I just read the Communist Manifesto. It's an interesting read, no matter what your stripe

[Taverner]

I disagree with large sections of it, of course.

A large part of it is a rant against Germany's then claims to perfect socialism

Another part says families are bourgeoisie and should be eliminated

That part is just crazy shit. He had family issues - he had to have!

But there are some descriptions of the the struggle of bourgeoisie v proletariat that are just as applicable today

It's as if he understands struggle, but does not know how to react to it

[leftstreet]

1. In what language?

:-)

[Taverner]

2. English, Kindle version

S3r10u5!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

4. So you think Communism is alluring?

:popcorn:

[Taverner]

5. Not necesarrily

Most likely our tribal days as hunter gatherers we were very communist

But this is promoting a primitivism when the clock cannot be rolled back

Smaller the community, more possible

However Socialism is a whole different philosophy

One could tell he really hated his home country's Socialist policy

[The Magistrate]

6. You Know, Sir, Eighty-Three Percent Of Statistics Are Made Up On the Spot

Often by people who could not define, and discuss intelligently for three minutes, either the word 'communism' or 'socialism'....

[Hannah Bell]

7. "a rant against Germany's then claims to perfect socialism" = wtf?

"families are bourgeoisie and should be eliminated" = wtf?

[Taverner]

8. He refers to the government of Germany at that time as the application of "'True" Socialism'

c. German or "True" Socialism

The socialist and communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expressions of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie in that country had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.

German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits (men of letters), eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of "Practical Reason" in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified, in their eyes, the laws of pure will, of will as it was bound to be, of true human will generally.

The work of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.

This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic saints _over_ the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote "alienation of humanity", and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois state they wrote "dethronement of the category of the general", and so forth.

The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms, they dubbed "Philosophy of Action", "True Socialism", "German Science of Socialism", "Philosophical Foundation of Socialism", and so on.

The French socialist and communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased, in the hands of the German, to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome "French one-sidedness" and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of human nature, of man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

This German socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such a mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.

The fight of the Germans, and especially of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.

By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the political movement with the socialistic demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires, and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

It was a sweet finish, after the bitter pills of flogging and bullets, with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.

While this "True" Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction -- on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry "eternal truths", all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on its part German socialism recognized, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois philistine.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tendency of communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called socialist and communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature. <3>

[Hannah Bell]

14. you'd better re-read that, with a cheat sheet on german history.

[Starry Messenger]

9. He was a loving family man.

I'd read it again if I were you.

[Taverner]

13. He was, but the Manifesto called for the end of the traditional family

Opted for the communal one.

Not that that is wrong in any sense, but he did call for the abolition of family:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

[Starry Messenger]

15. The bourgeois family isn't traditional, it's a hallmark of capitalist society.

People in "pre-historic" (a problematic term, but it will do) societies do not and did not live the way that we do now. There are lots of other family arrangements known to man. The one we have now is to continue the holding of property. I don't think he was suggesting that everyone abandon their spouse, it was a call to examine the current system. Also, he is talking about the bourgeois family there, the ones who hold the means of production. Think of the yuppie celebrity marriages that go on today and see if you can see what he was saying. Think of the history he was addressing.

[Hannah Bell]

16. no, it's an attack on the hypocrisy of the bourgeois family.

In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.

But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.



Marx is saying "You accuse us of wanting to destroy 'the family,' but this is what capitalism does to families --

puts proletarian children/women out as wage slaves
turns proletarian women to prostitution
turns bourgeois women into baby producers & "private" prostitutes & men into customers for prostitutes (public & private)

[Taverner]

18. Ah - good reason why I need a supplemental when reading this

I mean - can you see why I misinterpreted it as such? And why others might have interpreted it as so?

[Hannah Bell]

19. because you didn't read carefully, but only skimmed?

[Taverner]

25. No, because there were large swaths of unintelligible text

I didn't skim it - I read it on a Kindle for crissakes! (Kindles let you automatically look up any word you don't know)

I mean, be serious. Do you think someone who isn't that steeped in the nomenclature could understand this first time around?

[Hannah Bell]

28. no, i think a lot of it takes careful reading, mainly because it's a 150-year-old

text.

but it's mostly clear without special materials if you read it in a focused way.

and there are plenty of aids online e.g.:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/communist/summary.html

[Taverner]

30. Well like I said, I need a supplemental :)

Same with Canterbury Tales, Beyond Good and Evil, anything by Umberto Eco, and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[RufusTFirefly]

10. I've always been curious about reading Das Kapital

Just as I believe we should learn about all the world's major religions (I'm an atheist, so I don't have a dog in this hunt), I think it is important to be exposed to the seminal political documents.

