[STUDY GROUP] A detailed study of Communist Manifesto

[Vargha Poralli]

I am thinking that we should seriously study Communist Manifesto which is the first thing each and every communist must have done. Many of us who have "read" could have different interpretations about it. We shall all express it here and clear things out.

Some members IMO would have never read or understood. I have come to this conclusion after reading in some threads that whether where will communism come in to effect whether in "First world" or "Third world" etc. So I have started this thread.

The study guide outlined by Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/guide.htm) could be used in my opinion. Better suggestions are welcomed.

We could also try to understand applying some examples in the current world scenario etc and try to Evaluate the whole work.

[The Grey Blur]

Yes I'm up for this.

[Vargha Poralli]

Some more study guides

http://www.yclusa.org/filemanager/download...ostudyguide.pdf (URL From YCLUSA Online

From Washington state University (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/manifesto.html)

I would like to have diverse questions from the ones I have listed. If anyone could come up with a better one we will have from them too. Also once we have finished with these questions we shall come up with some abstract question top relate the manifesto's workability in current situations.

[StartToday]

I would definitely benefit from this... the Manifesto's hard for me to read, it comes across as archaic rambling. Guess I'll read those links and post any questions I have.

[RedLenin]

Yeah I am definitely up for this. I have read the Manifesto a few times and could benefit from a revisting and some indepth analysis. I definitely like the idea of relating it to today, as I think it is particularly relevant with the world situation as it is right now.

[Vargha Poralli]

Ok. I thought the Marxists Internet Archive's could be tried first. The Questions for the first chapter in that Guide are

1. Why and how do Marx and Engels praise capitalism in this chapter?
2. The word “commodification” was not invented until recently, but do you think that this chapter is talking about commodification?
3. What does the Manifesto tell us about the how the proletariat changes as capitalism develops and in making the revolution?
4. What are Marx and Engels saying about “globalisation” in this chapter?

I found the first question to be fairly simple and summarised my understanding about it very very briefly. I will post it sepeartly. Members shall read and point to errors in my understanding and come up with their own interpretation. Once everyone had a grasp about it we shall proceed to the next question in the same chapter. Any reservations in this method can be pointed out and we can sort out the shprtcomings.

[Vargha Poralli]

1. Why and how do Marx and Engels praise capitalism in this chapter?

Ans :
Part a) Why :

Marx and Engels praise capitalism for destroying the old property relations to replace with new ones. By doing so it has made the class struggle which had been taking place till then secretly in to an open one. Capitalism where ever it can had put an end to old feudal relations of man to his natural superiors and replaced the relationship with an exchange value.

Part b) How:

The bourgeoisie in its need to conquor the new and freh markets which had been made available by the discovery of the Americas and searoute to the East had to revolutionise the mode of production rapidly. The mode of production in feudal age which is monopolised by the closed guilds can no longer meet the demands of the “free market”. So in order to revolutionise the mode of production the bourgeoisie has to put an end to the existing feudal class order. It had centralised the mode of production which had led to political centralisation from broken and un connected regions in to Nation-States*. By doing all these things it had made the multifaced class struggle in to a two fold one. By doing away with old property relations the bourgeoisie it had simplified the class struggle between itself and the young and growing class the Proletarians.

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

* In my understanding this could be differentiated by 2 tendencies the first through economic(or) Industrial revolution like in Great Britain and the other by political revolution like in France.

[StartToday]

2. The word “commodification” was not invented until recently, but do you think that this chapter is talking about commodification?

I don't know if this is the right answer but... I think this chapter deals with the commodification of the proletariat.


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.

So more or less, the prole has become a part of the machine, and his employer needs only to pay him enough to keep him alive and reproducing so that he can continue to function as a part of the machine, and when he is worn out by this work, he can be replaced by the next generation. Basically, the prole himself is a commodity to be bought by the capitalists and put to work generating more capital.

