CCCP's Workshop.

[GeneralTacticus]

In that case, it's the end for this one.

[Pandemoniak]

Here's the new Thread for the CCCP

[Pandemoniak]

Simply the fact that you're the only ones to read it as a support of child labour doesnt make it a support of child labour.

It has never been intented to support child labour, so I guess Engels simply didnt took the time to check between material and industrial, thinking that people would think it supports child labour instead of understanding materialism and apprenticeship. But no one can be sure.

[GeneralTacticus]

The link which you provided to the Preface didn't mention when the Moore translation was started, which is the main question. However, one has to ask: Why would Engel have authorized a translation that indicated MArx's support of child labour, any more than Marx? If the correct term was in fact 'material', rather than 'industrial', why would he have not corrected this?

[Pandemoniak]

1) In 1883

2)The first English translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George Julian Harney's Red Republican, London, 1850. I have no clue when the last translation, the one you have in english (Moore translation, IIRC) has begun.

3)Theres a reasonable doubt, though I believe the Moore translation, auhtorized by Engels, wasnt started during Marx was alive.

Anyway, all these informations were in the preface, and I seriously advice you to read it, this is an important source of informations on all we are talking about.

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, definetly. He gave the authorization by some way, though he was dead. Frankly, I dont see how he can have authorized a translation while he was dead.

Three questions that have to be asked on that point:

1) When did he die?

2) When was the translation begun?

3) Could he have authorized the translation before he died?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic


1) When did these concepts exist before Das Kapital?

1)These concepts existed when the International Worker's Association was founded and asked Marx and Engels to write the manifesto, so the concepts -- the basic of the concepts, actually -- were very familiar to the whole labour class of the time.

2) Why would he have not specified this, when the basic definitions of Industrial and Material Production (Not the socialist definition of Material Production) are synonomous. Find a common labourer back then who would've been able to make the differentiation without such.

See above, the concept very know by all the communists, that existed before Marx. And if you cant make the differenece between the two, well I really cant help.

Bull****. It was this specific section and indeed that specific phrase which killed my Marxist leanings almost 5 years ago. I was biased *TOWARDS* him and I still instantly saw it the other way.
Remember, "in its present form." Apparently he's got nothing against it, only the present form of it.

In a communist point of view you cant let anyone idle, and his vision is to abolish child labour as it was in its present form, and to replace it by an education of work. The fact is that there is really a difference between "child working" and "child labour" in english, while in French or in German, there is none, so in its original language, the structure of the whole paragraph makes sense : he considers education to work as child work/labour, as arbeit.

And then he goes on in his next sentance to describe his view of how Child Labour should be. Or should I add "Paragraphing and sentance structure" to the list of things you can't understand?
It's been 4 years since I've read it cover to cover. I should have been more exact in my response. However......you've failed to consider one thing. Material Production in how you define it is a very broad definition. There's a lot of different jobs there. Just how many can be done in a school environment? Sales? No. Freight? No. Labour? YES.

This is no labor at school, this is a combination : be at school and learn to work, ie learn a job.

Just because he was dead at the time it was published doesn't mean he didn't authorize it.

Yes, definetly. He gave the authorization by some way, though he was dead. Frankly, I dont see how he can have authorized a translation while he was dead.

for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II

Yes, I'm aware of this. Even he was horrified by the statements of Marx about Child labour and splitting up the nuclear family. Which is why he tried to marginalize them when he wrote this preface.

Splitting up the nuclear family is not on that part, the preface is here talking about the conclusion of the second part of the manifesto, the ten points that concludes the chapter "Proletariat and Communists". And he's not trying to marginalize them for any other reason than the ones Marx said precisely before he opened the list : these measures will be different for each country. Engels add himself that faced to the latest events in the world and the general organization of the labouring class, a large part of these measures is now outdated.

Anyway, if your really want to remain stubborn and unintelligent with Marx, then theres nothing I can explain you that will change your mind : as you said yourself, you're biased towards him and it is anyway obvious to anyone that you refuse to understand that Marx never advocated child labour.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Who cares if it was published or not ? Marx was already familiar with concepts such as materialism and material/merchant value, else, he wouldnt have been asked to write the manifesto.

1) When did these concepts exist before Das Kapital?
2) Why would he have not specified this, when the basic definitions of Industrial and Material Production (Not the socialist definition of Material Production) are synonomous. Find a common labourer back then who would've been able to make the differentiation without such.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
You're misreading it, any neutral reader of Marx will clearlyread that Marx wants to abolish child labour, and not pretend that he actually supports it in another form. Anyway, I can give you this link. If you need another, just precise what you look for.

