Help me rephrase this quote from Karl Marx!

[R_P_A_S]

The Communist Manifesto
-Communist & Proletariat section

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois , "abolition of individuality and freedom!?" And rightly so! The abolition OF..BOURGEOIS INDIVIDUALITY!
BOURGEOIS INDEPENDENCE! AND BOURGEOIS FREEDOM is undoubtedly aimed at!"

I would like to rephrase this to fit today's "Occupy, 99% and 1%" atmosphere.
What should I replaced Bourgeois with? 1%ers? any other suggestions. I woul dlike to make a sign or sticker but with a language that's easier to graspt for people..

[NewLeft]

Maybe fat cats? Not sure. The word bourgeois can be applied to a larger % than just the 1%.

[RedGrunt]

I think it is fine as it is. :mad:

lol

I understand your intentions but why not just try to explain the correlation between our modern crisis with what Marx said? In that light it's already perfect.

Either way, I don't think putting the 1% is best.

[tir1944]

Stop perverting Marx,please.
Leave it as it is or invent your own slogan if you have to,but don't twist Marx in such a horrible way.
This "99%" thing doesn't have anything to do with Marxism or class analysis.

[NewLeft]

Yeah, stop being such a revisionist. :lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

Really, it shouldn't be too hard in the present period. Just point out how, in the crisis, people are being forced around and made dependent upon the autonomous movement of 'the economy', for whose sake the austerity movements are pushed through; people's lives are being sacrificed, sometimes quite literally, to the health of the economy. I think that paraphrasing it in terms of 'the 1%', 'fat cats', and such would miss the point, namely that capitalist society is marked by the fact that the products of people's labour come to dominate them and have their own, independent movement. Capital, things, gain individuality, while real people lose it. As such, it's not so much a matter of personal hierarchy as a hierarchy of objects.

[R_P_A_S]

Oh I forgot that Marxism is our holly spirit and we shall not rewrite the holly scripture. How dare me.. Please ban me, vanish me eternally cus I have sinned. :rolleyes:

People do this all the time. I never said I wanted to put the 99%.. If I wanted to go with that I would have no bother asking anyone. I'll do something with or without any suggestion. Go ahead and send the Holly Marx police on me.

[Manic Impressive]

I see nothing wrong with modernizing it. Some of the language Marx used and we use is alien to many people but we need to continue to use it to be specific but not necessarily for propaganda purposes. I've tried tinkering with it but nothing I'm happy with so far it's the last bit that I'm having trouble with.

"In capitalist society the wealthy are independent and have individuality, while the working person is dependent and has no individuality. The abolition of this state of things is called by capitalists , "abolition of individuality and freedom!?" And they're right! The abolition Of..their INDIVIDUALITY! Their INDEPENDENCE! AND Their FREEDOM! to make way for ours"

meh that's pretty shit. it sounds like I'm talking about the fucking illuminati

[Sir Comradical]

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality."

Capital is the active subject while workers are the object manipulated by capital. This also relates to Commodity Fetishism which basically says that because workers are alienated from the products of their own labour, these commodities they produce appear to them as unique products with their own power and not as items made by them. The individuality is transferred onto the commodity and on to capital.

"And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, "abolition of individuality and freedom!?" And rightly so! The abolition OF..BOURGEOIS INDIVIDUALITY! BOURGEOIS INDEPENDENCE! AND BOURGEOIS FREEDOM is undoubtedly aimed at!"

When communists say they want to overthrow the current order, the capitalists say that this will destroy all individuality. Marx responds by saying, yes the overthrow of capitalism will get rid of the notions of individuality perpetuated under capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Regarding the 'occupiers', it would at first be much more useful to rephrase and present a different sentence from the Communist Manifesto:

'It is high time that [the 'occupiers'] ... publish their views, their aims, their tendencies...'

Then, finally, some of us in the public can figure out whether or not we should support the unhappy tent-dwellers. After all, why should any sensible and politically principled person be expected to lend support to something whose political position is unknown?

[ZeroNowhere]

Oh I forgot that Marxism is our holly spirit and we shall not rewrite the holly scripture.
Good, you're getting the hang of it now.


