Marxism is flawed for modern day terms

[Comrade Anarchist]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution. There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy. Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.

[deLarge]

There is no more child labor
There is in the majority of the world, along with slavery and sweat shops.


in major western nations
Sweatshops and worker exploitation do still exist in the USA, albeit not in the open.


workers have benefits
Federal minimum wage is like $6 an hour here, and that's damn near impossible to live on. Not to mention the lack of health care coverage. Also, the fact still remains that the workers do not control the businesses, and since those businesses profit off of them, they are necessarily not being compensated for the full value of their labor.


and can unionize
Too bad so many labor unions are corrupted and no longer serve a real purpose, or else have in-general "sold out". Then there is the union-busting activity that still goes on in our largest retailers *cough* walmart *cough*


and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy
I'll let someone else tackle this one.

[Faceless]

any particular point? which need revising?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why do I get the feeling your trolling?

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution.
So what? The Communist Manifesto is still applicable to today's society, you just choose not to think so. Also, you fail to recognize that Marxist theory is comprised of many individual's contributions. People like Lenin, Mao, Luxembourg, Trotsky, Stalin, Gramsci, etc have expanded upon his work.




There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy.Workers have fought and won class struggles in 'first world' countries to get these types of concessions from the ruling class. But that does not mean that the distribution of wealth is still not incredibly unequal; and it does not mean that hyper-exploited workers in the 'third world' lack these amenities in their countries.


Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.Alright, go revise them, put them in practice and see what kind of outcomes you get.

[griffjam]

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2330/222/124/511021274/n511021274_1885130_8077.jpghttp://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1885130&l=04c4d&id=511021274

no shit

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1885130&l=04c4d&id=511021274

[LOLseph Stalin]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution. There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy. Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.

You're right. Alot of the Communist Manifesto is outdated for today's world, but it is still quite relevant. There may be no child labour here in the western world, but there is in many developing countries. Also, not all workers can unionize. Not even that long ago a Canadian Wal-Mart closed down simply because the employees wanted to unionize. Other than that, it could definitely use some revising as even the very descriptions of "Bourgeoisie" and "Proletariat" have likely changed over time.

[JimmyJazz]

Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.

Of course. What do you think Marxists have been doing for the last 150 years? Revising his theories to match changing conditions.

For example:


he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy.

This is called the "managerial revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham#The_theory_of_the_managerial_revolut ion)" by James Burnham and "Organized Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding#Finance_Capital)" by Rudolf Hilferding.

You should check out the Dictionary of Marxist Thought edited by Tom Bottomore. It is a really fast and effective way to catch up on 150 years of developments in Marxism.

[Lamanov]

Oh boy.

Marx himself wrote 20 years later that the demands of the Manifesto were outdated.

But this has nothing to do with "Marxism being outdated" or with a very pretentious idea that "Marx never envisioned government getting involved in the economy." I don't think that's quite true.

You base these serious claims solely on a very old pamphlet. Not very wise.

P.S.

Griffjam, what the fuck is that tasteless thing you got there?

[KC]

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2330/222/124/511021274/n511021274_1885130_8077.jpg

OMGZ ur so revolutionary!

[ZeroNowhere]

Um, he called his ten planks antiquated in... 1872, wasn't it? So yes, it would make sense that they were outdated now.


http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2330/222/124/511021274/n511021274_1885130_8077.jpghttp://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1885130&l=04c4d&id=511021274
Your posting is predictable as fuck.

[dmcauliffe09]

The Communist Manifesto is a...flexible document. True, it was written over one hundred years ago, but its principles still apply to today's modern world. There still exists an oppressive bougeoisie class and an oppressed proletariat. The conditions of the proletariat are still despicable, especially in "Third World" countries. Therefore, Marx's ideas are still valid. The malleability of the Manifesto can thus be excercised and its ideas applied to the modern world. However, it is important that one not lose sight of the fundementals of the Manifesto and abuse it, as has been common among "communist" leaders of today.

[Hit The North]

and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy.

