of my outlooks and how they connect to each other and how my over-arching thought process works. Entirely insufficient, but hopefully a start.

[saliotthomas]

Get a life, bother, try fresh air , girls (or boys), drink, whatever.

[waalkwriter]

lol. I've been told that a lot of times. I like arguing. defeating people in arguments or going through the process is stressful, but gives me a sense of purpose in life.

[a-dogg]

I think nowadays there is - at least in Europe - the paradox situation that so called conservatives have this progressive vision in which every single aspect of life serves the interests of money-making, little children already wear business suits and learn 'business english" and accounting already in pre-school and all Europe is culturally purified(or at least the muslims civilized) - I am exagerating hysterically of course. And on the other hand the left has taken over the cause of family values, good schools and ecology, perfectly suplementing the conservative agenda. Communism can be a way out of the passivity of the left and also a way to combine egalitarian, emancapatory ideas with a vision of (industrial) progress. That is the true message of people like Slavoj Zizek, I guess.

I dont really know much about communism though, but I think its a little stupied to demonify(is that even a word) it in such a general way. Anti-communism is so old and always was so stupid and I guess hatred of communism would not be as passionate and strong if capitalist hadnt something to hide, right? ;)

The ugly, evil, soulless face of conservatism:

http://www.homotron.net/images/homotron/nailin_paylin_stills_01_wenn5200355.jpg

the funky face of communism:

http://www.newyorknighttrain.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/partytrainweb.jpg

[Omo]

a-dogg, I'm not sure to what extent you were in earnest in your post, but you are making the same mistake Eric did: infer from people who label themselves conservatives to the idea of conservatism. Eric gave us a good defintion of conservatism, I think we should stick to it.

And waalkwriter, I second Thomas' advice. This state you are in doesn't seem healthy. Don't constantly define yourself - "I'm a liberal, socialist, humanist" etc. - for what? There are already enough people who put labels onto to you, and you will always falls short of any of those labels (or rather: they of you), why restrict youself voluntarily?
Life is so much fuller than any -ism could ever be. These are theories, they only function within their systems. We all know - you say it yourself - that we are contradictory, that a lot of stuff we do simply doesn't make any sense and that it's impossible to put everything in our life into one coherent idea. So just take a step back, breath, and relax a bit, ok?

[waalkwriter]

That is a good way to put. I really didn't use that many terms in there though, I kinda don't think you read that nearly close enough. Any terms I did use where general indicators to find a way to succinctly give the reader a general idea of where my philosophy graphs, and then I went into it. Of course there is a great deal of confliction within it, and if I went into enough detail there would be and are areas that are in contradiction with each other. But I've always been, personally, one of the idea that the opinion really doesn't matter so much as the amount of though and logic behind it and the eloquence of the debate; even O'Brien from 1984 can put together a compelling argument for a horrendous ideology because of flawless logic and eloquent debate. The opinion is nothing but the end of the path of the logic and personal argument, so it shouldn't be a singular entity or be considered more important than anything else, which is why the actual argument is aways the important thing.

Why it drives me mad, people who think they can qualify their beliefs by saying, "They're my beliefs and they are valid because I believe them", um, no they aren't. If you can't formulate a potent debate for them they are nothing, because you have no reasoning and no development by which you got to them, at least none that you can expound on. That's partially why I'm such a firm debater.

[Omo]

Yes, I did indeed not read it closely, I merely skipped. I think it's wonderful that you confront yourself with those issues, more people should, that you make the effort to try to understand some stuff - but now don't make the mistake to stop halfway, to jump too quickly to conclusions and say: it's like this and that's the end of the argument - there is always the angle from which you haven't observed it yet, so it's often very good to be honest and say: I don't know, I don't have an opinion on this matter since I haven't concerned myself with it before.
This is a very valuable thing that unfortunately not many people are willing to do. We like the easy way out: we read some new theory, it appears right to us, we say: that's it, if everyone knew what I know now the problems of the world could be solved. But only a fanatic would believe this after the first rush of euphoria is gone. I'm sure you are smarter than that, though.

[waalkwriter]

I'm more pragmatic than a socialist tends to be, and there's always a conflict in my philosophy between moral humanist inclinations, and utilitarian, logistical thinking.

[waalkwriter]

But seriously Eric, what bothers me is that you try to tar and feather Socialism as a special kind of evil while overlooking the fact that capitalism and Religion have killed just as many people and caused just as much suffering as socialism has. I think that to try and paint socialism as a unique evil is not only flawed, by it's intellectually dishonest.

[Eric]

Let's get our definitions straight. The word Socialism (cf Liberalism between the USA and UK) is often used with fundamentally different meanings, leading to the silly situation where people are quarrelling, while not even defining the things they are for and against.

Socialism is ultimately a Western European political doctrine whereby you stand by other workers who have the same interests. Cooperatives were formed in this way. But when national closed-shop trade unions get too much power, they can stop development, initiative, and enterprise. Then people will be tempted to sit at home and obtain social benefits.

Socialism is not Communism, nor its first stage. That feint is a trick, played by disgruntled people, usually young and alienated, who want to turn the world upside-down so they can assume power, and lord it over everyone else.

Old-fashioned Socialism, as in its 19th century version, was not a doctrine whereby the middle-classes can climb up in society and then kick away the ladder. That is the way it has developed in Britain over the past couple of decades. Examine British politics closely, and you'll soon see who the decadent ruling classes are. (For instance, the politicians who sell their lobbying talents for money.)

Religion is not wrong in itself either. While everyone keeps on talking about the Inquisition, I have not heard recently of Christians who blow themselves up on marketplaces in order to sever other people's arms and legs. Although a small minority of the inheritors of the Inquisition are those who, in the British Isles, cause the most mayhem today. But in general, religion in Western Europe is a force for the good: peace, compassion, respecting the people around you.

So, Waalwriter, where do you stand in such issues as Socialism, Liberalism and Conservatism? Or religion in its various forms. Never mind the -isms, it's the results that count.

[waalkwriter]

Well Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while ushering in his church in America by a Religious extremist. The 30 Year world killed something like half of Germany's male population. Christians initiated the Crusades, and according to some historians it appears that Christians killed more of each other after being made the official State Religion of the Roman Empire than when they were actually persecuted. I have no love at all for such a silly, petty religion, built to teat the ignorant and small-minded masses. Christianity is far to base and proletarian a religion for me to care much for, if that was the question you were asking.