Communist Manifesto

[Korol Aferist]

I found this thread on another forum which deals with philosophy.
It did put my attention on the few minor details of it.
Here it is:

I’m in the process of reading the Communist Manifesto, but I’ve realized while reading it, it doesn’t seem plausible. I’m only on the section titled Proletarians and Communists, but his argument already seems flawed. He states that in capitalism the proletarian is stuck in an endless cycle of earning a wage, then having to use that wage to pay for subsistence, so he never acquires property of his own. Although it may have been like this in his day, it’s not like that today. I’ve seen plenty of people acquire their own property, in fact my dad went from working as an engineer to owning his own business, sure it was hard for him, but one can still do it.

Secondly, in Marx’s communist state, it appears more like Marx was talking about how people OUGHT to behave, not HOW they behave. According to him, labor would become “ennobling” to the laborer, but this is clearly not true. We all have the desire to do better than others; competition is an innate human quality. How we labor will not create enough recognition to make any distinction possible. Marx states people will not avoid labor because of this “ennobling” quality. But, it seems naïve to imagine a state where people take responsibility for themselves; some people would rather pursue immediate pleasures, like drinking, drugs, etc. Just look at how many fat people there are today, you’d think people would exercise because its “ennobling” but that’s not the case. Granted, Marx did write that selfishness was only a product of capitalism, but I’m not too sure about that one.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Korol [email protected] 5 2005, 06:08 PM
I’ve seen plenty of people acquire their own property, in fact my dad went from working as an engineer to owning his own business, sure it was hard for him, but one can still do it.

But it's simply ridiculous! Why would we all need to have our own company? That's theoretically impossible. So you exclude some people of having their own property either way.

We all have the desire to do better than others
I don't. Who is he to generalize?

competition is an innate human quality
How is competition a quality?

Marx did write that selfishness was only a product of capitalism, but I’m not too sure about that one.
:mellow: No? How can one be selfish in a society where there is no private ownership?

[Connolly]

I’m in the process of reading the Communist Manifesto,

If he/she is only in the process of reading a minor - somewhat outdated text like the communist manifesto, who is he/she to question an ideology he/she knows little about?


He states that in capitalism the proletarian is stuck in an endless cycle of earning a wage, then having to use that wage to pay for subsistence, so he never acquires property of his own.

Much of this is correct, however whether a propertyless proletariat comes into existance is difficult to predict. I believe it is possible that they will.


I’ve seen plenty of people acquire their own property, in fact my dad went from working as an engineer to owning his own business, sure it was hard for him, but one can still do it.

What proportion of working class people make it to the point where they set up their own company? - very, very few. So, the question, although a little idealist, Who should society be based around and benefit, those few people who slip through the net to setting up a company or the vast majority of those who are trapped in a net of endless exploitation, much of it due to education, upbringing, poverty etc.? The answer, assuming you believe in democracy, is that it should benefit the majority and not the minority. Then again, you might respond with "those who work the hardest in society should benefit the most" - this defies democracy, power of the majority.


We all have the desire to do better than others; competition is an innate human quality

Competition only exists as long as it is necessary for it to exist. For example, if a particular species of animal has no natural competitors, off the top of my head, a lion for example - it does not evolve any defensive organs to its body - spikes, piosins etc. The human species is remarkably adaptive, it is what seperates us from other animals, to the point where we can change our mental needs. If there is a surplus of products and food - why the need for competition, especially when the material conditions do not allow such a mental thought to come across.


How we labor will not create enough recognition to make any distinction possible.

Why the need to labour? - communism is based on a higher productive capability - automation, the elimination of the worker.



But, it seems naïve to imagine a state where people take responsibility for themselves; some people would rather pursue immediate pleasures, like drinking, drugs, etc. Just look at how many fat people there are today, you’d think people would exercise because its “ennobling” but that’s not the case.

Ever wonder why people turn to drink, drugs, general "misbehaveour"?

This is based on their material conditions as I have already stated. The chances of a person growing up with surplus stealing is far less than a person growing up in poverty. A person growing up in the countryside or wealthy area is far less likly to go on drugs than a person growing up in an inner city suburb. The chances of growing up "fat" in the United States is far greater than growing up in Japan or India for example. This is all due to the material conditions of their existance. This will inevitably change.

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner


Why the need to labour? - communism is based on a higher productive capability - automation, the elimination of the worker.

How will this happen in practice?


Ever wonder why people turn to drink, drugs, general "misbehaveour"?

If that is the case, then why aren't *all* penniless people hooked on drugs and *all* rich people as good as gold? Poverty is a fasionable excuse for irresponsible behaviour nowadays, but I think they've got it backwards; irresponsible behaviour is the cause of most poverty.


This is based on their material conditions as I have already stated. The chances of a person growing up with surplus stealing is far less than a person growing up in poverty.

