Log in

View Full Version : Paraphrasing the Communist Maifesto - A Discussion of a Turd



Ghost Writer
8th May 2003, 22:08
Karl Marx was born in Rhineland, Germany in 1818. He was extremely influenced by French revolutionary ideas. His association with the ‘Left Hegelians’ defined his time at Berlin University. This group also subscribed to French revolutionary ideas, and wanted to apply them to German philosophy in order to refine German nationalism. This is where Marx was influenced by Lubwig Feuerbach’s views of Christianity. The ‘Left Hegelians’ were conservative in nature and remained too inactive for Marx’s taste. Marx broke with the group deciding that humanity’s purpose lied in material processing and manufacturing rather than philosophical contemplation. Soon after Marx would define his political and economic philosophy in the Communist Manifesto. Failed revolution in 1848, where Marx had been an instigator, forced him to resettle in England. Here he worked on Capital but never finished the last two volumes. Marx remained poor for the remainder of his life, relying on Frederick Engels to support him and his family, in order to continue working. Engels also collaborated on the Communist Manifesto and finished and published Capital. Marx died in 1883.

By far Marx’s most influential work remains his communist Manifesto. Here he laid out the framework of communist economic theory. Marx sited the slave, feudal, and capitalist labor systems as a historical procession brought about by conflicts of differing classes. He believed another such dispute would help to realize what Marx believed would be the final end, communism. Marx’s philosophy can be paraphrased as follows:

'Earlier times were defined by complex hierarchical class systems, but the modern capitalist system had simplified the classes into two groups. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat, or simply put, the have and the have-nots. This new change was brought about by the
industrial revolution, which forever changed production through the use of mechanized labor, improved technological motive power, and a new type of division of labor. With increased productivity a world market was established in order to unload all of the goods
resulting from these improvements. The modern bourseoisie were merely a product of this development as they severed the feudal system in order to establish free trade.

Free trade was a brutal exploitation of all occupations, that makes all people its whores. The interdependence of the free-market has decimated self-sufficiency of nations and interrupted indigenous cultures, as capitalists worked diligently to expand their markets
around the globe. This is the process that unequally distributed the wealth and set up centralized governments solely for its own gain. The unfortunate result being overproduction, which leads to war, as the powers that be necessarily destroy a percentage of the modes of production. Another unfortunate aspect of capitalism is that the working classes gets caught up in the market and are subjected to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity. They become alienated by the machine and are paid only what is required to subsist. These men are no better off than slaves are. The light at the end of the tunnel remains the fact that increasing organization made possible by technological advances in communication would inevitably bring the destruction of the oppressive bourgeoisie. Since, in order to fight foreign nations the bourgeoisie ‘had to pull the proletariat into the political arena’; it supplied its own means of destruction. Since the proletariat are propertiless and alienated, their families destroyed by capitalism, they would have nothing to loose in the event of armed rebellion, and everything to gain.'

Furthermore, Marx defined the role of communists to the underprivileged class of proletarians. Marx was adamant about the fact that communists could peacefully coexist with all other labor unions and working-class parties. He felt that communists could unite all proletarians regardless of nationalities, hence the statement ‘workers of the world unite.’ Communism he thought was the ‘most advanced’ political party that ‘pushes forward all others’ for the same ultimate goal. The goal is the violent
overthrow of the modern state and the replacement of the proletariat in political positions.

He reasoned that all prior struggles required the abolition of someone’s property into the hands of another. Bourgeois property defining the ultimate cause of social injustice, the abolition of all private property was necessary. Capital being the mode of exploitation must be converted into a ‘collective product’. Since, only 10% of the population are actually property owners, of course, for most people this would make little difference. In doing this, the only individuality that will diminish is that of the bourgeois. Never mind the loss of law and order, it was only put there to maintain the status quo.

Marx also felt that the only people who were able to have meaningful family lives were the bourgeoisie. That being true, then abolition of the family would ‘stop the exploitation of children by their parents’. Education would then be stripped of the oppressor.

Marx was also under the assumption that the upper class commonly used prostitutes and engaged in wife swapping. These accusations were justification for the destruction of the institute of marriage and a legal form of promiscuity.

‘The charges of communism made from a religious, a philosophical and generally, from a ideological standpoint are not deserving a serious examination.’ Marx’s belief that man’s perceptions and ideas were capable of bending with social changes. The ruling classes have always rewritten history and communists can make their ideas prominent. After the bourgeoisie overthrow, communism must throw out all truth in order to defy historical patterns, being the general idea.

