CCCP's Workshop.

[Archaic]

Who am I going to trust? Your translation using a web translation service, or a translation overseen by the original authors? The English translation I gave you is the AUTHORIZED translation, and therefore is the closest translation of their words to english with their original intent. Give it up Pan. Marxism supports forced child labour.

[Pandemoniak]

Who am I going to trust? Your translation using a web translation service,

This is not a translation by a web translation service, this is no translation at all ! I wrote it to you in German.

or a translation overseen by the original authors?

Frankly, why not the original itself, by its original authors ?

The English translation I gave you is the AUTHORIZED translation, and therefore is the closest translation of their words to english with their original intent.

Closest yes, but since you care so much about being precise, take the original version of it. No wonder you think Marxism is flawed if all you know of it is a translation, flawed by itself.

Give it up Pan. Marxism supports forced child labour.

Come on, go get a nice dictionnary or a german speaking person, and educate yourself.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic
Sorry Pan, but the translation I gave you was the authorised English translation by Samuel Moore of 1888, with a preface by Frederick Engels, who co-wrote the Manifesto with Marx in the first place. You lose.

One major key here is 19th century Europe. Child labor at all was not an aberration, atrocity though it was. Child labor was an integral part of the industrial economy and any provisions at all for increased opportunities for that portion of the work force to develop were damn progressive in spirit. And if we are to toe the line here, I repeat, technical educations, apprenticeships and internships!!

[Archaic]

WTF are you talking about Pan? You gave me the original version Pan, then told me in English what you say it said, using a translation by a web translation service as your base.

I take the AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION made and approved by the original authors as being the best way to express the original intent of their message in the language. That is superior to whatever translation you care to provide, like it or not, as a literal translation would obviously not have suited Marx and Engels, seeing as they APPROVED THIS TRANSLATION.

Anyway Lucky....the fact that it was 19th Century Europe is no excuse. Pan argued that Marxism was never flawed. This looks like a pretty damn big flaw to me. How they originally intended it was certainly not technical educations, apprenticeships and internships, but as actual labour. The key words are combination and with. It's not education of how to work in the factories, it's actually WORKING IN THE FACTORIES.

[Pandemoniak]

The fact is that the original is more worthy of trust than any translation. Especially seeing that the "industrial" aspect -- therefore involving factories -- is only mentionned in the english translation, and is not present in the others translations.

[Main_Brain]

As someone who read the original I can savely say that It was meant that Education would LATER lead to higher Production.
Which is.. right :=)

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic
...Pan argued that Marxism was never flawed. This looks like a pretty damn big flaw to me...

This comment distorts your arguement a little, Archaic. No, Pan didn't point to context but dismissing it out of hand because he in particular didn't is a mistake. Child labor was the norm in the 19th century.

Anyway Lucky....the fact that it was 19th Century Europe is no excuse.
How they originally intended it was certainly not technical educations, apprenticeships and internships, but as actual labour.

since when were apprenticeships and internships "not actual labor"? Anyway, this is my (and no doubt others') modernization, intended in case we need to toe the party line for whatever reason.

The key words are combination and with. It's not education of how to work in the factories, it's actually WORKING IN THE FACTORIES.

Right. an education instead of no education while doing what they would be doing otherwise- working. The notion of proletarian kids not working would be alien.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
The fact is that the original is more worthy of trust than any translation. Especially seeing that the "industrial" aspect -- therefore involving factories -- is only mentionned in the english translation, and is not present in the others translations.

If the translation wasn't an accurate representation of their intent, would it have been approved in the first place? Material and Industrial are two very different words. Considering that both Marx and Engels were fluent in English and lived in London for long periods, how can you honestly deny that this is an accurate representation of their wishes?

Bloody hell, I don't even know why we're splitting hairs over this issue of semantics. It means the same thing even with your flawed translation.

Combination of education with industrial production
Combination of education with material production

In other words, the children go to school to learn, AND to produce things. There's nothing there to even suggest these are Apprenticeships or technical education. If you didn't notice, it says combination, not integration.

Originally posted by Main_Brain
As someone who read the original I can savely say that It was meant that Education would LATER lead to higher Production.
Which is.. right :=)

Education leads to higher productivity levels, but that's certainly not the intent of this phrase.