The fact the Marx refers to the political state as "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie", demonstrates that he had no problem in recognising the connection between economics and politics and therefore that growing state intervention in the economy as it became more complex would inevitably arise.

The enduring value of the CM is in its exquisitely concise historical description of the rise of capitalism and the mapping of its most important and most general trends of development, in part one. Secondly, in its articulation of the relationship between communists and the working class.

[Pogue]

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2330/222/124/511021274/n511021274_1885130_8077.jpghttp://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1885130&l=04c4d&id=511021274

no shit

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1885130&l=04c4d&id=511021274

The top picture is pretty cool but I don't quite undertsand it.

[Charles Xavier]

What can be gained from the Communist Manifesto is an understanding of Historical Materialism. its not some bible that doesn't evolve and every portion of it will remain the same. The demands for a 1848 world are different than a 2009 world. The conditions for struggle are different. One major change from 1849, was imperialism and monopoly capitalism weren't a dominate system, but they are now and Lenin expanded on this point in Imperialism the Highest stage of capitalism.

The content may not all be the same today as it was in 1848 but the essense is still true, if you want to learn by rote you won't understand this. But if you understand what you read then you will be able to use the tools that are in the communist manifesto

[Comrade Anarchist]

There is in the majority of the world, along with slavery and sweat shops.


Sweatshops and worker exploitation do still exist in the USA, albeit not in the open.


Federal minimum wage is like $6 an hour here, and that's damn near impossible to live on. Not to mention the lack of health care coverage. Also, the fact still remains that the workers do not control the businesses, and since those businesses profit off of them, they are necessarily not being compensated for the full value of their labor.


Too bad so many labor unions are corrupted and no longer serve a real purpose, or else have in-general "sold out". Then there is the union-busting activity that still goes on in our largest retailers *cough* walmart *cough*


I'll let someone else tackle this one.
Yes all these things are messed up but the majority of the people in the western world dont pay attention and are content with them.

[Comrade Anarchist]

In marxism the revolution is just supposed to happen once the proletariat has grown out of control and once there are no jobs they get restless but that has been prevented in modern day society that is why marxism alone is outdated for todays terms.

[Tower of Bebel]

In marxism the revolution is just supposed to happen once the proletariat has grown out of control and once there are no jobs they get restless but that has been prevented in modern day society that is why marxism alone is outdated for todays terms.
You're very confused. You tend to turn relative tendencies into absolute facts. The Communist Manifesto is not a bible nor is it a gospel. Btw, you're interpretation is in a way similar to the Second International's "fatalism".

[mykittyhasaboner]

In marxism the revolution is just supposed to happen once the proletariat has grown out of control and once there are no jobs they get restless but that has been prevented in modern day society that is why marxism alone is outdated for todays terms.


Revolutions don't "just happen when the proletariat gets out of control". The proletariat is diametrically opposed to the bourgeoisie, because of their class's interests. Also, how the fuck do you figure that "restlessness and unemployment" are prevented in today's society? Do you read what you type before you post this crap?

[Comrade Anarchist]

Revolutions don't "just happen when the proletariat gets out of control". The proletariat is diametrically opposed to the bourgeoisie, because of their class's interests. Also, how the fuck do you figure that "restlessness and unemployment" are prevented in today's society? Do you read what you type before you post this crap?

Marx said that the revolution would happen when the big capitalists pushed the small capitalists out of bussiness and into the proletariat class. This means less jobs for a greater number so many cant get jobs and if they do have bad jobs then they have to work in bad conditions so they become restless and angry because they cant support themselves or their families and then they channel the anger towards the government and big capitalists starting the revolution.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Marx said that the revolution would happen when the big capitalists pushed the small capitalists out of bussiness and into the proletariat class. This means less jobs for a greater number so many cant get jobs and if they do have bad jobs then they have to work in bad conditions so they become restless and angry because they cant support themselves or their families and then they channel the anger towards the government and big capitalists starting the revolution.
OK....then how is what Marx wrote outdated when there is increasing unemployment and closing down of small businesses?

