Why communism?

[Sheep]

I'm sure you get posts like this often so you should have good practice... Why communism?

I'm 17 and I'm just getting ready for college. All my life I've seen my history classes tell me that communism is evil (indirectly, but it's still there). But most recently this Iraqi war has really made me pissed at my countries decisions and ideals. So back to my question, what makes communism better than democracy? From what I've learned in school, communism means all aspects of a country's economy is controlled by the government. That's all I know. So please enlighten me of your ideals. I don't want to be told what to think, I want to know why you've chosen this political standing. And please, please don’t give me the reason "it's not American" because that's bull shit and by no means a reason to choose a political ideology.

---

Name: Jake

Age: 17

Location: America

Occupation: High School student

Economic Ideology: Undecided

Political Ideology: Undecided

Religion or Faith: Atheist

Languages spoken: English

Favorite Political Figure/s: I don't like politicians

Favorite Music Group/Category: Most anything that’s pre-1980 (some acceptions)

Favorite book ever: A Farewell to Arms

Favorite Food: Cow

Interests: history, politics, boxing, cars, my future, girls

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Wow, we share so much in common.
Welcome to che-lives. :)

Communism, depending on which faction you're referring to, does not necessarily mean centralization of wealth.
Vaguely addressing your question:
Communism puts an end to oppression. The free market allows for the appropriation of the labour of others by those with wealth. This is exploitation. It's unjust and works to concentrate power. It results in the slavery of the working masses by the wealthy elite. This is oppression. Classes are bodies in society with differing political interests. According to communism, these are determined by wealth. So this means that their is a political struggle for power between the working class (proletariat) and the capitalist class (bourgeoisie). Communism seeks to bring the working class to power through revolution, thus ending the class dominance by the bourgeoisie. Once the working masses are brought to the status of ruling class by revolution, they will be the ruling class. All means of production will belong to the workers. (How they will be organized is incredibly debatable). Those who seek to bring back capitalism by trying to once again concentrate power by spreading racism, chauvinism, homophobia, mysoginy, religion, or capitalism are called counter revolutionaries. They're obviously no longer "the bourgeoisie", because they no longer own the menas of production, but they do have the class interests of the bourgeoisie in mind. Eventualy these individuals will cease to exist and the only political interests sought are those of the people. This is true democracy.

I strongly suggest you read The Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html).
If you have any questions about any specific terms, people, or events referred to by lefstist writers or one of us, you can probably find its definition in the Encyclopedia of Marxism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm)

You should also try to engage in the discussions that we have here, they can often be very constructive.

[Nick Yves]

Democracy is a government form, Communism is more of an economic idea. It's when it becomes corrupt that people get the idea that it is some closed economy stalinist party.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 04:28 AM
So back to my question, what makes communism better than democracy? From what I've learned in school, communism means all aspects of a country's economy is controlled by the government.
Welcome Jake. I want to point out a few things for you.
Communism is not the same as government control. When a Communist government takes the power, they start "preparing" society for Communism. This is usually done by slowly fighting against the wage exploitation and the private property (especially of the means of production). Such a stage is what is called Socialism. This is based on Marx's idea that there was a need for a process where the state controls everything so that in the future the people is able to control everything by themselves. First there's the socialist stage, and then it starts dissapearing and that's when a new type of democracy appears.

As an Anarchist, I can tell you that we (the leftist Anarchists) want a faster process to remove the state so that a direct democracy can be possible and people is free from the state. The difference between anarcho-communists and marxist-leninists is that we anarchists want no state, because we recognise the problems authority brings to people and we fear that irresponsible politicians can rule that government and create a dictatorship.

I hope this helped you

[Sheep]

I want to read the manifesto and understand it, so give me some time to respond, it my take me a while to gather everything up.

---

Here are some questions that I have concerning your replies...

-victorcommie-

presuming democracy fails and communism is adopted. I don't believe what you've proposed would work in America. its not as cut and dry as there being two classes. -- also you have to bring religion to attention (whether you believe in it or not doesn't matter, it's still a factor for the common people). in this plan its very feasible that "god fearing" citizens would let themselves be manipulated by the higher-educated upper class/clergy. and we would have ourselves another dark age. -- who would enforce a law among the people preventing this, while not becoming corrupted by this sudden surge of power themself. also who would give children knowledge to carry out this ideal, will there be an education system in the beginning?

-jetgrind-

what is there to stop it from becoming corrupt? democracy has checks and balances.

-el infiltr(a)do-

do you really believe anarchy is possible? war, death, poverty would be inevitable. humans can't control themselves when in large groups. without rules there would be no civilized society. science, literature, art, everything would have to be stopped in order to survive. -- Lord of the Flies, while simplified, is a good example of this.

---

I don't mean to bash your ideals, I just want a reason why democracy should be abandoned for them. while the system is very flawed it still offers opportunity and safety to the common people.

---

Also has anyone read, Animal Farm, do you see this as propaganda?

-Jake

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 10:28 PM
I don't mean to bash your ideals, I just want a reason why democracy should be abandoned for them.
I don't think you understand the fact that communism is compatiable with democracy. They do not contradict each other, infact if you have a dictatorship it can not really be called communism or socialism. This is because the means of production in a dictatorship or oligarchy are not in the hands of the working class, they are in the hands of the oligarchs. Without the means of production in the hands of the people you do not have socialism or communism, you have communistic system, but it isn't communism. The people must have democratic control over the means of production, that did not happen in the Soviet Union and it isn't happening in China, therefore it would be incorrect to consider them truly socialist. They aren't communist either because they never abolished social heirachy, at no point in their histories was everyone equal.

[Sheep]

Ohh sorry, I guess I still need to read. But I also have another question. I see another problem... please correct me if what I'm saying is mislead. -- I can see communism working on a small scale, where there's a tight nit community. But what would posses me to work an extra hour a day to compensate for another part of the nation that isn't producing as much?

[sledovatel]

welcome to the board, sheep. in addition to reading the communist manifesto, i would also advise you to read 2 other very interesting books on the subject, each written by people who lived around the time of the bolshevik revolution of russia. the first book is "the virtue of selfishness" by ayn rand. the second is "the gulag archipelago 1918-1956" by aleksandr i. solzhenitsyn. the first book explains why capitalism works and will always work better than communism. the second book documents attrocities committed in the attempt to impliment communism.
in the search for truth, one must not be afraid to view both positions.
-s

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 09:28 PM
-victorcommie-

presuming democracy fails and communism is adopted. I don't believe what you've proposed would work in America. its not as cut and dry as there being two classes. -- also you have to bring religion to attention (whether you believe in it or not doesn't matter, it's still a factor for the common people). in this plan its very feasible that "god fearing" citizens would let themselves be manipulated by the higher-educated upper class/clergy. and we would have ourselves another dark age. -- who would enforce a law among the people preventing this, while not becoming corrupted by this sudden surge of power themself. also who would give children knowledge to carry out this ideal, will there be an education system in the beginning?
The way I see it, the third world will overcome their foreign (and domestic) oppressors and embark inot socialism and the road to communism. Soon after this, I believe that America will not be able to sustain itself without exploitation of foreign labour. It too, will be quick to fall to communism. The reactionary (counter revolutionary) ideas of the American mindset will quickly collapse when those who work to perpetuate racism, chauvinism, etc. for the continuation of their own class dominance are suppressed. You mention something abhout "this plan", but I'm not sure what you're referring to, comrade. Is it communism? How would communism's suppression of religion bring about a dark age? Please explain.

