Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto"

[klesh]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Yeah, but our current president isn't British, Osweld.

Even worse, he's a Texan.

[Lonestar]

Techinically, he's a Yankee

[faded glory]

Osweld thats interesting. But im not too sure thats who the farmer was meant to represent.

btw are you Commie?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh


Even worse, he's a Texan.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by faded glory
Osweld thats interesting. But im not too sure thats who the farmer was meant to represent.

I haven't seen the cartoon myself so I can't say, but what I said was ment to be more of a joke/tease then anything else, oh well.

btw are you Commie?

My political views are too broad to fit into one category, I'd say I'm a bit of a mix between social democrat, liberal, and anarchism. (in that order)

I suppose I could be called a Commie Lite.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oooh, Commie Lite.

Is it less filling than Commie Regular?

[KrazyHorse]

fg, that's exactly who the farmer's were supposed to represent.

Animal Farm is a rather simple retelling of the Russian revolution, down to the aborted allied invasion attempt from 1918-1921 (dates?) by (principally) the US and UK.

[Berzerker]

Mark L/Che (or whomever) - you've repeatedly explained that Marx didn't think communist revolutions in Russia and China would work without help from communist revolutions in wealthy capitalistis countries who could then divert resources to their poorer communist brethren in the east. What does that tell you?

It tells me that capitalism transforms poor countries into wealthy countries and communism won't! Isn't that an indictment of communism?

[Saint Marcus]

It tells me that capitalism transforms poor countries into wealthy countries and communism won't! Isn't that an indictment of communism?

Sigh...once again, please read Marx

It's exactly what Marx said, and that's the reason underdeveloped countries should become/stay capitalist and not communist. Once capitalism has developed the country enough, the time is right for communism to take over. Marx didn't say communism was better for all countries in all times. Quite the oposite. For most countries capitalism is a better system, at least at the time Marx lived. Only the developed few, then western Europe, were ready for communism.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When you start doing things like that, OFitG, the corporations start looking for alternatives to you. Whether they get it by pooling their resources on a white knight to win electorally by snowing the population with moeny ads, or by getting behind a dark knight like Hitler or Pinochet, they will do it. In the mean time, they will destablize the economy be deinvesting and sending capital abroad to "safer" places. This has happened over and over again. Western Europe was the only exception for a few decades because the threat of communist revolution was very real and the ruling class knew it.

It took massive vote manipulation in Italy, a viscious war in Greece, and the Corsican Mob in south France to stop the advance of Communism in Europe. As well, the US military and CIA set up Operation Gladio with it's European counterparts to plan a military coup if it ever looked like the Communists would actually win an election.

Outside Europe, setting up a welfare system wasn't an option. If you tried to enact even mild land reform or divert government resources to helping the poor, your government was overthrown.

In other words, comunists are revolutionaries because there are no legitimate avenues for peaceful change. Do you honestly think that I'd bang my head against the wall for decades of my life because I want a revolution and civil war? Are you that dumb? If socialism was allowed to happen peacefully, it would already have happened.

On the first paragraph, I agree, it is unfortunate, but the economy woyuld be srewed when capital would be diverted from a country with such (*worker oriented) laws.

I agree as well that it took a lot to stop the spread of communism in the Europe too with non-peacefuel means. But as for the no-route for peaceful change? That is a tough one. I am not an expert on world wide politics, and it is true that the US supports just anyone in the world who is not communist (Mobutu in Zaire for example , Pinochet indirectly etc) But still looking at Europe it gives us some hope for voted socialism. Personally all that power that the workers have in France to strike and block the roads are more than annoying and they surely slow down their economy, but well it is good to have an legitimate avenue to express dissatisfaction. And that was basically woted into the system since French people are conscious of their rights.

I think that other cultures like in Africa are harder to change to accept such such social systems and they are harder to organise in an efficient state. But as a system communism gives too much power to the organiser of the state whoever that is, eventually ordinary people will be out out of that organisation and ultimatley suffer because of it. Unless the leqder is a saint and genuinley cares about the welfare of the nation. But I have not seen one like that, I guess he would be killed from his colleagues, such people rarely get to rule if ever in such systems. You have to be ruthless to get to the top. And at the end this is a quality most communist leaders posess. (maybe not Gorbachev but still)

Democracy is surely the best, at least everyone has some little power, but if people genuinley believe that someone is bad even if he had 70% majority in the last parliament he will go. That at least happened in my country, it was not easy, (if you have a strong ruler he bends the true democratic ways to try and get himself elected again) still you have a chance and that is much better than no chance in a communist system where the leading class is unreachable (the organizers) and where they do not have to answer to anyone in particular.