[Comrade Anarchist]

OK....then how is what Marx wrote outdated when there is increasing unemployment and closing down of small businesses?

The reason it is outdated is because it is not happening on the scale marx predicted and now adays people get benefits when the dont have a job so they dont become restless. And yes the big capitalists are pushing the small ones into the proletariat class but because of anti monopoly laws this has prevented the a total wipe out of small capitalists and no one projects their anger toward the government and most people are angry with wall street but do nothing about it.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Wtf are you trying to prove? That The Communist Manifesto is outdated because it was written in 1848? Well then congratulations, because you've done something any moron can do. The one thing I don't understand is that you claim Marxism is somehow "outdated". Marxism isn't the Communist Manifesto.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Wtf are you trying to prove? That The Communist Manifesto is outdated because it was written in 1848? Well then congratulations, because you've done something any moron can do. The one thing I don't understand is that you claim Marxism is somehow "outdated". Marxism isn't the Communist Manifesto.

Marxism is outdated is what i mean. The revolution that marx believed in will never happen. Lenin believed that that is why he created a Vanguard party to create a revolution.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Marxism is outdated is what i mean. The revolution that marx believed in will never happen. Lenin believed that that is why he created a Vanguard party to create a revolution.
As stated before, you are really confused.

http://marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

[dmcauliffe09]

Marxism as a socioeconomic system is not outdated. The Manifesto might be just a little, but its practice is not.

[DancingLarry]

The biggest changes are in the organization of production and what this means for the socialization of the working class, and even how we define "working class". Take for instance FedEX: FedEx designates all of its delivery people to be "independent contrctors". This, among other things, uses US labor law to preclude unionization. Many hardline leftists, particularly Leninists, will view the self-employed as "class enemy" Petit bourgeois. Do we allow a corporation like FedEx to make that determination for us, as to who our class allies and class enemies are? Are FedEx drivers the class enemy? These are the kind of issues of changes in the organization of production that challenge the old "Marxist" models, and that we radical leftists need to come to grips with if we want to be a meaningful force in the advanced capitalist countries of the 21st century.

[Pogue]

Marxism continually develops and is applied to the real world. The views of communists don't stop at the last fullstop of Marx's writings you know.

[BobKKKindle$]

Marx said that the revolution would happen when the big capitalists pushed the small capitalists out of bussiness and into the proletariat class. The simplification of class antagonisms is certainly part of capitalism, because each individual capitalist is compelled to compete and invest in technology in order to raise her individual share of surplus value, and this leads to capitalists who lack access to technology and occupy a weaker position in the market going bankrupt and becoming part of the proletariat. This process also leads to capital being concentrated in the hands of a small number of capitalist enterprises which then use their dominant position to prevent the entry of new firms and raise the price at which they sell their goods to consumers. However, both of these processes are not themselves the causes of socialist revolution. Marx acknowledged that capitalism is a system prone to periodic crises which derive from overproduction and a decline in the rate of profit, and during these crises workers are forced to accept lower wages and job insecurity as the bourgeoisie attempts to raise the rate of profit sufficiently to stimulate investment and restore economic prosperity. The material effects of these crises compel the working class to take action against its oppressors and overthrow the capitalist relations of production in order to eliminate material hardship by taking advantage of the potential that has been created under capitalism. Lenin did not formulate his theory of party organization in response to the failure of Marx's economic predictions to manifest themselves - instead he recognized that the proletariat always exhibits uneven consciousness and this is why the most conscious and politically advanced section of the working class must form its own organization in order to interact with other workers and overcome the effects of bourgeois ideology.


Marxism as a socioeconomic system is not outdated. The Manifesto might be just a little, but its practice is not. Marxism is not a socioeconomic system, it is an analysis.

[dmcauliffe09]

True, but I was referring to the combination of Marxian economics with Marxism as a political system. The fundemental ideas of Marxian economics and of Marxist social theory are still applicable to the modern world.