[quirk]

Yes I think that this chapter does in fact talk about what we would now refer to as commodification. With the bourgeois revolution, and the triumph of capitalism, everything, including human labour power is reduced to being a commodity, and is defined primarily by it's value as a commodity. The bourgeoisie "has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-intrest, than callous 'cash payment'.....It has resolved personal worth into eschange value"

[Nathan_Morrison]

1. Why and how do Marx and Engels praise capitalism in this chapter?

Marx and Engels praise capitalism in this chapter because it unites the proletariat , strengthens itand increases its numbers and the bourgeois inner competition amongst itself which will ultimately lead to its own demise. MArx and Engles praise capitalism by stating that the weapons the capitalists used to overthrow the old feudal society are being used against them and to this day their overthrow is being brought about by themselves.

In this chapter do you think that Marx and Engels are talking about commodification in this chapter?

Yes i do believe they are talking about they are talking about commodification in this chapter here is a quote to back this up:

"The bourgeois has stripped of it's halo every occupation hithero honoured and looked up to with reverant awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet,the man of science into its paid wage labourers."

I believe it is tyalking about the commodification of the proletariat wuith occupations such as prostitution and as the qoute state it strips every occupation of the respect they formerly got and it becomes their paid wage labourers.

What does the Manifesto tell us about the how the proletariat changes as capitalism develops and in making the revolution?

the manifesto tells us that as capitalism develops so does the proletariatas other classes and even some elements of the bourgeois become proletarians. The manifesto also says that the revolution is being forwarded all the time as industry develops.

What are Marx and Engels saying about "globalisation" in this chapter?
It is just saying that the proletariansof veery country must rise up against the bourgeois and for all nations to unite.

[Tower of Bebel]

Thanks guys, this is a very interesting thread, especially for beginners. I joined an active group of communists halve a year ago, so I have much to learn yet. This study can make it much easier for me to understand the CM

[StartToday]

Okay, nobody has replied as of late, so I'll post the questions for the next chapter.

1. What do Marx and Engels mean by the Communists not forming a separate party?

2. What do Marx and Engels mean by abolition of private property and how do they answer the various refutations of this program

3. What does the Manifesto mean by “winning the battle of democracy”?

4. Stalin claimed that the 10-point program had been achieved in the Soviet Union by the mid-1930s. Do you think this claim is valid?

5. How many of point in the 10-point program have been achieved by the working class in your country? If some of the points have been achieved under capitalism, what does this fact tell you about the Communist Manifesto? Why is it that some have been at least partially achieved, and yet some seem as far away as ever?

6. What do you think an anarchist or a reformist would make of the last part of this chapter? Do you think they would agree, and if not why not?

7. How would you describe the concept of Freedom put forward in this chapter?

[RASHskins]

another point on the first chapter principles of communism. Marx talks about how they are destroying their own system through the advances made in technology and with globalization. The technology lets people organize better and have better weapons to rise up with. The globalization unites people into a bigger stronger group of proletariats to rise up.

[StartToday]

Yes, good point. Besides weapons, the biggest help technology has been is probably the internet (in my opinion anyways) because it enabled leftists the world over to unite online, discuss their views, and organise.

But you have to wonder if they are really destroying their own system with technology. Journalism, TV news... it's all owned. The internet is a free for all right now, but they are currently trying to change that. They want the internet to be like TV and radio and newspapers - just another form of media that they can dominate and use to get their propaganda to the millions.

[StartToday]

1. What do Marx and Engels mean by the Communists not forming a separate party?


The Communists have the same interests as the proletariat, like other working class parties. What sets them apart from other such parties is this:

They don't want to divide the working class into different competing parties; they want to unite all of the proles in the world, in the fight against the bourgeoisie. They don't have any personal goals to achieve - they don't have dreams of gaining power for themselves, and they will always do what is best for the proletariat in general.

This is what they mean by not forming a separate party. Instead of being a party that will lead the proles to revolution and then take power, the Communists seek to be part of the proletariat, and after overthrowing the bourgeoisie, they intend to put the people in power.

[RASHskins]

"United We are strong Divided we fall". Another point on htat too we could not divide the party into differnet divisions of differnet ideologies. Anarchism ect. all of the many different leftist views. WE would all have to be united together at least until the revolution is done.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:05 am
"United We are strong Divided we fall". Another point on htat too we could not divide the party into differnet divisions of differnet ideologies. Anarchism ect. all of the many different leftist views. WE would all have to be united together at least until the revolution is done.
I think this is precisely what the Manifesto doesn't mean. It's "Workers of the World Unite", not "Different Leftist Sects Unite." Most workers aren't leftists, and most leftists aren't workers.