Originally posted by lucky22
This comment distorts your arguement a little, Archaic. No, Pan didn't point to context but dismissing it out of hand because he in particular didn't is a mistake. Child labor was the norm in the 19th century.

Irrelevant. It's still immoral (ie. Wrong) to FORCE a child into labour, which is what Marxism promotes.

Originally posted by lucky22
since when were apprenticeships and internships "not actual labor"? Anyway, this is my (and no doubt others') modernization, intended in case we need to toe the party line for whatever reason.

They're not technical educations, apprenticeships and internships to begin with. The arguement was over Pan supporting child labour. He said Marxism was never wrong. So your modernized Marxism doesn't count here, only the original form. If he was never wrong, then he shouldn't be supporting Forced Child Labour, should he? Oops, looks like he made a boo boo. It's just up to Pan now if he wants to admit or not that Marxism has had its flaws from the very beginning and that Marx promoted Forced Child Labour.

Originally posted by lucky22
Right. an education instead of no education while doing what they would be doing otherwise- working. The notion of proletarian kids not working would be alien.

How do you come to the conclusion that I'm Anti-Education? Slippery Slope falacy at work? I'm very much *FOR* free and manditory education, with a heavy slant towards the sciences (Including the social science of economics) and life skills (Read as "Budgeting" and "Business Skills", since by the time we'd landed here on planet, we certainly were beyond needing unskilled grunts, especially with our advances in robotics since landing. What we *need* are more white collars.). What I'm *AGAINST* is the combination of Forced Labour (manual labour or not) into the system, which is what you're promoting even with your "modernized" viewpoint.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic

Irrelevant. It's still immoral (ie. Wrong) to FORCE a child into labour, which is what Marxism promotes.

No, it isn't what Marxism promotes. If that was the current practice at the time, then that was the current practice. That's like saying "liberal individualism promotes FORCING people to commute to work in automobiles".

They're not technical educations, apprenticeships and internships to begin with. The arguement was over Pan supporting child labour. He said Marxism was never wrong. So your modernized Marxism doesn't count here, only the original form. If he was never wrong, then he shouldn't be supporting Forced Child Labour, should he? Oops, looks like he made a boo boo. It's just up to Pan now if he wants to admit or not that Marxism has had its flaws from the very beginning and that Marx promoted Forced Child Labour.

I seriously never understood Pan to be treating Marx like Moses. No one participating in this discussion hasn't lept into an arguement with one or two elements missing. In this case, context.
And actually, this not being exigesis of sacred texts, who is going to try to argue that Engels was the best ultimate judge of the technical quality of the translation?

How do you come to the conclusion that I'm Anti-Education? Slippery Slope falacy at work?

Where in the world do you get me to be considering you anti-education? Please distinguish me from the voices in your mind.

I'm very much *FOR* free and manditory education, with a heavy slant towards the sciences (Including the social science of economics) and life skills (Read as "Budgeting" and "Business Skills", since by the time we'd landed here on planet, we certainly were beyond needing unskilled grunts, especially with our advances in robotics since landing. What we *need* are more white collars.). What I'm *AGAINST* is the combination of Forced Labour (manual labour or not) into the system, which is what you're promoting even with your "modernized" viewpoint.

Mandatory education, but not in the context of what is actually necessary to be productive? We're only talking about the reality of labor, including the labor involved working with flows of data and information. It seems to me you are idealizing a path which thouroughly legitimizes both the idle rich and white trash. I'm happy to disagree with you.

[Main_Brain]

Its rather funny if you think about it..
Education though Ideologically influenced&controlled was to a certain degree Free, though Contacts/special Skills were needed to gain acess. While in the 'Free' United States Education is very expensive due to high Fee' s..

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22
No, it isn't what Marxism promotes. If that was the current practice at the time, then that was the current practice. That's like saying "liberal individualism promotes FORCING people to commute to work in automobiles".

Stop whinging, it's already been proven that it's what Marxism promotes.
If that was the current practice at the time, then that was the current practice. Just because it was the current practise doesn't mean it wasn't evil and immoral. Context of the times and moral relativism are no defence.
And your analogy is flawed, not to mention a red herring. Get something that relates to the topic, and something you can prove while you're at it.