[Charles Xavier]

Marx said that the revolution would happen when the big capitalists pushed the small capitalists out of bussiness and into the proletariat class. This means less jobs for a greater number so many cant get jobs and if they do have bad jobs then they have to work in bad conditions so they become restless and angry because they cant support themselves or their families and then they channel the anger towards the government and big capitalists starting the revolution.


Marx never said this.

[Hit The North]

For someone who calls themselves "ComradeMarx", you seem hell-bent on refuting his work. Moreover, you seem to be regurgitating over-simplified and somewhat erroneous opinion on his work which you do not attempt to reference back to anything Marx actually wrote.

[bellyscratch]

Of course the Communist Manifesto is outdated, but its main argument is still as relevant today as it was when it was written. Marxist theory has to constantly change and adapt to the political, economic and social environment we find ourselves in, otherwise it will lose touch with what is going on. This is one possible reason why the left is not as strong as it could be at the moment.

[Led Zeppelin]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution. There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy. Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.

Marx wrote more than the Manifesto, I'm not sure why you are focusing on that short work alone. Is it perhaps the only book you have heard of written by Marx?

I don't mean that as an insult, it's quite common for people to have only heard of that book, while forgetting his other far more important works like The German Ideology, Capital, The Eighteenth Brumaire, etc.

There is indeed no more child labor in the US, at least not on a mass scale like there was in Marx's era. It is also true that workers have more rights in advanced capitalist nations.

As a Marxis, you do not draw the line there. If you want to use the Marxist method, that is, the things Marx actually wrote about, you will go beyond stating the fact, and start to analyze it.

Why is there no more child labor in the US or other advanced capitalist countries? Why do workers there have more rights than they did before?

Both are a consequence of class struggle. The working-class had to wrest those rights from the hands of the bourgeoisie, and did so with great difficulty. The ruling class was only able and willing to give in to the demands to stifle the revolutionary sentiment of the working-class. However, this game of throwing crumbs to the masses in the hopes of keeping them quite won't be able to go on for long.

The means of production keep advancing. More and more means of production have to be built and worked upon, for that is the sole basis for the existence of capitalism; expansion of production. Sure, there are times of crisis, but if capitalism can't get over them and expand, it will become superflous and cease to exist as a system.

So, what happens when the crises can no longer get rid of the overproduction? What happens when the means of production can no longer be held back by war, waste, destruction through economic crisis and other means?

Then, society has to change. That is the law which Marx lay down, it is the law of historical materialism. When the means of production have outgrown the ability of the current social system to contain them, then the social system, which has become a fetter on production, will have to change.

It is either that, or a return to a more backward form of society, which require the destruction of more and more means of production.

I have hope though. Humanity is known for its striving towards new heights.

When you look at history, you can easily spot a tendency towards progression in humanity.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, that's a better idea. I'll respond when it's up.

[Bilan]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution.

You mean, the industrial revolution in 1870 to 1914 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution)?
Though, Capital vol 1 was printed in 1867?
I would just like to add you can't judge Marx's ideas and relevance because of the communist manifesto. What Marx wrote about extensively in his more important works, such as A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)and Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/), was about the ascent and descent of economic modes, and about their eventual removal (following their period of decadence) by new and better economic modes.

These are from the ICCs the Decadence of Capitalism:



The development of the productive forces has two aspects:
1. The growth of the number of workers incorporated into production at a given level of productivity;
2. The development of labour productivity amongst a given number of workers.
In a system in full expansion, one can see a combination of both. A system in crisis is a system which has reached it limits in both aspects at the same time.


We can speak of an ‘external limit’ to the expansion of a system (its incapacity to enlarge its field of action) and of an ‘internal limit’ (the incapacity to go beyond a certain level of productivity). Consider the case of the end of slavery, of the Roman Empire. The external limit was constituted by the material impossibility of enlarging the extent of the Empire. The internal limit was the impossibility of raising the productivity of the slaves without overthrowing the social system itself, without eliminating their status as slaves. For feudalism it was the end of land reclamation, the incapacity to find new arable lands, which acted as the external limit, while the internal limit was its inability to raise the productivity of the serfs, or of the individual artisan, without transforming them into proletarians, without introducing labour associated by capital: that is, without the overthrow of the feudal economic order.