I put this question forward to someone else and it wasn't answered: How many of these "poor" people are actually stealing to *feed themselves*? Not many I'll bet. So where is the justification for it?

I don't aggree with this "materialistic determinism". There are too many holes in it, outliined above. The children of most poor people stay poor? Maybe it could be that they've adopted their parent's bad habits and bad attitudes (the attitudes that probably made their parents poor the first place).

[KC]

How will this happen in practice?

It won't.



If that is the case, then why aren't *all* penniless people hooked on drugs and *all* rich people as good as gold? Poverty is a fasionable excuse for irresponsible behaviour nowadays, but I think they've got it backwards; irresponsible behaviour is the cause of most poverty.

Being born poor is the cause of most poverty (or rather, irresponsible behaviour by those in power is the cause of most poverty).


The children of most poor people stay poor? Maybe it could be that they've adopted their parent's bad habits and bad attitudes (the attitudes that probably made their parents poor the first place).

Maybe because the majority of the people that are poor live in countries that are horribly corrupt and apathetic towards its citizens and their needs, both financial and (because of this) biological.

[black magick hustla]

The communist manifesto is pretty outdated.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The detail are outdated and much of the section where he describes political groups of his day could probably be skipped.

Marx was a little impressionistic in thinking that the struggles of his day would only intensify and lead to a revolution in a matter of decades. History has shown he was wrong about that and how flexable capitalism really is (the advent of imperilaism and social reforms of capitalism and credit and so on).

But the section where he describes capitalism's drive to incorporate the entire globe and remake it in its own image is probably more true today with globalization than it was in his day when there were still many feudal countries and capitalism existed in only a few nations.

But the big picture still rings true: workers and capitalists have different intrests and this causes class struggle and only by eorkers taking production into their own hands can this conflict end to the benifit of workers.

[KC]

Marx was a little impressionistic in thinking that the struggles of his day would only intensify and lead to a revolution in a matter of decades. History has shown he was wrong about that and how flexable capitalism really is (the advent of imperilaism and social reforms of capitalism and credit and so on).

It was very close. Who knows what would of come from a successful German revolution?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:01 AM


Marx was a little impressionistic in thinking that the struggles of his day would only intensify and lead to a revolution in a matter of decades. History has shown he was wrong about that and how flexable capitalism really is (the advent of imperilaism and social reforms of capitalism and credit and so on).

It was very close. Who knows what would of come from a successful German revolution?
Very true, but Marx seemd to suggest that revolution was "right around the corner" because the cycles of economic crisis to him seemed to get worse and worse with each depression or ressession. But with things like the World Wars, capitalism has been able to reorganize itself (not really intentionally) and been more flexable than Marx thought.

[Connolly]

How will this happen in practice?

Well, just take a look at : index>Theory>The means of Production>page 2(mostly)( I must also say that I havnt put my theory across fluently, but I am learning to refinine it for better understanding)

So far, I still havnt heard any rational argument against my argument - only presumptions that are false conditions for the actual overthrow of the feudal mode of production.

I would be glad to argue that automation (the elimination of the worker) is inevitable, and that communism is not possible unless. Again, no rational understanding of the means of production has been put forward to me by any board members. But this is not the place for such debate on the MoP.


If that is the case, then why aren't *all* penniless people hooked on drugs and *all* rich people as good as gold? Poverty is a fasionable excuse for irresponsible behaviour nowadays, but I think they've got it backwards; irresponsible behaviour is the cause of most poverty.

Firstly, I would need true statistics to argue this correctly.(which needs research which needs time)

This is very complex and can lead to infinite sub arguments.

But, you see, every single person on earth has different material interactions - it would be impossible and irrational to say arnt all poor people stealing and all rich people "as good as gold". No, this cannot be, everyone has different experiences.

However, if you look at the demographic statistics of this you will find that if you take a sample of, just lets say, one thousand lower class people and one thousand upper class people and find the proportion of those using drugs, stealing, bad education etc etc. etc(all the problems under the sun). Clearly and logically those who are confined to the worst and most inbalanced material conditions will be more susceptible to the worst inbalances in their material existance. This can also apply to the upper class, where they live in unbalance also - but with different conditional actions

Now sure, some may have behavioural disorders, educational disabilities - but these are pretty much spread evenly throughout both upper and lower classes - the problem is from day one, not directly affected by their material conditions. It is this same order of a persons material construction (brain, attitudes, manners - natural aspects) that also seperate others from their material existance be it for good reasons or bad. This varys at huge levels from those who follow like sheep to those who maintain awareness.


Only when you look at the ratios between peoples drug, crime and other material reactions, when you compare that of a large sample of lower classes versus those of the upper class, will you find the direct result of their conditions of living.

This condition of the lower classes being "less orderly" is only rational. They are confined!!! They (now I speak in general) are limited to the actions of their material existance. They will react in accordance with their material existance. Since their material conditions are radically different from those of the upper classes, materialistically, there actions are different from those of the upper class.