Originally posted by lucky22
I seriously never understood Pan to be treating Marx like Moses. No one participating in this discussion hasn't lept into an arguement with one or two elements missing. In this case, context.

Kindly tell me in what context we should consider an evil act (Say, a government forcing people to work against their will, essentially a form of slavery.) to be not evil? That it was the custom of the time, or that people didn't think it was evil at the time are no excuses.

Originally posted by lucky22
And actually, this not being exigesis of sacred texts, who is going to try to argue that Engels was the best ultimate judge of the technical quality of the translation?

His fluency in English would seem to kill that arguement before it even gets off the ground.

Originally posted by lucky22

The key words are combination and with. It's not education of how to work in the factories, it's actually WORKING IN THE FACTORIES.

Right. an education instead of no education while doing what they would be doing otherwise- working. The notion of proletarian kids not working would be alien.

How do you come to the conclusion that I'm Anti-Education? Slippery Slope falacy at work?

Where in the world do you get me to be considering you anti-education? Please distinguish me from the voices in your mind.

Your comment polarized education under the Marxist system, which merges education with forced labour, with no education whatsoever. Perhaps you should learn to be more clear with what you say.

Originally posted by lucky22
Mandatory education, but not in the context of what is actually necessary to be productive? We're only talking about the reality of labor, including the labor involved working with flows of data and information. It seems to me you are idealizing a path which thouroughly legitimizes both the idle rich and white trash. I'm happy to disagree with you.

How is teaching people to be blue collar labourers make us more productive when we already have the robotics that makes such jobs obsolete? We need more engineers, professionals and scientists, not more joe averages. The reality of labour here on Chiron is white collar, and teaching people blue collar skills isn't going to help anyone.
" idealizing a path which thouroughly legitimizes both the idle rich and white trash"? Explain how you can possibily make a comment to imply that I am in any way racist. As for the "idle rich"......if they're not doing work, but instead living off their inheritance, that's up to them. Their spending and investments help the economy flow along, and there's nothing wrong with that. Their contribution to society are those investments, and that's how they earn their income. Not looking so idle now, are they? Or do you still consider labour and work the only possible ways to make valuable contributions to society? If you do, guess what? They aren't!. Mull over that fact for a while.

[Pandemoniak]

Combination of education with industrial production
Combination of education with material production

So you dont see the difference ?

Well, industrial production means a production that is made in an industry, ie a factory, while material production represent a very precise aspect of the marxist theory, explained in the Capital.

For example, people who works in a train are considered as working for material production, since moving the goods they carry increase their merchant value, and therefore they do material production.

So if you read it properly, considering the marxists concept of "material" and materialism, this is simply a combination between education and increasement of merchant value -- apprenticeship. Thus the children - and actually not only the childrens, all the intellectuals, are recommended by Marx to be "materialisticaly" educated, to receive an education that is also (since it s a combination) an increasment of merchant value.

[Archaic]

Das Kapitol was not published for many years *AFTER* this, meaning he would not have referred to such a precise aspect of his theory in this document, simply because he hadn't published it yet. So much for your arguement.

Even if we *did* make the assumption that he'd refer to a piece of theory in the Manifesto that he hadn't created until the Kapitol, then there's 2 issues still to be looked at.

Firstly, that you haven't given me any page or quote references so that I can check this for myself (Given that the whole discussion is about you misrepresenting a point of Marxism for your own gain, I can't take your interpretations at face value).

Secondly, that industrial production and material production have meanings that are synonyms. If he meant the work in service industries (Which is what your "material production" seems to describe.), why would he and the writer of the translation authorized by Marx and Engels state it in such a way that it'd be easily misinterpreted to its common, synonym meaning?

[Drogue]

Is it easily misinterpreted? From your definition

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, etc.

Saying that he wanted to abolish child factory labour sems pretty clear in it's meaning. However, it would not make sense for his next sentance to say he supported child factory labour. It seems pretty simple to me that he wanted to abolish child factory labour and repace it with a combination of education and work, which is similar to an apprenticeship. I don't see your point. Marx clearly stated that he was against child factory labour, in your translation, and wanted to change it.

[Main_Brain]

^Typo 'Das Kapital'