The approach of these two types of limits are dialectically linked: Rome could not expand its empire indefinitely because of the limits of production; inversely, the more difficult it was to expand, the more it was obliged to develop its productivity, thus pushing it more rapidly towards its extreme limits. Likewise feudal reclamations were limited by the level of feudal techniques, while the scarcity of land encouraged more ingenuity in productive activities carried out in the towns and the countryside. This in turn pushed feudal productivity to the border of capitalism.



In the final analysis it is the limits on the level of productivity within the old society which lead it into the morass. It is this productivity which is the true measure of the level of development of the productive forces; it’s the quantitative expression of a certain combination of human labour and means of production, of living and dead labour [1] (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence/ch1/section2#_ftn1).


To each stage of development of the productive forces, that is, at each overall level of productivity, there corresponds a certain type of relations of production. When this productivity approaches its last possible limits within the system which corresponded to it, and if the system is not overthrown, society enters into a phase of economic decadence. Then there is a snowball effect: the first consequences of the crisis transform themselves into factors accelerating the crisis. For example, at the end of Rome as well as in the decline of feudalism, the drop in revenues of the ruling class pushed the latter to reinforce the exploitation of the workforce to the point of exhaustion. The result in both cases was the growing apathy and discontent of the labourers, which only accelerated the decline in revenues.
Likewise the impossibility of incorporating new labourers into production forced society to support inactive strata who constituted yet another drain on revenues.


source. (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence/ch1/section2)






There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy.

I don't think you understand where Marx was coming from in his writings. This isn't about morality, or immorality. Frankly, that doesn't come into an analysis of capitalism, nor of the movements of human society. "Morality" does not dictate movements, but reflects the consciousness and understanding of a society at a given stage of its development (and changes in the rise and fall of a society).
Marx's prediction of a communist revolution was based upon the economic movements of human society, and the development of productive forces, and how this corresponds to the rise of a mode of production, and the fall (and in turn the rise of a new one).
Child labour and unionisation are irrelevant.

Furthermore, Child Labour (for the sake of it) does exist. It existing in the Western World, or not existing, doesn't change anything. Capitalism is global, not Western.



Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.

Fuck The Communist Manifesto, pick up one of his analysis's, or another indepth analysis from someone else.

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx.
Capital (vol 1, 2, 3), Marx.
The Decadence of Capitalism (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence), ICC.

[Bilan]

Marxism as a socioeconomic system is not outdated. The Manifesto might be just a little, but its practice is not.

It's practice is. Social Democracy is no longer an appropriate method of organisation (as was used by Marx and the like). We're in a different period of economic development. Marx was alive during the ascent of capitalism. We are not. The practice therefore can not be the same.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I would just like to add you can't judge Marx's ideas and relevance because of the communist manifesto. What Marx wrote about extensively in his more important works, such as A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)and Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/), was about the ascent and descent of economic modes, and about their eventual removal (following their period of decadence) by new and better economic modes.

[...]

Fuck The Communist Manifesto, pick up one of his analysis's, or another indepth analysis from someone else.

Be careful not to through the baby out with the bathwater, comrade. Despite the Manifesto's glaring limitations, natural results of the context in which it was written, it does present Marx's fundamental framework for understanding the decadence of capitalism and the necessity for revolution, even if not elaborated at length:


We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

[Bilan]

Sure, but whats provided within it is overly limited. It is little more than a propaganda pamphlet, after all, whilst Capital and others mentioned are indepth analysis's of the nature of capitalism, and the development - rise and fall - of economic modes, and in terms of whether "Marx is relevant or not", I think those, and not the manifesto, are the keys to undoing that myth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Its practice is. Social Democracy is no longer an appropriate method of organisation (as was used by Marx and the like). We're in a different period of economic development. Marx was alive during the ascent of capitalism. We are not. The practice therefore can not be the same.

