'The common ruin of the contending classes'

[Vanguard1917]

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels state:

'Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master 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.'

This is a really interesting passage in the Manifesto; for me, it is maybe the most interesting and relevant statement of the Manifesto to our present period. But what does it really mean? The working class was defeated in the 1980s and early 1990s, in Europe and beyond. What can this statement in the Manifesto say about our present period?

[Hit The North]

It's also echoed in Rosa Luxemburg's famous declaration that in the future lies either "socialism or barbarism".

I'm not sure exactly what Marx meant by it but for us it's an important element to our argument. For instance, the impending ecological disaster, the global increases in the division between rich and poor condemning millions of human beings to starvation and disease. All of these are products of capitalism and are only going to get worse as long as capitalism holds sway.

The bourgeosie and their relentless plunder and profit-mongering will destroy civilisation and the planet. Only a revolution can save it.

If we fail to overthrow capitalism and surplant it with communism, then we're all doomed.

[Rawthentic]

That, we can either liberate ourselves from the capitalist system through revolution, or our ruin will come if we dont

[Vanguard1917]

That, we can either liberate ourselves from the capitalist system through revolution, or our ruin will come if we dont

But it says 'the common ruin of the contending classes'. This implies that, with the failure of the 'revolutionary reconstitution of society', something also happens to the oppressor class - it also faces ruin. My point is: does this say anything about the state of the bourgeoisie today, in the period after the defeat of the working class and the failure of revolution?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:04 AM

That, we can either liberate ourselves from the capitalist system through revolution, or our ruin will come if we dont

But it says 'the common ruin of the contending classes'. This implies that, with the failure of the 'revolutionary reconstitution of society', something also happens to the oppressor class - it also faces ruin. My point is: does this say anything about the state of the bourgeoisie today, in the period after the defeat of the working class and the failure of revolution?
No, because the proletariat have not been defeated, we have only faced reverses.

I think Marx is allowing for historical outcomes such as the collapse of Roman civilisation where it disintegrated without being transplanted by a higher mode of production.

[Comrade-Z]

But it says 'the common ruin of the contending classes'. This implies that, with the failure of the 'revolutionary reconstitution of society', something also happens to the oppressor class - it also faces ruin.

Correct. An example of the common ruin of the contending classes would be if the bourgeoisie chooses to nuke the entire Earth rather than allow communist revolution to be successful. They're screwed as well if they do that.

Another example would be if the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries are so balanced that an indecisive civil war is fought for years and years which totally lays waste to the infrastructure of the country and plunges the country back to a lower epoch of production, such as feudalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Correct. An example of the common ruin of the contending classes would be if the bourgeoisie chooses to nuke the entire Earth rather than allow communist revolution to be successful. They're screwed as well if they do that.

Another example would be if the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries are so balanced that an indecisive civil war is fought for years and years which totally lays waste to the infrastructure of the country and plunges the country back to a lower epoch of production, such as feudalism.

What about bourgeois decay that is a little more subtle than that? For example, the lack of economic dynamism in the mature capitalist countries?

[BobKKKindle$]

I recall that Hugo Chavez somewhat indirectly adresses this issue in a Speech at the World Social Forum:


I repeat compañeros, compañeras; I think that time is short, I think that there is not much space to maneuver in, I think that there will be nothing beyond the 21st century if we do not change the world’s course in this 21st century, I think that the phrase of Karl Marx is today more valid and dramatic than ever, there is hardly any time left: socialism or death, but real death— of the entire human species and of life on planet earth, because capitalism is destroying the planet, capitalism is destroying life on earth, capitalism is destroying the ecological equilibrium of the planet. The poles are melting, the seas are heating up, the continents are sinking, forests and jungles are being destroyed, rivers and lakes are drying up; the destructive development of the capitalist model is putting an end to life on earth. I believe it’s now or never.

Pretty Inspiring stuff huh? As Citizen Zero said, the Environmental Rape of our planet is a direct result of the Capitalist system; for it is a system that places Profit above all else. Only when we establish a system that places Humanity above Profit will the future of our planet be assured.

[rouchambeau]

Just look at the late Roman empire. It stagnated and then fell apart.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's an early indication that Marx and Engels did not think the 'Negation of the Negation' was a coherent dogma.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 09:10 pm
It's an early indication that Marx and Engels did not think the 'Negation of the Negation' was a coherent dogma.
That's an interesting point. Did Engels later change his mind?