In order to implement communism Marx recommended a list of ten points be closely followed.

1.)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.)A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.

3.)Abolition of all right to inheritance.

4.)Confiscation of property from all emigrants and rebels.

5.)Centralization of credit in 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 the 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 soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

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

9.)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of all distintion 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’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, ect...

According to Marx, when all these have been implemented, all production will be publicly owned, and the political nature of the communist party will magically vanish.

Such striking statements, which advocate a total reworking of the political and economic structure, do deserve thorough examination based on their philosophical and ideological merits. Marx’s manifesto is chalk full of contradictions. In order to understand why communism takes such inhumane form when put into practice, it is important to examine these paradoxes.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 10:27 pm on May 8, 2003)

El Che
9th May 2003, 20:35
Does that sound so bad?

Work, if you wish to live in a civilized world, has to get done, so lets do it altogether. Stop the pimping, blood sucking, its wrong.

What contradictions do you enconter? Anything specific you want to get into?

Harmless Games
10th May 2003, 01:35
A well written article, but I'm a little confused are you arguing against Communism? Well it could have convinced me to join the Communist party if i wasnt already a member.

1.)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Sounds good to me.

2.)A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.

Being implemented in Canada, Sweden, Finland, and Norway as we speak.

3.)Abolition of all right to inheritance.

The Anti-inheritance act is going through congress now and is supported by a large amount of voters.

4.)Confiscation of property from all emigrants and rebels.

Well since all land would be publicly owned then everyone, even emigrants would get a piece. And what rebels? Who would rebel? The rich buisness owners? I doubt it.

5.)Centralization of credit in banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Implemented by the French goverment during napoleons reign and is one of his most remembered feats, still sucessful today.

6.)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Well, it would be free, so no long distance calls and roaming fee's, a better and more centralized communication system.

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

Sounds good to me, instead of companys coming in and screwing the land they own then leaving it as "not my problem" the goverment would not do this because it is there land. The "peoples" land


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

A more efficent and united work force better able to produce the food the country needs. Instead of the goverment paying farmers not to grow crops to keep prices up.

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

no over population or slums, sounds good to me again.

10.)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, ect...

how can anyone argue against that?

hazard
10th May 2003, 04:20
there is a couple of glaring mistaks in this article, or whatever the hell it is

the worst is the assumption that marx believed the world's future lay in materialism. this is completely false. is there any componet of communism that agrees with this, anywhere? I didn't think so. And I don't know why the article r whatever the hell it is thought he did. simply rejecting sheer philosophical considerations for an active mode of thinking DOES NOT imply, infer or indicate that the future of the world lay in material.

synthesis
10th May 2003, 06:05
Hazard, you're caught in the usual trap of 'individual' materialism versus 'universal' materialism.

The 'individual' forms of both materialism and idealism are simply used to describe the personality trait motivationg the actions of one person, culture, nation, or anything else.

The 'philosophical' forms of materialism and idealism are rather different in that they believe that everyone is motivated by either ideals or material incentives.

Therefore, by charging someone with materialism for purchasing a new Mercedes, one would be materialist themselves to a degree.

Uh... maybe a summary or sorts will help. A 'materialist' in the common sense is someone who is motivated by material incentives, while a 'materialist' in the philosophical sense is someone who believes that everyone is motivated by material incentives.

Those are redstar2000's terms, and I think they're clearer than my own. I hope that made sense.

hazard
10th May 2003, 06:11
assuming you ar correct, dyer, which I should add that I am, the only trap I am caught in is equivocation. for the article, in attempting to paint marx's position as being hypocritcal cannot possibly be IF there are two senses of materialism as you have mentioned.

in other words, the article uses one sense of materialism the first time it makes mention of it, and then, without clarifying, uses the word a second time but with a totally different meaning attached to it. I would have, of course, picked up on this had been aware of multiple sense of this word.

anyways, an argument based entirely upon equivocation is by any standard the worst and weakest argument to make

Totalitarian
10th May 2003, 13:15
1.)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
If the government owns all the land, there is nowhere to run to.

2.)A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.
Another way to feed off the peoples labour

3.)Abolition of all right to inheritance.
Sounds very authoritarian

4.)Confiscation of property from all emigrants and rebels.
How do you define a "rebel"? Is it like a "terrorist"?