How dare you polemicize against the optimal organizational merger of revolutionary social labour and the worker-class movement that we seek to rebuild? ;)

I don't think we are yet in a period of PERMANENT decadence. I've already quoted extensively from various sources about how the current situation is very much like the 1860s and 1870s in terms of small businesses hiring at least two-thirds of the workforce (hence why collective bargainism and other forms of tred-iunionizm aren't effective), as well as like the 1890s in terms of the little socialist circles in Russia before the formation of the RSDLP.

If we are in permanent decadence, then real GDP per capita would decrease as a long-term trend. So far, it hasn't (hence the need, for example, to raise the demand for legislated living wages and "sliding scale of wages").

[Comrade Anarchist]

Okay i mispronounced myself here. Marxism is not outdated but the way to achieve it is. That is why the bolshevicks pushed the people towards revolution because they believed that revoltuion wouldnt come by itself as marx said it would.

[Rawthentic]

Marx NEVER said revolution would come by itself.

Where did you read that?

Marx, like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and all other communists around the world have always understood that the people are the ones that make revolution, in conjunction with communist leadership.

[Bilan]

Okay i mispronounced myself here. Marxism is not outdated but the way to achieve it is. That is why the bolshevicks pushed the people towards revolution because they believed that revoltuion wouldnt come by itself as marx said it would.

Where did Marx say that, and what exactly do you mean by that?

[Rawthentic]

in addition:

communists don't "push" people to make revolution.

Communists engage with the masses, lead, educate, and learn from them. They are the advanced guard of their class (in a non-empirical manner).

So, revolution is in many ways a voluntary act, where millions of people decide to put their life on the line for a new world. But it is involuntary in the sense that many times people understand that they cannot lead their lives under the same system (and other complex social forces.

BUT: it is NOT involuntary in the sense that communists need to "push" people to make revolution, as if the people were little kids who do not have the ability to become masters of society.

[nikolaou]

Oh boy.



P.S.

Griffjam, what the fuck is that tasteless thing you got there?

Quoted For Truth

[Aurora]

Okay i mispronounced myself here. Marxism is not outdated but the way to achieve it is. That is why the bolshevicks pushed the people towards revolution because they believed that revoltuion wouldnt come by itself as marx said it would.
"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others"
Thats from the manifesto btw chapter 2.

[MikeSC]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution. There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy. Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.I just wanna challenge a couple of these points-


There is no more child labor in major western nationsThe vast majority of manufacturing is done abroad. Our capitalists have (largely) ceased to use child labour within our respective first world countries- they've merely moved their operations to where they can- deliberately seeking out where they can get the cheapest pre-teens for the longest hours.
Do you wear clothes? Sweatshop labour, a good number ("good" is the wrong term...) of that infant labour.

Do you eat chocolate or fruit? Child labour- Nestle and Mars bar and Hersheys have been found, by as anti-communist organisations as the UN, to be using child bond-slaves (literally, people that their plantations have bought on the "free market".) as young as five working 100 hour weeks- thousands in the Ivory Coast alone- where they have moved to deliberately to "capitalise" on it. Every few years the UN tells them to start regulating themselves... and every new report shows an increasing number regardless.

Do you use metals? Mining in third-world countries is notorious for it's use of child labour (and since Thatcher shut down the mines in the UK- that's pretty much all we rely on.) Electronics, like Samsung, are also notorious users of child labour. Etc, etc.