Sorry for my bluntness in explaining this - it is a little difficult, and if I have time I will search for some appropriate statistics.


I put this question forward to someone else and it wasn't answered: How many of these "poor" people are actually stealing to *feed themselves*? Not many I'll bet. So where is the justification for it?

I think you may be looking too much at the individual level and single class.

It is only when you compare an upper class sample versus a lower class sample of those who steal to "feed themselves" will you see the actions necessary within certain material conditions. Again - does this not not speak for itself. The probability of those who have virtually nothing stealing is far greater than those who need not steal.

I am not justifying it. I am saying that these are actions of a persons certain material existance. It is not wrong or right from a materialist point of view.


The children of most poor people stay poor? Maybe it could be that they've adopted their parent's bad habits and bad attitudes (the attitudes that probably made their parents poor the first place).

The people stay poor because it is the consequence of their material existance. If you are to look at the human species as a whole, you can not examine these individual cases (those who break free from poverty and set up their own company, those who break away from the upper class and become lower class) - It must be looked at from the demographic average of those who are in poverty compared to those who are wealthy.

If you start going along the lines of habits adopted by their parents and bad attitudes then you will end up along the lines of which race is most superior, blood relations determine all.

This is not the case. Sure, it is highly possible that attitudes and habits are brought down through the genes, but what has failed to be noticed is the change of these attitudes and habits over a couple of generations which are caused by the material changes and differences brought on through the elevation a family to the upper class or the decent to the lower class (this is just a crude example, the family may not shift at all).


It won't.

I think its amazing the way people state this in topics not related, yet when I set up a thread to debate this exact theory - not a sinner appears, and those who do, do not understand the means of production fully and its overall relation.


Being born poor is the cause of most poverty (or rather, irresponsible behaviour by those in power is the cause of most poverty).

What a ridiculus assumption. You are forgetting that those in power are also affected by their material conditions - and act in accordance to their material conditions. Which, ultimately, is affected by the mode of production.
Those in power are not the cause of poverty. But make certain decisions because their material conditions restrict them from making any other - again, the mode of production. I Know I am saying this very bluntly, but as I said, this is difficult to explain in words - but it seems you do not understand materialism if you are making assumtions like the one you have made.


Maybe because the majority of the people that are poor live in countries that are horribly corrupt and apathetic towards its citizens and their needs, both financial and (because of this) biological.

Again, pretty much the same as last paragraph. You must ask why is there corruption?............It is because the material conditions allow for such actions.

If you question this type of thing itll end up about human nature, How can communism happen when man is naturally greedy? blah blah blah...........The point is - such statements are due to a lack of materialist understanding, and the actual nature of human adaption.


The detail are outdated and much of the section where he describes political groups of his day could probably be skipped.
and

The communist manifesto is pretty outdated.

The reason I say this is because the methods of production and social outcome have changed since what has been written in the manifesto.

Please, read the Means of Production thread page 2. I believe automation is the logical outcome.



Again, I must apologise for my cryptic (as one person put it) way of putting my ponts across. I am learning to phrase my points better as I go along.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Korol [email protected] 5 2005, 05:08 PM
I found this thread on another forum which deals with philosophy.
It did put my attention on the few minor details of it.
Here it is:

I’ve seen plenty of people acquire their own property, in fact my dad went from working as an engineer to owning his own business, sure it was hard for him, but one can still do it.

Well, why has this engineer worked so hard to become a business owner? Just for the pleasure of it?


Secondly, in Marx’s communist state, it appears more like Marx was talking about how people OUGHT to behave, not HOW they behave.

Characteristic sentence from people who criticise Marx without reading him.


We all have the desire to do better than others; competition is an innate human quality.

Which would put to rest the idea that "productivity" (ie labour intensity) has necessarily to be low in a classless society.

Q. "Why would you work hard if you won't earn more if you do?"
A. "Because We all have the desire to do better than others."

I love this Competition Is Human Nature thing. Suppose so. Why do some compete by killing each others, while others compete playing chess? Clearly, such "human nature is very flexible! Perhaps people can also compete to be recognised as those who are more selfless and helpful?


But, it seems naïve to imagine a state where people take responsibility for themselves; some people would rather pursue immediate pleasures, like drinking, drugs, etc.

Yes, I always say this. It clearly makes capitalism an impossibility. Only feudalism really matches human nature!


Just look at how many fat people there are today, you’d think people would exercise because its “ennobling” but that’s not the case.

You would think people exercise because it is good for their own health, but clearly not all people are that much concerned with that. Or, wait, perhaps not all people have the time and money to keep physical fitness as a main concern...


Granted, Marx did write that selfishness was only a product of capitalism, but I’m not too sure about that one.

Did he? Where?

Luís Henrique