The Manifesto uses "party" in a very broad sense - they don't mean a particular organization. It's more like how people use "movement" today.

The communist organization of the time, which published the pamphlet, was called the "Communist League", but this is the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" not just the "Manifesto of the Communist League."

So the communist movement is all about the interests of the working class; it's not about a special doctrine or a preconceived blueprint for exactly how society should be organized. The communist program, communist theory, is thinking out the interests of the working class - everywhere and through time.

[RASHskins]

The intrest of the worker i assumed was pretty known to everyone and i didn't fell the need to put it down as im sure everyone on this site knows and if they don't it was jsut posted about 2 posts up. I was focusing more on the bickering that has gone on in the past between different leftist ideologies rahter than just uniting.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:04 am
I think this is precisely what the Manifesto doesn't mean. It's "Workers of the World Unite", not "Different Leftist Sects Unite." Most workers aren't leftists, and most leftists aren't workers.

The Manifesto uses "party" in a very broad sense - they don't mean a particular organization. It's more like how people use "movement" today.

So basically, the movement would be the abolition of the bourgeoisie, but the actual people taking part in the movement would be a motley crew of anarchists, communists, socialists, and most of all, workers who don't necessarily subscribe to a specific ideology.

Is that right, or did I miss your point?

[RASHskins]

Yes that's right some people seem to think that communist's and other leftists just get the ball rolling which they do. But hell if the revolution happens count me in for the front line of it! I think that guy thought i was saying that communists will take the leadership role of the revolution but that is not what i meant. We still participate in it though.

[Severian]

Originally posted by StartToday+March 01, 2007 02:16 pm--> (StartToday @ March 01, 2007 02:16 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 07:04 am
I think this is precisely what the Manifesto doesn't mean. It's "Workers of the World Unite", not "Different Leftist Sects Unite." Most workers aren't leftists, and most leftists aren't workers.

The Manifesto uses "party" in a very broad sense - they don't mean a particular organization. It's more like how people use "movement" today.

So basically, the movement would be the abolition of the bourgeoisie, but the actual people taking part in the movement would be a motley crew of anarchists, communists, socialists, and most of all, workers who don't necessarily subscribe to a specific ideology.

Is that right, or did I miss your point? [/b]
More or less. And that's not just "would be", it's historically "was." Revolutions aren't made by sects who've got it all figured out in advance, or even by federations of sects. And it's not just my point, it's the Manifesto's.

[Political_Chucky]

Well seems as if this thread died, but i'll try and continue it since I am re-reading the manifesto.

2. What do Marx and Engels mean by abolition of private property and how do they answer the various refutations of this program?

According to Marx, and I quote,


The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.


In this sense, the theory of communists may be summed up in the single phrase: Abolition of private property.
He goes on to say


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 nonexistence of any property for the immense majority of society.

So basically, Marx and Engels mean the abolition of private property as simply the means of production, not personal items. They mean the property of the bourgeois to be taken away. He goes on to argue why anyone of proletariat status would be worried when they did not have this private property in the first place. It was only the very few who had obtained this property while the majority are the ones who are exploited.

Also, Marx argues the opponents by bringing up laziness.


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 of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Basically, it is stating that workers of society put their work in, but basically get nothing in return. On the other hand, the bourgeois who do nothing, get everything. It then states that once capitalism is abolished, wage-labor is no longer an issue.


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.

This paragraph just basically says that once private property is abolished, the bourgeois will claim that their culture has been "stolen" from them because that is all they basically have.(in my own words anyways)

There is more and I’ll pick up on it later. Also, correct me if I missed any points. Thank you.

[Political_Chucky]

3. What does the Manifesto mean by “winning the battle of democracy”?

The quote that the questions is refering to is the following


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 property 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 centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.




It is quite simple. The first paragraph just points out that no matter the time period, the necessary solution to get rid of the bourgeoisie, which history has shown to be through violence, is the same.

He then goes on to say that the purpose of the revolution, or its "first step," is to take the bourgeois power and give it to the proletariat of society. This and only this will give the proletariat its dictatorship and make them the ruling class.