The only way to true change is to became one of them first (that means very rich and influential) and than change the system in the areas where you are the ruler (lets say that you own a big company ) Bill Gates could do a little if he wanted .

Just an example here in UK Waitrose supermarket is a part of John-Lewis partnership. This company is a partnership as it says and all employees that stayed with the company for over 2 years can become partners or part owners. There are around 30000 of them and they all receive crhistmas bonus which is basically their profit share. I am not sure what is the actual percentage that they get but it amounted to a third of their salary (one year) when I spoke with one of the guys and it is sometimes even more. I guess that is an example of the owner leaving a good social system behind himself (even thou I don't really know the history of the company). But to show you human stupidity. 2-3 years ago the "partners" or the workers have almost floated the company on the stock exchange what would give them all around 100 000 £ in one off payment (the than present partners). And naturally they would not be partners anymore and would not receive the profit share, nor would any further employee. It was the management of the company which stopped the idea for floatation since they said that this was an unique company advantage over the competition. If they allowed the issue to go on the vote, the company would have been floated. All that for a £100000 ONE OFF PAYMENT EACH. Which is not a little but I guess you can see my point. Everyone is a greedy bastard and capitalism is a system where such people interact the best.

Personally such companies as John-Lewis partnership are the best socially in the present system, as they give you back what you worked for, and there is still space for competition in the workplace, and between the companies to serve as a force to drive the people to develop. Such a sytem, seems to me, is the best from both worlds. You keep the drive and get the money .But well it is very unlikely that it will ever be THE system on which the western society will stand sine it seems there is no way to make the investors truly share the profit with the employees. Is there any western corporation that shares more than 10% of the profit with the workforce?

[Provost Harrison]

Do not be fooled by Mugabe's socialist posturing. A lot of things may be state owned, but they are certainly still more than friendly to multinationals and corporations coming into the country and pillaging their resources. If he does do anything that seems remotely 'antiwestern', it is nothing more than a cynical ploy to maintain power...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Do not be fooled by Mugabe's socialist posturing. A lot of things may be state owned, but they are certainly still more than friendly to multinationals and corporations coming into the country and pillaging their resources. If he does do anything that seems remotely 'antiwestern', it is nothing more than a cynical ploy to maintain power...

Ooops imissed I was thinking about Mobutu in Zaire, not Mugabe in Zimbave oh well...

[Saint Marcus]

I can only be amazed and amused how can someone still think that such a system can function on Earth.

Have you actually read Marx? If so please give arguments to disprove Marx, instead of disproving soviet-style communism. If not, please shut up, go to the local library and get a number of books written by Marx. Das Kapital is a must of course. Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie in which Marx' historical materialism is is consisely (sp) formulated might be usefull too. Many other works are out there too, I'm sure you will be able to find them.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ok Mark,

These systems that were done were inspired by such books, all that I am saying is that people as they are now are not capable of delivering a system that Marx proposes.

All the rest are just examples that we are uncapable of something like that... basically you are beating a dead horse. Even though it is nice to think that something as proposed could succeed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mark L/Che (or whomever) - you've repeatedly explained that Marx didn't think communist revolutions in Russia and China would work without help from communist revolutions in wealthy capitalistis countries who could then divert resources to their poorer communist brethren in the east. What does that tell you?

It tells me that capitalism transforms poor countries into wealthy countries and communism won't! Isn't that an indictment of communism?

As MarkL writes, Marx isn't utterly opposed to capitalism. In fact, contrary to what the essay opening this thread states, the first section of the Manifesto (and in other wirtings) is a paen to the wonders capitalism has accomplished. Capitalism was the only force capable of bringing about industrialism, of destroying parochialism, of uniting the great masses of humanity together.

But at a certain point, capitalism becomes a hindrence to even greater progress. It reaches its own limitations. It reached those limitations once, and it took two of the most destructive wars in history to clear away enough capital for the cycle to begin again.

In Marxism, communism is not the opposite of capitalism, but rather the transcendence of capitalism, a building upon capitalism, much like an adult is the transcendence of the child. Obviously, if developed capitalism doesn't exist in a place, the communism isn't going to develop either.

Stalinism marked a major break with Marxism, suggesting it was possible to build socialism in a backward country and that they could go it alone. While appropriating Marixsm for its mantle, it was nothing more than an apology for the policies needed for the Tsarist-cum-Communist bureaucracy to gather all power unto itself. Marxists have always rejected this (which is why most of the original Bolsheviks had to be killed off in the USSR).