Things look all nice and above board over here, because the industries based in the harshest exploitation have been moved abroad away from prying eyes, where they fester.


workers have benefits and can unionizeNot all- even if you discount the business our companies do abroad, there are still many workers with no rights. The rights most workers have are merely nominal, anyway- but there is a whole slice of the proletariat branded "illegal". People who are "illegal." You'd be surprised at how much of the work done within first world countries is done by illegal immigrants working longer hours than are legal, being paid significantly less than is legal, and in conditions seriously worse than is legal. But as they are "illegal", the law is not on their side. I recommend "Chinese Whispers: The Story Behind Britain's Hidden Army of Labour." ASDA, Tesco, Sainsburys- big names doing hideous things always just out of sight.


and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economyGovernment created the economy. The current distribution of wealth- private ownership- commenced when the monarchs seized land and resources belonging, in common, to the collective- carved it up and distributed it to it's barons and knights and nobles. As Marx devoted a chapter to at the end of Capital vol. 1- his example of the monarchy seizing land in Scotland that the highland tribes had held in common since prehistory, to introduce it into the markets. References to various Factory Acts and such are sprinkled through Capital, too- he was very much aware of government intervention. There's a difference between intervening in the economy to "artificially" end the "natural" life-span of the capitalist system (to end it safely on our terms, rather than see people suffer as it collapses "naturally" etc. A transition rather than an end followed by a beginning), and intervening to put a "naturally" dying system on life support. Not that there is anything natural about the economy, the "Invisible Hand" idea is bunk.

I agree with what a lot of the others have been saying- the Manifesto is just that, a political manifesto, grounded in a specific time with a specific purpose. It's an interesting example of the underlying ideas in action in a real setting, rather than a definition of those ideas- it's not like a biblical prophecy :)

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Of course. What do you think Marxists have been doing for the last 150 years? Revising his theories to match changing conditions.

For example:



This is called the "managerial revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham#The_theory_of_the_managerial_revolut ion)" by James Burnham and "Organized Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding#Finance_Capital)" by Rudolf Hilferding.

You should check out the Dictionary of Marxist Thought edited by Tom Bottomore. It is a really fast and effective way to catch up on 150 years of developments in Marxism.

Has that been revised at all since Bottomore died?

[commyrebel]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution. There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy. Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.
It still works yes small changes must be made to it so it works now but he was a genus that wrote a manifesto that if followed completely could create a utopia which is critical to our next stage of evolution

[Asoka89]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution. There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy. Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.

Marxism is a methodology---- these reforms came through class organization and STRUGGLE... just like the 10 hour work day in Marx's time that he wrote about.

Now is the "intrumentalist" view of the state, a bit too simplistic, I would agree

[redguard2009]

I agree with OP.

That is why we invented Marxism-Leninism, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. :)

[Bilan]

Then you're wrong, and have clearly never read Marx.

[Rawthentic]

I agree with you too, redguard.

MLM, or creative marxism, can be an important catalyst for theoretical reconception, but I dont think that it is enough to do so.

We also need a break from mlm, as lenin broke from marx, and mao from lenin.

[ComradeShortcake]

Karl Marx wrote the communist maniftesto in 1848 on the back of the first industrial revolution where the workers were oppressed had no chances but his work was never revised for the 2nd industrial revolution. There is no more child labor in major western nations, workers have benefits and can unionize, and he never envisioned government getting involved in the economy. Now dont get me wrong he is right on every point but his points are from a 1848 stance and need to be revised for today.

Okay, I haven't even read the communist manifesto and I can say that I most likely know more about it than you do. Really, are you that retarded? You should brush up a little on your reading.

[redguard2009]

I agree with you too, redguard.

MLM, or creative marxism, can be an important catalyst for theoretical reconception, but I dont think that it is enough to do so.

We also need a break from mlm, as lenin broke from marx, and mao from lenin.

Yeah, but then it's going to have a ridiculously long name. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Somethingsomething?

[Rawthentic]

No, why would a new, fresh, and creative marxism need such a long name?

I think MLM is very important. But sometimes I think that referring to the development of marxism (as important as that it) by using three different heads is not the best manner in which to present marxism.

Why not call it communist theory?

[JimmyJazz]

Has that been revised at all since Bottomore died?

I have no idea; I pretty much only buy older editions of books, cuz you can get them used for like $1-3 on Amazon. Mine is from 1983.