5.)Centralization of credit in banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
They've got this in the USA, it's called the Federal Reserve. Anyway, i thought Marxists are against capital but here is Marx proposing centralised usury. Funny that.

6.)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Control of the media, and control of people's ability to migrate. What more could any all-powerful state want?

7.)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
No thanks, factories are unnatural environments. Industry should be abolished, along with capitalism.

8.)Equal obligation for all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Industrial armies...sounds very, um, militant.


9.)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of all distintion between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Yuck! I hate cities....doesn't this guy believe in preserving the natural environment?

10.)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, ect...
The State "educates" you according to what the State wants you to be. Fuck the State, and their public "schools".


In Communist societies, there are still two classes: the people and the State. How then, can Communists claim that they are in favour of a class-less society?



(Edited by Totalitarian at 1:17 pm on May 10, 2003)

Harmless Games
10th May 2003, 18:57
Totalitarian your taking this completely out of context, this is marx describing the Communist state which is when he believes everyone will share everything and there will be no goverment, he is not describing the half backwards Communist countrys we have today, so when he says cetralization of communication and media he isnt talking about the govemrent owning and censoring the media, he is describing how the community as a whole will own everything, so it will be the peoples media not the goverments censorship (like CNN or FOX) he is just describing how everything will be communily owned, this of course being the farthest form of Communism after the dictatorship communism. So applying it to your knowledge of Countrys today it may seem strange because you cannot comprehend it, but it would be the most efficient, a newspaper that anyone can write an article for, or get there messages across, rather than the bloodsucking media we have today who only reports flashy and mostly unimportant news to raise their ratings.

Totalitarian
11th May 2003, 05:28
Harmless Games:

Sure, it would be nice if we all worked together for the common good and all that. But how on earth will this sort of harmony be achieved by violent uprising followed by dictatorship?

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 10:32
The reason I posted this was to refute the claim held by many, who have never bothered to read the manifesto, that Marxism looks good on paper. As I have said before, Marxism is a pile of crap. Anyone who does not see this and still remains loyal to this ideology has a severe mental disorder, and should seek professional help immediately.

To me, it is no surprise that the followers of Marx's doctrine would have no moral inhibitions when it comes to defending another great socialists, like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, or countless other despots that have destroyed the lives of millions. In short, I wanted to demonstrate the sickness, so we can begin to work on the cure. My answer would resemble the 1950's style approach to the problem.

As for contradictions, take your pick. I would be happy to address any number of them. From the idea that statism should be used to create the type of two-class system, which Marx erroneously applies to capitalism, to the "combination of education with industrial production" to rid the world of child labor; there exist a multitude of paradoxes that Marx's ideology fails to address. Typically, today's communists would rather whitewash the subject, and ignore the contradictions, instead of admitting that Marxism is garbage.

CubanFox
11th May 2003, 10:34
Saddam's a socialist?

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 10:40
"Equal obligation for all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."

I think any reasonable person would concede that this a pleasant way of describing slavery. Therefore, by promoting Marxism, you are also promoting slavery. Talk about a system of injustice and inhumanity. It's no wonder that Marxism in practice takes the form Soviet or Chinese style communism. One can only deduce that this is a product of design. Damn, I am dealing with one sick hive-mind.

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 10:52
Q: "Saddam's a socialist?"

A: Yes

"Baath Party, formally the Baath Arab Socialist Party, is the party in power in Syria and Iraq. Its main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism. Baath Party was from the beginning a secular Arab nationalist party. Socialism (not Marxism) was quickly adopted as the party's economic dogma. From its earliest development, the motivation behind Baathist political thought and its leading supporters was the need to produce a means of reasserting the Arab spirit in the face of foreign domination. Moral and cultural deterioration, it was felt, had so weakened the Arabs that Western supremacy spread throughout the Middle East. Arabs needed a regeneration of the common heritage of people in the region to drive off debilitating external influences."

"Regional Command Leadership of the Baath Party is held by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Regional Command Leadership of the Baath Party is held by Bashar Al-Assad in Syria." -source: Iraqi News (http://www.iraqinews.com/party_baath_party.shtml)

CubanFox
11th May 2003, 10:56
If you are prepared associated Marxists with people like Saddam and his ilk then you must be prepared to have capitalism associated with people like Trujillo, Batista and Pinochet.

