 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
The three salient points have been made:
1) The manifesto isn't the only thing Marx wrote, and isn't even representative of his other writing
2) The revolution as Marx envisioned it has never even been tried, with the possible exception of the Paris Commune, so there are no real world examples of its failure
3) The Marx-Engles Reader, edited by Robert Tucker and published by Norton, is a good place to start (though it doesn't contain all of Marx, as previously stated; it does contain useful representative samples and even more useful footnotes).
To this I would add:
4) Marx was writing it in 1848, at a time of extraordinary revolutionary upheaval in Europe. The manifesto should be considered a piece of propoganda, not a policy document, and thus be seen to have the usual flaws of propoganda. Common Sense is a similar document -- old Tom Paine sure gets me fired up, but I wouldn't have wanted him to write the Constitution once the war was over. Provocation and administration are two very different talents.
5) Marxists have been rethinking Marx for much of the twentieth century, in the same way that classical economists have been rethinking Smith, psychoanalysts have been rethinking Freud, and biologists have been rethinking Darwin. A "Marxist" today is actually much more likely to be indebted to Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Sartre, Althusser, Gramsci, Hall, or Negri -- or even crazy Jean Baudrillard -- than to Marx, in the same way that a "classical" economist is going to be way more indebted to Friedman than to Smith and Ricardo. In fact, Marxists who still treat Marx the way fundamentalists treat the Bible -- as the one true word, unneeding of revision, update, or interpretation -- are often dismissed with the epithet "vulgar Marxists" by other Marxists.
In short, Marxism is, internally, a dynamic, living intellectual and political philosophy, with all the power and problems that come with the territory. It is only from the outside that it is first ascribed soley to (some) writings of one guy in the 19th century, and then caricatured as out-of-date and irrelevant. I know that, and I'm not even a Marxist. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
I wanted to paste all this about 13 hours ago . but then the computer crashed and I went to bed.
quote:
. A cave man gathers food for himself and his family. He simply does not care for the man in the cave next door. Thats not his concern |
 
yeah , maybe in a 'Flintstone' Episode ..
that was great , really
wait , let me chill from the last one...
OK . I am ready now .
quote:
By Marxism standerds...Computers would not be allowed for varouis reasons |
various reasons .... and they are ?
quote:
If somebody came and clamed dalgetti's CPU for the "Good of the State" i bet he'd be pretty freakin angry. But yet despite thriving under the current Capitalist System...he continues to advocate for a Corrupt and Impotent form of not only governing, but living. |
first of all , living under Soviet rule , I've never heard of cars , for example , being commandeered . So what is your point ?
yes I enjoy life . but wouldn't it be better if everyone would ? and noone would live in huge houses , and noone would live on the streets ? impotent ? why do you thing that a more orderly , and planned scheme is wrong ? and a corrupt form of living ????? WTF ????? why is that ?
quote:
You cannot just produce the "needs" of a society |
well the advertisement "industry" does that pretty well.
advertising is important , because it lets people know about new products , and drives innovation.
but the ads these days don't sell a product but an image. I am talking about EVERYTHING. appliances , cars ,clothes , electronics....
quote:
There have always been merchants and traders, merchants and traders work not for the state...but for themselves. |
so , they were always the people that got the needed stuff. But now , with the technology we possess , wouldn't it be easier to unite all of our knowledge ? a simple computer search, and a needed material can be sent. no middle men, doing nothing.