"In capitalist society the wealthy are independent and have individuality, while the working person is dependent and has no individuality. The abolition of this state of things is called by capitalists , "abolition of individuality and freedom!?" And they're right! The abolition Of..their INDIVIDUALITY! Their INDEPENDENCE! AND Their FREEDOM! to make way for ours"'The wealthy' is not a particularly modern term, at least in terms of sense, nor is 'their'. If Marx had wanted to say this, then he could have, but he referred to 'capital', which is quite different from 'the wealthy'. If one wants to say something along these lines, I see no reason to try paraphrasing a statement in which Marx says something different. I mean, it would seem inappropriate if one were dogmatic, due to the revision involved, and also inappropriate if one weren't, because it's an attempt at quoting Marx.

[u.s.red]

Oh I forgot that Marxism is our holly spirit and we shall not rewrite the holly scripture. How dare me.. Please ban me, vanish me eternally cus I have sinned. :rolleyes:

People do this all the time. I never said I wanted to put the 99%.. If I wanted to go with that I would have no bother asking anyone. I'll do something with or without any suggestion. Go ahead and send the Holly Marx police on me.

lol...i think you meant holy scripture.

Marx might have said: "End Capitalist Freedom"

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This "99%" thing doesn't have anything to do with Marxism or class analysis.
Indeed. The "99% vs 1%" argument is essentially a bourgeois one, because the real problem isn't the 1%, it's the capitalist system itself. The ruling class can only be dealt with in the context of socialist revolution.

[Vanguard1917]

Indeed. The "99% vs 1%" argument is essentially a bourgeois one, because the real problem isn't the 1%, it's the capitalist system itself. The ruling class can only be dealt with in the context of socialist revolution.

And '99%' is an illusory constituency. We can safely say that not even the most popular political movement history has ever witnessed achieved 99% support. When the Occupiers make the ludicrous assertion that they represent virtually the entirety of society, they only expose their non-possession of an actual political base in society.

[Manic Impressive]

'The wealthy' is not a particularly modern term, at least in terms of sense, nor is 'their'. If Marx had wanted to say this, then he could have, but he referred to 'capital', which is quite different from 'the wealthy'. If one wants to say something along these lines, I see no reason to try paraphrasing a statement in which Marx says something different. I mean, it would seem inappropriate if one were dogmatic, due to the revision involved, and also inappropriate if one weren't, because it's an attempt at quoting Marx.
I don't say this very often but you're absolutely right. I'm pretty tired and didn't think much about what I was saying. I was just trying to help out but I fucked up

[Mr. Natural]

R_P_A_S, Did some sic their dogmas on you? At least they weren't rabid.

I'd convert Marx's difficult statement to something along the lines of: We are going to replace capitalist relations with human relations. We will no longer labor within capitalism for the profit of the few, but develop communal forms of living that serve our human nature and needs. "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto)

I'd replace "bourgeoisie" with "ruling class," and "proletariat" with "workers" or "laborers."

My sign: "Labor For Life, Not Ruling Class Profit"

Somewhere Marx or Engels wrote (a preface to Manifesto?), "Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action."

My red-green but deeply Marxist and natural best.

[S.Artesian]

Don't rewrite Marx, write your own meaning to that analysis by Marx in your own analysis if capitalism.

You can say something riffing off the decision by the US Supreme Court that corporations are persons...........

[R_P_A_S]

thanks a lot guys! those of you who don't have a hammer and sickle up your butts!

much love!

[Rafiq]

Our society is built around the rule of capital and wealth, which have absolute freedom. And when we want to get rid of those things, the capitalists say that we wish to abolish Freedom! But let us agree, we wish to abolish the fake freedom that has dominated our lives for so long!

There you go.

[Ocean Seal]

Indeed. The "99% vs 1%" argument is essentially a bourgeois one, because the real problem isn't the 1%, it's the capitalist system itself. The ruling class can only be dealt with in the context of socialist revolution.
Its not a bourgeois argument so to speak, its the manifestation of an early proletarian protest shrouded in bourgeois rhetoric, as one would expect this early on in the movement.