[Sheep]

I'm referring to the grand plan of communism: to unite all workers together for a common goal, that's to have a government run by the people and for the people. -- communism's suppression of religion?!? how do you plan to suppress religion? the only way I can see a religion being suppressed is via violence. people won't just give it up... they are in a sense like sheep. dogmatic and provincial. doing what they've done all their lives, and "knowing in their hearts" that it's right. -- in a sense we're all sheep but that’s another topic. -- I don't think that I'm getting the full scope of the idea of communism, give me some more time. sorry, ill say no more until I think I have a grasp on it.

-jake

[synthesis]

Have a read.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/baku...us/soc-anar.htm (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm)

Socialism does not cancel democracy. Socialism is democracy. Capitalism cancels democracy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Actualy I'm glad you're questioning it, good for you. Keep doing that.

There is an excelent thread in Philosophy titled "Religion", it's an extremely lengthy thread, but perhaps you wouldn't ming redaing it.

I believe that religion is something that bourgeoisie employs to give them more power. When people follow religious doctrine, they're not just obeying nobody's will, they're obeying the bourgeoisie. Once the bourgeoisie looses its grasp and influence of the people, then I think that it will only be a few generations untill religion is gone. For general purposes, I would like to see religious gatherings completely illegalized. Religion is subjecting yourself to anothers' will, nobody does that voluntarily, they are forced to by "laws" with incomprehensible penalties. Nobody should be able to manifest this sort of beliefe and indoctrinate others.

[sledovatel]

-victorcommie: you say that religion is subjecting yourself to someone else's will, and that nobody should do that. but at the same time you are an advocate of communism, socialism, and "democracy", all of which subject the individual to the will of the masses or the elite. i'm not sure i follow your reasoning.

-dyermaker: i'm not sure how capitalism cancels democracy. capitalism can thrive in democracy and vice-versa. capitalism merely states that individuals have the right to control capital. in essence, even communism is a form of capitalism. it states that capital is controlled by either the majority or the governing powers.
-s

[Bradyman]

To stop exploitation.

Many believe that exploitation only comes from governments that have more power over the people. But, people can have more power via money or wealth, and with it they can control the others in a far greater way than the governments can. Companies employ millions of people, all controlling the salaries of the workers, thus the workers are at the will of the excutives at the top. The excutives have complete control over them, sure the workers can quit, but quitting means no food, no shelter, no money. Realistically they have very little choice or control over their own lives. Thus, under communism, we would love to see that the people are in control of their destinies, not the upper class.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 03:17 PM
-victorcommie: you say that religion is subjecting yourself to someone else's will, and that nobody should do that. but at the same time you are an advocate of communism, socialism, and "democracy", all of which subject the individual to the will of the masses or the elite. i'm not sure i follow your reasoning.
You got it. Not the elite, though, not by any means.
But the people, the masses. Everyone should be subject to the will of the people. It's democracy. Subjecting people to the will of elites and oligarchs is infinitely more terrible, and that is what capitalism does. The only way to prevent people from trying to appropriate the labour of others with material wealth si to create material equality. Also social equality is necessary, this can be achieved by preventing people from concentrating power by either spreading chauvinism to advance ignorant prejudice, which causes stereotypes that marginalize groups based ignorant and false prejudice, or by simply forcing people with religious doctrine to follow their leadership.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 09:17 PM
-dyermaker: i'm not sure how capitalism cancels democracy. capitalism can thrive in democracy and vice-versa. capitalism merely states that individuals have the right to control capital. in essence, even communism is a form of capitalism. it states that capital is controlled by either the majority or the governing powers.
The class that controls the means of production (that is, the means of producing capital, such as mines and factories) controls society.

The business class rules America - just look at how few people are voting. Do you really think that the majority of Americans want tax increases for themselves while massive tax cuts are being doled out to the rich? America spends about $448,000,000,000 per year on "wealthfare."

(I suggest you pick up these two books for more information on the concept in the last paragraph: Secrets, Lies, and Democracy by Noam Chomsky and Take the Rich Off Welfare by Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman.)

Capitalism is inherently un-democratic because control is maintained by an elite few. Communism is democracy, and democracy is Communism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 03:17 PM
-dyermaker: i'm not sure how capitalism cancels democracy. capitalism can thrive in democracy and vice-versa. capitalism merely states that individuals have the right to control capital. in essence, even communism is a form of capitalism. it states that capital is controlled by either the majority or the governing powers.
-s
Read this thread, it's not too long.
Why is Capitalism Fundamentaly Undemocratic? (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=17769&hl=capitalism%20is%20fundamentaly%20undemocratic&st=0)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 03:28 AM
do you really believe anarchy is possible? war, death, poverty would be inevitable. humans can't control themselves when in large groups. without rules there would be no civilized society. science, literature, art, everything would have to be stopped in order to survive.
I dont see why war, death and poverty are inevitable. By what you are saying I guess you think that in an un-authoritarian society war would be usual, and death (i suppose you refer to crimes) and poverty more usual than now. War has always been caused by capitalism and by people with authority trying to control other people. In an anarchist society there wouldnt be authoritatian rules, and there wont be any kind of capitalist system (unless you are talking about "anarcho-capitalism" which is just a more rebel neo-liberalism), thus the only possible way for wars to appear would be by conflicts. Considering the lack of authority the same people will be responsible for stopping conflicts as soon as possible. Death happens everytime, and if you are talking about crimes, i dont think rich people will be killed in an anarchist society because they wont exist, and the only possible crimes are those that ant be avoided even in the most authroitarian society. It's impossible ton control insane people and force them to do something like following the laws. Poverty usually comes from the lack of resources or from the concentration of resources on a certain group while the rest of the people starves to death (capitalism). People will always have to work, so they will produce what they need from what the nature offers. In fact you might notice how anarchist emphasize the use of pro-ecology alternatives to preserve the environment while producing what people needs.
Rules arent needed to have a civilized society. A civilized society is only civilized if people knows what they do and what they shouldnt do, if you check how the state and other forms of authority have tried to create "civilized" societies, you will notice that they coould only do it by creating fear and not educating people.
Concerning science, it willl be developed but it will be concentrated on basic and productive things. Art will not be stopped, people doesnt work the whole day...read some of Kropotkin's writings to see what he thinks about this

wow...this became a very long post. I hope it helped you.

[Rasta Sapian]

Jake Bro, its true communism can look radical and even anarchist at times. However what is does offer is an alternative thought, that to place a greater importance on the entire nation. Where a people can all benefit from each others work and skills, together equal, living in a socialist society. "UTOPIA" where nobody has to eat dog food, or suck dick for a hit, a couple of the benifits from classbashing impirialist society "LAND OF THE FREE" :o


peace yall

[Sheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 03:28 AM
In an anarchist society there wouldnt be authoritatian rules, and there wont be any kind of capitalist system (unless you are talking about "anarcho-capitalism" which is just a more rebel neo-liberalism), thus the only possible way for wars to appear would be by conflicts.

-exactly, conflicts. conflicts between families, conflicts between communities. have you ever heard of the Hatfield's and the McCoy's? that's exactly what i see happening, only on a larger scale. -- on the same note, if you were to live off the land, what's stopping someone from coming into your house, killing your family and stealing your food? how are you expected to work on improving humanity while you're stuck trying to defend your life? society has never worked without order... Indians had some form of order... shit even wolfs have a class system.

-in an anarchist society, there will be no government therefore there will be no money. we will be reduced to trading goods for services and vice versa. no cars will be produced, no oil will be pumped, no houses will be built, there will be no electricity, no books will be written, no progress will be made. your children wont be able to expand their minds in schools. we will be reduced to mindless brutes who only want to live to see the next day.