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 11:09
I am sure if you like Marx, you will love the GREEN BOOK by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm)

Yes, you are in good company. Many of the world's great terrorists have, in fact, been devout Marxists. Hell, Louis Farakan's relationship with Qadhafi has helped to export his inspirational thinking to the inner city youth of the United States. Those who may lack the ability to read adequately can now become well versed in the teachings of Qadhafi (http://www.2pac-outlawz.com/kadafi.html), as much as they are educated in the wisdom of Marx. (http://www.ratm.com/) Yeah, pop music is all just harmless fun, not in any way meant to undercut the underlying principles of the United States.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:12 am on May 11, 2003)

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 11:26
I got news for you Cubanfox, I don't subscribe to capitalism. I like the free-market principles that are fostered by today's modern democracies. I don't defend autocrats, like those of you on the left do. Your attempt to defang me by pointing to instances that you call capitalism, within a tyranical state, fails to touch the core of the beliefs that I hold. Pinochet may have been a capitalist, but so was Stalin. In fact, it was the communist regime's misallocation of resources and overall greed, which led to Tito's description of communism as "state capitalism".

The difference between my worldview and yours is the characteristic that I need not be associated with the ruling class in order to obtain wealth. The ideals that I hold indicate that is it is not the state's job to redirect wealth. I came to this decision solely on the logic that the state that "redistributes" wealth will redistribute it right into their own pockets. Your system fosters corruption, my system fosters innovation and a quality of life that all people have benefitted from. Your system starves people, where my system produces more than enough food to feed everybody. One must horde supplies to make it within your system, where my system has had the effect of feeding many of the world's people as a matter of charity. Tell me again whose system is more humane.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:36 am on May 11, 2003)

CubanFox
11th May 2003, 11:27
I think John Ashcroft is more of a threat to US priniciples than pop music will ever be.

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 11:39
"I think John Ashcroft is more of a threat to US priniciples than pop music will ever be."

I don't suppose you would care to qualify that statement? Give me an example. I suppose you don't like him because he is a self proclaimed Christian.

CubanFox
11th May 2003, 11:46
I'm a Christian, so no, that's not it.

I think the Patriot Act of his is police state bullshit, that's what I think.

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 12:18
Why don't you take a look at HR3162 and tell me exactly what aspect of the law frightens you? You make it sound as if John Ashcroft wroter the bill himself, and that the law has not been subjected to the checks and balances of the U.S. governmental system. In reality this is a law that was passed by both Houses of Congress and then signed by the President.

Ashcroft is merely the Attorney General, or the man who decides which cases to prosecute, and what problems need specific care. He is not in charge of the secret police, and he has done nothing outside the boundaries of his position. If you can find one instance where he has abused his power, I would be happy to listen. Largely, I think the left's fear of this man is unfounded. He would not resort to McCarthyism to address the problems posed by those on the left, many of which are tied to the Islamist which directly threaten our way of life.

Nobody has been able to give me a logical reason for their concern over Ashcroft. It seems that this smear campaign is being waged in order to weaken the ability of the U.S. to prosecute those cases inportant to the war on terror. Obviously, this muckraking is done by the left, which ally themselves with our enemies in an attempt to bring us down from the inside. Perhaps it is time for a little red baiting.

CubanFox
11th May 2003, 12:19
I knew you'd say something like that, GW. You understood what I meant.

Ghost Writer
11th May 2003, 12:23
I understand that you don't like the man. What you have been unable to explain is why.

Cassius Clay
11th May 2003, 14:34
'Saddam a Socialist'

No he wasn't. He was a Capitalist just like Hitler, Tito or Khruschev. I think I've said this once but I'll have to say it again. The 'Left' does not defend Saddam, and we never gave him money, aid and weapons to slaughter thousands and teach him how to kill Communists.

redstar2000
11th May 2003, 16:42
I'd like to offer the hypothesis that there are actually two people who post under the name "Ghost Writer" here.

The first is a somewhat conservative but certainly rational aspiring academic who can write logical papers about philosophers like David Hume.

The other is, well, a nutball...a Rush Limbaugh wannabe. Even a coherent sentence is nearly impossible to find and the views expressed, random flailings and wild gestures, would be unremarkable in a mental hospital.

So, I figure it's either two different guys or the strangest case of bi-polar disorder on record.

:cool: