Marx's Vision of Communism By Bertell Ollman

[(A)]

I was reading this article and wanted to get others thoughts on it.
To me it seams like a solid piece of writing but then again people have the tendency to say I am wrong so what do you think of this.

Do you agree that this is a good view of Marx's meaning?

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php

If you are going to bring up a point please mention the section of the article (I II III IV - X) for quick reference. :marx:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I haven't read the entire article, but what I have read is not encouraging, to say the least. The author conflates the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat with the lower phase of the communist society, takes the Communist Manifesto, widely recognised as flawed and containing a number of proposals that would aid in capitalist development, as some sort of blueprint for communism, does not distinguish between private and personal property, and so on.

[Five Year Plan]

takes the Communist Manifesto, widely recognised as flawed and containing a number of proposals that would aid in capitalist development, as some sort of blueprint for communism

Eh? Widely recognized by whom? The series of transitional measures laid out in the Manifesto were appropriate for their time. Now, touting them in the present would certainly be problematic. That's the difference 150 years make.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Eh? Widely recognized by whom? The series of transitional measures laid out in the Manifesto were appropriate for their time. Now, touting them in the present would certainly be problematic. That's the difference 150 years make.

Widely recognised as a flawed source for what communism is - that is what I should have said. Nonetheless it seems to me that the demands in the manifesto are flawed, as envision a more gradual expropriation of the bourgeoisie than experience of the socialist revolutions show is appropriate.

[Five Year Plan]

Widely recognised as a flawed source for what communism is - that is what I should have said. Nonetheless it seems to me that the demands in the manifesto are flawed, as envision a more gradual expropriation of the bourgeoisie than experience of the socialist revolutions show is appropriate.

I've never heard a Marxist make the criticism that the Communist Manifesto gets communism wrong or is a flawed source for what communism is. At the level of development of the productive forces throughout Europe at the time, the transitional measures outlined in the Manifesto (not to be conflated with "communism") were quite radical.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Eh? Widely recognized by whom? The series of transitional measures laid out in the Manifesto were appropriate for their time. Now, touting them in the present would certainly be problematic. That's the difference 150 years make.
As I'm sure you already know, Marx and Engels wrote a few prefaces for later editions saying that the Manifesto is important as a historical document but clearly a product of its time and in the time that they were writing the new prefaces they would alter its focus and some of the points etc.

[Five Year Plan]

As I'm sure you already know, Marx and Engels wrote a few prefaces for later editions saying that the Manifesto is important as a historical document but clearly a product of its time and in the time that they were writing the new prefaces they would alter its focus and some of the points etc.

You haven't read my posts in this thread, have you?

[Thirsty Crow]

I haven't read the entire article yet (it seems interesting), but there's a point to be made about the concept of utopia:


Marx's communist society is in the anomalous position of being, at one and the same time, the most famous of utopias and among the least known.

There's actually two concepts, or two ways of employing one common one.

The Marxist tradition has been known to have been defining itself partly in opposition to utopian socialism. The voluntary commune formation as means of appeal to reason and the enlightened bourgeoisie who'd then see interest in abolishing capital is correctly considered utopian in the sense that such a development is so highly unlikely that we can say it is impossible.

But this quote shows the other way to deal with the concept, and I don't think it is productive at all for communists (as it would be all the more better to reject communism as an utopia) do deal with it like this. It's a hallmark of bourgeois ideology which masks and mystifies real possibilities and pronounces any political project which is based on those "utopian". The drive behind this ideological move is clear.

So it is really confusing why Ollman uses it in this way, unless it has to do with Marcuse whom he brings up at the very beginning of the article. As for the "utopian" character of communism, Ollman himself clears it up quite nicely in the first two paragraphs:


Marx constructed his vision of communism out of the human and technological possibilities already visible in his time, given the priorities that would be adopted by a new socialist society. The programs introduced by a victorious working class to deal with the problems left by the old society and the revolution would unleash a social dynamic whose general results, Marx believed, could be charted beforehand. Projecting the communist future from existing patterns and trends is an integral part of Marx's analysis of capitalism, and analysis which links social and economic problems with the objective interests that incline each class to deal with them in distinctive ways; what unfolds are the real possibilities inherent in a socialist transformation of the capitalist mode of production. It is in this sense that Marx declares, "we do not anticipate the world dogmatically, but rather wish to find the new world through the criticism of the old.

Emphasis mine.

I also think this is clearly the reason why communists ought not to be incredibly vague and even refuse to say anything about the kind of society communism might, and needs to be, in some deluded quest for rejecting "making blueprints". The general blueprints have to be made, and are made implicitly every time a generalizing critique of the capitalist mode of production is put forward.

[Hermes]

You haven't read my posts in this thread, have you?

I think 870 is reacting to those who point to the '10 points' in the manifesto, and say, "Aha! Most of these are already complete, Marx's 'socialism' is already here!", or, "we have 8-10 points already complete in x country, it's obviously socialist!".

I could be wrong, though.

[Five Year Plan]

I think 870 is reacting to those who point to the '10 points' in the manifesto, and say, "Aha! Most of these are already complete, Marx's 'socialism' is already here!", or, "we have 8-10 points already complete in x country, it's obviously socialist!".

I could be wrong, though.

Yes, people who do that are certainly not giving the text a serious reading. They are failing to take into account historical context, while simultaneously not recognizing that those ten points were meant as measures workers were to impose upon seizing political power as part of the transition process to communism. They were not, in and of themselves, communism.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

You haven't read my posts in this thread, have you?
Yeah sorry, that was more of a 'that's probably the reason why 870 made her initial comment' sort of thing but I took far too long writing out a single sentence and you'd already responded again.