-i seriously thought about anarchism as a way of life for maybe a year. weighing the pros and cons... but the only pro i found was the "freedom" to do what i wanted. i have "freedom" right now, i also have a gas guzzling 1971 ford bronco that's parked outside of a warm home that's full of food. why would i want to give that up? for walking everywhere, and having to look over my shoulder every time i come across food.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

When socialists refer to anarchism, we are referring to classless society. The reason for this is beacuse the governmenr is merely a tool for one class to oppress another. With the extinction of class conflict, politics will no longer consist of a competition among classes, and will therefore no longer be politics.

[kc-bones]

Originally posted by Sheep+Nov 14 2003, 05:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sheep @ Nov 14 2003, 05:17 AM)
[email protected] 12 2003, 03:28 AM
In an anarchist society there wouldnt be authoritatian rules, and there wont be any kind of capitalist system (unless you are talking about "anarcho-capitalism" which is just a more rebel neo-liberalism), thus the only possible way for wars to appear would be by conflicts.

-exactly, conflicts. conflicts between families, conflicts between communities. have you ever heard of the Hatfield&#39;s and the McCoy&#39;s? that&#39;s exactly what i see happening, only on a larger scale. -- on the same note, if you were to live off the land, what&#39;s stopping someone from coming into your house, killing your family and stealing your food? how are you expected to work on improving humanity while you&#39;re stuck trying to defend your life? society has never worked without order... Indians had some form of order... shit even wolfs have a class system.

-in an anarchist society, there will be no government therefore there will be no money. we will be reduced to trading goods for services and vice versa. no cars will be produced, no oil will be pumped, no houses will be built, there will be no electricity, no books will be written, no progress will be made. your children wont be able to expand their minds in schools. we will be reduced to mindless brutes who only want to live to see the next day.

-i seriously thought about anarchism as a way of life for maybe a year. weighing the pros and cons... but the only pro i found was the "freedom" to do what i wanted. i have "freedom" right now, i also have a gas guzzling 1971 ford bronco that&#39;s parked outside of a warm home that&#39;s full of food. why would i want to give that up? for walking everywhere, and having to look over my shoulder every time i come across food. [/b]
Nice points their. I agree I dont see how anarchy could possibly work without their being violence and other problems. With anarchism your just going back to the caveman days it seems like.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Do you people read? <_<

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 05:17 AM
-exactly, conflicts. conflicts between families, conflicts between communities. have you ever heard of the Hatfield&#39;s and the McCoy&#39;s? that&#39;s exactly what i see happening, only on a larger scale. -- on the same note, if you were to live off the land, what&#39;s stopping someone from coming into your house, killing your family and stealing your food? how are you expected to work on improving humanity while you&#39;re stuck trying to defend your life? society has never worked without order... Indians had some form of order... shit even wolfs have a class system.
Of course you live in yankeeland, the policemen of the world. Such things like self-determination, participation and knowledge dont exist over there. I remember a Simpson&#39;s chapter where Homer explains to Lisa that the government is picked by the people so that the people doesnt have to bother about thinking about "those things". Well, Anarchism is about people thinking and taking care about everything. But it seems this is what happens in yankeeland, people doesnt want to govern, they just pick the candidate which looks more trustworthy and they relax, thinking that government is protecting them and doing things that represent them. That&#39;s a big mistake.
Anarchism proposes many alternatives to fix conflicts, from the interention of a third party, to a big debate in some kind of assembly
And btw are you suggesting indians arent civilised?


-in an anarchist society, there will be no government therefore there will be no money. we will be reduced to trading goods for services and vice versa. no cars will be produced, no oil will be pumped, no houses will be built, there will be no electricity, no books will be written, no progress will be made. your children wont be able to expand their minds in schools. .

I think you should read a bit of what people like Kropotkin and Bakunin wrote, and maybe research about anarcho-syndicalism. That should give you an idea about the economy. What hasnt made anarchism possible on large scale is that people isnt educated about it and what responsibilities they would have on that system. I dont see the schools are a good place to learn, they are controlled by the government or by private owners, so they sell capitalism, they dont care about students debating, discussing, and having new ideas. Just study a few pages about capitalist and pro-"democracy" propaganda until you have completely memorised it and you have passed the exam. Anarchism wants freedom, it wants more intervention of ideas by other people (especially parents) on the kids education, and giving students more freedom so they can study and research what they like.


we will be reduced to mindless brutes who only want to live to see the next day

We are mindless brutes under capitalism already. In fact we have always been. Right now people works half their lives to survive, they hardly have time to do what they like and they dont have time to research about the current issues, so they accept what the media imposes on them. So we only want to live to see the next day. Saving money, working on undesirable jobs, not thinking about the world&#39;s nature, that shows our life doesnt have a meaning now, and it wont on any capitalist system. Anarchism tries to show the nature, the origins of everything, even it might show the meaning of life some day. Authority isnt a natural thing, it was invented.


-i seriously thought about anarchism as a way of life for maybe a year. weighing the pros and cons... but the only pro i found was the "freedom" to do what i wanted. i have "freedom" right now, i also have a gas guzzling 1971 ford bronco that&#39;s parked outside of a warm home that&#39;s full of food. why would i want to give that up? for walking everywhere, and having to look over my shoulder every time i come across food.

Are you talking about the impossible anarcho-capitalism? I dont get why means of transport wouldnt exist in an anarchist system. You seem to believe that nobody will give a fuck and people will just be hostile to each other without cooperating to use the resources and produce what&#39;s needed.
And many people around the world has to walk all the time, so that you yanquis can have your ford bronco. Please dont tell me you use it to do 200 meters because that&#39;s stupid, you are showing off. And "warm homes" will exist in anarchism, and food will exist without most people starving while others are very fat because they have the money to buy their mccombos.
Assuming that people is stupid by nature is assuming that one is stupid too, and it is not fair to those who arent stupid.

[apathy maybe]

Democracy: "A system of government where all people have a direct and equal say in how the political unit is run".
Communism: "An economic system where all people are considered equal and thus entitled to an equal share of the economy". Charactoristed by the famous saying "From each according ... to each according ...".

These two terms are not mutually exlusive. You sound like you believe the old myth that just &#39;cause the USSR called it self communist and everyone else called it communist, that it was communist. It wasn&#39;t.

Some links are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
amhttp://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
And a thread on communism at Che-lives which I can&#39;t find right now.

[Sheep]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Nov 15 2003, 03:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Nov 15 2003, 03:36 AM)Well, Anarchism is about people thinking and taking care about everything. But it seems this is what happens in yankeeland, people doesnt want to govern, they just pick the candidate which looks more trustworthy and they relax, thinking that government is protecting them and doing things that represent them. That&#39;s a big mistake.
Anarchism proposes many alternatives to fix conflicts, from the interention of a third party, to a big debate in some kind of assembly[/b]

i don&#39;t believe people would be able to think and take care of themselves without some form of assembly or government.


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
And btw are you suggesting indians arent civilised?

im not suggesting that, im telling you that even back to the simplest of times there&#39;s proof of a class structure. if it wasn&#39;t for the order formed by class structures we wouldn&#39;t be as advanced as society as we are today. now whether those class structures are fair is very debatable...


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
What hasnt made anarchism possible on large scale is that people isnt educated about it and what responsibilities they would have on that system. I dont see the schools are a good place to learn, they are controlled by the government or by private owners, so they sell capitalism, they dont care about students debating, discussing, and having new ideas.

well the fact that people isn&#39;t educated about it, really tells you something... responsibility would be most certainly unattainable on a national scale. -- like i said before, unless they&#39;re organized, a large group wouldn&#39;t accomplish anything...


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
We are mindless brutes under capitalism already. In fact we have always been. Right now people works half their lives to survive, they hardly have time to do what they like

and in an anarchist society we would all just play and be jolly?


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
and they dont have time to research about the current issues,

i do


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
they accept what the media imposes on them.

the media doesn&#39;t impose anything on me, i can make my own decisions.


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
Saving money, working on undesirable jobs, not thinking about the world&#39;s nature, that shows our life doesnt have a meaning now, and it wont on any capitalist system.

and i suppose this would all change in an anarchist society... we would all have the job that fits us perfectly, nature wont be raped by humans anymore because, in this divine anarchist society, we found new sources of power and food that wasn&#39;t available to use in our capitalist society...


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
Anarchism tries to show the nature, the origins of everything, even it might show the meaning of life some day.

yea, okay... you can find the origins of everything through science. now you want to know the meaning of life?&#33;?&#33; how ambiguous can you get?&#33;?&#33;?


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
Authority isnt a natural thing, it was invented.

you&#39;re right authority isn&#39;t natural, ohh wait no, IT IS&#33; i&#39;ll refer back to my earlier comment, wolfs have a class structure&#33; elephants have a class structure&#33; monkies, you know the species that we evolved from, they have a class structure too&#33; these class structures aren&#39;t very fair. the strongest wolf eats first, the weakest wolf eats last, if at all, but they have a purpose, and that&#39;s too keep the strongest wolf, on top, and to evolve the species into bigger and better things. -- is this fair in a human society, i don&#39;t know. but i sure as hell know, that going back to basics can only hurt us as a society.


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
I dont get why means of transport wouldnt exist in an anarchist system.

because there&#39;s no companies, to produces this transportation. the reason there&#39;re no companies is because there&#39;s no money to start the companies and there&#39;s no money to pay for the workers and whatever capital that&#39;s needed to produces this transportation.


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
You seem to believe that nobody will give a fuck and people will just be hostile to each other without cooperating to use the resources and produce what&#39;s needed.

yip. that&#39;s human nature baby. and you seem to want to get back to nature sooooo badly, so im just telling what comes with it...


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
And many people around the world has to walk all the time, so that you yanquis can have your ford bronco.

please tell me why these people are walking so i can afford my bronco? yes, this utopian society of yours is making more sense as i hear more about it...


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
Please dont tell me you use it to do 200 meters because that&#39;s stupid, you are showing off.

i use it to climb mountains, i use it to pull stumps out of the ground, i use it to make people in other countries walk to work...


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
And "warm homes" will exist in anarchism,

ummmm, how again? are you going to build them, then run the gas, electrical, and plumbing to them from the companies that were put out of business due to this lack of money?


Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
and food will exist without most people starving while others are very fat because they have the money to buy their mccombos.

im sorry, i think that last sentence gave me an aneurism... i think you&#39;re trying to say that fat people will die off? -- ahh i don&#39;t know, just to let you know, i never said was that food would disappear when your utopian society came to being. i said there would be no one to produce it... meaning, you would have to hunt it down or grow it yourself...


El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2003, 03:36 AM
Assuming that people is stupid by nature is assuming that one is stupid too, and it is not fair to those who arent stupid.

HAHAHA, just the context of what you&#39;re defending, and the fact that you nearly made a coherent sentence while defending it, is just to faukn&#39; funny&#33; -- now listen closely, what i said was this... people can&#39;t control themselves in mobs. im not saying that an individual couldn&#39;t be smart, im saying that once that individual is put into a group of people he is immediately deemed a "dumbass".

[Sheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 10:05 PM
When socialists refer to anarchism, we are referring to classless society. The reason for this is beacuse the governmenr is merely a tool for one class to oppress another. With the extinction of class conflict, politics will no longer consist of a competition among classes, and will therefore no longer be politics.
but that isn&#39;t the definition of anarchism. anarchism is the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. it says nothing about class structure. and yes this is a generic definition but, i&#39;ve looked through the other definitions and i have yet to find one that involves the abolishing of class structures. -- i don&#39;t see how a government-deficient society would be classless.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The government is a means to control the people for the purposes of advancing the people&#39;s opposing class, the bourgeoisie. With this gone, governments are no longer oppressors.

The state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. V. I. Lenin

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 06:36 PM

i don&#39;t believe people would be able to think and take care of themselves without some form of assembly or government.
Some free associacions anarchist propose can be considered "assemblies" and even "government". But why does people need a government to think?


im not suggesting that, im telling you that even back to the simplest of times there&#39;s proof of a class structure. if it wasn&#39;t for the order formed by class structures we wouldn&#39;t be as advanced as society as we are today. now whether those class structures are fair is very debatable...

What advances were produced by classes? Religions? Are those advances? Nobility and upper classes hardly ever invented things or had original thoughts, and even if they did, it is because they were the only ones that could access to the education or hd the freedom to do what they wanted.


well the fact that people isn&#39;t educated about it, really tells you something... responsibility would be most certainly unattainable on a national scale. -- like i said before, unless they&#39;re organized, a large group wouldn&#39;t accomplish anything...

I dont get your point. Anarchism wants FEDERATIVE control, that will make a country. Anarchism tries to create the real organization, the one where people unite to do something without authority or a strict system. In fact if something has made anarchism impossible is the spread belief that "it is chaos and disorder and bombs and dreamers who live in an imaginary utopia", obviously something that is spread by the state, the religions and the private power, because we anarchists are against them. In fact there was anarchist organization in Spain around the times of the civil war in case you didnt know (with civil war im talking about a Spanish civil war, not the yankee one that is possibly the only one they taught yankee kids at school), and it worked pretty well, but it was smashed by the fascist Franco&#39;s troops. Some millions lived under anarchism at that time, I&#39;m not sure. What made people irresponsible is the belief that in many things they depend from the state who controls them.


and in an anarchist society we would all just play and be jolly?

Look at Kropotkin&#39;s writings. Of course it takes time. We dont need to produce wealth, we need to produce the fair amount of what we need. That should reduce many useless work. Technology will keep developing, as anyone will be available to use materials that were once limited to the state or to minorities, and they will be able to start their own projects. But to avoid failure (which will mean waste of time, effort and material) in that, they will have to join with other people who also has knowledges and they should also want to attemp doing that thing. That could help reducing the time it takes to work.


i do

Me too, but we are young and we have less responsibilities that take away our time and makes us a robot controlled by the system.


the media doesn&#39;t impose anything on me, i can make my own decisions.

Well it seems yankees get scared if they mention words like "Saddam", "anthrax", "terrorism", "communism", "biological weapons", "muslim", "Osama", "leftist", I don&#39;t know where did all that fear came from... you are from the minority that seems to try to understand things. It seems many people should have your nickname (Sheep) because of how they believe lies the government and the media tell.


and i suppose this would all change in an anarchist society... we would all have the job that fits us perfectly, nature wont be raped by humans anymore because, in this divine anarchist society, we found new sources of power and food that wasn&#39;t available to use in our capitalist society...

You need more information about anarchism. Do you think there will be people condemned to work cleaning toilets all their life to survive? Or people that will work on a factory without ever having what they make? Do you think we will go around killing animals to have fur clothes? Anarchism always defended attemps to protect animals while not destroying ourselves. However that wasnt what I meant by "nature" in that part. I meant the origins, the meaning of the world. We are animals, very advanced animals, but it seems we are more "productive" by not thinking about it and producing more for our masters.


yea, okay... you can find the origins of everything through science. now you want to know the meaning of life?&#33;?&#33; how ambiguous can you get?&#33;?&#33;?

Well science isnt supported usually, governments dont spend too much on it and we will do more productive things. I accept I exagerated but the type of system in that we live in makes us only think in one thing: money.


you&#39;re right authority isn&#39;t natural, ohh wait no, IT IS&#33; i&#39;ll refer back to my earlier comment, wolfs have a class structure&#33; elephants have a class structure&#33; monkies, you know the species that we evolved from, they have a class structure too&#33;

Class is not the same as authority


these class structures aren&#39;t very fair. the strongest wolf eats first, the weakest wolf eats last, if at all, but they have a purpose, and that&#39;s too keep the strongest wolf, on top, and to evolve the species into bigger and better things. -- is this fair in a human society, i don&#39;t know. but i sure as hell know, that going back to basics can only hurt us as a society.

If we have evolved and created what we created, we should have been able to produce enough for everyone. The point of competition in that case is, if there isnt food for everyone, the stronger should keep alive. If we were able to create everything we created, we should have been able to produce the basic things we all need. We haven&#39;t, otherwise they wouldnt be so many poor people in the world. And by the way, species care about the whole pack. Of course they have leaders, but i dont think animals feel happy if the weakest die.


because there&#39;s no companies, to produces this transportation. the reason there&#39;re no companies is because there&#39;s no money to start the companies and there&#39;s no money to pay for the workers and whatever capital that&#39;s needed to produces this transportation.

Workers that know how to create means of transport will unite. They will use available material to produce the transports, and if there isnt enough, they will send a message to another place where theres a lot asking for some of it. They wont have salaries, they will use what the society has to cover their basic needs. In exchange for that, they are giving the society means of transport.
Do a serach about anarcho-syndicalism


yip. that&#39;s human nature baby. and you seem to want to get back to nature sooooo badly, so im just telling what comes with it...

That&#39;s not human nature. The problem is the lack of resources, and ridiculously excessive amount of resources going to the "more capable" and "stronger" class. And of course, the few time the owners of the capital usually spend in producing. Anarchism enforces people in some way, to cooperate.


please tell me why these people are walking so i can afford my bronco? yes, this utopian society of yours is making more sense as i hear more about it...

It&#39;s called globalization, capitalism, neo-liberalism, or it should be called exploitation of the third world. It looks like you get paid more for doing the most depressing work in yanquiland than what you get for doing an average work in Africa or Asia.


i use it to climb mountains, i use it to pull stumps out of the ground, i use it to make people in other countries walk to work...

You&#39;ve kinda admitted it or you are being sarcastic


ummmm, how again? are you going to build them, then run the gas, electrical, and plumbing to them from the companies that were put out of business due to this lack of money?

A lot of alternatives were created. Still, its stupid to believe that workers wont cooperate in managing and creating such things as gas and water supply. Once again, anarcho-syndicalism proposed alternatives to this...


im sorry, i think that last sentence gave me an aneurism... i think you&#39;re trying to say that fat people will die off? -- ahh i don&#39;t know, just to let you know, i never said was that food would disappear when your utopian society came to being. i said there would be no one to produce it... meaning, you would have to hunt it down or grow it yourself...

I never said fat people would die. Do not put things i havent said in my mouth. When you said "and having to look over my shoulder every time i come across food" you are suggesting food will be rare. How did we created things like farms in first place? People will need food, so they will produce it.


HAHAHA, just the context of what you&#39;re defending, and the fact that you nearly made a coherent sentence while defending it, is just to faukn&#39; funny&#33; -- now listen closely, what i said was this... people can&#39;t control themselves in mobs. im not saying that an individual couldn&#39;t be smart, im saying that once that individual is put into a group of people he is immediately deemed a "dumbass".

That&#39;s what defenders of the authority believe. People can talk, that makes then share information. And the fact that people "is stupid" shows the terrible problems the education system has.

[noxious]

it appears this kid is not who he says. he has overstepped his claims to ignorance and predicted all of your arguments with rote responses.

at the same time your responses are ultimately unsatisfactory. thisis because the idea of an immediate transition to anarchy is absurd. if we recognize that the economic root (capitalism) is the source of inequality and all our problems, we ought not revolt using a political tool (smashing the state) but rather an economic tool. Communism must start with new economic forms.

and sheep if you really are a 17 year old, you could use better definitions of major terms.

Capitalism is an economic system defined by the relationship between labor and capital, such that capital owns the means of production and buys the product of labor. Labor adds value to products and the owner takes a large portion of this added value.

Communism is a different economic system where the value of labor is returned to the laborer.

When we talk about "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" we&#39;ve gone vastly beyond this definition of communism. an economic system based on trying to make the above adage true is hopeless and unjust.

[Sheep]

-- I am 17 years old, I turn 18 in March. I came here looking for information on communism, because I felt that my history teacher&#39;s opinions about it were very bias. -- As far as my claims of ignorance when I came here, they were true, I didn&#39;t know much about communism. But I&#39;ve been reading a lot of the threads and I&#39;m starting to grasp it. I tried reading the manifesto but a lot of it is over me. -- I never came here to try and prove people wrong, I came here to question communism and see how it would be defended, I wanted to find problems with it and see how you address them. -- I&#39;ve found the idea of communism very interesting, but it&#39;s not without it&#39;s flaws. (like other forms of government too). -- And using better definitions for terms... i got that definition out of the dictionary, i also noted that it was very generic.

-- The thing I jumped all over was anarchy, it just isn&#39;t feasible in our day and age, I&#39;m sorry I can&#39;t see it. and i don&#39;t understand how they are "rote" responses. that&#39;s just how i see things happening.

-- I&#39;m no class warrior. I see how the class system neglects the poor, but I also see why the working class is trapped in this plight of low wages and poor treatment. -- I&#39;ve spent 4 summers on a construction crew with my dad, and I know why these guys are doing what they do for a living. They have no ambitions, they don&#39;t want to be the best at what they do, they just want to get by. And I can&#39;t respect that, I also can&#39;t a government formed around these pieces of crap that are just floating through life. I believe that communism is very susceptible to corrupt leaders and already has too bad of a wrap to take off anytime soon. its a good concept but propoganda has just shreded it. maybe in 50 years once people see what america has been doing they might open their minds to other options but for the time being i cant see it happening. -- im sorry i didnt put more thought into this post, its getting late and i felt that i had to defend the alligations/

---------------

- El Infiltr(A)do -

im going to try and get a response out for your reply tomorrow. it&#39;s 2 am and i have to work in the mourning, soo… i say good night.

[des-esseintes]

Hi Sheep, you seem like a honest guy who are genuinely repulsed by the policies of the Bush administration and the world situation in general. It appears you are really interested in Communism. Great&#33; I shall try to explain the very self-evident (once you understand them :) ) ABCs.

The basic premise of socialism is what you could call the &#39;innermost wish of every human being&#39;. The 19th century intellectuals who founded the movement (Marx and Engels) had as their starting point the simple question, that enlightened people have been occupied with since the dawn of civilization: How can we eradicate war, oppression and poverty?

The great achievement of Marxism is the discovery that the two former evils can only disappear once the latter has been eradicated. The aim of communism is basically to guarantee every human being a decent standard of living. Once everyone has in abundance, there can exist no rich and poor, and consequently there will be no need for the rich to oppress the poor.

The wealth of any society is equal to the sum of the commodities that are produced by its industry. In order to create a society of superabundance, a classless, Communist society, it is necessary to expand the "productive forces", that is, industry, agriculture, technique and science, to an unheard of degree. Capitalism has, for the first time in history, created productive forces that have the power to create a paradise on this planet. However, in the hands of the capitalists, these forces are used not for the good of the human race but for the wallets of the fat cat capitalists that everyday become more and more like parasites. Thousands of children starve to death every day while European governments destroy tons of grain because there is "no demand". The war in Iraq is a fine example of the impasse and positively reactionary nature of capitalism. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent in order to subdue a poor Middle Eastern nation so that the imperialist robber barons can get their hands on greater profits.

But socialism in practice failed, someone says. Wrong. What failed in Eastern Europe in 1989-91 was not socialism or communism, but a monstrous totalitarian caricature. In 1917 the Russian masses took society in their own hands. They created a new form of democracy, complete democracy, Soviet democracy. It was not like the &#39;democracy&#39; of the capitalism of today, where every 4 years the people get to select who gets to screw them over. Every representative was subject to immediate recall by the masses, and thus they had to stick to what they promised.

Socialism is one hundred percent democratic. Marx spoke of the "dictatorship of the working class" - what he meant was the dictatorship of the working class as a CLASS, as against the CAPITALIST class. Inside the working class, the greatest democracy was necessary. How else can the proletariat rule as a class, than by complete democracy?

In short, socialism failed in Russia and was replaced by the totalitarian dictatorship because the productive forces there were not sufficiently developed to guarantee a decent level of existence to everyone. It was a semi-feudal, backwards economy. The mass of the population couldn&#39;t participate in the running of the state and the planned economy, because they were crushed by want and hard work. A shortening of the working day is the first precondition for socialism. Thus, a bureaucratic caste rose to the top and took the greater part of the country&#39;s wealth for itself. With general poverty comes an antagonism between rich and poor comes the need for the rich to oppress the poor. Hence the unbridled terror.

Of course the above is by no means enough to understand Marxism. A brilliant short guide to the Marxist conception of history is written by Mick Brooks and can be found at this address:
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide2.html

A good summary of the causes and effects of the present war in Iraq is in Alan Woods&#39; article "The World After The War In Iraq":
http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/afterwar...ar_in_iraq.html (http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/afterwar_in_iraq.html)

On the question of the nature of the USSR, you should read Ted Grant&#39;s Russia: From Revolution To Counter-Revolution.
http://www.marxist.com/russiabook

The same site has innumerable great articles and analyses on Marxism, capitalism, war, the world situation etc. Do humanity a favor and search around a little on that site&#33; :)

[noxious]

if you really want to get a solid understanding of communism, read books. the manifesto is a simplified version of marxism written in a somewhat anarchonistic style which makes it hard to read, but it leaves out a lot of stuff that needs to be understood. You&#39;ve gotta look at the economic theories. at the basis. a good book for a beginnner would be marx for beginners (http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0375714618) this is an easy to read illustrated introduction into Marx, that deals with the important theories without dogma. capitalism for beginners (same publisher) is also very good, seeing as how you&#39;ve gotta fully understand capitalism (unlike most of the posters here) before you can embark on a critique of it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You can&#39;t generalize and apply the stereotype that all working people are lazy and just drift through life? That&#39;s not true. The ones that do, however, have only realized that they can&#39;t get anywhere in the corrupt system of wage slavery they&#39;re living in. They can&#39;t&#33;

What ambitions can one have if they&#39;re all impossible?

The government is formed around "these pieces of crap"( :angry: :angry: ), because they&#39;re the backbone of society, man&#33; They support the hierarchy that oppressed them.

Perhaps in America you can&#39;t see this, but most of the world&#39;s population lives in misery working for the minority&#33; And this is growing rapidly. You Americans see the middle class and the upper class growing, and you see this as an improvemnt thst will gradualy occur to improve capitalism for the underclass, but just because the middle and upper classes are growing, doesn&#39;t mean that the working poor are decreasing in size, they&#39;re growing at an even faster rate, mate.

Why can&#39;t you respect these people?&#33; Because they&#39;re oppressed? How can you tolerate a government that yields to the subjugation of all these working people?

Communist revolution is only a means of bringing to power a system that will act in fucntion of abolishing classes to end oppression. This can only be done through the working masses, as they can benefit from classlessness.

Please, mate, reda the manifesto, it&#39;s not too hard for you, I swear. Read it anyway.

Why would those people who you worked with want to be teh best they can be? So tehy can make more money for their bosses? C&#39;mon, man&#33;

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I&#39;ll read the Communsit manifesto with you, hows that?

The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master [3] and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

The bourgeois is the capiatlist class that owns the means of production, giving them ownership of the workers in a way.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune [4]: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man&#39;s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.

What he&#39;s saying is that the bourgeoisie has revolutionized society to a point where life is centered around money and individual monetary growth.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians&#39; intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature&#39;s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?

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 organization 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 civilization, 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? One 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.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first, the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.

Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Okay, now you tell me, what is it that you don&#39;t undersatnd? The point of this first chapter is to show you how bad the bourgeioisie is. Can you see that?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Okay, moving on to lesson 2. Proletarians & Communists, this is my favourite chapter.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

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; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

So he&#39;s saying that the working people must be unified into one group with similar political interests to confront the bourgeoisie.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man&#39;s own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property&#33; Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

I love this part&#33; Bourgeois property is property to used to generate money from the residents. It&#39;s bad. He&#39;s pretty much saying that in capitalism the rich own land, something necessary for all memebrs of society, leaving the proletariat to depend on its oppressors for it.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

So we&#39;re not taking the wealthy&#39;s stuff and giving it away, we&#39;re giving the stuff to society, as it is them to whom it belongs in the first place.

Let us now take wage labor.

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. I don&#39;t get it either. 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&#33; And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

That&#39;s my favourite line.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don&#39;t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms stringing from your present mode of production and form of property -- historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition of the family&#33; Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education&#33; Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other&#39;s wives. (Ah, those were the days&#33;)

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man&#39;s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man&#39;s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in 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 banks 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 he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children&#39;s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

I just get a bit tired of reading all taht and trying to clarify it for you, so tell me what you don&#39;t get. Isn&#39;t thsi chapter great? I&#39;ll do the rest later. :)

[noxious]

victorcommie:

either he&#39;s not 17 and he&#39;s just trying to provoke you, in which case he doesn&#39;t wanna read the manifesto. or he&#39;s not going to understand the basic language used in the manifesto, not cuz the ideas are too hard, but cuz it&#39;s an outdate form of speech and a translation.

also the manifesto is a call to action, not theory. this guy has theoretical questions. reiterating a call to action to someone who questions the theoretical basis is not going to help.

also, marx himself took issue with what HE said in the manifesto. his later writings (see critique of the gotha program for example) refute many of the things the manifesto says. it&#39;s a call to action that relies too heavily on government solutions, class warfare and violent rebellion.

sheep, read it carefully focus on the parts about historical conditions and the arrangements of capitalist society and PLEASE augment it with economic theory. If you want it straight from the mouth of marx rather than a someone elses beginner version see wage-labor and capital or value price and profit. both available from international publishers (thats the communist press org) then Das Kapital. but that thing is a beast for a beginner to read.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 11:05 PM
When socialists refer to anarchism, we are referring to classless society. The reason for this is beacuse the governmenr is merely a tool for one class to oppress another. With the extinction of class conflict, politics will no longer consist of a competition among classes, and will therefore no longer be politics.
True, but only a handfull know that and accept it. The others are too ignorant to accept the truth. But anarchy is only be used in a begining phase. Than we should switch over too something more concrete, since with anarchy the strong will oppress the weak ...

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Desert [email protected] 16 2003, 07:09 PM
Than we should switch over too something more concrete, since with anarchy the strong will oppress the weak ...
Really? What will the "strong" use to oppress the "weak"?

If you mean that rich people will not let a new order, there wont be "chaos and disorder", but possibly a civil war. We anarchists don&#39;t see a good indicator to check who&#39;s stronger anywhere, so they "stronger" can&#39;t prove that he is stronger.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 09:06 AM
-- The thing I jumped all over was anarchy, it just isn&#39;t feasible in our day and age, I&#39;m sorry I can&#39;t see it.
Believing that will make it not feasible forever.