A lot of people don't know, for example, that when Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the independence of Vietnam (in 1945), he quoted directly from the American Declaration of Independence.

He obviously was familiar with it and admired and respected it. You'd never guess that from the way we treated Vietnam.

Similarly, Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran, was such an admirer of the U.S. Bill of Rights that he wouldn't crack down on CIA-backed protests of his administration in 1953, even though he realized the demonstrators were basically mercenaries. He took the First Amendment very seriously. His idealism proved to be a big mistake. The U.S. and Britain believed more in oil profits than they did in democracy and so Mossadegh was overthrown and the Shah of Iran was re-installed.

The point is that even if they disagree with them, learned men and women in other countries are often familiar with the seminal documents of American history. Why shouldn't we be similarly aware of those influential books and essays that changed the course of other countries?

[upi402]

11. Try telling a freeper that the USSR wasn't Marxist

What do you guess happens?

lol

[Taverner]

12. True, but one scary thing I noticed: Pol Pot was true Marxism

As in , if the Communist Manifesto was instituted at the the barrel of a gun, that would be Khmer Rouge

[upi402]

17. Monsters hide behind altruistic veils

I taught my kid in grade school years about Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot - he was the only kid that knew about that monster in school.
He reminds me of the monsters that wrap themselves in religion to hide the demon under the surface. People get willfully blind, as we see right here on DU.

[Modern_Matthew]

22. Sad, but true. nt

[Hannah Bell]

20. huh?

[Taverner]

34. Someone upthread listed the 10 ponts of the CM

1. Abolition of Property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
6. Centralisation 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 the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, y a more equale distribution of the population over the country
10. Free education for all children in public schools - abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production....

#2 was a non issue, as they had abolished currency, but everything else was spot on.

HOWEVER, nowhere in any of Marx does it say kill 1/3 of the people. That was all Mao and Pol Pot

[ipfilter]

33. I believe it was Karl Marx

who said he was not a Marxist.

[Cleita]

21. Since, I have always liked to look at what worked in the

past and in other places in the present, it seems communism for a nation is not workable. It works in smaller venues like a kibbutz, a tribal society or a monastery, but it doesn't work nationally. However, socialism combined with democracy and regulated capitalism can work and I think that is what we need to strive for.

[chaska]

23. Marx was right about a lot of things, but he was in effect a Capitalist....

The difference being that he wanted the workers to benefit from Capitalism.

I think Capitalism has to go. If it's not at least greatly modified, it's toast.

[Shagbark Hickory]

24. If you ran some communist economic and social ideas past most people but didn't tell them they were

communist, I'm very confident that a very large percentage people would support those ideas.

The word communist just has such a bad connotation thanks to people like ronald regan.

[joshcryer]

26. Now go read the Anarchist FAQ.

:hi:

[swilton]

27. A couple of things I liked about Marx

Socialism/Marx has been demonized in this country - I believe it should be a part of our education for better or worse....I think the goals/principles within the C/M although lofty, illusive and somewhat dated are worthy of consideration and debate...Many European countries apply these principles.

On Capitalism -My interpretation/paraphrase of Das Kapital (Capitalism)

His description of alienation of the worker - how the labor force becomes so exploited that the total art or incentive of the work force is lost, i.e., the laborer is so dominated by property-owner no longer has ownership of his craft or art....

How corporations adopt technology as mechanisms for cost-saving - technology replaces labor and unemployment and poverty rise...

Marx identified - 10 Principles in the Communist Manifesto - generally applicable but differing between countries -

1. Abolition of Property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
6. Centralisation 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 the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, y a more equale distribution of the population over the country
10. Free education for all children in public schools - abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production....

The Russian Revolution - whether or not Marxist - stigmatized Marx, especially in the West...Communism-Stalinism became the unwanted child of Marxism just as fascism/Naziism became the unwanted child of capitalism....Both socialism and capitalism are flawed - both need to evolve to account for environmental constraints, limitations of resources and other unanticipated dynamics....

[Taverner]

32. I always thought fascism/Nazism was the unwanted child of Friedrich Nietzsche

Great points, BTW

[HEyHEY]

29. Written by who?

[Taverner]

31. The Marx/Engels one. Are there others?

[HEyHEY]

35. Well, Mao, Stalin...etc... all have their own takes on it.