I've worked a year ago in a shipping agency (summer job), and all they do is protocol procedures mostly. money is important though , because it gives a measurement of efficiency.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I am going to go through this later on when I get home as it is a little on the long-winded side. But I think the greatest point that has been missed is that The Communist Manifesto was written in the context of the mid 19th century where many things were different. Modern capitalism is a different beast although with the same heart pulsing underneath. It has different methods, different means of controlling the population now which are more subtle, so you really need to analyse the Communist Manifesto for it's takeaway message, which still applies in the modern era. At the time the working class was very directly oppressed, and this was a call to arms, a wake up call, relevent for that day and age, and was apt for the way people thought then. It was not a theistic document, but used language that would sink in with the working class of the mid 19th century, so hence it may seem a bit preachy. But the message still stands when you read it and analyse it. It is just a shame the writer off this essay didn't quite appreciate this, and went off on a tangent which was completely and utterly irrelevent to Marx's document.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Ok, it's been decades since my Poly Sci years in school, but I'll take a wack at this despite the rust. The following are just my opinions.
I agree that Marx's call for revolution was based on the circumstances prevelant at the time. Massive oppression by owners in factories. The workers had no rights. The manifesto was a propaganda piece aimed at the lowest common factors. One must read his works to get a true feel.
Having said that, communism will only work in isolated situations in smaller groups of people. Why? Because only in smaller groups can the people actually participate in the role of government. Which is deciding the real needs/wants of it's members. These could be luxuries. (contrary to what others have stipulated). And controlling the means of production to satisfy those needs. If those needs are met, then issues of private property and owning the means of production become unneccessary because all needs are satisfied.
Also motivation to help your "extended family" should be enough to guarentee sufficient efficencies. Once the size of the community is too large and you don't care/know your "extended family" that motivation is not guarenteed. This extends to the raising of children. While people claim that Marx makes it sound harsh and will take your children away, it doesn't necessarily mean that. When we were growing up, our neighborhoods were close knit. All the parents in the neighborhood took responsibility for all the children that lived there. The father down the street was willing to teach/discipline any child that lived in the area, and most parents wouldn't complain of anything short of a beating. I think Marx was more thinking along these lines.
Once the neighborhood gets to big, the group has a harder problem coming to a concensus. Someone must be empowered to make those decisions. That's when Marx falls flat on his face. He envisioned that this could be done for large scale countries and once the mechanisms were put into place the State would "wither away". That was his biggest problem in ignoring human nature. POWER IS NEVER ABDICATED without the use of force.
These are the reasons that I feel that his philosophies would never work on a larger scale. History has somewhat supported this. Power does corrupt.
On the plus side, I think labor unions were an outgrowth of Marx's call to revolution. And they were so successful that the need for them has somewhat "withered away" 
RAH
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
When the Manifesto was reissued in 1872 in Germany, Marx wrote that many things in it were already outdated, but that he felt he did not have the right to change it as it had become "an historical document." From old Karl:
quote:
The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. . . .
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that. |
From the perspective of the socialist movement, the Manifesto was really unimportant. It wasn't as widely translated as Marx and Engels believed. It really only reflects a particular point of view at a particular time in Marx's poltical development. Now, having said that does not mean that the Manifesto should be tossed aside. Marx's subsequent writing supercede the Manifesto, add on to it, further develop it. If you really want to understand, however, the context in which the Manifesto ws written, you should read Engles, Condition of the Working Class in England (published under various, similar titles).
I would disagree with Firefly on one thing. Most modern Marxists do not look to Western Marxism more than the old man. Most probably adhere to Mao (sheer numbers of Chinese). In the West, Trotsky probably has the most followers now that the children of Stalin have retreated back into their shadows. The mandarins of Western Marxism only have adherents in the halls of academia. On the streets it's Trotsky, (if you're a Marxist).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
It's so funny how most people have a strong opinion of Marx based on what happened in Russia (Stefu) |
Are you implying that I only base my opinion on how well Communism did in Russia (and other countries)? No, no, no. While communism's basic utopianism and misunderstanding of human nature go against it, all I really need is to look at how 'well' it did when actually applied. For instance, compare North and South Korea. When Korea still was one, North was rich industrial area and South poor and agricultural. Now, it's the other way around. From unified Germany of pre-WW2, communism transformed East Germany to empty hulk that West Germany still has to support to get it to same level as itself. And East Germany was supposed to be the showcase of Soviet socialism to the world.
What? That wasn't true communism? It's the truest kind of communism man can achieve. If we all were perfect, communism would work dandily. So would libertarianism. And fascism. And theory that if everybody was hit in the head with a mallet, we'd have just, equal and peaceful society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Are you implying that I only base my opinion on how well Communism did in Russia (and other countries)? No, no, no. While communism's basic utopianism and misunderstanding of human nature go against it, all I really need is to look at how 'well' it did when actually applied. For instance, compare North and South Korea. When Korea still was one, North was rich industrial area and South poor and agricultural. Now, it's the other way around. From unified Germany of pre-WW2, communism transformed East Germany to empty hulk that West Germany still has to support to get it to same level as itself. And East Germany was supposed to be the showcase of Soviet socialism to the world. |
please stop Stefu before you say more stupid things.
quote:
What? That wasn't true communism? It's the truest kind of communism man can achieve. |
The problem is that North Korea, Cuba, China, Vietnam and Russia aren't developed enough for Communism. At least when the revolution took place. If you have actually read Marx, which you clearly haven't, you would know that Marx would predict a failure of communism in the countries it happened in. None of those countries were ready, and any attempt of communism would be a failure (and he's been proven right). Those countries would have benefitted far more from capitalism than from communism (and once again he's proven right).
So please stop your rambling about what happened in Russia and North Korea and how much it all failed. Of course it failed, Marx has said so himself.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
There wasn't a revolution in East Germany, and by 1945 there was little to nothing left of Marxism.
quote:
Well MarkL, to be fair, Marx said that revolutions in Russia and China could succeed -*(IF)*- they served as the spark for a general revolution in the West where modern, industrialized, socialist countries could help them out with building up their own infrastructure. |
Hmmm, true if and only if Germany and Britain would revolt right after Russia (matter of months, not years). Marx said the revolution would succeed if it started in Germany and England, and then swept accross the globe. This clearly wasn't the case, and a few months after the October Revolution it was clear no developed countries would follow them, so the Revolution was doomed almost from the start.
quote:
Course, I also bet the whole imprision the workers and shipping them off to the far North had something to do with the "revolution" (what Revolution? All it did was trade one dictatorship for another!) failing than Germany not revolting. |
Read the above. After a few months the revolution was doomed and it only went downhill from there (further from the Marxist ideal). Russia didn't have the right foundation for the revolution, and Marx made this clear in his works.
quote:
A country with so much resources as USSR can definitly self -sudstain if a proper system is in place. |
I'm very sorry, but according to Marx (long before the revolution) communism can't and won't succeed in under developed countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Whose making an excuse? I'm just saying what happened.
BTW, if Russia should be so rich, why are they worse off today?
That's not the communist ideal. And it's not what handed Stalin all the power (esp. since at the time that Stalin seized power the NEP was policy in the USSR, which was decntralizing everything). I've explained how Stalin and the bureaucracy seized power from the Bolsheviks many times in the past, but it never sinks in. You don't care to know, so what's the point in explaining anything to you, EiF? |
OK, first off, current Russia is recovering from the communist times and many of todays capitalists are half criminals and yesterdays communists. Capitalist system develops unlike communist one. And I assume if Russia continued in a capitalist way it would have been one of the richest countries in the world. As is the rest of western Europe,m along with all the countires in the mioddle.
Perhaps China will be able to evolve form communist system inot something better, but they will evolve into a market economy that and inefficient communist political system will not be able to support anyway, we will see if smart Chinese find a way out of that in a peaceful way.
As for Stalin, he is certainly not communist ideal, but unfortunatly he was made possible by that system, as other communist dictators. At the end the party has the absolute power and it will never use it on benefit of everyone, rather on its own benefit. (benefit of its more important members) Absolute power is never good and the idealist background does not help.
The only way forward for such systems is democratically elected socialist government. That has a chance oif surviving and developing but that has a chance of being voted off too if it doesn't work!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2001 12:47
|
|