[Sheep]

Originally posted by Victorcommie+Nov 16 2003, 04:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Victorcommie @ Nov 16 2003, 04:38 PM)You can&#39;t generalize and apply the stereotype that all working people are lazy and just drift through life? That&#39;s not true. The ones that do, however, have only realized that they can&#39;t get anywhere in the corrupt system of wage slavery they&#39;re living in. They can&#39;t&#33; [/b]

They show up maybe 24 hours a week. They spend their pay checks on video games and beer... their children have reported them to the police and abandoned them, their wifes/girlfriends have left them. These people are worthless. I&#39;m not saying all the working class is worthless, I&#39;m saying these ones that work for my dad are. They don&#39;t pay their bills and it&#39;s their own fault, not the society in which they grew up. My dad started out as a laborer, he has worked his ass off for going on 30 years, now he owns his own business and is a respectable man.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:38 PM
What ambitions can one have if they&#39;re all impossible?

Nothing is impossible. They have no ambition to do better, as long as they have a 6 pack in hand and a satellite dish to watch the WWF they are content.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:38 PM
The government is formed around "these pieces of crap"( :angry: :angry: ), because they&#39;re the backbone of society, man&#33; They support the hierarchy that oppressed them.
*edit* i&#39;m refering to my dads emplyees, not the working class in general *edit*
No one has oppressed them&#33; They aren&#39;t the backbone of society. They are drugged out losers that are on the verge of becoming homeless. They don&#39;t support the hierarchy, they don&#39;t vote they don&#39;t participate in debates, they have no ambitions. they&#39;d rather get tanked than participate. They say that they use drugs to "get away", the only thing to get away from is the situation that they put themselves in. They are bad people.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:38 PM
Perhaps in America you can&#39;t see this, but most of the world&#39;s population lives in misery working for the minority&#33; And this is growing rapidly. You Americans see the middle class and the upper class growing, and you see this as an improvemnt thst will gradualy occur to improve capitalism for the underclass, but just because the middle and upper classes are growing, doesn&#39;t mean that the working poor are decreasing in size, they&#39;re growing at an even faster rate, mate.

I know other countries live in poverty. And i know the poor are everywhere. whether they deserve their plight i don&#39;t know.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:38 PM
Why can&#39;t you respect these people?&#33; Because they&#39;re oppressed? How can you tolerate a government that yields to the subjugation of all these working people?

I can&#39;t respect these people because they are pieces of shit. -- I&#39;ll tell you a couple of stories...

1. My dad and I were sitting at a light waiting for it to turn green, when a homeless man with a sign saying "will work for food" tapped on the glass. my dad rolled down the window and told the man he had a job on the construction crew for him. starting pay &#036;6.00 and hour. (well over minimum wage) you know what the homeless man did.... he declined, he&#39;d rather sit on the fucking curb and beg for money. -- no ambition.

2. Scott, one of my dad&#39;s employees was talking to me during lunch. he was telling me of his master plan to get rich quick. this was before the millennium. he was going to wait outside of Best Buy (electronics store) with a brick. and once all the power went out he was going to break the window run in and grab as much shit as he could. now he wasn&#39;t joking, he was there when y2k rolled around with a brick... more recently he has lost his daughters to social services, his girlfriend left him, his car and house were repossessed by the bank and last time my dad saw him he was digging through a trash can at a convenience store... now he didn&#39;t lose everything because society oppressed him, he lost everything because he would rather shoot-up than go to work. he is a fucking piece of shit and no one cares what happens to him. he did it to himself.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:38 PM
Communist revolution is only a means of bringing to power a system that will act in fucntion of abolishing classes to end oppression. This can only be done through the working masses, as they can benefit from classlessness.

And I&#39;m not arguing against that. Communism would help the working class immensely. I&#39;m arguing against anarchism


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:38 PM
Please, mate, reda the manifesto, it&#39;s not too hard for you, I swear. Read it anyway.

I&#39;m reading.


[email protected] 16 2003, 04:38 PM
Why would those people who you worked with want to be teh best they can be? So tehy can make more money for their bosses? C&#39;mon, man&#33;

If you be the best you gain respect, money, experience, and the knowledge to someday go out on your own and make a name for yourself. If you do a half-ass job you&#39;ll never advance. And trust me these guys aren&#39;t protesting against "the man" they are genuinely lazy pieces of shit.

---

i understand what you&#39;re saying... the working class is the backbone of society, and yes the rich do take advantage of it. But you have to understand, just because they&#39;re the working class doesn&#39;t make them unique, noble, and full of good intent. A lot of them are pieces of crap.

---


and noxious...

IM NOT TRYING TO EXPLOIT ANYONE&#33; im reading the manifesto... but you have to understand i work the weekends, i go to school, i have a full class schedule which means and ass load of homework. which means not a lot of free time...

El Infiltr(A)do...

i don&#39;t have time to reply to that, i have too much work to do. it just a matter of opinions, like most politics, and everyone knows that their opinion is right. -- "My opinions might change, but never the fact that I&#39;m right." -unknown

[Rasta Sapian]

The Civilisation has already been built, natural resources can be sustained and increased to support the world and its people (free to worship, and explore the world in anyway conceivable way) Utopia is possible, change is needed, change in government. A nuveau progressive socialist or universalist order where the classes are eliminated. A re-education is nessisary, for some people this will not be possible. What are the benefits? Free education, No money=No tax, Free heathcare & housing available to everyone. A planet working together, organized and self propelled by the hardest workers, thinkers, and leaders willing to create a better future for everyone. To go beyond the reality of survival and to carry mankind to higher level of existance.

envision, struggle, work, acheive success, change the future in a positive way :rolleyes: A revolution is possible

[noxious]

sheep.

i&#39;m trying to tell you that the manifesto is not the best place to start. It&#39;s not the best summary of communism you&#39;ll find and it carries a lot of "dictatorship of the proletariat" baggage. I say this cuz the first time i read the manifesto it didn&#39;t make much sense to me, and I was acouple years older than you at the time.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I&#39;m not an anarchist, by the way, but you seem to be defending capitalism.

[noxious]

how is trying to get this kid a rounded education in communism a defense of capitalism? does questioning the manifesto constitute defending capitalism?

If you compare statements from "critique of the gotha program" (one of the last thigns marx wrote) to the manifesto you&#39;ll find that Marx questioned the manifesto himself.

also, i will gladly and boldy defend capitalism in the face of worse systems. capitalism is exploitative, flawed, inefficient, and ultimately very destructive (this is an understatement) but it&#39;s vastly better than a number of other systems (both real and theoretical) including the system the USSR employed.

[Ernestocheguevara]

You seem to be a very angry person Sheep&#33;&#33; I think the worst way the state oppresses the people is through the media, giving them the idea that there is a quick way to riches so why bother&#33;&#33; A classic example of this is these dopey &#39;popstar&#39; programmes that make kids believe they don&#39;t need an education they can just turn up to an audition and become a star&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; You don&#39;t even need to be able to sing&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; And you certainly don&#39;t need any skills in the instrument or songwriting departments&#33;&#33; What the hell&#33;&#33;

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I&#39;m not saying that he is defending capitalism because he&#39;s questioned the manifesto. I believe I encouraged that, in fact. He simply seems to be against a form of government that seeks to improve the standards of living and liberties for people who don&#39;t work hard enough in capitalism.

[Sheep]

ok guys i&#39;ve read the manifesto and sat down and did research on everything marxist i could find. he was an intelligent man indeed, but not practical. i love the idea of equality and communism in it&#39;s purest form, but it won&#39;t happen. his ideal would be possible in a utopia but there&#39;s no such thing as a utopia. -- i by no means am defending capitalism however. i supremely dislike the idea. i can&#39;t understand why most of america sees no problem with it. i&#39;m giving it a chance though, i&#39;m currently reading ayn rand&#39;s atlas shrugged to see it from that point of view. i thank you for your help and encouragement and i&#39;m sorry i took so long to get it all down, but at the moment i&#39;m kind of over-burdened by school and work. i&#39;ll see you around the forums, this is a great place to learn ideas.