Bull****. It was this specific section and indeed that specific phrase which killed my Marxist leanings almost 5 years ago. I was biased *TOWARDS* him and I still instantly saw it the other way.
Remember, "in its present form." Apparently he's got nothing against it, only the present form of it. And then he goes on in his next sentance to describe his view of how Child Labour should be. Or should I add "Paragraphing and sentance structure" to the list of things you can't understand?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
No, on the contrary, thats the whole point. Quite obvious actually.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
No, material production is all kind of work that increase merchant value, not only service industries. Are you sure you read Das Kapital ?

It's been 4 years since I've read it cover to cover. I should have been more exact in my response. However......you've failed to consider one thing. Material Production in how you define it is a very broad definition. There's a lot of different jobs there. Just how many can be done in a school environment? Sales? No. Freight? No. Labour? YES.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Marx didnt authorized it, he was dead in 1888, IIRC. Anyway, heres a good quote from Engels : since you have the 1888 edition, you probably read the preface, here's a quote :

......
for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II
......

Just because he was dead at the time it was published doesn't mean he didn't authorize it.

for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II

Yes, I'm aware of this. Even he was horrified by the statements of Marx about Child labour and splitting up the nuclear family. Which is why he tried to marginalize them when he wrote this preface.

[Pandemoniak]

Some say he was just very skilled to throw bricks through windows, while some other simply thought he was of the purest kind of Revolt.

It is almost impossible to sum his overall policy anyway, but you should look at his critics to Marxism, almost a presentient version of stalin. I'll try to find it next time and post it.

[GeneralTacticus]

As a matter of interest, could you give an explanation of what Bakunin's political philosophy actually was (not yours, his)? I found some of his writings on the Web, but I can't seem to get a sense of what his overall philosophy was.

[Pandemoniak]

Xian, be welcome in the Everlasting CCCP !

Know as well that I am also quite an "anarchist in the style of Baukunin" that was my avatar for quite a long time.

We here are mostly arguing about Marx since not many LDP people know Bakunin, and he remains at the very center of our ideology, be the "words of the party" are still the same : " A new chance for marxism !"

-- Pandemoniak

[GeneralTacticus]

Well A. Smith lived in the Empire and so many of his Points can not be taken in Modern society.

I don't see how they're any less relevant than Marx's. Both of them, remember, were writing in an age before we had things such as computers, flight, and automated factories.

Yes, Adam Smiths ideas have been largely refuted. He does have some relevance IMO, but that much. On the contrary, I think he is the father of capitalism, in its present state.

Can you point to any examples of him advocating that the market should set it's own rules via government? THAT is today's capitalism. Not a Free Market, but a corporate playground.

but the way he said as rthe best way to get equality, and freedom, was through a free market, the invisible hand as he called it. Marx and SMith may have been after the same goals, but they had completely different theories and ideas of how to get there. That is the important bit, not their goals (most peoples are the same: freedom, prosperity, and ultimatly, happiness) but the way they wanted to achieve thouse goals.

Yes, I think it would be hard to find any sane person who would not like to live in a society where everyone was happy, free and rich. Those who are opposed to such propositions are generally so because they think it's not possible, and/or that the means to be employed to acheive it will either not work, are unjustified, or both.

[Drogue]

Yes, Adam Smiths ideas have been largely refuted. He does have some relevance IMO, but that much. On the contrary, I think he is the father of capitalism, in its present state. He did argue

that in a society that maximizes freedom, *EQUALITY* would be maximized as well

but the way he said as rthe best way to get equality, and freedom, was through a free market, the invisible hand as he called it. Marx and SMith may have been after the same goals, but they had completely different theories and ideas of how to get there. That is the important bit, not their goals (most peoples are the same: freedom, prosperity, and ultimatly, happiness) but the way they wanted to achieve thouse goals.

[Main_Brain]

Well A. Smith lived in the Empire and so many of his Points can not be taken in Modern society.

[GeneralTacticus]

Adam Smith was NOT the Father of capitalist ideology,

well, he certainly isn't the only person to have made contributions to capitalist ideology, so no, he wasn't, and this makes your comment below completely pointless.

in fact his goals were the SAME as the labour unions an Marx and the anarchists and so on. He argued that in a scoiety that maximizes freedom, *EQUALITY* would be maximized as well. Furthermore, people seem to have the REVERSE of the truth in their minds: it is SMITHS views that are OLDER THAN MARX's, and do NOT apply as well to a modern industrial society!

See above.

If anything communism is a much more realistic plan for freedom of the working class than Capitalism

Riiiiiiiight, and it intends to do this by removing the main motivation for people to work, depriving people of just rewards for the work they do, and having no-one admnister any of this. Great idea, isn't it?