-jake

[Comrade Zeke]

Hello Jake I just have to give you some info on Communism. First off Communism will never be a Utopia
ever get that out of your head&#33;&#33; Ok now that we have it out of your head let me explain some stuff about COMMUNIST DICTATORS THEIR A BIG PART OF COMMUNISM BECAUSE there have been alot of them. THET ALSO HAVE ALOT TO DO WITH HISTORY SEE WE COMMUNISTS CANT LEARN FROM OUT MISTAKES. First off their is many diffrent kinds of Dicatators that are good in the Communist system....The best of them being Titoism and Castroism. First off I DO NOT SUPPORT DICTATORS&#33;&#33;&#33; ok I support leaders like Marshal Tito and Fidel Castro who have made their counties better. First of Tito, Marshal Tito was a great man who United the Yugoslavian federation......he deffied the fucked up Soveit Union and he had what is know as Mixed Market Communism. Titoism was and will probely always will be the best form of Communism.No one ever starved in Yugoslavia...every one had a job..no one was draffted into the army.....no one was force to work in factories or Collective farms. Tito Cared about his people and loved them. He let small Buiessnes flourish in Yugoslavia.He let Tourism also floursih in his country and he was the most liberal Communist leader. Although he was a dictator in the 1970s Yugoslavia was considered to be the most free and Democratic country. It had a high Education. PEOPLE WHO FAlLOW THE NOW DEAD COMMUNIST LEADER TITO ARE CALLED TITOIST. You fallow me??? Anyway next is Castroism........Fidel Castro Came in power in 1959 after a revolution against the corrupt Dictator Batista. He freed his people from him with the help of Che Guavarra. His main principals are revoltuion and freedom for the people. He became president in 1976 and from the early 1960s up till when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992 he was carring on Revolutions in third world countries. Che Guavara did in 1967 in an opperation to Bolivia after that In 1975 Castro sent 15,000 Cuban troop to Angola to help liberate the people from the South Africa Imperislism. What ever you have heard about Fidel most of it is a lie. Most people in Cuba love him&#33;&#33;&#33; They admire him and honnor him. He had made education in Cuba better the the USA. There are pratically no homless people in Cuba every one had a home,a job,a good education,and a good life all together. Alotgh their is no freedom of speech in Cuba their are elcetions...every one is voted for except Fidel Castro who will be president of Cuba for life. He deffies the USA and is a great and Carasmatic leader. He inspired Revolutions and there are no "Death camps in Cuba" Every one is happy but Cuba has been blocked for 44 years. Fidel Castro had surrfived it all and he will intill the days he dies. Thanks you LONG LIVE THE CUBAN REVOLUTION&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :)

[Sheep]

i think you misunderstood me. sure it would be great if marx&#39;s theory was put into practice... but i don&#39;t see it being instigated without the support of everyone (utopia). and i never doubted cuba&#39;s economy but you have to understand cuba is nothing compared to the US. cuba is relatively small.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 11:41 PM
but i don&#39;t see it being instigated without the support of everyone (utopia).
then you need to convince everyone.

[Comrade Zeke]

But Sheep (jake) you have to to look at it this way what country is a better country??????? In my mind Cuba could take on the USA anyday and deffend their Island against any invasion&#33;&#33; The USA if it had a war with Cuba WOULD not use Nuclear wheapons the USA is a chicken shit they just would send everything they had against Castro. And Castro would win because he has the support of the people,a stong 30,000 man army and high Moral even though he is 77. Cuba had a better econmy cause its en Island it can govern it self better the US is streched out to much think about it.
COMRADE ZEKE

[Sheep]

i&#39;m not trying to pick a fight over ideals here. believe what you want. i&#39;ve made my educated decision.

[RedAnarchist]

Everyone is entitled to their own idealogy. If you dont like that, tough. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia do not exist any more.

I personally chose Communism for many reasons. Up to about teh age of 15, i was centre-right. I loved America, its exports and i supported America all the time.

Then , in the summer of 2001, something began. I realized what this world is really like. Hungry people starving whilst fat cats just waste money on houses and cars. People being exploited by multi-national corporations. America and Britain bullying others.

Now, i am very left-wing. I hate capitalism, i hate globalisation. I wish to see a world where even the poorest person can have a voice, where homosexuals are free to love just as much as heterosexuals, where all the nationalities and races can work in unity for a eco-freindly, egalitarian global society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sheep

Communist government is an oxymoron, as is communist leader and communist state&#33; Theory is a specific thing. From reading posts in this thread it is obvious that some people do not think it is necessary to be specific. Communism was a theory "invented" so to speak by Karl Marx. Communism is the direct opposite of capitalism and has very specific traits to it. It is not vague and there is no room for interpreations. Of course people have twisted and changed its meaning. Since the USSR etc communism has come to mean, ironicly, the exact opposite of what it was intended.

Karl Marx, who wrote the communist manifesto had one goal in mind. A stateless, classless, non governmental, non hierarchical society, where people work according to their ability and recieve according to their needs. Some people will say "there are variations, there are different meanings" but most say this because they want their views to be communist or they do not understand what communism is. There are no variations to the specific ideology of communism, there are only lies and misrepresentations. Do not be decieved.

Marx theorised that there would have to be two stages to achieving communist. The second stage being communism, where the state has withered away and there is no government, that people live co-operativly with each other without hierarchies and without central authority. He believed that this would be achieved through a transitional stage. He called it the dictatorship of the proletariat, some call it socialism. This basically means that the working class are to take power and use it to crush the bouregoisie in order to transfer society from a state run entity with leaders and government to a non state one as described before. When people talk about communist governments what they really mean is this dictatorship. Usually run by a small group of party elites. Unfortunatly this theory has been nullified everytime it has been attempted. It does not work. it has been tried maybe 20 times around the world and none of them have led to communism. None of them&#33;

To answer your question directly I chose communism as an ideology because it&#39;s right. I understand what society is, what capitalism is and how we have been exploited and oppressed. I understand that history moves on and on every day and I know that capitalism can not survive for ever. The only logical conclusion is communism. A fair and equal, statless society where human beings live in co-operation with each other. It is a utopia, but I do not think it is too much to ask for. I think it is possible, in fact I know it is possible and to live in a world that is not communist defies logic.

I read this quote somewhere and I think it is applies brilliantly with Leninism and the theories of the dictatorship of the proletariate.

"Various kinds of ideas can be classified by their relationship to the authentication process. There are ideas systematically prepared for authentication ("theories"), ideas not derived from any systematic process ("visions"), ideas which could not survive any reasonable authentication process ("illusions"), ideas which exempt themselves from any authentication process ("myths"), ideas which have already passed authentication processes ("facts"), as well as ideas known to have failed- or certain to fail- such processes ("falsehoods" - both mistakes and lies)."

- Thomas Sowell

[Comrade Zeke]

I beilive in Communism to but a more of a Liberal kind. Communism will never be a utopia. But we need to have a mixed form of Communism and Capitalism to make Titoism the most susseful Communist,mixed market econmey the world has ever seen. People were free to chose jobs in Yugoslavia and everyone was happy that is why Titioism is the best. Titosism is not based around the Communist leader Marsahl Tito,no it is BASED AROUND A SOCEITY YOU HAVE PRIDE IN YOUR COUNTRY AND YOU HAVE A FORM OF COMMUNISM MIXED IN THEIR WITH SOME FREE MARKET STUFF. :D that is why Titoism worked and will once work again when the the time is right.